Jesus Ultrasound Poster and Subliminal Pro-Lifers

WARNING: This is a very blunt and personal view on the issues discussed and are entirely my own views and not those of any organisation I may be associated with!

Just saw this poster that is going to be used I gather by Churches across the nation in the run up to Christmas 2010. It is an interesting concept and design and I think I get where it is coming from.

A design to show that Jesus started as a real baby and it is an image that everyone, or at least most people, can relate to. The lower caption pointing out that ‘Christmas’ starts with ‘Christ’ etc….

I could take issue with the main caption in pointing out that Christ was born 2000 years ago and therefore has already arrived etc… but that would indeed be petty.

What I found interesting was an article on Christian Today that says secularists have got all hot under the collar about it. This following quote being classic secularist nonsense:

“It gives the impression that it was politically motivated, that they are trying to put across some sort of subliminal message,” said Terry Sanderson, director of the National Secular Society, according to The Guardian.

“The image is too specifically associated with pro-lifers to be seen in a benign context.”

Sanderson added, “They should go back to angels and cribs.”

The last sentence showing his true colours and renders everything he said previously as not worth listening to. So as usual with these types as long as Christians stay silent and not dare speak up we can carry on in our freakish weird world of believing in God. But we must not under any circumstance have our faith say anything to rampant secularism and go poking our noses into society with our ‘moral convictions’ about truth and justice.

Sanderson is of course referring to the Channel 4 Marie Stopes adverts that ‘subliminally’ advertises abortion services.

Well Mr Terry Sanderson how is this for a non subliminal pro-life message: Abortion is the murder of the unborn!

Of course I don’t take lightly the horrendous emotional and psychological issues surrounding abortion and unwanted pregnancy. I have heard all the arguments about what about rape, what about babies with some sort of illness or disability, a woman's right to chose etc…. But the bottom line is that for a large majority of Abortions in this country the reason comes down to inconvenience and selfishness on the part of the couple. They simply don’t want the responsibility of looking after a child at that point. There are possibly some very very few instances where there may be some grey area but rarely. How can inconvenience, timing, cost, even disability or pregnancy due to rape (extremely rare by the way) trump the right of a child to have a chance in life? No one can decide that the child's circumstances once born would be too hard and not be fair to bring them into. Who are you to make that decision?

The issue in part comes down to the devaluing of corporate human life in the western world today. For so many different reasons but two being Darwinian evolutionary thinking and the Western idol of self. Where does an Embryo/Foetus become a human life. In UK law it is at 24 weeks! After that the medical profession and Government has deemed that you are now worthy of some protection in law! Despite much evidence to the contrary and babies being born before that time and surviving.

Again I state that I do not say any of this lightly and fully take into account the awful circumstances people find themselves in and the financial, practical and counselling help that they need and that is often not available to them. Yes it can be heart breaking and painful and mind bogglingly difficult to raise a child under, well any circumstances actually.

But this is a human being we are talking about and once conceived has every right to existence as any other human being. It is made in the image of God, knit together in its mothers womb (Psalm 139). Oh no, there I go with that God talk again.

For a great organisation called The Oasis Crisis Pregnancy Centre click on the link. They offer support services for women with unplanned pregnancy or women coming to terms with abortion. A Wonderfully caring counselling service they provide.

What does Toleration Actually mean today?

I thought I would write this brief article on Toleration. Mainly I will quote something I read in a much bigger article that can be found here. The quote I want to look at is below.

The new toleration

The definition of "toleration" has been inverted in recent years. Historically, toleration implied disagreement. The powerful would tolerate ideas that they disagreed with or found unpleasant; they might argue against them or condemn them, but they did not suppress the ideas through violence or the courts.

Today, toleration means agreeing that selected categories—typically race, gender, and sexual orientation—are value-neutral, that is, that they have no significant bearing on human worth, moral standing, etc. To suggest otherwise is to commit the one unforgivable sin of being intolerant, judgmental or bigoted.

