Faith

Without love and understanding of others there is no good basis for making judgements on anyone or anything,  There is a wise saying: take the plank out of your own eye before attempting to remove a splinter from someone else’s eye. I realised that while I feel the articles I have written are reasonable, that does not necessarily make them charitable. Much of this blog is devoted to what I perceive to be wrong. There is a long list of targets lined up like toy soldiers. My primary intention is simple: to knock them all down. These include issues relating to large numbers of government agencies, including the CPS and Ofsted, ideologically motivated protest groups, too numerous to mention at this point, and various unsubstantiated scientific theories which have become so protected and idolised they can no longer be challenged. There is also the religion I think is becoming near apostate. I mean large parts of the Christian Church which now regard some sections of the Bible as unreliable and embarrassing. That inevitably reflects badly on the character and ways of God. Best not to discuss the Old Testament, the Creation accounts, slavery, war and so on; all of which God seems to endorse. Every part of these accusations can be met head on and should be, but sadly there is a lot of cowardice when it comes to confronting critics. Then there is the religion of peace. One of the greatest misnomers every applied to anything: Islam is anything but a religion of peace. It has been at war since the seventh century, and it still is by direct attacks, such as those against Israel and those initiated by ISIS, still ongoing through terrorism on the streets of cities and in the lands of many countries and against any groups or peoples these maniacs hate. Islam built one the greatest empires on the face of the planet, largely by warfare. In Europe at its most successful Islam held virtually all of Spain, the Mediterranean islands, large parts of France and Italy and the Balkans. For the most part an unknown and untaught history of global conquest. So in conclusion, here is a combustible mixed bag containing elements of society, none of which like to be challenged. However, all these named above are filled with people, many if not most of whom are pursuing their agendas in good conscience believing they are right in just the same way as I do. Together these government agencies, religions. protest groups etc must include many billions of people and large numbers of organisations. Each and every one of these is comprised of individuals about whom I know nothing. So, I must learn to be modest and kind because I am just one voice, one person saying what he believes to be true.

There was a man named Paul. Before he met Jesus he was violent and murderous. A terrifying zealot and persecutor of the followers of Jesus. This man, following his conversion, was inspired to write the following words. And it to these words I need to pay close attention, otherwise I may become what he says: a loud clanging cymbal without compassion, understanding or love. He wrote.

‘If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.’

1 Corinthians ch 13 v 1 – 8

All of that I need to accept and apply in all areas of life at all times.

We as a society have moved on from this message and God. We think we know much better, so if I come across as angry it is for this reason: we do not know better and I will try to prove this to you. Nevertheless, we Christians are asked to forgive our enemies and do good to those who treat us badly. So I have no right to this anger. However, the anger of God against an unbelieving generation is another matter. We I believe are already suffering from his anger. That is why we are where we are; morally and spiritually adrift with our powers of reason twisted out of shape.

In this blog I criticise government officials who use the law to persecute people, Muslims who hate infidels, Islam for its doctrines, people who march under the LGBT banner, scientists who have devised theories to avoid the problem of acknowledging God, weak compromising Christians and others I accuse of being complicit in changing our society and culture in ways that are if not mad, then malignant. However every person involved in what I believe is the destruction of the once Christian West is individually created and loved by God. So I am really sorry if in the course of writing these articles, I cause hurt or seemed without love or compassion. I hope I am not quite what I seem. If you are interested in who I am then you will be pleased to know you can find out by accessing the article: Who Am I. This can be found by touching the tab Follow and then go to About.

My God of course is of an entirely different character. I know that every person is loved by God. That If we sin we have a Saviour. If we acknowledge him he offers us eternal life of a type beyond our imaginations. God is good and he seeks nothing less than the best for you.

How did Britain begin and why was its faith Christian? An English King, a grandson of Alfred the Great fought the battle of Brunanburh. If you have never heard of it, then I admit neither had I until I watched a documentary some time last year. The year of this huge battle was 937 AD when an army led by King Athelstan, a notably brave soldier and devout Christian, crushed a massive combined assault by Vikings, men from the North, Irish and Scots. This victory united the countries of the British Isles not only under one head, but crucially under one faith: Christianity. In the UK it took an administration which “did not do God” to bring about the changes that have so altered our nation. Becoming a Multi-Faith society changes things.

What is left of that Christ centred heritage? Physically there is evidence of our Christian roots scattered all over Europe. You cannot miss them: almost every city, town and village has a cathedral, church or chapel. They mark both our history and our landscapes; they once signposted our faith, they now mark our retreat and our losses. Buildings either falling into disrepair or taken over by corporations, renewed for residential use or even mosques.

To me it seems there is little beyond an established church with its back pressed to the wall, and a disunited kingdom  threatened by fracture, mostly from discontented Nationalist parties? The Christian Faith in Britain is increasingly seen as a sideshow if not an irrelevance. Submerged beneath a culture of diversity and multi-faith to which it has adapted mostly through compromise and appeasement. There are vibrant pockets of evangelical Christians and other denominations scattered throughout the countries of the UK, but few neutrals I think would say that we are much more than an irritant if we are evangelical, and a showy priestly backdrop to state occasions if we are traditionalists. We carry a life changing message rarely sought out by the great majority who lead lives without reference to either Jesus Christ or his Gospel. That is a pessimistic assessment, but there is of course another side filled with hope and faith. However I tend to think that this living faith, real though it is, may be coming under increasing pressure to conform to the ways of this world.

You may agree that we have as a nation abandoned the moral standards which once defined the attitudes and behaviour of a civilised society. You may say yes, and that we are much better off for doing so. Christendom throughout the ages has manifest a series of grotesque parodies of what a Christian society should be. I freely admit this is true, and there was and is no excuse. History verifies that humanity and the societies it has raised contain a spark of evil which tends to contaminate even the best of intentions. So what can be said of one like ours which appears to be seeking the best: a level playing field for everyone? Is this modern schematic any different to those of the past? To me the obvious answer to that question is yes, substantially different. We seem to believe we have learned the lessons of the past, hence the imposition of a multi-faith, multi-cultural society. We have given up, even legislated against stereotyping people on the grounds of race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender: a noble and far reaching ambition which surely no one in their right mind could find objectionable. And of course, the good intentions are useless and would be without effect unless politically enforced, since we are acting against every natural impulse of human nature. Which is that might is right and victory usually goes to the talented, the ruthless, the strong and most calculating. Historically these must be among the reasons why the white races have enslaved and ill-used so many non-white races. We have however chosen to look at our history, sometimes with shame, assessed the damage and the reasons for it and begun the process of trying to make amends by setting out a new vision based on equality for all. Sadly Utopian visions always fail to materialise and their ideals fracture and fall whenever and wherever contact is made with the outside world. They can produce the exact opposite of what is intended: totalitarianism.

To me, born towards the end of the last World War, it feels that all is being made new. As if the old has been cast off while a new prospectus arises from the ashes of the past: new politics, new culture, new ethics, new reality. From a biblical standpoint, can fallen humanity do the job of saving the human race from its baser instincts? If we abandon the faith and religious route that has often served humanity so badly then what can go wrong when both secular and religious are bound together under a universal creed? It has been tried in the past and the two have violently clashed, but today there seems to be relative peace between religion and state. Perhaps it is truly based on the best of all human instincts, love for all and acceptance of everyone: a true level playing field based on tolerance. The experiment has been ongoing for a few decades and it can do no harm to look as it matures and make a few judgements. Are the results so far achieving the anticipated ends? Good intentions must surely be rewarded. This of course depends on whether the intentions were as good as they first appeared. For example to strive for equality cannot be anything other than a good intention. However it has never existed on this earth in any form other than as a momentary expression. There are always the strong and the weak, winners and losers, leaders and led. The truth is that at least one group will always sink to the bottom. A hierarchy will always establish itself, along with some form of coercion to ensure its survival and longevity. The principles laid down by Jesus Christ are a guide to a Utopian vision but even they have failed to give more than a hint of its realisation. But this vision of the golden rule is no longer welcome. Looking at the signs that are apparent I have come to believe that along with the gathering madness there is something uniquely anti-Christian under construction. My purpose in writing this is to persuade you that this might be true, and if you are Christian to prepare for the worst.

