The ‘gay Christian': an oxymoron

I read in the Pink News that a “Christian council worker sues after being sacked for homophobic email.”

Denise Haye, 25, worked at Lewisham Council’s legal services department.

Last September, she used her work email address to send an email to Rev Sharon Ferguson, head of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (sic).

She wrote that Rev Ferguson should be “ashamed” of herself and that homosexuality was “not normal” and a sin. Citing the importance of repenting in the “last days”, Haye added, in capitals, “the wages of sin is death”.

This is absolutely correct. The very fact that so many now view homosexuality as normal is a sign that we are in the last days. The Bible tells us that “the wages of sin is death”. Is it now a crime for a Christian to quote from the Bible when emailing another alleged believer? Or just via the council’s email system?

If this ‘reverend’ really were a Christian, she would surely have tried to settle her concerns in private with Denise Haye rather than going straight to the Council to complain. I’m sure she knows there is increasing persecution which Christians are experiencing in their places of work, so why would she want to subject a fellow believer to this?

She (Rev Ferguson) told PinkNews.co.uk: “I’m not questioning that she thought she was doing the right thing. But there was no love and compassion in her email. It was full of death and damnation.

This ‘gay Christian’ lives in la-la land. It’s a very dangerous place to be when dealing with matters of the soul. She thinks that she can sin and sin and never repent. She doesn’t even concede she is sinning. She’s a gonner at present.

What I have found by discussing matters on the internet with self-labelled ‘gay Christians’ is that they seem to be ‘gay’ first and have tried to reform Christianity around their sexuality.

You see, this wasn’t a difference of opinion (and that’s what it was, but blown up into a major ‘hate’-related incident, as usual) between two Christians, but between a homosexual and a PC dissident.

Haye is now taking Lewisham Council to court for unfair dismissal. She was suspended for six months and then dismissed.

What amazes me is that homosexuals have become such a selfish, pride-filled tribe that they don’t have a shred of understanding or compassion for this woman losing her job.

I have read the reader comments on the Pink News article. These are quite typical responses:

The only concern this bigot is showing by stating such drivel, is for herself

Says David North. They just don’t ‘get it’ that people are genuinely concerned and that is why we get involved. Why bother otherwise?

Regular Pink News commentator Adrian T chips in with this:

Good riddance to scum like this, sending such e-mails from the workplace. There should be no room for hate fuelled bigotry in the workplace.

See what I mean? They just cannot see the folly of their ways.

Iris says:

Disgusting. “the wages of sin is death”? That sounds like a threat to me.

It is a threat. From the Almighty. The Bible is full of threats, because the wages of sin is death. That’s why you need a Saviour.

Lee is unforgiving too:

Her email was full of death and damnation – I hope this matter has been passed onto the police for investigation as a hate crime.

What punishment would you like to see, Lee? Feeding her to the lions?

Jennifer Hynes writes this.

Can people stop calling these people Christian please? It gives the millions of queer Christians (like me) a really bad name.

This is mind-blowing in its ignorance.

Rose says:

Silly cow. Not only homophobic but as usually dragging Christianity down with it. As I have said before, I am a Christian

Yeah, it really sounds like it.

At this time, The Halcyon seems to be the only one concerned:

Sacking was a bit harsh

But it doesn’t cut ice with the others.

Homosexuals have been mollycoddled so long now that they are becoming like the street thugs who refuse to be ‘dissed’. On this evidence, they have become cruel and uncaring; totally unable to see the other person’s point of view. Worse than that, they think the other person should be treated as a ‘hate’ criminal.

It is actually a tragedy for our country. It would have been avoidable if we had a government that knew the difference between right and wrong and acted in the best interests of our country. It’s clear we’ve not had one of them for quite a while.

What Denise Haye did was out of love. I know, because that is also my motivation. The hatred is clearly expressed in the comments section of the Pink News. Black is now white and two plus two equals five. Everything is made to make sense, except reality.

My hope and prayer is that people will see that the sins of the flesh war against the spirit and so will repent, believe and be saved. The alternative is grim beyond our wildest imaginations.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

138 Responses to The ‘gay Christian': an oxymoron

  1. AdrianT says:

    We’ve seen you rage at billboards highlighting the fact that some people are gay, which you take personal offence at; longing for the day when being gay is a criminal offence. It’s quite hilarious, to read your ridiculous posts, and your screeds against people who mean you no harm, and just want to get on with their lives without interfering busybodies sticking their noses in.

    The fact that many people around the world share your ignorance – from islamic death squads to thugs at football matches and neo-nazi murderers like David Copeland – this does not make you any nearer the truth. You are still an ignorant buffoon.

    Homosexuality is not taboo all around the world – wherever reason prevails, homosexuality is a non-issue. Maybe you don’t get out of Stranraer enough, but this taboo is breaking down.

    It’s high time you got used to the fact that there are gay people, who have no interest in your message, and that you kept your bigoted opinions to yourself, especially since they are based on nothing but primitive bronze age text and not evidence.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Those billboards weren’t devised by people who “just want to get on with their lives”.

    Being opposed to sodomy is not being “an ignorant buffoon”. Trying to foist it onto wider society and trying to silence dissent is what makes one that.

    I’m pretty glad I don’t get out of town much. It’s pretty normal here compared to most places.

    I keep supplying evidence, but some people don’t want to listen.