In other words, toleration has changed from referring to ideas to referring to people, and from learning to live with disagreement to agreeing that [specific] differences don't matter.

In my previous post on why we should vote in the election I mentioned the issue of ‘Toleration’ and quoted a book title by D.A Carson called The Intolerance of Tolerance. I think that title sums up the current view of what Toleration actually means. When you strictly narrow the categories by which you define what tolerance means it inherently becomes intolerant of anything outside of it. Now for those inside those categories this is not seen as an issue and seems entirely reasonable. However for those pushed to the boundaries or who are fully excluded this becomes a major concern and problem.

The outrageous witch hunt against the Conservative candidate for Sutton, Philippa Stroud, is a prime example of this inversion of what society defines as Toleration (click HERE for good article on Christians in the media spotlight and Adrian Warnock’s take on it). The recent court case for Gary McFarlane is another example that highlights the shift on the way society views what is in or out of that category. Excellent article by Former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali shows that Religious conviction is no longer viewed on a level playing field with such things as Sexual orientation or Gender identity. Therefore one set of beliefs/values subjugates another in the name of equality and tolerance in the law.

That effective inequality is the main problem with all this legislation that the Labour government and lobby groups have pushed through. In the attempt to stop discrimination against people on the grounds of Gender, Race, Sexual Orientation, Age and Religion they have inadvertently (or purposefully if you want to be cynical) created a clash between those categories. In this post-modern, post-Christian, secular, humanistic society we call Britain, Religious conviction is trumped by all the other categories.

I had a debate with someone on Twitter around if Philippa Stroud was a bigot and what that actually meant. The tactic most anti-Christian or Atheist people use is to simply dismiss the Bible completely and thus to try and prevent a Christian from arguing from that point of view. A Christians whole frame of reference is Biblical so it can be effective, especially over such things as Social Media as there is so little space to actually engage and debate a person.

The main contention I have is that by a person saying ‘your view is bigoted or Intolerant’ they are effectively saying my belief trumps your belief. I am right and you are wrong. So by the Oxford English Dictionary definition of Bigot are in fact being exactly that and are being Intolerant themselves.

Bigot: a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others

We all bring our beliefs and world view to the table and to say one person is being Intolerant is simply to impose your worldview as the correct one and exclude another's. The very definition of Intolerance in the old definition above.

However generally the person is unwilling or unable to see or accept this. To do so would open debate and allow alternative viewpoints. As far as the person I debated with on twitter was concerned I was a homophobic hateful bigot simply because I was a Christian and held to Biblical authority and they could not accept they were being Intolerant or bigoted themselves. Because of the difference of interpretation of what it means to Tolerate or be Intolerant of something.

I truly believe this will only get worse in Britain in the coming years. It has already happened on more than one occasion that a person has been arrested under hate laws or breach of peace laws for simply repeating what the Bible says, specifically on the subject of Homosexuality. In a recent incident because the Police officer was themselves gay. It can be seen that Christians in public are targeted specifically on this subject because it will get them in trouble in Britain. Even if the laws were not instigated to do this the end result is that they are being used to suppress free speech by those that will not tolerate a moral world view that differs or clashes with their own.

Sadly these stories tend to misrepresent the Biblical world view and focus them solely on the Homosexuality issue making it more of a focus than the Bible actually places on it. Making Christians ‘sound’ like homophobes when in fact a true Christian is nothing of the sort in reality, though may be seen as one by the new definitions.

In my view Bigot, Intolerance or phobe has fear and hate fuelling it. Religious, self righteous types can be bigots and intolerant as much as Atheist humanistic types can be. A true Christian however will not, as they recognise that every one of us on this planet is justly heading for an eternity in hell unless God plucks them from the precipice. Thanks to Jesus Christ's supreme act Love and sacrifice the way is open for just that to happen. A Christian knows that it is only by Grace they are saved through no merit in them at all. Therefore they have no grounds to be self righteous towards anyone and are free to Love and serve others. Christianity defines what it is to have true equality and treat all people with love and respect.