With much of Europe having become multi-faith by the decree of its governments is it coincidental that its Christian roots, faith and culture are being degraded? More important, does it matter? The commentator and author Douglas Murray, who is not a Christian, has said that we in the West are all Christian in one sense; not because of our belief but because of the culture which has given us the standards by which we live: from basic human rights upwards. As Christian influence has diminished so have the old certainties withered. As an alternative we have turned towards a multi-faith, multi-cultural approach hoping that the new will give us something better. His book is titled: The Strange Death Of Europe.

We have a new look country due to decades of large scale immigration. So, have a good look around you at the nations from which many of these immigrants have come. Most of these countries persecute Christians. Please ask yourself would you want to bring your family up in any of them? Immigration is all one way traffic, out of countries from the Middle East and into countries with a Christian tradition? The question why is too obvious to answer.

Jews, Christians and Muslims.

According to Mohammad, Jews and Christians are the people of the Book: the Bible. This book, Mohammad uses but changes out of all recognition, doing so on the basis of his revelations and the belief that these scriptures became corrupted. Mohammad’s later revelations found fault with scriptures he had previously endorsed; not what would have been expected from a prophet of God. They did not go about saying I got it wrong, misheard God, but now by further revelation have got it right, so forget what I said and wrote earlier. Its what I am saying now that matters. The objective of those who corrupted the scriptures was presumably to write Allah and Islam’s prophet out of the script. A conspiracy theory without motive or evidence. Mohammad, the Quran and Allah as the God found in the Bible were unknown to the writers of any of these scriptures, and for a very good reason: Islam’s prophet had not been born. The questions therefore arise, when was this corruption done, by whom, and for what purpose, and where is the evidence? Of all the ancient writings of history none have had such a constant history of verification. Archaeologists and scriptural scholars have proved these ancient writings have been passed down through the generations unchanged. If they are in error, it is not because they were corrupted in their written transmission. Jewish scribes are and always have been meticulous in the care and accuracy of copying their sacred texts. Any errors found in the huge quantity of ancient documents available are tiny and insignificant and change nothing of the meaning or narrative.

The Bible is the most validated document in the history of written documents. There can be no doubt concerning the faithful transcription of Scripture. The Jewish scribes were scrupulously meticulous about the copying of their scriptures. Of just the known 6000 Greek New Testament manuscripts, there are at least 2.5 million pages! If you were to include both the Old and New Testaments there are more than 66,000 manuscripts and scrolls. Each of these testify to the historical accuracy and the validity of Scripture!. The method proves the assertion that nothing was more important to scribes than the faithful transmission of the manuscripts being copied.

The procedures were as follows. They could only use clean animal skins as parchment. This both to write on and bind the manuscripts. Each column of writing could have no less than forty-eight, and no more than sixty lines. They must speak out each word aloud as it was written. They must wipe the pen and cleanse their bodies before writing the word Jehovah ( God’s name).They went through this ritual every time they wrote God’s sacred name. Each work was reviewed within a month. The manuscript if it required corrections on three pages was discontinued. The scribe would have to rewrite the entire manuscript. The letters, words, and paragraphs had to be all counted. The document was invalidated if two letters touched each other. Even more demanding was that the middle paragraph, word and letter must all correspond to those of the original document. The documents could be stored only in sacred places. As no document containing God’s Word could be destroyed, they were stored, or buried, in a safe “hiding place.” Synagogues or sometimes in a Jewish cemetery. Or as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps in extremis, when under threat felt compelled to hide important documents and records including scripture, in dry, remote and hard to access caves.

For scriptures to have been corrupted, as Muhammad claims, there must have been a catastrophic breakdown in the copying procedures: the entire methodology lost. And that, had it happened would have been a story in itself; one almost impossible to have kept secret. And yet for Muhammad’s story to have credibility this must have happened. In which case it was so well kept a secret that the loss of accurate scribal transmission for between hundreds and thousands of years went undiscovered until the advent of the prophet of Islam. A man who according to Islamic teaching could not read, somehow came to read, understand it and expose the errors written in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Muhammad spoke and wrote, if he did write at all, in Arabic. How then was he able to discern errors written in languages about which he knew little or nothing about? Once again the only answer is by miracles. When you consider he had motive to alter the biblical accounts relating to Abraham and his children and also to Jesus, then cynicism is well justified.

All this is weird enough, but the question why Muhammad would go to such lengths is itself intriguing. I think finding the answer is simple enough. If the Bible remained as it was it could never be any use to him. The problem was he desperately needed it in order to provide a solid  historical foundation for his new religion. Giving it roots as deeply embedded in history as that of the Jews and Christians; making his message and revelations credible those he desired to convert: Jews, Christians and of course pagan Arabs. As a consequence one man rewrites history and enthrones himself under a god seemingly of his own invention. Allah was a name well known to Arabs before Muhammad was born. It being not a special or personal name, but the commonly accepted word used in that region when referring to God. Both Jews and Christians living in Arabia at that time would have have spoken of God as Allah. Christians would have believed Allah was Jesus incarnate, the one true God, and Jews would have called on Allah when speaking of their God. They would have been doing this long before Muhammad was born.

For all these reasons the Quran must be open to serious doubt, particularly in the crucial example concerning the promises of God made to Abraham’s son Isaac. In the Bible emphasis is put on the fact that Isaac’s children inherited the promises of God made to Abraham. Mohammed, on his own authority transfers these blessings and promises made to the Jews, onto the shoulders of the supposed ancestral elder of the Arab nations, Ishmael. This is tantamount to transferring an election result in a democratic country like Britain and donating the position of prime minister to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who at the time of writing is Ali Khamene. And this done on the word of a self-proclaimed prophet of the same tribe as Ali Khamene. Would such a claim be ratified today, and if not, why should it have become so convincing to so many in our day.

The Jews, without whom their priceless book would not have reached the wider world have suffered persecution throughout much of their history. And mostly from Christians and Muslims who claim large parts of their inspiration from the God given Testament put into the hands of the Jewish people. They are the most amazing people on the face of the earth. They have endured and survived through a history unlike any other nation, scattered and hated for no good cause before returning to the land taken from them. May God bless them and keep them safe in these terribly dangerous times. May the Holocaust never be forgotten and the Jews enter into to all the promises written in their Holy Book. May Muslims come to see within their own book, the Quran, the many references within it drawn from the Bible. And may this testimony lead them to the Truth. For as Jesus said, the truth will set you free.

It may be of interest to you to know that historians and biblical scholars have no doubts as to the real events that brought Jesus to his crucifixion. This is not a fiction. Those who vehemently disagree are Muslim clerics and scholars, but they have a good reason for their scepticism. The Quran written over six hundred after these events has Jesus as a central figure. He is the most mentioned person in the Quran by reference; 25 times by the name, as Isa,  48 times, in the first-person 35 times. He is therefore an integral part of Mohammad’s revelation, but not as a crucified and later risen from the dead Lord. That occurrence, if admitted would validate so much of the New Testament and confirm the accuracy and truth of those who wrote the gospels and letters to the churches. Consequently none of this part of the scriptures can be permitted since it would place Jesus so much higher than Muhammad. The testimony of many eye witnesses and accounts written astonishingly close to the actual events proclaimed Jesus as resurrected from the dead and Lord of all, the mighty risen Saviour. Inconceivable if they knew him to be dead and buried.

What actually matters beyond ourselves and those we care for? Has society outside that small unit ceased to exist for us? Is this the truth, that beyond me and mine nothing much matters?