    Comparing me with Nazis and murderers is just pathetic. You don’t have a leg to stand on. The ‘gay’ movement has only got where it’s got because of mass conditioning, friends in ‘high’ places and bullying (like those ads).

    Plus: bronze is as real today as it was 4,000 years ago!

  3. English Viking says:

    In the interest of equality which, I am reliably informed, is the most important concept the world has ever seen, and not wishing to exclude the ‘homosexual community’ from participating in all aspects of modern society and receiving the recognition it so richly deserves, I feel it is only fair to point out that this particular ‘community’ has has successes in the psychopathic murder ‘scene’ that eclipse the awful acts of Copeland (he was a Christian y’know? Well, kind of. Well, not at all really, I only mention his name because it evokes strong emotions, which is a much easier thing to do than prove my point). Try Dennis Nilsen, serial homosexual rapist and murderer, responsible for the deaths of at least 16 young men, most of whom he dismembered, ate parts of and/or retained their rotting corpses for months, often in his bed, often having sex with that corpse. That was, of course, if he didn’t flush chunks of them down the toilet.

    Ahh, it’s a wonderful thing, equality!

  4. AdrianT says:

    (How appropriate that you should provide a link to the website of a crank who blames the gay community for the rise of the Nazis. And you have yet to provide a scrap of evidence for any of your claims, beyond anecdote and personal prejudice.)

    And how stupid and paranoid, Stewart. Nobody is ‘foisting’ anything on you. No-one is forcing you to go kiss another guy. The argument about homosexuality is over. It is not an issue with intelligent people. It is not an issue for any medical or psychological institution.

    Since LGBT people are singled out for abuse and assault – as the murders of Michael Causer and Ian Baynham are testimony to, and the fact that bullying of gay kids is rife in schools – it’s high time bigots like you got used to sharing this planet with other people. And I mean real bullying, not imagined cases of self-pity, dreamt up on a weekly basis by the whackaloons at the Christian Institute.

    Would you regard a sign saying ‘Do not trespass’ as Orwellian? Someone who marches onto someone else’s private property needs to be told to ‘shove off’. ‘Some people are gay, get over it’ is no different. The message of the posters is that other people’s private affairs, which harm no-one else are not your damn business. It’s not your territory. Interfering bigots actually definitely need dictating to. By what right do you make consenting adult relationships your business, Stewart?

    You are right about one thing Stewart. This fight is indeed based on love: being able to express affection with the person you love the most. That’s what has driven this fight and why we are winning, Stewart. What you find disgusting is purely a matter of subjectivity. It is no more relevant that you find my idea of love making disgusting, than whether you find Chinese or Italian food disgusting. That is the bottom line.

    Live and let live, love and let love, Stewart. Civilised society doesn’t tolerate those who do not. Society works when everyone learns to get on, and when people’s prejudices are not elevated above the rights and needs of others. And there is no greater need than to find love. The choice is yours: do you want to be part of civilised society or not?

    It’s because of people like you that we are compelled to hold pride marches, to remind you and others like you – like Islamofascists and Neonazis, as your doctrine is as intensely evil in its purest form – that you shall not succeed.

  5. Stewart Cowan says:

    Come on now, EV, some homosexuals aren’t like that at all.

    Adrian, dear Adrian: what website, what Nazis?

    “No-one is forcing you to go kiss another guy.”

    What they are forcing is a change in society’s norms.

    “It is not an issue for any medical or psychological institution.”

    I’ve written before: in March it emerged that almost a fifth of therapists in the UK had helped patients deal with unwanted homosexual attraction.

    It’s an issue for a lot of people.

    I don’t believe there are LGBT children. There are unhappy ones who want to be someone else and there are confused ones due to the media and sex ‘education’, then there are the ones with hormones going awry. Yes, there’s bullying, for all sorts of reasons, so I say, bring back the belt and sort it all out and treat everyone *equally*. Isn’t that what this is supposed to be all about?

    “By what right do you make consenting adult relationships your business, Stewart?”

    Good question. I wrote a post about it: Other people’s sexual choices – do they matter?

    To love somebody is different to wanting to have sex with them: that’s lust.

    “It is no more relevant that you find my idea of love making disgusting, than whether you find Chinese or Italian food disgusting.”

    This is classic, Adrian. Classic. The very first paragraph of the mind-control experiment that is The Overhauling Of Straight America:

    “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.”

    No big deal? I know it must be inconvenient that some of us can still think for ourselves and know the difference between sodomy and sorbet!

    What is love? To tell someone they are making a mistake or to keep on letting them do it?

    Do I want to be part of civilised society or not? That’s why I write what I write – to preserve (or reinstate) civilised society.

    You hold Pride marches because you’re desperate for attention and to stir things up. It’s ironic it should be called ‘Pride’ when pride comes before destruction. Maybe a bit less pride and a bit more humility, eh?

  6. English Viking says:

    Stewart Cowan @ 3:40 PM

    You are absolutely right Stewart, not all homosexuals are serial killers and rapists. That was the point of my post. It was to highlight the stupidity of attempting to paint all heterosexuals who object to perverse sexual practices being promoted in public, as ‘hate criminals’ of the same ilk as David Copeland.

  7. AdrianT says:

    I’ll ask again. How do two gay people in love and expressing their love affect you, in any way? They don’t. And your risible attempt to ink the horrendous attack on 2 children in possibly one of the most homophobic areas of the country, to society’s supposed acceptance of gay people, is mindless babble. The point is Stewart, people aren’t mass conditioned to realise gay people mean others no harm – people come to these conclusions for themselves, based on evidence, and often in spite of society’s ‘norms’.

