Are Christians really being persecuted in the UK?

Of course Christians aren't being persecuted in the UK. The only ones who think they are are those who think they should have special rights over and above everyone else, such as the "right" to discriminate against gays, the "right" to ignore company dress policy, the "right" to teach superstition as science in state schools, or the "right" to free parking.

I don't know about persecution, but they sure get beat up on a regular basis in these blogs.

Re. Ekklesia;

Not all of these 'think tankers' deserve to be known as 'Christian'.

Theophane,

That's probably true of a few christians on here. Pot Kettle.

Christians are not being persecuted in the UK and the the Christian Institute is widely associated with failure in the English courts. Has the Christian Institute supported anyone who has been successful in court? It is pressure group that demands a privileged position for Christianity in public life. In one recent court judgement concerning a case of adoption Lord Justice Laws stated:

"So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious beliefs. Equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime."

The Christian Institute does not accept the principle of balance in the law which Lord Justice Laws makes explicit.

'Persecution of Christians' does happen, but it is a secondary concern; obviously Christians in other countries suffer much greater persecution. What no one realised is that apostasy, which has afflicted most of the UK like a cancer for the last 50 years, would involve the wholesale rejection of basic moral principles, to the point where we now blithely slaughter innocent unborn children at a rate of 550 per day.

These children are the most precious members of our society. They are the nurses, bus drivers, police, teachers, workers of all kinds; brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers of the future, but no one seems to care. All we hear about are the rights of people who want to defile the essence of marriage so that it no longer functions properly as the basis for stable family life. The elderly and terminally ill, already under threat of their lives, are next in line for wholesale 'termination'. Thank God, Northern Ireland is one place in the UK where these trends have been resisted.

Thank you for your prayers to St. Patrick mscracker.

I think that there are three causes of perceived "persecution" which should be considered:

1. Christians who, frankly, bring it on themselves - not that that justifies any wrong committed against them. But the element of provocation rather undermines any claim to be persecuted. An example: a thoroughly obnoxious street preacher haranguing and accusing ordinary members of the public going about their daily business. If he is arrested for disturbing the peace, don't expect me to feel any sympathy, or campaign for such a person.

2. Christians who suffer some kind of trouble, and wrongly interpret it as "persecution". This is the kind of normal "rough and tumble" of life, which most adults should be able to cope with. An example: someone cracks a joke in the office that has a "Christian" theme to it (i.e. a joke at the expense of Christians). That person may not be trying to be insensitive, but the Christian in the office takes umbrage, and pleads "persecution". I would say to that fellow Christian: get a life! Included in this category is all the nonsense about wearing crosses at work, skirts in a nursing job etc etc.

3. Genuine persecution, which is a deliberate attempt - especially on the part of those in authority - to undermine the fundamental rights of Christians to practise their religion, and which obviously causes considerable suffering and distress to Christians purely on account of their beliefs. This also involves a concerted and malicious attempt to prevent Christians from communicating their message publicly (i.e. in a civilised way - I'm not talking about clamping down on obnoxious street preaching).

Concerning opposition to Christianity: I would like to suggest that the so-called "new atheists" have shot themselves in the foot on this issue. Their campaign against what they call "religion" has emboldened the cause of Christian apologetics. There is nothing like being attacked to give legitimacy to one's cause. The God Delusion may have been an attempt to rubbish belief in God, but actually what it was screaming from the bookshelves was: "there is a debate to be had about this issue, which I am now provoking". Great way to provoke people to listen to what Christians have to say!

Theophane

"Thank God, Northern Ireland is one place in the UK where these trends have been resisted."

Laughable. One of the places in the world where Christians have been persecuted the most viciously, where they were murdered and torchered in their thousands was...., eh, Northern Ireland.

And it was other Christians who were doing it.

No.9;

I didn't say Northern Ireland had an unblemished record RJB. Yes, there are probably one or two blemishes...

anyone get that christian institute website to work?

@Theophane:

"Thank you for your prayers to St. Patrick mscracker."
********
You're welcome. Please pray for the USA, too.

Persecution is undoubtedly too strong a word, particularly when compared to the severe persecution that Christians in the Middle East - such as Yousef Nadarkhani - face.

However, there is a trend of growing opposition to Evangelical Christians in the UK. Christian’s rights are often seen as secondary to the rights of minority religious groups. This has been seen in the case of Dr Scott discussed above. One important omission from the article, was that Dr Scott asked for the patient’s permission to speak about his personal faith, which was given. The patient’s mother then complained, and the patient has yet to turn up to testify to the General Medical Council. Therefore, Dr Scott is being disciplined on the basis of hearsay evidence, which any lawyer will tell you, would not even make a prima facie case in a court of law. Other recent cases taken against Christians, such as the Bulls referred to in the comment above are further evidence of this growing opposition. No Flibly @ #1, Christians don’t have the “right to discriminate against gays”. And nor do they want to. However, are their rights to set policies stopping unmarried couples (heterosexual OR homosexual) from staying in THEIR guest house (due to their religious convictions on the importance of marriage) less important than the right of a couple of stay in that guest house? That is the message that this case sends out, and is the growing perception and fear among the silent majority of Evangelical Christians.

There is also a real perception of an anti-Christian agenda in the media among Evangelical Christians. The case of Yousef Nadarkhani highlights this point. Can William Crawley tell us why has this story only made the BBC news website's Middle East section at 7pm last night? (I have emailed the feedback department but have not received a reply). It’s a story that has drawn comment from our own Foreign Secretary, the US House Speaker and even the White House. Why is this story not making the national news? A man’s life hangs in the balance simply because he refuses to recant on his personal faith. How is that not more important than “Lady Gaga suing her cosmetic company”? Hats off to the left wing media, who have covered this story superbly (see today’s Guardian editorial). That real Christian persecution in the world is being ignored by our main public media outlet, is evidence that at the very least, the pluralism promoted so aggressively over the last 10-15 years in this country is starting to take deep roots

I think that persecution is probably too strong a word, particularly when compared to the severe persecution that Christians in the Middle East - such as Yousef Nadarkhani - face.