Even if it is all about me and mine, and for you, all about you and yours, we still have to admit we exist in a universe that poses multiple questions. These relate to the existence of life, morality, the balance of nature, atheism, truth, religion and a vast array of other subjects all of which provoke debate. We are often dissatisfied with the conclusions of those who have taught us right and wrong, good and bad. This natural process of growing up and forming our own opinions may cause us to question, examine and even reject what we have been taught. I hold views on all of the above, but the one that heads the list for me is Truth. A word that led me directly to questions about faith. Is faith a ludicrous cop out? To the majority of people not birthed in religious belief, agnosticism or atheism may seem the best options. But whichever way we look and from whatever angle all the great questions remain: how, when, why and by what or whom and for what purpose, if any. Is there a definitive answer: a Truth to be discovered? Because if there is, then finding it must be the greatest adventure of them all. To know how and why we exist and in what context? Is it by random chance or designed and purposeful? These are probably philosophical questions but for me it is a matter of faith. And there are loads of choices, far too many; and just to make it more difficult there remains the real possibility that none of them are true.

My own story is that I was brought up the religious route, as a Christian of the Roman Catholic variety. For various reasons I developed a love / hate  relationship with religion. It left me feeling really bad about myself, a state of being for which I largely blamed myself. And maybe for that reason I could not, and worse still did not even want to dismiss it from my mind. I was born and bred into Christianity and it took me a long time to realise it was not what it is believed to be. A revelation which eventually led to my abandonment of Roman Catholicism. At root the Christian faith is not a set of Commandments or a prescribed way of life defined by its religious practice. I now know the Christian life can be lived out in a myriad of different ways. How can that be? Because you only have to look at nature to realise whoever or whatever put it together does not make clones. Nature it seems majors on extremes of diversity. The human genome for example is set up to produce endless variety. No two people are the same: individuality is written in code and hard wired into us. Consequently, my relationship with God will be entirely personal on the one hand and part of the family of God on the other. He may choose one individual to become an astronomer, a second to spend their life helping the helpless and a third to be an Olympic athlete, like the gold medal winner Eric Liddell. At the 1924 Summer Olympics in Paris he refused to run in the heats for his favoured 100 metres because they were held on a Sunday. He was a devout Christian who took Sunday observance as a day of rest very seriously. Instead he competed in the 400 metres held on a weekday, a race that he won. He famously said these words, memorably spoken by the actor playing his part in the film Chariots of Fire.

“I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast! And when I run I feel his pleasure.”

In saying that, Liddell links the pleasure he feels with a pleasure he intuitively believes God feels as well. His running therefore becomes a joy doubled. God experiencing, seeing, feeling and rejoicing as his child expresses the divinely given gift of speed. God is not remote from us, he loves us, and we are made in this loving image; which is no doubt why we love watching our children do well. Liddell was a man who would not compromise his faith for anyone or anything. Those seeking to persuade him were some of the most powerful men in the Olympic movement and the British government. He faced them all down, being prepared in the name of Christ to walk away from the glory on offer.  St Paul is another example, initially a fierce hater of Christianity. A persecutor who was suddenly dropped from his horse, blinded and called by God to be an apostle. You may argue that this is violent coercion, and to a degree it was; but his free will was never crushed. His life and his words bear witness to his individuality in everything he says and does. His sight is restored and he chooses to follow the one who called him. You may find Christianity as you have experienced it a massive turn off. I was brought up on ceremonial and priests and incense and a strict regime of religious practice. In the end I reacted against this form of my faith. Does that make it wrong? No, of course not, for many this way of life is a mark of the respect and awe owed to God. It does little for me which is why I worship in a very different kind of church community. As far as this goes it’s just my opinion against another. My view is that the ceremonial often associated with Church is to some large degree the result of man’s attempt to resurrect the religion out of which it was born: a type of Temple, priesthood and sacrifice orientated religion. I am sure that even those committed to this kind of religious experience: priests, monks, nuns would agree that this could be stripped away, and all the essentials of the Christian Faith would remain. Which is why faith communities founded on scripture alone can thrive in any environment. Because this kind of Christian Faith is robust, proved by the fact that persecution and martyrdom have tended to cause growth rather than loss to the church. No one knew this better than Paul who brought more people into the faith he had hated and persecuted than any other of his fellow apostles. He was a phenomenon.

During his travels Paul came to Athens to preach. He found among the many idols on display a statue to an unknown god. This god about which nothing was known he used to preach about Jesus. His Greek audience listened to a sermon in structure and content not unlike any gospel message you might hear today. The Athenians were interested, a few may have later converted, but the great majority it seems returned to their endless debates. My impression of philosophical discussions is that the last thing those taking part want to do is come to a conclusion. Christianity forces the issue. Confronts you and me just as Paul confronted the Athenians. He told them about the one true God to whom the myriad of gods of this world are just dross and imaginings, objects or ideas formed in the image of their creators. When we set ourselves, or our opinions, or our favoured group up as mini divinities, right in our own eyes and subject to no one we become another false expression of the unknown Greek god: just another idol. We have our gods, billions of them; we make them up much like the Greeks, but they at least had the modesty to look outside of themselves. We are creating a Selfie generation, making ourselves gods. Individualism is what we think we are creating: the My Space, My Kingdom world. It is all about ME! Don’t tell me about a revelation directing Me towards a God who made Me and holds me accountable for the life I have been given.

Consciously or unconsciously we are building a social media dominated society which lives and breathes idolatry; inward looking, self-seeking, self-serving and self-promoting. It centres around us and we have many ways of creating and embellishing our image. But all idolatrous societies have a god who rules above the others: in Greece it was Zeus. And for us perhaps the coming apogee of all this is the Mother and Father of all Big Brother States. A creation built on the longings to be free of ancient traditions about true and false, just and unjust, lawful and unlawful, normal and natural, good and evil. Out of this hatred of the past a great number of protest groups have arisen, each relentlessly articulating their demands. Like spoilt children who can never be appeased. Each of these have produced something which has been incorporated into the image of the beast being formed; like the thousands of golden ear rings out of which Aaron, the brother of Moses made the Golden Calf. An object of worship, but not religious as normally understood. This was uninhibited party time, with dancing, carousing and the loss of all restraint. Does that sound familiar?

When complete, whatever it is that has raised itself to dominance will place itself as arbiter of all things without even so much as a nod to the Creator of the World. We have become little different to those who carved out of wood or formed out of precious metals objects of worship. It is horrifying to see the lengths people of this generation will go to make themselves into something else, at the worst extremes creating an image false from concept to fulfilment: the look being everything. We were made to look beyond ourselves, but have come to think we know better. We can contemplate changes unavailable to any generation before us. We can remake creation in our own image: different by design. Any change being superior to being what I am.

I was recently asked what I thought the Christian response should be to those around us who seek gender change. What would I say to a person who has chosen a gender rather than accept the one into which they were born? It used to be so easy, it was either male or female and they stayed that way throughout life. My wife has given birth to six children: three boys and three girls. In those days the midwife would pass the newborn child to the mother and would proclaim you have a boy, or a girl. The conclusion made on the basis of either a penis or a vagina. That may still be how a modern story begins, but by the age of say ten another choice may be under consideration. What, if asked, do I as a Christian say to that person having reached adulthood? I freely admit I do not really know. The fact that some babies are born with elements of both male and female sexual organs is a tragedy and a reality which cannot just be skimmed over with pious sadness. Nor can the confusion that seems to be growing in the minds of so many regarding their sexuality. Any sense of stability in these areas has gone. The impact is undeniable and knowing what to do or say or write is for me an unsolved problem. I have written in more detail about this subject in other articles. However, this I do know; a Christian who excuses something that goes against what God has said to be true and good cannot speak for Him. But a Christian who forgets he is a sinner is in no position to judge anything. So, it’s a tricky and humbling position, because here am I preaching to you, and I am a sinner.

All I know for sure is that Jesus desires above all to bring us sinners into a state of grace, and he does this by forgiving and restoring on the basis of repentance. We have to acknowledge our sin. We have to turn to Jesus and say sorry. A Christian cannot say a sin is anything less than something which separates us from our Maker. We are asked to love, we are told to weep with those that weep, and to carry one another’s pain and sorrow. We should offer prayer, comfort, hospitality, kindness and understanding. What we cannot say is it is OK to make an idol of ourselves or to change a commandment of God in order to make us feel comfortable in our given body.