    Evidence, reason, logic are, of course, all anathema to you, because your brain is so warped now, you have to be told what to think and say by fanatics like the Christian Institute, and other nutcase organisations in America. Mass conditioning only works on those incapable of thinking for themselves.

    The fact that a tiny proportion of gay people cannot reconcile their religion with their sexuality is not evidence for homosexuality being a treatable condition (attempts to change people’s sexuality fail dismally, and causes immense psychological damage, which is why all institutions denounce it as quack therapy). You can believe what you like – it doesn’t change that fact that there are LGBT people.

    Above all, I find it laughable that you, of all people, call for others to show humility. You are the one making massively arrogant claims. You claim to be on intimate terms with the mind of ‘God’ on sexual matters. You claim to have better information than all the medical and psychological institutions around the world on matters of sexuality. Most laughable is that you – a single man at 46 – claim to know what’s best for other people, whom you do not know. Hugely arrogant claims. As the supposed Jesus warned in Matthew 5:11, his followers must expect mockery, hatred. Hatred is a bit strong, as it is a waste of emotion – but as I have written before, it’s a moral obligation to ridicule and show contempt for religion-soaked half-wits, who make the private lives of others their business.

    Make no mistake, Stewart – if you make it your business to interfere, we will have to intervene in your affairs. The real question is why do you believe all this nonsense? You only turned to Jesus Christ, for a religious whitewash, to wash your responsibilities away after ruining your life through alcohol abuse, for your eternal salvation. The ultimate act of selfishness. You aren’t speaking from a position of reason, but from being hostage to the ultimatums of Matt 25:41, or John 15:6. Accepting all the evidence against your claims, or simply leaving others be, puts your supposed salvation at stake, as you live in terror of these commands, ‘believe in me or burn in hell’. You seethe about mass conditioning, but fail to see how your mind has been warped to the point where it is impossible to have a rational debate with you. Who but a slave wants such nonsense to be true?

    And here we all are, showing your beliefs to be nonsense. Unlike you, Stewart, other people – gay, straight, trans, bi – manage to get through life perfectly fine, contributing to society, and building perfectly happy families. Most people don’t need Jesus Christ in order to be good, or in order to know when to leave the whisky alone. You failed, and your need for a religious crutch to get through life shows you to be less of a man, not more.

    What would be society like if your ideas took hold? We are inundated with tens of thousands of asylum seekers, desperately fleeing such societies. Statistics prove that wherever religion takes hold, there is ignorance, disease, poverty, violence, death. We don’t want that, thanks.

    PS. I’ll be the judge of what and what is not love inside my family, thanks, I don’t need a lecture from an unloved, unlovable, sex-starved fanatic. And believe me, I don’t want your love either. There’s an extremely popular car bumper sticker in the US – ‘Focus on Your Own Damn Family’. It would be sensible for you to heed that advice, and stop making a fool of yourself on this and other blog-sites. But please go ahead, if needs must. It’s entertaining, and it helps the atheist cause no end, speeding up the conversion of churches into apartments, bars and clubs (the Paradiso in Amsterdam, for instance, host to the excellent Rapido parties – any of you ‘strugglers’ out there, feel free to google it before throwing your sins on the saviour afterwards and pretending it didn’t happen. ssh, it’s our secret.).

    With folks like you, to remind people why religion poisons everything, who needs Richard Dawkins afterall?

  8. Jim Baxter says:

    Well, that’s you told Stewart. Personally, I have much sympathy for what Adrain says – not about Stewart – whatever Stewart’s character might be, Adrian’s remarks are a bit rude. OK. Stewart’s views might seem not merely rude but inrusively, obsessively objectionable to those who behave in ways he thinks are both wrong and destructive to society. I cannot see that homsexuality is destructive to society – most Roman emperors were bisexual or homosexual and their empire survived long enough to be changed into something else by other factors.

    Sorry, I was trying to find a point worth making and I drivelled on there about something else. My point is, that not having a view on how other’s live their lives, minding our own business, is itself a point of view. A society in which all do their own thing is at risk, not least from other societies which are much more restrictive. Stewart’s focus on homsexuality seems bizarre to me but, having read much of what he has said in his blog over the past few months, Stewart’s view seems to be that open homsexuality is a symptom of a societal ill, a breakdown in discipline. If any restoration of that discipline involves homosexuality being returned to the furtive, even the criminal, as it was in this country a mere 40 or so years ago, then it is discipline we can well do without. Homosexuality, contrary to Stewart’s belief, is not only natural – that is not enough – psychopathy is also natural – it is neutral as far as the safety and stability of a society is concerned. My own view would be that he has identified as a symptom of this alleged breakdown something that is, ironically, nothing of the kind. His reasons for this – he well knows that repressed homsexual himself is bound to occur to many – have no bearing on his argument.

    Finally, (thanks be) here is where I do agree with Stewart There is a danger in lassez, er, lasays, lessez – in encouraging the do-your-own-thing attitude – that whatever you do is entirely your business as long as you ‘do no harm’. That danger is that that attitude itself, insofar as it encourages selfish isolationism, may do harm to others. The middle-aged, of which group I am currently a reulctant member, have always had a tendency to delude themselves about the ‘youth of today’. I meet many of the more educated youth of today and I find most of them to be more responsible, open to diversity, sensitive to injustice, and keen to make a contribution than my own bone-idle, drunken, realtively bigoted generation was at their age.