However, there is a trend of growing opposition to Evangelical Christians in the UK. Christian’s rights are often seen as secondary to the rights of minority religious groups. This has been seen in the case of Dr Scott discussed above. One important omission from the article, was that Dr Scott asked for the patient’s permission to speak about his personal faith, which was given. The patient’s mother then complained, and the patient has yet to turn up to testify to the General Medical Council. Therefore, Dr Scott is being disciplined on the basis of hearsay evidence ALONE, which any lawyer will tell you, would not even make a prima facie case in a court of law. Other recent cases taken against Christians, such as the Bulls referred to in the comment above are further evidence of this growing opposition. No Flibly @ #1, Christians don’t have the “right to discriminate against gays”. And nor do they want to. However, are their rights to set policies stopping unmarried couples (heterosexual OR homosexual) from staying in THEIR guest house (due to their religious convictions on the importance of marriage) less important than the right of a couple of stay in that guest house? That is the message that this case sends out, and is the growing perception and fear among the silent majority of Evangelical Christians.

There is also a real perception of an anti-Christian agenda in the media among Evangelical Christians. The case of Yousef Nadarkhani highlights this point. Can William Crawley tell us why has this story only made the Middle East section of the BBC news website late yesterday? (I have emailed the feedback department but have not received a reply). It’s a story that has drawn comment from our own Foreign Secretary, the US House Speaker and even the White House. Shouldn’t that be featured prominently in the main news section of the BBC website? A man’s life hangs in the balance simply because he refuses to recant on his personal faith. How is that not more important than “Lady Gaga suing her cosmetic company” which made the cut? Hats off to the left wing media, who have covered this story superbly (see today’s Guardian editorial). That real Christian persecution features so low down on the agenda of our main public media outlet, is evidence that at the very least, the pluralism promoted so aggres

@13. At 18:14 30th Sep 2011, jr821

two questions if you will answer please,

(1) What is the point in being a Christian whether that be 'in name only Christian, Born Again Christian, Evangelical Christian, etc etc, If the Christianity is only for this life? in other words What is the point of being any sort of Christian in this life if the 'believer' for want of a better word is not going to inherit eternal life?

(2) If a Christian of what ever persuasion or tag, feels that they are being persecuted, where in scripture can you point to, that says they should complain, or that their Master Christ wants them to complain.

I have just been reading the book of the acts and the stoning TO DEATH, of Stephen, and guess what, he never complained once

mscracker, no.12;

"Please pray for the USA, too."

-You got it.

jr821;

"A man’s life hangs in the balance simply because he refuses to recant on his personal faith. How is that not more important than “Lady Gaga suing her cosmetic company”?"

All is not quite as it should be in Auntie's neck of the woods.

found it. I knew it was there somewhere.

The words of Christ, spoken at the sermon on the Mount, not an interpretation of mine of what is said, the exact words spoken by Christ Matthew 5:11 King James Version (KJV)
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

You couldnt make it up, an expression we use a lot in Northern Ireland, but seriously you could not make up this thread, BLESSED ARE YE, not just good are ye, or your doing a fine job, no, much greater BLESSED are ye, and what are the Christians doing, Thanking Christ for calling them BLESSED, no, they are complaining about it.

Which begs me to ask a question I ask often, What is a Christian? Christ was not Christian nor did he call anyone to be Christian. Christian is a man made invention. Everyone in a free society has the right to call himself/herself as they choose, People who call themselves Christian have the right to call themselves Christians, just like if there was a group who called themselves 'pink jack rabbits' they would be free to be pink jack rabbits, but we all know that unless they look like jack rabbits and their fur is pink in colour, that is all they are, pink jack rabbits in name only.

And I hope this offends no one, I say it from my heart, my background came from the assemblies of Christian Brethren, was a member when I thought I knew what Christian meant, yes, I preached a little also, I am not saying this as an atheist, In the case of Yousef Nadarkhani, I am deeply concerned about his faith. If it is his lawyer who is doing the appealing well and good, but if it is Yousef Nadarkhani himself who is appealing then I am deeply concerned about the foundation of his faith. We read Philippians 1:20-21
King James Version (KJV) 20 According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. 21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

but one thing this case has raised for me is that the white house seems to be far more concerned with the plight of one Christian, than it is with the plight of thousands of Palestinians many of whom are in fact Christain.

Just a start.

In 2009 the Christiaan institute produced a reoprt on marginilising Christians.

Read it here https://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/marginchristians.pdf

The state will no longer try to clamp down on Christianity, the Government Minister for Communities has said. July 2010 Eric Pickles, speaking at a meeting of faith leaders, declared: “The days of the state trying to suppress Christianity and other faiths are over.” That's an admission if I ever say one!

Read that here https://www.christian.org.uk/news/minister-says-govt-will-stop-suppressing-faith/

In June this year Dr Ivan Patterson at his installation as Moderator stated that Christian expression is shown no tolerance.

Read that here https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/christian-expression-is-shown-no-tolerance-new-moderator-16008796.html

And one could go on including citing the numerous hostile media examples.

Theo@7
More fatwa envy? Perhaps christianists should deal with apostasy in the same way as some of their more fervent co-religions.

3- Hadesphane: Not all of these 'think tankers' deserve to be known as 'Christian'

4- Dave: That's probably true of a few christians on here.

So true.

6- Hadesphane-

What no one realised is that apostasy, which has afflicted most of the UK like a cancer for the last 50 years, would involve the wholesale rejection of basic moral principles, to the point where we now blithely slaughter innocent unborn children

Perhaps you can learn Spanish & Portuguese, then you can go online & help tackle the appallingly high abortion rates in Catholic LatinAmerica. Perhaps this blog isn't the most effective platform considering how it probably doesn't attract the demographic you're aiming for-
Illegal Abortions Rampant in Latin America
Maybe to effectively reduce the abortion rate & not just shift the numbers from one pile to another, we need to take note of what works. Holland is a good example & we need to appreciate why.

19.At 20:03 30th Sep 2011, gerry
"but one thing this case has raised for me is that the white house seems to be far more concerned with the plight of one Christian, than it is with the plight of thousands of Palestinians many of whom are in fact Christain."
****
Huge numbers of Palestinian Christians have moved elsewhere.

Gerry

You make some worthwhile points and are certainly correct to draw our attention to the various biblical references which you give; however, I fear you go too far when you say that you are deeply concerned about Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani’s faith. I only know what I have read from the links above about his story, but one thing is clear, whatever our faith, or lack of it, we can only know how we would respond in difficult and threatening circumstances whenever we are in a position where we have to face those circumstances directly.