We are free to be whatever we want to be, but if Christianity is true we make our choice at a cost. You and I are the fruit of a Tree of Life. Not the Darwinian model but God’s Tree of Life. We belong not primarily to ourselves but to our Maker. When that fruit, you and I, falls to the ground at the end of its life it leaves a seed with the potential for new life. That is a kind of parable for you. Death is not the end of your story, you were created to be born again.

There is no easy or soft way around these things, but there is a loving one, and the loving way is to speak the truth in love. Anything less just covers the problem for a while but never touches its root or changes the life. Jesus is kind, just read how he dealt with the accused woman dragged out of a bed having just committed adultery. Standing while shaking with fear before a group of religious zealots longing to see her stoned to death. Jesus saved her. He did so with those famous words addressed to the woman’s accusers. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Shamed, they each, one by one turned and walked away.

His parting words to her however were “Go and sin no more.”

For her Jesus was a Saviour. He can be exactly the same for you as he has for me and was to her.

The last few decades have been an eyeopener to me. Our country has changed dramatically and those changes have effected everyone. This Blog is about what has happened and how it has changed us.

Everybody hates a self appointed know all, and anyone taking on the subjects I have is likely to face this accusation. Who am I to set myself up as someone worth paying attention to? Good question. The truth is I had a bad experience in the education system, came out of it with no qualifications and for good reasons was considered an irredeemable dunce. However, if you are reading this I can assume you’re at least interested and have probably read some of the Home page. In response to that you may now be any of the following: neutral, hostile or supportive. Because this is a Christian apologia: a defence of my faith it is to an extent argumentative, the inevitable result of taking a stand. In any argument a judgement is involved, especially in one concerning true and false. Between polar opposites like The Truth and everything else there should be a clear divide, like opposing armies lining up on a field of battle. In warfare there are often winners and losers, in arguments this rarely happens. Winning or losing an argument is not usually a decisive moment because neither will admit to being wrong and a body count of dead and wounded is not an option. My conviction is that Truth is only found if it is revealed from somewhere outside ourselves. To be right in our own estimation makes us a god of one in many billions, and of a  type whose only devout worshipper is oneself. As God’s word says: every person is right in their own eyes. If the Truth exists it must stand above every error and falsehood. In these articles I will lay out conclusions drawn from beliefs revealed in the biblical scriptures. This will almost always appear as arrogant. I will speak as if I know what I am saying is true. However this is only because the source of revelation is one who said of himself, I am the Truth. You will know his name: it is Jesus Christ. I believe he is infallible and therefore without error.  As far as I can I have tried to limit any certainties expressed to those based on this foundation; the Word of God in the Bible and what this God has said to be the standards and norms which underpin every part of His creation. I make this point because the Maker of any object, the scale does nor matter, decides the rules: what can and cannot be done. It also involves the moral order and the commands of a God who loves all that he has created. And we, for reasons not covered here, have a human nature messed up to the point of near total ruin. A measure of that love is our God given freedom to reject him and spit in his face. Jesus was hated by the establishment and for much of history so have those who have spoken in his name.

I may well be called many things when this blog site goes public. No doubt various forms of phobias and hates will be diagnosed and condemned. You cannot safely express views considered traditional, evangelical or right wing in the public sphere without consequences. A schoolboy was recently given a detention by his teacher for admitting he favoured the political party UKIP. Comments and articles seen as out of sync with progressive thoughts and social advances are unwelcome, particularly on social media. So I thought it might be an idea to get my reply in first.

For starters, the word “phobia” is an inaccurate term to throw around since it is dictionary defined as an overwhelming fear. It is a disorder requiring psychotherapy, called exposure therapy. If a fear is well justified in a persons mind then it is probably best expressed rather than suppressed. And then there is the thorny problem, who is to decide whether a fear is justified or unjustified? The state law or the person taking offence? Either option is available under current legislation. My difficulty is this: suppose the State is siding with groups and opinions which in some areas conflict with long held social values; and also with realities known to science: biology and genetics, and with Judaism, Islam and Christianity. The result? Within little more than half a century it feels as if the world has gone completely bonkers.

The British State apparatus seems willing to fold before the agendas and lobbying of prized pressure groups. Especially those gathering support from luvvies, celebs and comedians who support anything which keeps them on trend and in public view. That’s the soft side, the face of government shown towards any “progressive” cause. In other areas it is hard, doctrinaire and oppressive in promoting the reign of British Values. As principles these are all fine and good. I have no problem with them as ethical statements, but with their enforcement I have many problems. And as a self confessed dissident what is happening makes me fearful. One reason being I am an evangelical bible believing Christian. A category of person no longer found among the approved of the State or even in large parts of the Church.

British values, equality and diversity legislation and those called to enforce these laws do so on the basis of offences defined as hate speech or action. These laws in my opinion have become dictatorial. Once upon a time giving and taking insults of every conceivable variety was integral to British life. Taking offence was a rarity. Did it get out of hand sometimes, yes of course, and it needed dealing with. However demonising the smallest offence or misguided joke is another matter. And it is on this basis that careers and reputations are being lost. Decent people falling foul of changing language conventions. In the papers as I was writing this section today there appeared a report of a case thrown out by the presiding judge on its first day in court. A senior policeman had been accused by a female police officer, junior to him, with barging into her while in a group of other people. She was not hurt but made a complaint and the wheels and cogs began turning. The accused had been suspended for six months, his career and reputation threatened by the attempted prosecution. When even the judge has contempt for a case then there is cause for thinking that in these areas the law has become an ass. No one is safe from falling foul of the law because it has become like a gun with a hair trigger mechanism: just waiting to go off.

Hate crime is a threat to us all as currently defined, but is expressing hate always bad?

In my view it is often well justified. Hatred of slavery was a great motivating force leading to its abolition. Hatred of child labour led to its being removed from society. The definition of hate in a dictionary takes a lot of the sting out of the word. It is much more nuanced than the Law seems to allow for. Words like abhor, or having an aversion for, or even strongly dislike are listed. What has happened in our society is that some unidentified group of people gathered together to decide how hate crime should be defined. It seems obvious to me that this group had a very well established agenda. It took sides, it was partial rather than what it should have been, impartial. A sign of this is that Christians have been targeted. Many cases that reach court concern the group to which I belong. God is himself guilty of hate speech. He hates sin, loves the sinner but definitely hates sin. And those who framed hate legislation approve of what God has called sin. Our society has turned away so far from God that it now loves and endorses as good what God hates and rejects. This  reversal of roles provides the reason why evangelical Christians holding a traditional conservative biblical theology are now the subjects of hatred. But when the state wraps itself in hate it is no crime, it is a service to the community. The best man that ever lived was crucified according to the demands of this prospectus. Jesus was hated: mainly because he told the truth.

Those of us who hate what others love and admire are now among the hated, and not permitted to say what we believe to be true without risk. Is that fair or just? For myself there is not much I actually hate, but if asked to name one it would be Hate Crime as currently described and enforced. If the criteria for a criminal offence is that someone is offended by something said or done, then no one is safe. It is a law open to malicious misuse, and it has been misused. I strongly dislike being led into a refurbished reality of a type unknown to any previous generation by vociferous, relentless, over sensitive ideologues who form the tiniest of tiny minorities. In the face of this, the great silent majority do what they do best, keep quiet. We are turning ourselves upside down and inside out for the sake of agendas led by an array of individuals who have lost track of what is normal and natural, and in some ways even worse, a sense of humour and proportion.

I do admit however that there are things I dread, fear. loathe and abhor. Here is a short, random and off the top of my head selection. I cannot stand seeing our prime minister, a vicar’s daughter no less, jumping on the LGBTQ bandwagon in order to ingratiate herself with sections of the electorate normally out of her party’s reach. On this kind of manoeuvring  the Conservatives have form. Prime Minister David Cameron dressing himself in the garb of an Old Testament prophet while proclaiming his same sex marriage legislation. Calling it his greatest political  achievement. Confidently asserting the merits of this change despite it being in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. He must have asked himself: who knows best: him or me? After a moment’s consideration, he perhaps looked in the shaving mirror, saw the god he worshipped and came to the only logical conclusion. On the other side of the political spectrum is Jeremy Corbyn, a Marxist who at the time of writing may be close to turning this country towards one of the most hateful and dictatorial forms of government ever seen in the Western world.