    But I don’t know how representaive they are. And I see evidence that there is something going badly wrong in our schools which are not as they were 40 years ago. I wonder what attitudes are behind this problem and what harm they are doing.

  9. AdrianT says:

    I saw no one way signpost on Realstreet, so I presume being rude and attacking people in their deepest integrity is a two-way street, as it should be.

    Anyway, I make no apologies. Reason is the only way to get to the truth, and if you keep asking ‘why’ you get to the bottom of everything. I want to know why Stewart believes what he believes, when everything he says flies in the face of evidence. What is more likely, the whole of expert opinion is wrong? Or is it Stewart? It’s not enough to then say, ‘well the bible has better answers.’ The reasons Stewart gives for his beliefs are not good ones. They are entirely personal, nothing more than wishful thinking, as part of an investment in his own salvation – a deal he did to redeem himself. A deal which benefits no-one else. The argument can only be personal, when the struggle is about love.

    (You are completely right, Jim, to say that isolationism is harmful. The argument about allowing shari’a kangaroo courts in this country – supported by the current government and dolts like Rowan Williams – is perhaps the worst example. One has to be sensitive to another’s injustice, fight other people’s causes, and be there to condemn or praise when appropriate. There are such things as guilty bystanders. Incidentally, is it also rude to dismiss relationships of a great many people as mere ‘lust’? ‘Do as you would be done by’, Jim….)

  10. Jim Baxter says:

    It should indeed be a two-way street, Adrian – I was merely making an observation. Stewart can look after himself but it’s fair I think to say that his arguments tend about behaviour rather than individuals – the sin not the sinner – as the religious would no doubt say. If Stewart has ever been less than compassionate about individuals, hopeful for what he thinks should be their chances to correct what he sees as errors which will cost them eternally, then I’ve missed it.

    Personally, I think his religious views are barmy – his views, mind, not Stewart himself – he has too sharp a sense of humour to be properly barmy – something he may have to work on losing if he is ever to be fully embraced by the lunatic, er, ‘community’. But he does have a point in the title of this thread: I am no biblical scholar – never had any time for Tolkien either – fantasy I find boring – but I’ve never heard that the Bible is tolerant of homosexuality, which makes me wonder why all homsosexuals don’t reject it, since it rejects them. It’s an irony that there is a version dedicated to King James VI/I whose sexual preferences were, well, catholic, in the non-religious sense of that word, of course.

  11. Jim Baxter says:

    Sorry, meant to comment on this:

    ‘Reason is the only way to get to the truth’.

    Is it? As I’ve said here before that statement is itself a dogma. Kant had a lot to say on that subject, as did Russell. Our reason and our five physical senses can only take us so far. This is why I have some sympathy with those who hold that there is a spiritual dimension to our existence which reason cannot reason with. Empiricist atheists and the faithful, of whatever faith, simply aren’t talking the same language. In a way, they’re not on the same planet.

  12. English Viking says:

    Jim Baxter @ 12:37 wrote:

    ‘It’s an irony that there is a version dedicated to King James VI/I whose sexual preferences were, well, catholic, in the non-religious sense of that word, of course.’

    If you mean that that he was a homosexual, you would have very scant evidence for this. Apart from his friendships with a few male court officials, there is none, other than the rumours and slander put about by the Catholic dissenters who vehemently objected to a Protestant King. You would also need to ignore his marriage, and it was commonly recorded that he was infatuated with his wife, the 7 (or 9, nobody’s sure because they kept dying!) children this union produced, the notable affairs with other young (and no so young) ladies of the court and the fact that he was the author of a book which included his quote ‘sodomy is a sin which one is conscience bound not to forgive’. Hardly loud and proud.

  13. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    Few were openly glad to be gay in those days. He was bisexual. No less uncommon among royals than among the rest of us. It’s an irony – that’s all – and I do not suggest it is any reflection of any kind on the contents of the KJ Bible, or indeed on those who dedicated it to their monarch.

  14. AdrianT says:

    Fair enough Jim, there are some axioms in life. Life wouldn’t be worth living without love, humour, companionship, among others. Justice is worth fighting for. And so on.

    But when something can be demonstrated, or a choice of explanations is available, there has to be a process of elimination, quality control check, to select the most plausible explanation. I say firmly that Stewart’s premises are within this realm.

    Some things we don’t know, we might get round to knowing; other things we cannot know. We cannot know about a supernatural expanation to life’s mysteries for example. To reach the conclusion that there must be a supernatural explanation, and that we have all the answers after all, actually requires some reasoning: a decision to eliminate all other potential explanations, and make that specific leap of faith. This is done by UFO enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists as well of course. Stewart could be right, but how probable is it, when considering the alternatives, and given what we know now of nature and the cosmos?

    Thomas Paine pointed this out when he asked us what is more likely – that nature actually went out of her course, or that someone told a lie, or got ‘the wrong end of the stick’? “We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time. It is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.” (‘Age of Reason’, ch.17)

    It related to the tale of Jonah being stuck inside a whale. Food for thought anyway…

  15. English Viking says:

    Jim,

    Your views are well presented and reasonably fair, but what I think is unfair is to say, unequivocally, that King James I/VI was a bisexual, without any real evidence. It is entirely possible that he was, it is equally entirely possible that he was not. The only inklings we have that he may have been bisexual are the slurs and rumours put about by Catholics, who at that time were violently opposed to a Protestant King. It was, you will no doubt recall, this very same King that the Catholic Guy Fawkes and his mob attempted to murder in the Gunpowder Plot. If they were willing to murder him, calling him a few names would not have been beyond them.