I, for example, might call myself a Christian, or follower of Jesus, if you prefer, but until I am in circumstances where that faith is put to the test I cannot really know what I might do. I might, like another Peter, say I would never leave the faith, but given his experiences I’m not going to be that presumptuous; nor shall I be presumptuous about Yousef Nadarkhani. I am not deeply concerned about his faith, for, again, in the case of the other Peter, there is someone whose prayers are more constant than mine praying for him.

I think too that we need to be careful not to interpret the verses you cite as indicating some kind of death wish. Rather, they indicate what responses are available to the Christian who faces persecution or death for his faith. There is, for example, an opportunity to love one’s enemies, to do good to those who hate us; and there is talk of hope beyond death; where, however, lives can be saved, they should be saved.

Christianity is not, as some in and outside the church may wish to present it, a religion of death, it is a religion of the defeat of death and the hope of life - here and hereafter.

LSV - good post.

@ Gerry # 15

To try to answer your questions:

1. I don't think it matters what tag or name you go by. The Bible makes it very clear in Acts 16v31, that if you believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved. That implies with it recognising that you have sin in your heart and you need Jesus to forgive that sin, as only He can. Christian, Evangelical, Born-again, whatever. The name is not important. The important thing is that you believe in Jesus, and you don't believe in yourself. And it's that very belief that means you will inherit eternal life. Jesus Himself promised us that in John 3v16. I understand some people won't accept the premise that the words of the Bible are God's Word, and true. But if you do, then believing in Jesus is ALL you need to do to have eternal life.

2. and the point that you continued in #19. Yes, Jesus told us to expect persecution, and Paul reiterated that point to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3..."All who desire to live a godly life WILL be persecuted". That's what happened to the apostles. But when Peter was in prison, the church was praying and taking action. Christ calls us to expect persecution. He calls us to think about the life change that being a Christian involves, and the effect that will have on our relationship with others BEFORE we make that commitment. He knows we'll be persecuted - "As the world has hated me, it will also hate you".

However, I don't believe that means that we have sit there and just accept it either. Jesus promoted justice all the time he was on earth. The case of Yousef Nadarkhani is completely against the vast majority of people's sense of natural justice, and therefore we have a responsibility to speak out against it.

I think an argument could be made in favour of persecution in this case:

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/girls.school.expulsion.for.blasphemy.alarms.british.pakistani.christians/28712.htm

From the Ekklesia piece.

"That Christians do not rule others in the way they once did, does not amount to persecution"

Exactly.

In Britain at least the complaints of alleged persecution is just demanding undue deference to religion, at the expense of laws and rules others have to obey.

However, if there were persecution, should not all Christians who take their Bible seriously welcome it?

Matt 5:10 'Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven'.

Very few Christians, in my experience, do take their bible seriously.

Just as well, really, it is not a nice book, nor does it have much good moral teaching, though it has plenty that is bad.

Luke 14:26 'If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.'

David B

I've looked through that 80 page pdf of the Christian Institute. My FSM, they are badly afflicted by persecution syndrome. They give examples of Christians supposedly being marginalized in the areas of education, violence and crime, media, police, employment, local councils, public funding and goods and services. Let me highlight examples of each of those categories.

education
A 5-year old was going around telling other pupils about god, heaven and hell. The teacher told the pupil to state that this is what she believes rather than stating them as fact. This is then held up as evidence that christians are being marginalised in Britain.

violence and crime
A Kirk minister was battered by youths on Christmas Day. There was no mentioning in the pdf at all that there was any religious angle to this incident. Given the percentage of believers in Britain, plenty of victims of crime will be christians, some will be ministers. But that is a matter of numbers, not a matter of violent crimes specifically targeting christians.

media
They complain about christian characters in tv series like Eastenders or Coronation street. In the soap opera Brookside, the character Margaret Clemence, a nanny, ran off with Father Derek, a Roman Catholic priest. And this is then held up again as evidence of christians being marginalised. Well duh. Would they rather have a real-life reenactment of a priest character abusing a teenage boy?

police
Most people on the blog here would be familiar with Iris Robinson's statements about homosexuality on the Nolan show. The pdf categorizes the fact that police investigated (not even brought formal charges or anything, just the fact that they investigated) her hateful comments as evidence of christians are being marginalised.

employment
The archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, wrote “Asking someone to leave their belief in
God at the door of their workplace is akin to asking them to remove their skin colour before coming into the office.". What a ridiculous statement. Hundreds of millions of christians leave their belief at the door every day they go to work. For almost all professions, belief is not relevant for the people who practice them. So it can be done easily. It is easily done every done by who knows how many hundreds of millions. The only way it becomes a problem is if christians choose to make a big stink out of it. It is not at all like skin color, it is a choice to be noisy.

local councils
A very small incident, based on an innocent mistake, was blown totally out of proportion to make it into evidence of christians being marginalised. Let me quote the example in full:

"An official from Carlisle Council told Keith Bullock, a Christian evangelist with Open-Air Mission (OAM), that he could not hand out Christian literature in the city centre without the Council’s permission. The Council claimed it was using powers in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 which is aimed at preventing litter caused by large numbers of handbills handed out by nightclubs and other businesses. However Carlisle Council was unaware that these laws do not apply to political or religious literature.
Director of OAM, Andy Banton, wrote to Carlisle Council explaining Mr Bullock’s legal rights. He pointed out that religious literature was exempt and asked for confirmation that Mr Bullock could continue his work. The Council responded immediately with an unconditional apology. OAM have asked for the religious exemptions to be brought to the attention of other council officials so that the mistake is not repeated."

Terrible isn't it? A small mistake, promptly corrected and apologised for. Yet they whine as if they're going to be burned at the stake tomorrow.

public funding
They are up in arms about comments by Hazel Blears about religious organisations not discriminating or proselytising when they provide public services:

"Although she recognised that faith does motivate many people to do “great acts of social good” she also said that she was “concerned to ensure that if faith groups become involved, they do so on a proper footing – not by evangelising or proselytising, but by providing services in a non-discriminatory way to the whole community”."

The fact that they include not being allowed to discriminate as evidence of christians being marginalised, shows how far from 21st century reality they are.

goods and services
The usual stories about wanting to be allowed to discriminate while involving tax payers money. Catholic adoption agencies, the earl of Devon getting an inheritance tax break for allowing wedding ceremonies in Powderham Castle yet wanting to refuse gay couples, etc.