I also admit to hating, yes hating the fact that young children in our country are being taught from primary school age upwards to consider what sex they are. As if growing into your biologically and genetically decided gender was not difficult enough. He or she will watch and experience the process of their body and mind developing according to nature’s plan. But nowadays we ask what does nature know? Nothing about modern life, stuck in the past with no thought of change. I know there are those born into intersex bodies, but that is not as yet perceived as an evolutionary advantage or a third sex. On the contrary it is often recognised as a tragedy deserving every kind of help and support. But given the trend of seeing reality in a new light it is little wonder we are watching a generation grow up with increased suicidal inclinations, terrible anxieties and an attraction to dangers like drugs, booze and aimless acts of extreme violence. Many retreat into a virtual world. An unhealthy move which can cause them to lose contact with simple pleasures like communicating conversationally. I mean face to face with a real person. If some of these children are victims they are victims of those who are constructing a dangerous social cesspit of a society close to unfit for human habitation. Information overload and availability to anything anywhere online is not a prescription for healthy living. Also ignorance pervades our society. If we have little sense of proportion or understanding it could be that we have lost our grasp on history.

I have used the word hate a few times to make a point. As a word it is a blunt instrument, easily confused with other expressions like strong dislike or deeply concerned. I have deliberately hyped up the tone of this outburst. It mirrors what is going on in society. Hate Crime for example is a massive over reaction to perceived injustices. Many of our social problems are caused by the loss of a long held moral order and an understanding and appreciation of traditional social conventions. Among these, self discipline, good behaviour, respect for others, kindness, understanding, self sacrifice and love properly understood. We have instead created everything required to sponsor a broken society. And just to make sure, we have decided to take up a sledgehammer and beat the living daylights out of what is left of good old common sense.

The Blog is titled Here Lies the Truth. I hope you now realise why. The truth once known was based on Christian foundation’s. Multi-Faith and Multi-Culture and Political Correctness have conspired to upend that foundation. And the Church has in large part contributed by committing craven suicide through appeasement and compromise. Peace in our time was not a good political slogan to stand under. It had its day and presaged a world war. The Church in our country is for the most part trying to make peace with the world. The precise opposite of that which should absorb its attention. Nevertheless, I still believe in hope. Why? Because the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be proclaimed in good times and bad until the end of the age. It is my intention to add my voice to those others who feel the same. Below is a video about the young Irish couple who ran into trouble over their refusal to bake a cake with a message upon it celebrating and promoting homosexuality. As Christians they decided it was something they could not do. That decision involved them in a four and a half years of legal action ending in the Supreme Court. They are looking back over the experience.

Many people think they know about Christianity. The truth is that about the essentials of this faith little is known. Why a man claiming to be divine and the Creator of all things should go to such extremes of suffering, for you and me, knowing full well that we may ignore it, even despise it as an unnecessary act of self immolation. This is difficult to process, but to throw it out with the garbage, which is what most have done is an act of unspeakable folly. Please, think again! This is not mysticism it is one of the most verified facts of history with a tonnage of supporting evidence.

“It is finished” were the last three words spoken before Jesus died. This is the greatest event in history. The only door to eternal life, long since shut is now opened up to every one of us. Its full purpose awaited the moment of resurrection. Only then could we know for sure that death had finally been defeated. We who are made in the image of God could at last come to realise the full potential of our human spirit: one created by God for a life to come. An impossibility until it was emptied of our innate tendency towards sin and rebellion against our Maker. All this was accomplished by the universal effects of the only sacrifice that really mattered. We remain sinners but in Christ are a new creation, capable of living a life pleasing to God.

About the image above, you may well ask why paint the figure of Christ fully naked when this goes against all artistic convention? The answer: historians state this is how crucifixions were carried out in the Roman Empire. Its purpose? Unimaginable prolonged pain and to expose the victim to public shame and humiliation. This is something we should never forget. He bore not just our sin but also our shame and humiliation so that we could be free of it, both in this world and the next. Jesus was stripped naked. The soldiers who crucified him then cast lots for his clothing. This detail along with many others were prophesied hundreds of years before it happened. No reputable biblical scholar or historian, whether believer or unbeliever, doubts that Jesus was executed by the Romans. If Jesus bore all this for us then in my view it is more shameful to cover up than to expose the reality. If he could bear it then who are we to shield ourselves from what he did for our sake. I believe we place what was not there, a modesty covering loin cloth in order to protect ourselves from embarrassment. So we can lessen the full extent of the horrors and humiliations he endured on that awful cross.

My full understanding of this painting and why it looks so bleak came to me a few hours after it was finished. I had painted it very fast, it took only two hours from getting the impulse to do it, find and unwrap a canvass, formulate the idea, make a mistake and change it from portrait shape to landscape and then on to completion. The original thought was to make it dark and empty of everything but this terrible drama. I was left with nothing to paint other than the crucified figure and leaving nothing for the viewer other than to fix their gaze on the tortured figure. We must deal with him and him only, everything else is secondary. Jesus came to save us and if any other way had been possible I am convinced God would have chosen it. Only with Jesus do we have a choice. Stark choices certainly, belief or unbelief, life or death. With God there is no coercion. He values faith freely given. He will not strap us to a bed, shove a tube down our throat and force feed us his gospel. He gives many reasons to accept him, but they are not so overwhelming we are compelled to believe.

Having finished and while looking at the painting I realised that the cross, a stake driven into the black, lifeless, featureless ground represents Satan’s kingdom of death. As I looked at what I had done its impact hit me. The cross was a weapon formed by God. Satan was the chosen target and this rough wooden stake was now sunk deep into his flesh and spirit. I also realised that Jesus was no helpless victim but was measuring his last few words which are a victory cry.

“It is finished”

And it was finished. Death had lost its sting and been defeated. Satan’s kingdom suffered a mortal blow. His greatest weapon which had been death now forever lost and turned against him. Within three days Jesus had made a way for us: a way to become like him, resurrected and granted the gift of eternal life. His work was to make a way home for us. We call it Heaven. In Christ you are made clean and worthy of heaven, not though your worthiness but through his. He died so that you and I may live. God your Father wants you to find your way back to him though His Son. There is no other way. No likeness to him. No Allah, no Buddha, no Shiva or Isis, no salvation though works and ceremonial, or ritual cleansing or hours of repetitive prayer and meditation. Jesus is not only The Way, he is your way. How can you be sure? Because Jesus, uniquely was resurrected from the dead. Large numbers saw him afterwards, spoke with him, spent time with him, touched him, ate with him, watched his ascension into the clouds. The video speaks of this reality, one which changes everything. If Jesus is still alive then all his claims and those made on his behalf by his followers are very difficult to deny. To miss hearing the evidence laid out for you by a world respected biblical scholar means you do not want to hear evidence, not because there is no evidence. An hour or so of your time is not wasted if as a result you find your God and Saviour.

How many times have you thrown out things you believe are no longer relevant to your life or failed to really understand a person who has passed away, and then lived to regret the loss? Regret is a horrible feeling made worse with the realisation you can never recover what was once held dear to you. Many of you will have walked away from a belief in Jesus without ever really knowing who He is.

 It was a miracle that the Western world was first attracted to and then took into itself a Middle Eastern religion that was at the time, nearly two thousand years ago, entirely new. Christianity was at odds with almost everything that defined the world into which it made its home. It was a world filled with god’s and religions. The Greeks were the most sophisticated people on the Earth at this time. The intelligentsia, because they loved discussing and debating were open to hearing new ideas. However accepting one god as being dominant over the others, including their own pantheon of gods with Zeus at its head was another matter altogether. St Paul was clearly struck by the sheer diversity of gods in Athens; multi faith was welcomed up to a point which is why they had an altar to a unknown god, just in case they had somehow overlooked an important divinity. It is the nature of philosophy to take an interest in novel ideas and the Greeks majored on philosophy. The problem with people of this mindset is that while discussion may be welcomed, making a life changing choice to follow one god to the exclusion of all others was not part of the game. So when Paul stood upon Mars Hill, the site of the Areopagus near the Acropolis in Athens and made his pitch, their response was probably typical: interested but sceptical. My hope is that even if you are sceptical your interest will have been aroused.