  16. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘To reach the conclusion that there must be a supernatural explanation, and that we have all the answers after all, actually requires some reasoning: a decision to eliminate all other potential explanations, and make that specific leap of faith.’

    I almost agree, Adrian, and certainly agree with what you go on to say. I would quibble though that faith requires any reasoning at all. Many religious people of course think that their views are entirely reasonable but there is often an element of intuition. That may be a deslusion – I happen to think it is – but I accept tyhat it is very real for those who report it. What you see when you have the DTs is very real at the time too. That sounds like a sneeringly facetious comparison but I don’t actually mean it that way. What I mean is that there are many religious people of unimpeachable personal integrity who report spiritual experiences. Emprically, there may be due to effects in their brains – a God gene – or they may, of course, be shadows of as much wider reality that those of us who have never had such expereinces – and I’m one of them – can grasp.

    I agree that the simplest explanations are the best. English Viking has said that it takes more faith to believe in a Godless universe than not. I don’t agree but it’s an interesting point. My own view echoes some of what you (Adrian) say: religious feelings fulfil a personal need and do so so strongly than people cling to them in defiance of all logic. But I accept that there is, oh, some validity in the reciprocal view. The diffence is that if evolutionary theory were to be overturned tomoorow by a startling new emprical or otherwise revelation I would gain or lose nothing, personally, apart from knowledge. I have yet to hear of a religious person who believes that they themselves are damned but that everyone else should try hard to be saved.

    English, my thanks and apologies. What I say so apparently dogmatically about that monarch I mean as my settled judgement, based on what I know of him and his secret passage to another man’s bedchamber. I concede though that the evidence is either circumstantial or hearsay.

  17. AdrianT says:

    A burning bush, a resurrection, a second coming would be fascinating. It would open up another avenue of science, and come into the realm of reason ;-)

    I don’t say I reject eternal life with ease. It would be amazing if it were true, to know all the mysteries, and see how people get on with finding answers to these problems. The opportunity to chinwag with Galileo, Aristotle, Darwin… of course. I would hate to live in an atmosphere of eternal praise to an eternal, unchanging, unassailable, unalterable dictator though.

    Still, I don’t deny others the right to experience what is sacred to them in whatever way they please, so long as that has no implications for others.

    But the problem English Viking has, is this: with Evolution, abiogenesis (a single point in time where a collection of molecules replicated themselves), and the Big Bang, I only have the problem of explaining the origins of life once. By positing a creator, you just push the problem one stage back, and have to explain creation more than once, possibly infintely.

  18. English Viking says:

    Adrian T @ 1:21am

    Hello Adrian, don’t you ever go to sleep?

    You wrote: ‘But the problem English Viking has, is this: with Evolution, abiogenesis (a single point in time where a collection of molecules replicated themselves), and the Big Bang, I only have the problem of explaining the origins of life once. By positing a creator, you just push the problem one stage back, and have to explain creation more than once, possibly infintely.’ (sic)

    The question is whether or not the phrase ‘gay Christian’ is an oxymoron, but I am happy to discuss creation if you so wish.

    You speak of molecules that replicate themselves; whence did these molecules originate? How did they replicate? What started this unknown process? Why?

    You speak of a ‘Big Bang'; what was it that exploded, where did it come from and who lit the fuse?

    These questions and others show that abiogenesis does not in fact explain the existence of matter before the alleged explosion, it simply ignores the requirement for an explanation, mostly by couching it’s theory in arcane terms that most people don’t understand and are not willing to challenge, for fear of appearing stupid. I have never had such fears as most people think I’m deranged anyway.

    The Big Bang theory is a relatively new idea. The previous theory that held great sway in academic and atheist circle was the exact opposite of the current favourite, which was that the Universe was created as the result of an implosion. The current obsession with global warming is another example of scientists moving the goal posts to try make the facts fit their science and not the other way around, as it was only 30 years ago there were hysterical warning of an impending disaster in the form of a new Ice Age.

    The idea that we need to arrive at an explanation that need only explain the origins of life only once, which you point to as an advantage of this theory over that of creation by God, apparently because the alternatives are more complicated or difficult to understand, is not a good way of exposing the truth if that truth is complex, which, I think we would agree, it is.

  19. Jim Baxter says:

    Re: ‘the existence of matter before the alleged explosion’

    There was no before because there was no time, is the theory as I understand it. The net universe is, or was, nothing, so there is no violation of conservation laws. That this universe as we know it (and who knows how many others there may be) is expanding seems beyond doubt. We don’t even need measurements of red shift and its associated assumptions to know that – Olber’s Paradox and all that. It’s been obvious all along.

  20. English Viking says:

    Jim Baxter @ 1:08

    I refer the Honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago, namely:

    ‘These questions and others show that abiogenesis does not in fact explain the existence of matter before the alleged explosion, it simply ignores the requirement for an explanation, mostly by couching it’s theory in arcane terms that most people don’t understand and are not willing to challenge, for fear of appearing stupid.’

    Waffle about red-shift and Olber’s paradox falls into the above category. It is not a scientific argument to say that matter spontaneously appeared from the non-existence of time and the non-existence of space, organised itself into a recognisable order and set about reproducing itself. That is a religious argument.