I promise to make a recommendation to the Nobel prize committee in Oslo next year if someone can come up with an easy, effective cure for christian persecution syndrome.

paul james;

"In Islam, a fatwā is any official religious opinion regarding Islamic Law issued by a Muslim scholar, somewhat equivalent to a Vatican proclamation, but usually with much less "official" authority.

Following the Salmon Rushdie affair, however (in which the author of The Satanic Verses was condemned to death in a fatwā) the term has, in many Western minds, become synonymous with an Islamic death sentence, though that is in fact a rare use of them." [From an article you linked to previously]

"...a fatwā may concern any aspect of individual life, social norms, religion, war, peace, Jihad, and politics. Most Islamic opinions (millions of fatwā have been issued over the 1,400 years of Islam's existence) deal with mundane issues faced by Muslims in their daily life, such as the customs of marriage, financial affairs, moral questions, et cetera." [from Wikipedia]

Atheist/secularist death sentences on the other hand, issued by people who effectively think they are God, are numerous enough to sustain an entire and rather lucrative abortion industry, which they are keen to export to developing countries in Africa and South America; hence the sort of shabby propaganda in Ryan's post no.22. And closer to home, many of the same people are keen to diversify into the assisted suicide business.

@ 27 Paul James

I concur and commend you on that posting, in fact after the thread was started that posting alone would have answered the question poised "Are Christians really being persecuted in the UK"

may I to stress the point repeat it :-

That Christians do not rule others in the way they once did, does not amount to persecution

@ 25. jr821

friend I concur with most of what you say however and I do want to respond in a proper fashion, but time eludes me at this moment, and my response will need your clarification on 3 words you have written, " believing in Jesus ".

remember that satan believes in Christ, and he has eternal death not eternal life

and for example Thomas More the humanist also was 'believing in Christ' when he was murdering others by burning alive those who committed the crime of "believing in Christ"

define 'believing'

"

Cant remember who said this, and I am paraphrasing, but it was about Christians who persecute others.

"Those who persecute us for our own good are the worst of all oppressors. The bully sometimes has to sleep. The robber baron's cruelty may be satiated.

However, those who persecute us for our own good, will do so without end, because they do it with the approval of their own consciences."

I have witnessed that on here.

RJB

It was CS Lewis. The version of the quote I'm familiar with is this one:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.


Paul James

Yes, the Ekklesia quote is a good one.


General question

Why do we have so many one dimensional readings of the bible on this blog?

peterm2;

Here's another CS Lewis quote, from 'Mere Christianity',

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

...with which i am signing out from W&T, -for the time being- (italics still don't work for me LSV!) And St. Pio of Pietrelcina's formula: "Pray, hope, and don't worry".

Yes, Theophane, that's a good one too.

Thanks, peter.

It is one of CS Lewis' better comments. I'm not sure if I agree with the quote Theo provides from the same author.

I think Jesus said many fine things which dont lose their power if we dont attribute the status of deity to him.

Christians? Let us define. A major ONS survey a year ago found that over 70% said they were Christians. The majority of these are what we might call nominal Christians. They believe in God and have a moderate sort of faith but they are not zealous. The important thing to say is that with this group, religious principles are not the dominating thing behind their actions. A second group are Evangelical. They are zealous. The important thing to say is that in the case of this second group, religious principles dominate their lives and actions and there is little ground for compromise. With regard to this discussion it is this second group that are encountering opposition in the jobs etc for obvious reasons. Atheism? Pretty small fry. The NSS who linked to this article are a society of only a few thousand. A very small group with a very big chip on their shoulders.

Gerry in some of his original posts [30 Sept] has said things which are very true. Surely most professing Christians today are too comfortable and refuse to stand
for the Lord Jesus Christ in the public square. Forinstance they will not witness in
the Open Air for the fear of man. Surely we are to go forth unashamed of the Gospel as the apostle Paul did in Romans 1 v 16

rjb 38.
If we are not to, "...attribute the status of deity to..." Jesus, and don't consider Him a "lunatic" due to the fact that, "Jesus said many fine things...", then do you consider Him to be "something worse" or are you saying, "...the really foolish thing..." according to CSLewis, that, 'I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.'?
Im just asking this question to clear up some thoughts I had about some other things you have said. Hope you dont mind my question.

I don't see why people hold CSLewis as some authority on Jesus he was just a Childrens Author, certainly no scientist. I have no problem accepting that Jesus may have been schizophrenic in that he was deluded that he was the son of God and yet still a good moral teacher. Not all Schizophrenics are murderers. For Jesus to be the son of god would require that homosapiens have a special relationship with god and evolutions shows there is nothing special about homosapiens.

Christians are not persecuted in the UK (well, not yet anyway) but they are harrassed at a low level. Much of it, of course, they brought upon themselves (the pedophile scandals being the obvious example) but in reality, the motivation is that their presence is rather like having a stone in your shoe: you can walk with it, but it's uncomfortable. By the same token, in a society where morality is officially declared relative, their uncompromising views make people desirous of ejecting them, much like that uncomfortable stone. If you can marginalize them as cranks and enemies of 'freedom', you can justify, say, sleeping with your own sister, were your curiousity inclined to such an experience, or indeed any other experience you can think of. After all, 'freedom' is everything, right?

@Keith Sloan

"I don't see why people hold CSLewis as some authority on Jesus he was just a
Childrens Author, certainly no scientist. I have no problem accepting that Jesus may have been schizophrenic in that he was deluded that he was the son of God and yet still a good moral teacher. Not all Schizophrenics are murderers. For Jesus to be the son of god would require that homosapiens have a special relationship with god and evolutions shows there is nothing special about homosapiens."

In fact, evolution shows nothing of the sort. Read the philosopher Edward Feser on this point. As for Lewis not being a scientist, I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove, since the official position of science (ie, the pronouncements of those scientists with the biggest lungs) is that no thought about the fictional creature named "God" is permissible. Ergo, science has no opinion on God. Since He is not susceptible to examination by scientific means in any case, why should the opinions of science matter more than those of Lewis?

28,

In Britain at least the complaints of alleged persecution is just demanding undue deference to religion, at the expense of laws and rules others have to obey

That's pretty much the nub of it. I get a sense many fervent Christians are incensed to find themselves on the wrong side of the law on many issues & inflamed to be put in the same basket as fundamentalist Islamists. Must be hard for those wearing religion for show, to display how *good* they are to have to live in a secular society, where they're regarded alongside badly behaved exhibitionists- as Frauds- no different in many ways from immoral rogue bankers driving Ferarri's.