We live in a Post Christian society which means this faith is seen by many as irrelevant, out of date, dull, worn out and no longer of interest. A little like Samson following the loss of his extraordinary strength, the church today has become a shadow of its former self. A little over two thousand years ago the Christian faith was a powerhouse, and one of its leading lights was the apostle Paul. Famously at Mars Hill in Athens Paul began speaking to a people who had never before heard the gospel message. Athens was filled with images of their gods and Paul had noticed among them the statue to the unknown god. He chose to base his pitch to the Athenians on this deity without history or name. Paul’s proclamation was of a God far above all others, a God who would make all the philosophies of the Greeks redundant. He was an orator with a message that could, if accepted do to the sophisticates of Athens what Samson did to the Philistines: bring the temple crashing down on their heads and bury all their suppositions under the ensuing rubble. That is what Christianity did to the Roman Empire. The Gospel has that power, and however pitiable its present condition appears it is still undiminished in its authority. Nothing has changed other than one thing. We, unlike the Athenians are not listening at all. The message I am giving you is that the power and authority of the gospel is no less today than it was in the ages during which the Western world became believers in the God made man Jesus Christ. Our present weakness is down to lack of faith in the Word of God, both the scriptures and its Lord, who is Jesus. We Christians have grown weak and compromised and if God does not seem present among us then it is unsurprising. Without faith we cannot please God or do anything pleasing to him in his name. Rather than blame our largely secular and pagan society we Christians ought to apologise to those who see nothing of value to attract them to Jesus. Christianity is intended to be a light set on a hill, like a lighthouse. The fact that we are not such a light to the world is a shame and a disgrace, and I am no better than the rest. It is my hope and intention and prayer to become a better witness to my God. I hope this blog site will contribute to following that call on my life, which is to witness to my faith.

Jesus Christ is real, he lived in history, he died as described, he rose from the dead as eye witnesses testified and he lives in the hearts of those that believe.

Islam is one of three religions, Judaism and Christianity being the other two which believe there is only one God. It was founded in the 7th century AD by Muhammad. The first recorded comment about Islam and its prophet from a Christian source was the following, roughly a century after Muhammad’s death.

‘From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven… and he gave it to them as an object of veneration… But when we ask: ‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’ – they are at a loss. And we remark that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. And we say that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ (the incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die and rise again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. Then, when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?’ They answer that God does as He pleases. ‘This,’ we say, ‘We know, but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet.’ Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep.’

John of Damascus.

It seems obvious that the first impressions of Islam from a Christian perspective were dismissive and entirely negative. And John was a man who would have known that Muhammad was advancing his religion by force and conquest. Jesus Christ, spoke and acted in peace. He did not strike out at or hurt or kill anyone. He died for us and his kingdom while Mohammad initiated centuries and arguably a millennia of warfare. The Islamic empire at various times encompassed most of North Africa, Arabia, the Middle East including Jerusalem. His forces over the succeeding centuries invaded huge parts of Europe which at one time included all of Spain, parts of France, Sicily, parts of southern Italy, the Balkans, Anatolia (modern Turkey, once a Christian country) and all of the old Byzantine Empire (the eastern Roman Empire including Constantinople). Look up Wikipedia, and you find it concentrates on the first couple of hundred years following Muhammad’s death. But these conquests endured remorselessly, century after century and even into relatively recent times up to the demise of the Ottoman empire. This was not accomplished by peaceful evangalisation. It was an often brutal, convert or die policy moderated by a third alternative, demonstrate your submission to Islam by paying the Jizya or jizyah; an annual tax levied on non-Muslim subjects permanently residing in Muslim lands governed by Islamic Law.

It is strange that if this were the history of Britain then the liberals and the left would be demanding we denounced our imperial history with a modern equivalent of sackcloth and ashes. But no, there is nothing but silence because this history belongs to a favoured group and an oppressed minority. We are nevertheless expected to acknowledge shame about our imperial history.

If you were to accept the traditional accounts of Muhammad’s life then in the early days he was a man of peace. The story of Islam’s early roots may well be fundamentally untrue at the historical level. Nevertheless the accounts state that while at Mecca Muhammad had respected and honoured the people of the Book; Jews and Christians. This is unsurprising, since as John of Damascus stated he used the Old and New Testaments repeatedly to substantiate his teachings. But in Mecca Muhammad’s words fell on a largely uninterested audience. He moved to Medina and once there he began preaching with more success. It was during this period that he became a warlord and his revelations turned from a message of peace to one of jihad: either a struggle or fight against the enemies of Islam: “he declared a jihad against the infidels, or the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.

This is why teachings devoted to peace which originated from Mecca, became warlike and expansionist following his attack on the people at Medina. This led to the doctrine of Jihad. Holy war against those that did not submit. Jews, Christians and others became enemies of the truth: infidels. You may say, but surely things are very different now? Well they may appear to be so in the West, if you are prepared to put aside occasional acts of terrorism by small groups of fanatics. There is no reason to doubt that the vast majority of Muslims who have come to the West have done so primarily to improve their lives and prospects, and live in peace. But the teachings of Muhammad are Islam, and Islam is a paradox.

For a start Islam is a faith whose teachings and practises directly conflict with British Values. A few examples: the subordination of women to the rule of men, anti-Semitism, polygamy, honour killing, forced marriages, the killing of apostates, female genital mutilation and a hatred of homosexuals. This list makes Christian concerns about behaviour and moral standards seem more like a benediction. Whenever Islam is mentioned the main fear among the non-Muslim population is terrorism. However, the perpetrators of these acts are a tiny minority. I tend to think the litany of oppression against so many individuals and groups, when gathered together under a semi legal umbrella like Sharia law could be of greater concern. It is remarkable that even though it is known that Sharia Law is part of Islam little is said in opposition to this list of what can only be described as hate crimes. If these were part of Christian creeds all hell would break loose in opposition to a faith that endorsed such a racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic and misogynistic agenda. But scare a whisper of protest is heard. And the greatest victims of these laws? Muslim women and their female children! The fact so few publicly complain is perhaps a measure of male dominance and the culture that permits it to continue largely unchallenged.

Often forgotten or ignored are the well justified fears of what is most likely the great majority of Muslims. Mostly peace seeking moderates who perhaps hoped for protection from western democracies. Longing for British values to be applied and upheld across the board without fear or favour. In other words, freedom from the forms of Sharia Law condoned or enforced in the countries from which they emigrated. In our blind rush to abandon the guidance of our former religion, Christianity, we have fallen foul of another much more legalistic and dictatorial. A religion at odds with all our natural instincts and culture. Protections for one religion to follow religious laws abhorrent to even our secular law books, and open season, like a non stop grouse shoot on the one that defined those moral virtues our nation once lived by. If you disliked historic Christian views on homosexuality then at least face the reality that they were, even at their most extreme, mild in comparison to those that apply under Sharia law in Islamic states. They were not for instance thrown off tower blocks with the approval of clerics or hung until dead from cranes in public squares. Those really are hate crimes. The video is one of many much longer and more graphic which can be found on YouTube.

In a multi-faith environment we are all supposed to get on. That sentiment is very British, but in this case wilfully naive. What follows is a Christian view that many, possibly most Christians would not support. Certainly not the current head of the Church of England: Archbishop Welby.