  21. Jim Baxter says:

    It is not a scientific argument to say that matter spontaneously appeared from the non-existence of time and the non-existence of space,

    Actually, it is. That some people don’t understand it is no reason to prefer an alternative explanation.

  22. English Viking says:

    Jim Baxter @ 1:26 PM

    I don’t reject the argument because I don’t understand it, I reject it because it is unscientific. It is unproven (both in the usual and in the real, mathematical sense of the word), it cannot be repeated in an experiment or demonstrated to be true in a laboratory, many other scientists disagree and put forth other, equally unproven and unprovable theories. The top and bottom of it is that a person will require an element of faith to believe something that they have never seen, never will see, cannot replicate under any conditions and are unable to prove scientifically. This exercise of faith, the belief in things unseen, is what makes these arguments religious. You call your religion ‘science’ and your priest is a scientist. He or she will explain the complexities of life to you, empower you with a world-view that enables you to achieve great things, that comforts you with the thought of it be ‘being all over’ when friends die, hoping (but not knowing) that it really is ‘all over’ when your turn ineluctably comes, otherwise things will not go well for you. You do, think and say things you would never have done before you understood this ‘religion’. You form your relationships and chart your moral direction with the help of this faith. You have scriptures, written by such adepts as Einstein, Hawking and Dawkins. You are not one bit different from a Christian, with the exception that their faith is in Christ, your in scientific theories, theirs in the Bible, yours in ‘A brief history of time’, theirs in the goodness of God, yours in the superiority of man.

  23. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    What I or you may or may not be is neither here nor there. One difference between religion and science is that science offers a system to test and falsify its suggestions. Reliogion requires only that you believe.

    If you, or I, were to learn the maths and the physics then we could test and perhaps challenge the conclusions of the scientists in their own terms. Religion does not invite challenges to its precepts – in fact it expressly forbids them.

    That you say stuff like red shift and Olber’s paradox is waffle – well – I can take a joke as well as anybody.

  24. English Viking says:

    Jim @ 2:09 PM

    You say – ‘One difference between religion and science is that science offers a system to test and falsify its suggestions. Religion requires only that you believe.’

    I agree entirely with the first sentence. The problem that the adherents of the Big Bang theory have is that their theory has not been tested, for it cannot be and therefore is unreliable and unscientific. Science deals only in facts. Cold, hard, quantifiable facts. Any more is unproven theory, anything less is ‘mere’ faith. The unproven, untested, unprovable and untestable theories concerning the origins of man require faith, including those theories concerning creation by God. I make absolutely no bones about the fact that I cannot prove my theory, that Secial Creation most certainly is a unique event that cannot be replicated in a laboratory, that it requires a believer to exercise faith. What is clear is that you equally cannot prove one jot of your theories either, but try to propose them as though they were a scientific fact, when they definitely are not. They require a believer to have faith, ergo they are a religion.

    Red shift theory (there’s that word again) when used to try to justify evidence of the Big Bang is unsound as it requires knowledge of variables we do not have, e.g. the gravitational fields between the point of observation and the object being observed, also whether or not the spacetime (if it exists) being observed is flat or curved. It compensates for these variables by estimating them or inventing exceptions to the rule under certain circumstances (never a good, scientific principle).

    I admit to not knowing what Olber’s paradox is, so I googled it. It’s as good as any other theory (that word again), but it is mutually exclusive of red shift theory and also requires the assumption (not fact) that the universe is infinite.

    If you are fond of jokes, have you heard the one about the man who thought that God did not exist! Ho ho, it’s the way I tell them!

  25. John says:

    Quote from Albert Einstein: “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

    I tend to think he has a point there ….

  26. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    The theory can be tested mathematically, old bean, which is about as scientific as you can get. And there is the evidence of the coomic background radiation – around 3 degrees Kelvin. Penzias and Wilson you know. Also there is no convincing alternative. And Olber’s paradox is resolved if the universe is exapding – it doesn’t have to be infinite. Heard the one about the man who lost his keys in a dark street? He was found looking for them twenty yards away under a lampost becase the light was better there. That’s you with your scriptures. Har har. No, I gotta hand it to you – your jokes are funnier.

    John, yes. I know what Einstein thought (on that subject I mean – if I understood how his other thoughts work I’d be at Princeton). But his idea of God was, I think, rather different from yours.

  27. Stewart Cowan says:

    I’m reading the ‘God Delusion’ just now and Dawkins says Einstein’s idea of God is not the same as ours. I tend to believe him on this point, even though he does talk the most awful trash at times. At the end of the day, what Einstein believed about God is irrelevant. Really intelligent people believe in the Almighty and so do some of the most academically ungifted.

  28. English Viking says:

    Jim @ 11.01 PM

    ‘The theory can be tested mathematically, old bean, which is about as scientific as you can get.’

    It cannot, if it could, it would not be a theory, in the same way that 1+1=2 is not a theory, nor is it just a fact because my experience tells me that every single time I have added those numbers together it produced the same result (circumstantial evidence, not proof), it is a fact because it can be scientifically proven in a repeatable experiment. If you have the equation that proves the theory, I’d be grateful for it so that I can consider it.

    Cosmic Background Radiation creates as many questions as it answers, such as the Horizon Problem, which in turn was attempted to be answered by yet another theory (that word yet again), the Cosmic Theory, which includes such non-scientific ideas as hypotheses, assumptions, predictions and estimates, none of which constitute proof.