Edward Feser is a philosopher he clearly does not understand evolutionary biology ( He thinks the question of which came first chicken or egg shoots a hole in evolution ) He criticises Dawkens et el for not understanding philosophy but then commits the same crime but with evolutionary biology.

PTS

I have no way of knowing if Jesus was divine or not. But I believe. But it is certainly a faith seeking understanding.

I would like to think that Jesus can work with that, a willingness to listen and to learn. I try to avoid being categorical as I fully understand why many people have genuine problems about the existence of God. I dont find that threatening.

I do however think that some of his most ardent followers are completely whacky and the worst possible advert for the existence of a loving God. I certainly wont accept their notion of God and, as I posted before, will do my best to undermine them when the opportunity arises.

CS Lewis also shows his immaturity of thought in the passage you quote from. Son of God - or a lunatic - are not the only options.

RJB

I think Jesus said many fine things which dont lose their power if we dont attribute the status of deity to him.

That might be true but many fine things have been said by many people.

Keith Sloan

I don't see why people hold CSLewis as some authority on Jesus he was just a Childrens Author, certainly no scientist.

I'm not much of a C.S. Lewis buff but he was a lot more than 'just a Children's author'. I wonder just how many of his works you've read, I suspect I know the answer.

And given your parallel between a children's author and an authority on Jesus, a scientist comes off no better than a children's author. So the logic is missing.

"Are Christians really being persectued in the UK? Or are they simply being asked to follow the same anti-discrimination laws, and professional codes, that govern everyone else?"

They are simply being asked to follow the same laws as everyone else.

Next question...

Keith Sloan (@ 42) -

I don't see why people hold CSLewis as some authority on Jesus he was just a Childrens Author, certainly no scientist.

No, he was not "just" a children's author! Lewis was actually a professor of English, and in particular, of mediaeval English and literature. He was a highly accomplished academic, having gained a triple first from Oxford in Philosophy, Classics and English. After converting from atheism to Christianity, he became a celebrated apologist for the Christian faith.

He was not a scientist, but what exactly is the relevance of that observation? The empirical scientific method is not the only means of discerning truth. ("Scientism" is the belief that it is the only means to discern truth, and that methodology can easily be shown to be fallacious: nothing in science can validate scientism. If you think it can, please let us all know which scientific experiment proves this to be so.)

I am quite a fan of Lewis, but that doesn't mean that I agree with everything he wrote. His "Lord - liar - lunatic" trilemma should perhaps be seen as a way of getting people thinking. It has certainly succeeded in that aim.

For Jesus to be the son of god would require that homosapiens have a special relationship with god and evolutions shows there is nothing special about homosapiens.

Assuming evolution is true, of course. But even if it is (which I doubt), the use of the word "special" (or its antithesis) is a sentiment you are reading into nature. It is certainly not a scientific conclusion.

I have no idea what, "I don't see why people hold CSLewis as some authority on Jesus" is supposed to mean, but, 'just a Childrens Author' is perfectly clear. One doesn't have to agree with everything he wrote to know he could write, and writing isn't easy.

@Keith Sloan

I think a certain amount of cherry picking is required to see Jesus, as his words are reported in the gospels, as a good moral teacher.

A lot of what he says is plain bad, morally, as exemplified by my quote from Luke above (post 28)

Then there is the not coming to bring peace, but a sword, the unrealistic bit about not finding women attractive in Matthew

'5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. '

And the utterly impractical nonsense about giving no thought to the morrow - how are kids supposed to revise for exams given:-

Matthew 6:34 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.

That is just the tip of the iceberg - read the teaching of Jesus as reported and see for yourself how much of it is bad, impractical and unrealistic.

David B

'

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Persecution, real or perceived, has a tendency to strengthen people’s faith. What was that original quote, and what did it mean: your misery is my company? I read this this morning (in a novel): “’My conviction,’ says the mystic, ‘gains infinitely the moment another soul will believe in it.”

I used to site CS Lewis, too, and as stated, he wrote more than children’s books…or they were some bright children. If you only want to read one, short, entertaining and well-written, I’d recommend The Screwtape Letters.

When I first heard of the ‘savior or lunatic’ thing long ago, it sounded…hmm, maybe right. My response now is from my own experience with…actually a schizophrenic (funny another poster mentioned such), and some other people with mental disabilities whom I’ve encountered. At times they’ve expressed wisdom that I haven’t seen in many an average person (or even many an average intellectual. Or...Of course my friend with schizophrenia is an intellectual.). Wonder if you’ve all discussed the eldest son, single mother (where did Joseph go?) savior complex? It’s common. (No, I’m not irreverent. My biggest faith in God might stem from the never-ending question-and-answer session.)

My recurring quandary is: Is there a God for women (women beyond wife, mother, sex toy, or professional virgin)? Or is there just not a religion ‘for women’? No wonder sex and religion are next-door. Seems a lot isn’t addressed to or doesn’t pertain to women. I’m beginning to think I’m off the hook. Probably a question for another blog.

Read an Interesting article on the Roman Empire, Jesus & the Gospels-

The history of Jesus and the history of Christianity we know today is the dogma the Roman Empire forced on all its provinces. When Constantine converted to Christianity, Rome became the centre of power for Christianity & any challenging centre was wiped out. What Jesus really said and meant will probably never be known.

Irenaeus -at the end of the 2nd century- is the first Christian writer who mentions the dogma of the four gospels. Before him there is no mention of those gospels as being the only "good" ones.

Irenaeus' choice was formalized in 325 at the council of Nicaea, where those four gospels became the official dogma of the Roman Church and all other histories of Jesus were banned.

Irenaeus picked only a fraction of the available literature on Jesus. He excluded some of the most popular texts, such as the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of the Hebrews -by far the two most popular texts among early Christians.

The Roman dogma is a mixture of historical and pre-existing themes. Mithraism, a religion derived from Zoroastrism, was very popular in Rome at the same time that Christianity was spreading. Mithras was believed to be the son of the sun, sent to the earth to rescue humankind.
Two centuries before the appearance of Jesus, the myth of Mithras held that Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
Mithras sacrificed himself and the last day had a supper with twelve of his followers.
At that supper Mithras invited his followers to eat his body and drink his blood. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. Mithras' festival coincided with the Christian Easter. It was absorbed into the Roman dogma. Jesus' attitude often resembles the legendary greek philospher Socrates (eg, the way he refuses to respond to Pilate).