The god of Islam, Allah, has no link to the God of the Jews and Christians. Muhammad is not a prophet known to either Judaism or Christianity. I realise nothing I am saying in defence of Christianity would not be in some manner thrown back at us by devout Muslims. They believe in their faith and in its doctrines. To them Christianity is a false and corrupted religion, following corrupted scriptures. Many Christians think Islam and Christianity share the same God. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Islam Jesus (Isa) is subordinate to Muhammad. Jesus is not God’s Son because Allah has no Son. There is no Trinity.  Jesus did not die on the cross. Neither did he rise from the dead via resurrection three days after his crucifixion. St Paul said that if Jesus did not rise from the dead then our Christian faith is in vain. So if Muhammad is correct and the Quran is true Christianity has lost its entire foundation, which is the death and resurrection of Jesus. If you are Christian and think there can be fellowship in doctrine then you are terribly deceived. Archbishop Welby pleads for peace, which is a noble and Christian ambition; but not in all cases, as he must know from the teachings and prophecies found in the Bible.

The fact that Islam and Christianity are two faiths set up as equals by our state machinery does not mean that the enmity between them ceases or that peace breaks out. No such peace exists when it comes to the salvation of souls, and if that objective does not drive a Christian like the archbishop as much as it does a Muslim, then what are we about? Truth used to matter, truth divides as did Jesus who is the truth. But truth so defined has all but vanished into clouds of mist arising from the social and religious cohesion preached by British values. We must, so the state informs us always remember to make every effort to embrace the multi-faith agenda. I am afraid to write or comment on this topic. It would be safer to say nothing and preach social and religious cohesion. But I cannot take that pledge. I should not feel fear in expressing a view held in good conscience in a country that avowedly supports free speech, but I do.

I regret that much this will be hurtful to many good people, but what is evidence based should not be ignored because it hurts. And never because it offends against that most ill thought through of all laws: hate crime. These miss some targets altogether while hitting those entirely innocent of intending harm. As stated in an earlier article on this subject, not to face problems solves nothing and can lead to greater injury. Sadly, Islam is in my estimation deserving that part of the definition of a phobia which states: an extreme fear of or aversion to something. That I believe is fully justified. Islam is a religion and a culture with a political dimension. You could argue that political and religious Islam are one and the same. Islam unlike early Christianity won its ground by conquest, a warfare that some historians believe has continued unabated in one form or another for close to 1400 years. The Western civilisation under Christianity has been under almost continual attack because Islam has a call based on the words of its prophet Muhammad to jihad and the mission to create a global caliphate. In this caliphate non Muslims, as inferiors, infidels or kaffirs must pay an annual tax which symbolises their submission. Failure to pay this had very serious consequences. The Quran says terrible things about how this category of human is to be treated. Sharia law is harsh almost beyond measure to those who fall short of Allah’s standards. These laws are the outworking of Muhammad’s revelations.

These factors now play out in Western societies and the effects are there to be seen and documented. It is undeniable that a major effort to minimise the mounting evidence pointing towards the negative impact of Islam in the West is happening all over Europe. Read the book titled: The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Murray and you will find it difficult to deny either his research or his conclusions.

There is much more to be said, and it concerns how the religion of Islam draws its inspiration from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Three hundred years after Christianity had become the dominant faith in the Roman Empire, and six hundred years after the ministry of Jesus and close to three thousand years after Abraham, Mohammad concluded that the biblical scriptures were corrupted. The proof being that he, a prophet greater than Jesus, is not clearly foreshadowed in the Bible due to these corruptions. These missing confirmations of the coming prophet of Islam had presumably been mischievously removed by Jews and Christians from the original scripts. Mohammad is chosen by Allah to be the last prophet of God, the one who will set things right and straight. His corrections and revelations led to the birth of the Quran and Islam. He probably had no idea that the ways Jewish scribes copied their scriptures was just about the most foolproof and scrupulous method ever devised by man. Mistakes other than of the most insignificant kind, like a small error in punctuation, caused an entire manuscript to be rewritten. Jewish scribes had supervisors who checked their work. Errors on the scale required by Muhammad were inconceivable. Where that leaves Islam is for you to judge, I have long since made my decision.

Below is the testimony of two young women whose accounts are very difficult to ignore.

There is no real distinction. In Christianity faith is paramount. However St Paul says we are without excuse because nature provides compelling reasons to believe. We are instructed to live by faith, and in the scriptures reason is less treasured, but it is far from ignored. Jesus told the sceptical to believe in the signs: miracles proving his divine power and authority. These were seen sometimes by just a few people at others by thousands. They had good reasons to believe and few to disbelieve, which is no doubt why huge crowds followed him.  The apostle Thomas was a sceptic, and said he would not believe Jesus had risen from the dead until he saw and touched the wounds of crucifixion. Jesus permitted these to be examined, but said, ‘better are those who have not seen and yet believed.’

Paul argued that both nature and the cosmos bear witness to God as Creator. You may argue that his audience knew nothing about science. I contend that science is a marvel which works within limits. It may explain many aspects of how the cosmos works, but it does not explain the appearance of a planet like earth in a universe like ours. Paul Davies, a physicist and professor at Arizona State University who definitely does not believe in a Creator God, wrote a book titled and subtitled: The Goldilocks Enigma / Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? It’s not too hot, it’s not too cold, and its forces act together in a way that maintains the balance between forces that would otherwise opt for chaos and destruction. Paul Davies, himself a scientist and one of the world’s most acclaimed science writers, shows how everything from the infinitesimally tiny humble carbon atom, to the speed of light and the laws of physics interact as they do, with fine tuned precision. Fine tuned means precisely adjusted to the highest levels of performance, efficiency, or effectiveness. And that is how things must be for life on earth to exist. The chances of this occurring by chance are incalculable.

The rest of this is mostly about science and cosmology, but if you read on it comes apparent just how much of science is founded on faith. The avoidance of a God as an explanation for anything that touches on science has become a surprisingly strong motive to structure all explanations in terms of random chance and meaninglessness. This goes so far and so deep that even cosmology has to be seen in terms which ensure both humanity and our place in the universe are represented as insignificant. The very fact of human existence seems to be perceived as a weird irritant which rather spoils any enjoyment in being the only viewer capable of studying the phenomena. We cannot, must not be seen to as important, or occupy any position in the universe that might tempt us to think we are important. The problem with this position is that we do have reasons to think exactly that. This fact explains the panic you will hear in some of the voices being quoted below, especially from Edwin Hubble and Stephen Hawking.  Why? Because there are many reasons even for atheist physicists to think we are the creation of intelligence, and do occupy a position of significance. And in this article I am just giving a small indication of just how significant we appear to be. If you want to see more evidence please make contact and I will send the further information to you.

Fred Hoyle: Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician was responsible for one the greatest intuitive discoveries in science. The large amount of carbon in the universe, which makes it possible for carbon based life forms like us and all animal life to exist, demonstrated to Hoyle that this nuclear reaction must work. Based on this notion, Hoyle therefore predicted the values of the energy, the nuclear spin and the parity of the compound state in the carbon nucleus formed by three alpha particles (helium nuclei). This prediction was later borne out by experiment. 

He later wrote.

“Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

On the earth there is a system of unbelievable complexity, including a vast array of creatures, plants and bacteria which cannot exist independently. A male and female cannot reproduce offspring without amazingly complimentary physical systems which must be perfectly aligned to each other. The flora and fauna of nature can only exist within an ecosystem, and yet the ecosystem is dependant on the flora and fauna, bacteria, plants, animal life, photosynthesis etc. DNA is made of proteins but proteins receive their instructions via DNA. The chicken and egg and which came first applies throughout nature. Laws of physics before physics, or physics before the laws which seem to rule over otherwise blind forces. This all speaks of a Designer and a Designer speaks of God. The universe seems to be at the service of planet Earth. These are some of the reasons for the title of Paul Davies’s  book. For Goldilocks just about everything was just about perfect. This is not good news for those who dispute the God Did It version of Creation. Maybe as a consequence of this there is a theoretical principle in science called the Copernican Principle. It states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System are not privileged observers of the universe. That there is no centre in which to be located, and our position is one of mediocrity at best, only of interest because we have given birth to that strange anomaly called life. This is the fixed view of modern science. It was not however a view echoed by Einstein who throws a spanner in the works by saying the following.