    Olber’s paradox (the fact that it is a paradox should be a bit of a clue as to it’s veracity) does require an infinite universe to be assumed. If one assumes a constantly expanding universe, one then has the unexplainable problem of exactly what is it expanding into and why we can only ‘see’ the light from matter that was allegedly flung from a single, incredibly dense and massive place, that has supposedly been travelling for 12-15 billion years (would you really allow me a margin of error equivalent to 3 billion years, if this type of argument were being proposed in order to prove the existence of God?), from such allegedly massive distances, and its travel is not observable? The light we observe from matter that is at such (again allegedly, I’ll stop saying it now, as you will realise that I don’t go along with these fantasies) massive distances that it takes billions of years to get here would require that matter to be much, much further away (unless the matter itself was traveling at or greater than the speed of light) than current calculations allow. This again is explained by such rot as variations in the initial speed of light, but that makes a mess of the theory (another one) of relativity (light being the constant) and again an attempt to explain this is made with Quantum Mechanics which is little more than Star Trek on speed and, quite frankly, unintelligible and deliberately so.

    I guess (bit unscientific, I know) the point I am making is that this kind of science, the unprovable because it is unrepeatable type, is basically a case of ‘your guess is as good as mine’, that for every theory that is proposed, a problem is raised which requires another theory to explain the problem which creates a problem, etc,etc.

    There is no empirical evidence for ANY of this stuff, just as there is no empirical evidence for Special Creation. There is circumstantial evidence, I’m happy to grant you that. There is a possibility that one of them is correct. It is possible that both wrong. It is not possible that both are correct.

    It is entirely possible for The Bible to be correct and an accurate representation of the facts. The really truthful answer is that neither of us actually KNOW, so we must make a choice, we must exercise our faith and place it in a system of belief. I have placed mine in Christ, not out of ignorance or stupidity, but because, to me, ALL the evidence of my existence, experience, research and instinct tell me that He is true, His word is trustworthy and my and your future lies in His hands. You have made a different choice, but surely you must see that you really have done nothing more or less than me; you have chosen a system of explaining things that you call science, falsely so called because it is unscientific in this instance, and evidence of this is given above. It requires a belief, a hope in things unseen, which belief The Bible defines as faith. The evolutionist has a religion, he has a faith, he has his priests and his rituals and most of all he has his god, the decider of right and wrong, the rewarder and punisher of these rights and wrongs. That god is himself, to be worshiped and sacrificed to throughout a lifetime. Which one of us shall be proved the fool remains to be seen, but seen it will be.

  29. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    ‘There is no empirical evidence for ANY of this stuff, just as there is no empirical evidence for Special Creation. There is circumstantial evidence, I’m happy to grant you that…

    …The really truthful answer is that neither of us actually KNOW, so we must make a choice, we must exercise our faith and place it in a system of belief.’

    I have to disgree about no emprical evidence. I would settle for no ‘finally unequivocal empirical evidence as yet’ though. Deal?

    And what’s this about hypotheses being unscientific? You’ll have heard of the hypothetico-deductive method I suppose.

    Of course there is much in what you say. Science – empricism – is a perspective in itself – I’ve said so previously. And, although their accounts of how the cosmos came about are incompatible, at present or perhaps indefinitley, scince does not rule out ‘realities’ in the cosmos which are very different from those our poor ramshackle brains can readily perceive. Indeed, it actively considers them. Everett’s work being just one example.

    Hinduism comes closer – I say closer, and just in my view (oh, in the view of Hindus too I suppose), to the truth than does the Bible. A lot closer. There is wisdom in the Bible but it is human wisdom.

  30. Jim Baxter says:

    Stewart,

    Me, I’m reading ‘The Fabric of the Cosmos’. It’s affy good.

  31. English Viking says:

    Jim @ 9:05

    ‘I would settle for no ‘finally unequivocal empirical evidence as yet’ though. Deal?’ – Jim

    Sorry Jim, no deal. The words ‘finally’ and ‘unequivocal’ are tautologous in this instance and give the reader the impression that science has all but dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s in it’s explanations of the origins of man, when in actual fact it stumbles around in the dark, like a blind man in a maze, putting forth ever more bizarre and unproven ‘hypotheses’ until we arrive at the position we have today, namely one where no two scientists can agree on the price of fish, let alone where the universe came from or, more importantly, where it’s going.

    ‘science does not rule out ‘realities’ in the cosmos which are very different from those our poor ramshackle brains can readily perceive.’ – Jim

    Neither does Christianity. In fact it teaches that our minds are finite and cannot understand everything about God. – ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts’ – Isaiah 55 v 9 KJV (God speaking)

    ‘Indeed, it (science) actively considers them. – Jim, my brackets.

    So does the Bible.

    ‘When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? – Psalm 8 vv 3,4 KJV (King David speaking)

    ‘Hinduism comes closer – I say closer, and just in my view (oh, in the view of Hindus too I suppose), to the truth than does the Bible. A lot closer.’ – Jim.