The Egyptian god Osiris was also born on the 25th of December, died on a friday and resurrected after spending three days in the underworld.

The Roman god Dionysus was hailed as `The Saviour of Mankind' and `The Son of God'. Dionysus was born (on December 25) when Zeus visited Persephone. Therefore, his father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin. Announced by a star, he is born in a cowshed and visited by three Magis. He turns water into wine and raises people from the dead. He is followed by twelve apostles. Dionysus' resurrection was a popular myth throughout the Roman empire, although his name was different in each country. The rituals in honor of Dionysus included a meal of bread and wine, symbolizing his body and blood. An amulet of the 3rd century has been found that depicts a crucified man (unmistakably Jesus) but bears the inscription "Orpheus Bacchus", which was yet another name for Dionysus. The 5th century Egyptian poet Nonnus wrote two long epic poems in Greek, one on the conquest of the world by Dionysus, and the other a verse paraphrase of one of the Christian gospels.

Unfortunately, we know little of the Dionysus' faith because in 396 a mob of fanatical Christians destroyed the sanctuary of Eleusis, likely to have been the largest religious center in the world. We only know that the rituals were very popular and lasted several days.
The early Christians revered Dionysus's birthday as Jesus's birthday (Christmas) and the three-day Spring festival of Dionysus roughly coincides with Easter. Jews had their own version of this festival -the "therapeutae"- since at least the year 10 (it is reported by Philo of Alexandria), which is 23 years before the crucifixion of Jesus -Armenians still celebrate the birthday of Jesus on january 6.

The most credible theory of why the Christians of the third century chose the 25th of december as Jesus' birthday instead of the first of january is that the 25th of december was already a major holiday, a festival called "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti" instituted before 220 AD.

The official gospels were carefully chosen and edited to reflect a view acceptable to the Roman authorities and audience. For example, the official gospels blamed the Jews for killing Jesus, even if, of course, it was the Romans who killed him (for sedition). The earliest account of the life of Jesus, St Mark's gospel, was written during the Jewish rebellion of 66. It was not a time to claim Jesus as a Jewish revolutionary.

Jeez, David, you take the Bible as literally as the fundies!!

David B -

Just a little something to help you with your education.

The answer to Lewis's trilemma is of course to be found in the words of the Blessed Mandy, Holy mother of Brian.......
"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy"

@ logica

Something to help you with yours

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

David B

Is this blog, like, the yin and yang of biblical fundamentalism?

David B

I liked the video - especially when the Holy Bile is quoted immediately after a quote from the Koran.

Oh, bible tennis, great!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Peter

Oh, bible tennis, great!

I love bible tennis! I best like net play. Can't wait to see if someone volleys Proverbs 26:4.

@ Romejellybeen post 56

Not really - I did say it was possible to cherry pick from it, with the implication that by doing so one could use it as some sort of intuition pump for good moral ideas. As long as one discards the bad.

But the same is true of Aesop, the Rubaiyat, Hamlet, the Gita, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius et al.

How do you recommend taking the Bible? What - if anything - do you think is special about it, if it is not to be taken as the word of a putative God?

The dangerous thing is when people, selectively or otherwise, take it as some sort of absolute truth, and, sadly, many people do.

David

Although, most have some way to go to catch up with Jesse Duplantis;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDYyym5tD20&feature=player_embedded

David B -

Thanks! I am soooooo pleased that you are concerned for my education. :-)

As it happens, it is about context. Absolutely.

I would be very happy to go through all the scriptures, but really do we have the time? Are we really up for the theological equivalent of Isner-Mahut? And what will it achieve?

64, Proverbs 26:4- Or you could have justed quoted Mr T

David B.

The dangerous thing is when people, selectively or otherwise, take it as some sort of absolute truth, and, sadly, many people do.

Sadly many people who make such comments have little idea what they're talking about. But of course, you're just reading from a hand me down script.

Ryan

64, Proverbs 26:4- Or you could have justed quoted Mr T

I could have, but Mr. T didn't pity the fool and not pity the fool.

Anyhow, enough of this jibber-jabber.

'Ryan

Your assertion that I am reading from a hand me down script is both deeply offensive, and false.

As an ex-cultist I have a deep understanding of what I am talking about.

I rather doubt that the same is true of you.

David B

David, learn to read. Andrew wrote that, rather ironic turn of phrase I thought :p

David B (@ 28) -

Just as well, really, it is not a nice book, nor does it have much good moral teaching, though it has plenty that is bad.

Luke 14:26 'If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.'

This is the same Jesus who said "honour your father and your mother" and "love your neighbour as yourself" - Mark 10:19 and 12:31 respectively. (And also Jesus criticised the Pharisees for putting religious duties above honouring parents - Mark 7:9-13.)

Is this a contradiction? If you have some personal agenda to want it to be, then yes. But if you are someone who wants to seek understanding, then no.

When Luke 14:26 is compared with the parallel passage in Matthew 10:37, it is clear that "hate" means "to love less" (than God). This makes perfect sense in the context (dare I use that word!) of Hebrew culture, since, for example, the Hebrew word for "hate" used in Genesis chapter 29, verses 31 and 33 (when God saw that Leah was hated - the usual Hebrew word for "hate" is used here) clearly means "loved less". Of course, Luke was written in Greek, but the original words of Jesus would have been in Aramaic, which is related to Hebrew, and the thought forms would have been those his Jewish audience would have been able to understand.

Is it morally repugnant to love God more than anyone else - even those closest to you? Not at all. But that depends what you understand to be the character of God. If God is the source of all that is good - something I certainly believe - then all other relationships can ultimately benefit from putting "the highest good" first - even if that means some short-term pain (nothing to do with putting "religion" first, by the way!).

Furthermore, Jesus is speaking out against the evils of nepotism, tribalism and self-centredness. These are all the result of loving family and self before God.

Sometimes putting God first - or "what is morally right" first - can appear to be a kind of "hatred". For example, what about this case? Was that a "loving" thing for this mother to do? Or not? You decide.

In the light of this, the words of Jesus make perfect sense.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"

Matthew 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal"

what is the difference between 'everlasting' and 'eternal'

anyone

Gerry

What kind of difference are you looking for?

Gerry 73.

The two words, unfortunately, are used interchangably at times but in the ultimate sense everlasting usually means without end and eternal mostly has to do with quality.