But this does not mean it will agree with your world view. If you are not a Christian I cannot tell you that you are living in immoral life and expect you to change. I can only point you to Christ and if you give your life to Him then change will inevitably be the result as he changes your heart from the inside. But I can tell you that God has a better way to live, that if you live outside of that framework then things will not be as good as they could be and may in fact cause you harm. I cannot expect you to change or agree but I can point the way and this is not Bigoted or Intolerant or hateful because it disagrees with how you currently choose to live. A Christian is motivated by the Love of God for them which naturally wants the best for you.

But don’t expect Christians to be perfect and get it right all the time. We don’t and are on a journey ourselves of being changed. Take the time to understand who it is you are labelling and what they actually stand for before you judge them, you may be surprised by what you find.

More Blatant anti-Christian/Creation/ID Bias at the BBC

Now this is a second hand report as I did not see University Challenge last night. However from this, reliable, report I am glad I did not.

You cannot watch the TV nowadays without being bombarded by militant Darwinists evangelising their views and bashing viciously anyone who dares to disagree. I used to love nature programs but cannot watch them anymore, especially if narrated by David Attenborough. Why can’t they just marvel at creation and comment on observable facts instead of gross speculation on what ‘could’ have happened? Spoils the whole thing! Anyway Click HERE for what happened on University Challenge on 24th November 2009.

Humanist Agenda invades our Primary Schools….. again!

This BBC article highlights once again the battle for the hearts and minds of our children in the UK. (Oh and continues the BBC’s heavy bias to the liberal humanist agenda when it comes to it journalism).

A quote from the article lays it all out pretty plainly:

The British Humanist Association (BHA) had led a campaign to have Darwin's theory of how life evolved through natural selection made a compulsory element of the new primary curriculum.

It organised a public letter signed by more than 500 from scientists and supporters.

Andrew Copson of the BHA said: "This is excellent news. Evolution is arguably the most important concept underlying the life sciences.

"Providing children with an understanding of it an early age will help lay the foundations for a surer scientific understanding later on."

He added: "Public authorities clearly need to do more to tackle the growing threat to the public's understanding of science from creationist-inspired beliefs and other pseudoscience".

Firstly Macro-Evolution/Darwinian Evolution (goo to you evolution) has nothing, nada, zero to do with life sciences like any form medical research or any of the sciences that look at actual facts and follow the scientific method of observable falsifiable results. The kind of science that brings us medical drugs breakthroughs, micro chips etc… However this is one of those little lies that Evolutionist would have you believe to make them sound more important and set up their pathetic straw man arguments. This is shown in the last sentence of the article above. Where they try to scare monger people into believing that if we let these dangerous people run around and challenge Darwinian Evolution then the whole of civilisation as we know it will collapse and we’ll be dragged back to the Dark ages. Nonsense of course, they know it, any half intelligent person knows it but they keep spouting this rubbish out. Old Dawkins being the chief of the straw man scare mongering nonsense.

All this will do is add more pressure to already over stretched and underpaid teachers. Teaching something that has frankly zero importance to understanding operational science like Physics and Chemistry and a lot of Biology. All based on observable, measurable and reproducible science. Unlike any study of the past, both Evolution and Creation included. Both study the evidence and come to conclusions based on assumptions that cannot be tested and reproduced using the scientific method.

Trust me I am all for children understanding science as I think the science education in this country is frankly poor at both Secondary and Primary given the number of students entering University to study science based subjects. Children are not excited by the wonders of studying the world around them in any of the sciences enough to want to be the scientists of the future. I am not against the teaching of evolution when it comes to Micro-Evolution either.  Yes things change, adapt and ‘evolve’ but not in the scope that Darwinian evolution would have you believe. Evolution within kind is observable and useful in science and is perfectly biblical from a Creationist point of view. Another lie the Humanist would have you believe is that Creationist don’t believe in Evolution. We do, just not the same way. In fact a Creationist discovered the idea of adaptation within species before Darwin did.  But this terrifying fear of anyone questioning Macro-Evolutionary theory and pointing out the huge gaping holes in it is ridiculous and pathetic. Understandable though because the alternative is too terrible for an Evolutionist/Atheist to cope with, ie: God.