The struggle, so violent in the early days of science,
between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then
be quite meaningless. Either CS [Coordinate System]
could be used with equal justification.
The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’
would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different co-ordinate systems.

What happens when more than one possible co-ordinate system can be applied to a theoretical problem in science? The answer! Trouble with a capital T. The following quotes are from the website Harmonia Philosophica.

‘People used to think the Earth as the centre of the solar system. That model is called “geocentric”. It was supported by Aristotle and first widely promoted by Ptolemy. That was the story until the 16th century “revolution”. It was then that Copernicus, actually copying and promoting an old idea of an ancient Greek astronomer (Aristarchus), proposed that the Sun should be promoted to the centre of the solar system. Since then most people think that the Sun being at the centre of the solar system is the “truth”. That couldn’t be more far from the truth, since as I am going to show in “Chapter II – Nothing wrong with Changing Coordinate Systems”, it is completely valid to use any coordinate system you want in order to formulate physical laws. What is more, not many people know that even though scientific data showed that the Earth is at a privileged centric position in the universe, cosmologists in the days of Hubble chose simply not to “accept” that data based on philosophical grounds, see “Chapter III – Heliocentric system is based on dogmas and not data”.’

‘Heliocentric system is based on dogmas and not data.

Exact sciences like physics have many limitations, often disregarded by their “followers” (i.e. people who think that measuring, evidence-based exact science is all, then we forget the basis of our science. When we forget that we use axioms (and that if we use other axioms we will reach completely different conclusions) then those axioms turn into dogmas. And dogmatism, in any form, is not a good thing…’

What follows is a quote from Edwin Hubble.

“…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favoured position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape” (Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology)

The famous astronomer Edwin Hubble published on 1937 a study on the cosmological model of the universe, under the title “The Observational Approach to Cosmology”. In the data published in that study it was evident that Earth appeared like having a “unique” position in the cosmos, i.e. that it was in the centre or very close to it. However Hubble chose not to accept that unique position based on philosophical propositions (principles) that be believed in.

In particular and even though the nebula distribution showed that Earth should be in a centre position, he discarded that idea based on the “principle” that we are not unique (so it is illogical to say that we are in a privileged centre position in the Universe). In order to accommodate that “principle” he added some corrective factors to his equations! As simple as that! No hard data, no scientific analysis – a plain philosophical choice was the basis of the choice of heliocentricity over geocentricity!’

Stephen Hawking also prefers this co-ordinate system.

‘Stephen Hawking says about these principles that “…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the centre of the universe.” 
He does provide and alternative view, though, as he continues: “There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption.

We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.”

We always keep in mind that the now used heliocentric model is not based purely on scientific data but also on philosophical propositions. That is not something “wrong” on its own. Everyone uses such assumptions when talking, thinking, writing scientific papers. What is “wrong” is trying to persuade people that what you say is the “only truth” that is acceptable by science…’

From Harmonia Philosophica.

So, two of the greatest names in science were prepared to place their primary axiom, the Copernican Principle before the data they had themselves observed. How did they save the it all? The Big Bang theory with all its unproved fudge factors: hyper inflation caused by they know not what, which necessarily ceased its expansion almost immediately, halted by a power unknown. Put that conjecture together with an unseen 97% of the universe, the blacked out twins of cosmology: dark matter and dark energy and you have the theory accepted today. That is how far they will go to protect their theory from one that could explain things much more easily. One proposed by George Ellis, the co-author with Stephen Hawking of the 1973 book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time.

The following is also from the website Harmonia Philosophica.

‘Ellis has argued ‘that the geocentric model removes the need to “invent” terms like “dark energy” or “dark matter” to explain how galaxies in the cosmos move. He has proposed that we live on a planet that is near one of the two centres the universe has and, according to his calculations , the more geocentric model he advocates removes the need to “invent” terms like “dark energy” or “dark matter” to explain how galaxies in the cosmos move. He has said:

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” […] “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its centre, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” […] “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”’

All of the above should cause a few who would ridicule the geocentric model of the universe to bite their lip. George Ellis is no idiot. Two more quotes just to nail his opinion to the wall.

“If the Earth were at the centre of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce red-shifts wherever we looked! [This] theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations“

George Ellis has also said:

“I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its centre, and you cannot disprove it[…] A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

The video below is well worth your time, although it is very long and its subject matter difficult. It stretched my comprehension to the limits. This lecture opened up to me a view of what must have existed prior to the existence of the universe. His speculation is astonishing and God does not figure in it at all.

George Ellis is a world renowned scientist who co-authored a book with Stephen Hawking. In this video below he is speaking to an invited audience of scientists and students. Both the lecture and the following Q & A session are fascinating. He is not a Christian, he may well be a theist or an agnostic. Half way through his lecture he begins opening up on a subject entirely new to me. Things that physics, chemistry and biology cannot explain. He argues from a philosophical mindset that before the universe existed there had to be aspects of this world already in existence. Here are just three of them: mathematics, ethics and beauty. He begins his list with mathematics because physics is based in mathematics. His argument is entirely novel as far as I know and he speaks it out to an audience of his peers. He has a big reputation to cherish but chose to trespass into areas far beyond empirical science. It seemed to me when I first heard his talk, that he risked almost everything. Did he speak of God? No he did not. But I have the feeling God must have been hovering somewhere in the ether. In his quiet, understated way Ellis also trashed the multiverse, quantum, string and other speculative theories as being beyond the possibility of scientific proof. Which means they are close to pseudo science.

He is a man well worth listening to, even though it is a very long session.

For well over a thousand years marriage has been known as a union between a man and a woman. This view aligns with nature, the combination of male and female is the common and only practice among the higher mammals.

The  union of man and woman is the only natural way to procreate. All through nature you can see the good sense and order in this arrangement. The female is fully and beautifully equipped by nature and instinct to nurse and feed the offspring. She seems, as if by design, the superior and natural carer, a conviction born out by studies on the known differences between the sexes. The male partner during the period of childbearing and nurturing into adulthood tends to provide for and protect both mother and her young. These are necessary roles and each sex seems perfectly adapted to fulfil them. It has taken social engineering on a grand scale to muddy what were once crystal clear waters, reversing roles, masculinising females and emasculating males.

Incredibly, this picture of family life is seen as a shameful exploitation of the female due to this apparent empowering of the male over the female. In order to correct this appalling injustice feminism chose to fight against this and every other perceived ill visited by the brute male on the downtrodden female. Another cause celebre that has undermined our society and thrown it into multiple disorders which continue to reverberate through every level of male/female interactions. The result: huge numbers of disorientated and broken families. This victim mentality has permeated our country, becoming an increasingly vicious battle for rights causing division in every sphere of life.

Here are some verses from the Bible relating to the covenant relationship between a man and a woman.

Genesis 1:27-28: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ ”

Ecclesiastes 4:9: “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labour: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone?”

Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Mark 10:9: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Ephesians 5:25-33: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church…”

That last scripture could not place women in a higher place, because Jesus is the lover of the bride, and his love cannot be surpassed.

In our society the commands and decrees and wisdom of our creator God are being overthrown, but at what price? Marriage was once a well understood institution; the bedrock of society. A safe haven for the nurturing of children, in good marriages one in which the father and mother provide positive role models for their children. The disintegration of this model, which began in the 1960’s, if put into a graph would I believe reflect the incremental levels of confusion and breakdown seen in relationships over the last half century or more. If you can find a good and loving partner and join together in marriage then your chances of happiness are hugely increased. Marriage was created by God for us so that we can discover in the other person more about love, life, self sacrifice, give and take, fulfilment and joy. In the bible there is in the book of Revelation the picture of marriage, a love affair between a bridegroom and his bride. It describes Jesus, the bridegroom coming for his bride.  This picture is in so many ways based on a Jewish marriage and its procedures. The bridegroom goes to prepare a place for his bride. Jesus said to his disciples that he was going to prepare a place for us.

John 14 v 3

“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.”

Below is a Jewish view, not on marriage specifically but on having an encounter, engaging in a relationship with someone who should have been very remote to him. Dr. Dauermann is a lovely, kindly, gentle presence.