Regarding the first verse you quote, as 'every knee will bow', everyone will receive everlasting life. Therefore, everyone who has ever lived will live for ever after they are resurrected. However, the quality of that life will not be the same for everyone. I would need to say a whole lot more to qualify this but for a short explanation this should suffice.
The next verse has to be read in the context of the whole chapter. In this chapter Jesus cites 3 parables about the state of those in His Church on His return. There will be profitable servants with 'oil in their lamps', having increased their 'talents' and who have served Him and others. They will receive ETERNAL life, being the quality of life that God enjoys. The unprofitable servants will go away into never-ending regret for squandering the opportunity they had. This passage is referring to those within and not outside the Saviour's Church.
It's quite possible that others may not agree with this explanation but I have many scriptures that would support this view. As long as we dont get into bashing and contention, I would be happy to share them with anyone.

I was going to offer a differing view re. the post which claimed C.S. Lewis was just a children's author, but I see others have already done that quite well.
I like C.S. Lewis's quote about Jesus, too.
I know Christians are persecuted in some countries, in other areas harrassed, in the West they tend to be marginalized.
Previously, Christianity has grown stronger when persecuted. I'd imagine if as a Christian we are never challenged for our Faith then we may be lacking in it some.

(Did I say “real or perceived”? lol.)

Considering the number and content of his teachings, the healings (which oft but not always required faith of the healed) and miracles, and that his emotions seemed to be fairly-consistently grounded, I don’t think Jesus was mentally unstable. I don’t think psychological instability will be proven.

But he was very frustrating in his ambiguity, and I loathe when salvation or anything for that matter ever sounds like a club requiring membership. (People love to make it so, and it reeks of inferiority complex, like a *public cry* of persecution.) I think it’s all a lot simpler than that.

Btw, The Sacred Romance, by Brent Curtis and John Eldredge is a good follow-up to The Screwtape Letters. It kind of puts the reader in the position of the Patient.

Btw, I remembered the better role for women: Sister or friend, the closest thing to the non label-limited, Person. :)

I saw this quote-Flannery O'Connor again. I think in some places here in America & the UK it's considered bad form to take Christ seriously. You might not feel overt persecution, but surely social isolation.

“The Catholic novelist in the South will see many distorted images of Christ, but he will certainly feel that a distorted image of Christ is better than no image at all. I think he will feel a good deal more kinship with backwoods prophets and shouting fundamentalists than he will with those politer elements for whom the supernatural is an embarrassment and for whom religion has become a department of sociology or culture or personality development.”
― Flannery O'Connor

mscracker,

That is a very interesting quote.

Indeed, I have felt isolated in the presence of Christians, as I don’t visually or verbally present (as in represent) Jesus or Christianity or a salvation story in the way they do.
I must be an imposter.

Here’s one of my favorite quotes, by another American author, Louis L’Amour:

“Up to a point a man's life is shaped by environment, heredity, and movements and changes in the world about him; then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate. Everyone has it within his power to say , this I am today, that I shall be tomorrow. The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds.”

American Christians and their prayer towers targetting the life savings of the old and vulnerable, homophobic 'pastors' getting caught with rent boys, nutcases shooting doctors, priests abusing children, Bishops covering up, and the rest..

mscracker, the problem isnt that these Christians take Christ too seriously, its that they dont take him seriously at all.

It's not that they're being persecuted, it's that they're being ignored... meanwhile young people process their emotions another way..
https://www.youtube.com/v/8JqfvL774QU?version=3

@80. marieinaustin:
Thanks for the quote.I think overall that's true, but sometimes God's plans interrupt our's.
Today is the feastday of St. Francis.He took being a Christian in a pretty radical way.(I'm taking my dog to church tonight for the blessing of pets.Goodness knows he needs a bit of divine intervention.)

@81. romejellybeen:
Too true, but when have Christians not fallen short?
And as the quote stated, we often see a distorted Christ.At least he's still in the conversation.

mscracker

One of Theophanes pals.

Is there any end to their shame?

https://ncronline.org/news/politics/pavone-pleads-donors-more-money

@85 rjb:
Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
I'm puzzled though.If Fr. Pavone just followed his conscience to resume pro-life work, in defiance of his bishop & local hierarchy, would that be a worthy thing to do? Assuming his financial affairs were cleared.
I don't see obedience to superiors touted often in these blogs as a virtue.But it appears the hierarchy is there for a reason keeping things in check.
Here's something I saw online about Fr. Pavone. I think he's done much good & will remember him in prayer.If he's strayed from the straight & narrow then he's doubly in need of prayer. So are we all.

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=861

mscracker

On a couple of occasions you've thrown little grenades on here to discredit certain people. Now when a right wing, tea party supporting, Latin-lovin, capitalist in a collar, is exposed - and even has the gaul to ask for even more money, that tainted thing -we've all to be understanding.

Decent priests ask for prayers, not money!

The frame of the debate is too narrow.

Many Christians are persecuted for having integrity and acting accordingly, without ever mentioning the name of Christ.

I'm really not sure why Ekklesia is given such pride of place in such debates, except perhaps to give the impression that radically liberal/emergent Christian views are mainstream, when of course they are anything but.

2 Timothy 3:12, all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

And Christians & others who suffer persecution at the hands of the Pharisaical Christian have a right to fight against enslavement from their selfish pious aggression

73 Gerry

[John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"

Matthew 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal"

what is the difference between 'everlasting' and 'eternal']


Gerry, the greek is the same in both references 'ζωὴν αἰώνιον' (Life everlasting without end etc.) Everlasting and eternal are synonyms. I used my copy of Nesle-Aland 26th Edition.

The KJV of John 3:16 translates 'everlasting life'. The NIV 'eternal life'

The KJV of Matthew 25:46 translates 'life eternal' The NIV 'eternal life'

Greek, like other modern and ancient languages, can have what we call a shades of meaning, so either rendering is acceptable given the context. Sometimes we might refer to God as being 'eternal' rather than 'everlasting' to make clear that he had no beginning. (You might be able to make something everlasting but not something that was eternal)

We always have to be careful here as it can get a bit messy if we try to read too much into these shades of meaning, and possibly end up with something the author did not intend. Word studies without context is always a mindfield, but you do raise an interesting question.

Eternal v everlasting.

Words change their meaning over time throught a process which includes, among other things, generalisation, amelioration and prejoration. Also, vocabulary increases over time (Anglo Saxons used about 30,000 words and Modern English use over 500,000). Additionally, meaning is lost through translation.