However teaching Children macro-evolution will achieve nothing except teach them that they have no purpose in existence and no hope for the future (see video at the bottom of this post). That moral relativism is all we can hope for and there is no true absolute definition of right and wrong. No wonder child suicide rates are up and depression is the modern epidemic. Take away hope and all you have is denial or despair.

I leave this article with some scripture:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and l the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corinthians 1:18-25)

and:

For the wrath of God l is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

(Romans 1:18-25)

Do we want to raise another generation of ‘foolish thinkers’ blinded by human arrogance? Ultimately this is just another battleground being fought between atheism and faith. Humanist would have all traces of teaching any religion and faith from schools wiped away if they could. Don’t be fooled this is not about fairness or balance. This is about the absolute oppression and suppression of free thought and religious expression in this country and around the world. Any way I’ll leave it there.

Here is a short video talking about where atheism leads, by Mark Driscoll.

Church Compromises! – Lets Celebrate Darwin

Just read this article on Christian Today. This is my view is one of the single biggest mistakes that the Christian Church is making today. I am in now way denying the huge impact and importance of what Darwin wrote. Just not in the way that the secular scientists and humanists would describe it.

I am not going to detail why this is such a tragedy as there are plenty of websites that do that significantly better than I can, eg: Click Here. However I will say that I believe this is one of the reasons why the Church of England and other denominations are in decline. They compromise and undermine the truth and authority of scripture interpreting it in the light of humanistic beliefs. Once you start doing that then no passage of scripture can be taken as an absolute truth. You fall into the modern quagmire that is moral relativism. The compromises on Homosexuality, sex outside of marriage and dare I say it, women priests and Bishops are other examples.

I am sure not all Anglican or other Denomination members are in support of the Darwin Worship and I would not like to make such sweeping statements. However when the Top leadership of such organisations come out in support of placing Darwin on the pedestal he is being placed on then it is a sad indeed. Belief in Theistic Evolution is a compromise and weakens every biblical and moral argument you subsequently make. Darwin knew this and Dawkins knows this and almost has more contempt for those that compromise what scripture teaches, than the Creationists he so violently and unflinchingly opposes.

If you are blown by every change of what society accepts and absorb it into your own worldview then how do you stand out from the world. How are you salt and light to a dark world. If there was no fall as described in Genesis and we evolved from pondscum then there is no sin, there can be no explanation of suffering that doesn’t make God out to be at best uncaring and at worst hateful, mans glorious standing as being made in the image of God is reduced to our existence having no meaning or purpose, there is no need for Christ to have come to redeem and save the lost. There is no Gospel!

There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life?

That title is what will be appearing on the sides of London buses shortly. This advertising campaign is sponsored by the British Humanist Association.

'There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life!'

It is hardly suprising that they got a reasonable amount of money from supporters, including my 'favorite' atheist Richard Dawkins.

And Richard, bless him, has been spouting his usual nonsense about "thinking is anathema to religion". Which of course is plainly wrong and utter rubbish. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise! But Dawkins thinks anyone who disagrees with him has faulty thinking so hardly surprising.

I agree with this article where the writer believes this campaign will actually benefit 'religion'.

The 'probably' says it all. They cannot be sure about it or they are just trying to be a bit PC rather than stating 'there is no God'. Don't lay the message on too thick to start with. However if it gets people thinking and talking about it that can only be good. It gives Christians an opportunity they otherwise might not get to so easily raise the topic.

Also the advice in the advert just shows humanism for what it is. Entirely self centred! If all they can offer is 'enjoy life' in the midst of economic meltdown, job loss, hardship and death then their message is hollow, a shell with no substance. Which it is! Humanism can offer no word of comfort to the grieving, the hurting, the depressed, the abused and outcast.

Let them have their 5 minutes and watch what happens. Certainly not what they would like!!