The problem with the Bible, therefore, is that the original words spoken were passed on orally or on some form of manuscript that we no longer have access to in order to check. It is even possible that when the words were translated into Greek the translators may not have totally understood the concepts they were translating. It's reasonable to assume that the words the King James translators used to translate from the Greek to English may not have had correspondence either. This leaves us with a series of books, the Bible, that can in no way be considered to be 'God breathed'.

So, given the process that the Bible has taken, how do we come to understand it? There is a way.

The Bible is a sealed book and can only be understood through the power of the Holy Ghost (2Peter 1:21, 1Cor. 2:11-13, 1John 2:27). To invoke the Spirit one must ask God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ to reveal the meaning to you through the power of the Holy Ghost. This must be done with a sincere heart, with the right intention and faith in His Son. In this way you can come to know the meaning of what you read as the Spirit will be your guide and not your own intellect.

There are a few verses in the Bible where I believe the word 'everlasting' should have been translated as 'eternal' and the reason they are not is due to the process that the Bible has went through. The verses are: Matt 19:29 (Luke 18:30), John 3:16,36; 4:14, 6:47; 12:50 and Acts 13:46. On the other hand all the verses that use the word 'eternal' are correct and refer to quality rather than quantity. If you read the Bible with this understanding it will appear clearer and you will come closer to what the writer intended.

You will find that God is both eternal (omnipotent, all knowing, totally pure, righteous, just, has perfect love, etc.) and everlasting. We are not eternal, but can be as joint heirs with Christ.

@87rjb:
Decent priests & religious folk of all denominations have sought donations for worthy causes from the very beginning.My ancestors were assisted in this way when they arrived in America.
The priest you mentioned sought donations for a worthy cause.The question raised is not the cause but the financial handling of those funds. And that will be answered at some point in the future.Meanwhile his superior has recalled him back to his diocese, which is fitting & part of the process the Church has set up.

puretruthseeker,

are you saying only certain christians (those that follow the correct biblical teachings) can interpret the bible and the rest of humanity cannot, that there is a special key that only the true christians have and that no academic interpretation can have any real standing.

That sounds remarkably like those who say that anything which contradicts scripture (ie the earth being older than 6000 years) is wrong and that the people who say it are mistaken (at best) and just don't know how to interpret what they are researching because they are not guided by god.

This isn't strictly about predjudice in the UK but applies to US football (Go Gators!):

Tim Tebow and Christophobia

"Oct. 5, 2011 - Two weeks into the NFL season, ESPN ran a Sunday morning special exploring why the third-string quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Tim Tebow, had become the most polarizing figure in American sports—more polarizing than trash-talking NBA behemoths; more polarizing than foul-mouthed Serena Williams; more polarizing than NFL all-stars who father numerous children by numerous women, all out of wedlock. Why does Tebow, and Tebow alone, arouse such passions? Why is Tebow the one whom “comedians” say they would like to shoot?

A hint: it has nothing to do with Tim Tebow’s prospects as a pro quarterback...."




https://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/6919?CFID=31498784&CFTOKEN=15313840

@93. Dave :
"...sounds remarkably like those who say that anything which contradicts scripture (ie the earth being older than 6000 years) is wrong and that the people who say it are mistaken (at best) and just don't know how to interpret what they are researching because they are not guided by god."
***
Could be, but I bet they'd give God His correct due in capitalization.

Ryan

And Christians & others who suffer persecution at the hands of the Pharisaical Christian have a right to fight against enslavement from their selfish pious aggression

Remind me, what is Pharisaical Christianity?

Look in the mirror

Ryan

I'm afraid mirrors don't reflect propositions.

Since you keep using the term it behoves you to explain what it means.

Maybe the answer is in one of the many bible dictionaries you claimed to have consulted?

If you suppy the definition it would be helpful if you could then provide the corresponding evidence that what I have said on this blog is an example of such.

Dave

What I am saying is that those who read the Bible in the way I have outlined (sincere, right intentions and faith - like a child) can come to an understanding in certain things given the clouded version available to us. My study of the Bible and religion has shown me that the Church that Jesus established died out after the death of the first or maybe second generation of Apostles. Thereafter, for various reasons, unauthorised sects proliferated until the time of Constantine. From then onward the State used the church as a way to control it's people. Martin Luther et al, in reforming the church, did not restore it (because they didnt have the authority) and hence opened it up to further schism. Each church has interpreted the Bible in it's own way. None of them agree fully with each other. Therefore, an academic study of the Bible is futile and does not achieve agreement as witnessed in this blog and throughout all the various seminaries, theological colleges and Bible study classes. Instead of clarity we have confusion and those with sense shy away from christianity because it's advocates argue from ignorance. That's as much as I am sure for now.

I am not saying that anything which contradicts scripture is wrong as a lot of it is obviously right and a lot of scripture is incomplete and not accessible due to the process it has taken to come to us.

There is a contradiction between what we understand from the scriptures and our theories of science and we try, with our limited understand, to square them unsuccessfully. Scripture is incomplete and so is science. I believe that someday we will come to see that there is no difference between true religion and pure science. We will come to see that God obeyed scientific principles when He created us and the world we live in. We may come to realise that the material this world is made from was used in previous creations. It's improbable to think that in the eternity that has passed, we are the first creation. Surely there was more. Even many more. Even countless many more. If this is so then it is possible that the space that our world occupies was put here relatively recently and that we all related through Adam.

This does not challenge the age of rocks or creatures that lived long before us in some other time and space on the material we now call home. It just accepts that we live on recycled material and as we dig into it we find things that don't appear to correspond to our incomplete knowledge we have of God as creator.

I know that I am opening myself up to criticism but I did say that we must seek wisdom like a little child. I believe when all is said and done we will come to understand just how simple and beautiful the truth is.

mscracker,

I do not believe in god therefore there is no "correct due" for me to give. If you want to capitalise it go ahead but to me it is a noun to describe a deity and a word used as a name (but not actually his name) for the god you seem to have.

It is fine for you to have your beliefs and strange ways attached to it but don't castigate others for not either accepting them or following them. Do you for instance say "peace be upon him" every time you say, hear or write Muhammed's name to give him the due which his adherents believe in.

To expect others to follow your quaint customs is rather over reaching the authority of your religion. Would it be OK for me to insist you use proper English on this board (eg capitalisation is spelt with an s not a z) or would you see that as being needlessly over reaching.