    To make this statement with an informed opinion, one would need a thorough working knowledge of both the Bible (at the very least one should have read it in it’s entirety) and the Hindu ‘faith’. Do you really think it is a likely explanation that the world is supported on the backs of two cosmic elephants, who in turn are supported by magic turtles that swim in space? Do you think that a blue-skinned woman with six arms is a god? Or a man with an elephant’s head, or a monkey’s? This is evidence of human wisdom, that the writers of this stuff referred only to what they could see around them in the sub-continental jungle. This is nothing more than pagan idolatry with a glossy sheen. The advocates of Hinduism are not averse to smoking dope in order for them to ‘see’. This is not a good recipe for arriving at the truth. Hinduism also teaches re-incarnation, near endlessly coming back from the dead in some better or worse form, until one achieves ‘nirvana’. This is not good science. This is not good religion. It is a mixture of science-fiction, idolatry and drug induced hallucinations. It most certainly does not compare well with The Bible, on any level.

  32. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    No deal eh? I thought not somehow.

    Science proceeds in fits and starts – it tries to peel away the layers of the onion, one at a time. Sometimes good research is that which identifies new questions rather than provifng answers. There are false steps along the way, of course. We’re not there yet but we’ve made a lot of progress.

    ‘It most certainly does not compare well with The Bible, on any level.’

    I disagree. Its the core philosophy of Hindusim that interests me. There are plenty of fantastic stories in the Bible.

  33. P Gibbs says:

    Further to the previous “discussion” I was having with English Viking here, it looks like Rowan Williams agrees with me on this one even if EV cannot.

    Anti-gay Christians ‘misread the Bible’, says Archbishop of Canterbury

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449325/Anti-gay-Christians-misread-Bible-says-Archbishop-Canterbury.html#ixzz0Vd9ZtThN

  34. English Viking says:

    You again underestimate what kind of Christian I am if you think I have the remotest interest in what a wicked, lying demoniac like Williams says. The fact that this man openly engaged in witchcraft at Stonehenge, becoming ordained as Chief Druid, just a day before becoming ABC is conclusive evidence that The Bible is yet again correct in predicting that wolves in sheep’s clothing with infiltrate the Church in the last days, attempting to, and in some cases succeeding in, corrupting good teaching and replacing it with demonic doctrines.

    It would be a matter of very great concern to me if my opinion on all things Christian was not diametrically opposed to his.

    PS I’m not ‘anti-gay’, per se. I’m anti gays who try to say that The Bible teaches a sexual attraction to other people’s excrement is normal activity.

  35. P Gibbs says:

    And being so full of it as you are EV I can see how people like that would naturally make you feel uncomfortable.

  36. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs,

    Now, now, Mr Gibbs, no need to be catty. Tut, tut.

  37. P Gibbs says:

    There is now scientific evidence for what has long been suspected, that
    homophobes are themselves homosexuals in denial.
    I’d be interested in your opinion English Viking & of course anyone else’s
    opinion of this quite short video, Experiment on Homophobia:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-7AoxFEJA&annotation_id=annotation_606412&feature=iv

  38. Jim Baxter says:

    The idea that we react with particular hostility towards the free expression in others of a forbidden desire of our own is a pretty old one, of course. You’ll find it in the Bible. There’s a story about King David and an adulterous wish which illustrates the point nicely.

    But what is ‘denial’? Is a man who recognises homosexual desires in himself which disgust him such that he resists them and urges others to resist them too ‘in denial’? Or is the term restricted to those who are, say, tormented by a desire which is so unacceptable to them that they refuse acknowledge it, such that it becomes visible only in their hostility to its expression in others?

    If the term ‘denial’ is useful at all it probably refers to the latter example.

    The real question though is, ‘Does it matter’? If you think something is wrong then is it any less wrong because you might wish, consciously or unconsciously, to do it yourself? I think murder is wrong but I’ve thought in my testosterone-poisoned youth (i.e. long ago) about killing another man. I didn’t do it (yer Honour). Am I a murderer ‘in denial’?

  39. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs,

    You’re trying to spread your gay propaganda with Youtube stats. Not terribly convincing. According to your argument, all the people who say that they are gays are gay, and all the people who say that they are not gays, are gay, apart from the ones who don’t know, who are probably gay. Doesn’t add up really, does it? You seem a bit obsessed with gays!

    How do we know that all the gays aren’t lying, and they fancy women really? Admit it, you’ve thought about it.

    PS. I’m not afraid of gays, I’m disgusted by them.

    PPS Don’t be surprised if Stewart takes that link down.

  40. PGibbs says:

    English Viking wrote:”I’m not afraid of gays, I’m disgusted by them.”

    Of course you are not afraid of gays English Viking, there is no reason to be afraid of gays, that would be crazy.

    IMHO: The disgust you say you feel is most likely disgust for your own homosexual responses, ones that you are evidently in denial of and want to disown – so you project this disgust onto fantasy “generic gays” who you’ve obviously thought quite a lot about.

    A fantasy of yours, because it goes without saying that you haven’t had real experience of the thing that disgusts you, that’s male anal sex … have you? (a rhetorical question)

    Too, there is no way in the course of your day or night that you would come across or witness real gay men having sex of the kind you have previously given your brief vulgar descriptions of … unless perhaps you were very doggedly seeking it out (I’d suggest with the utmost difficulty even then). If you do come across gay men having sex in the normal course of your day I would have to wonder where you spend your days.

    Beyond the personal homosexual arousal that apparently you’re disgusted by and ashamed of for your own reasons – upbringing/religion/whatever – you don’t/cannot know anything real of homosex only what you’ve maybe found in adult videos, magazines or books, in other words fiction.

    So what you say disgusts you about gays can only exists for you only in your imagination of what are “generic gays” indulging in what must be very dirty sex indeed… alluded to it in your previous posts.

    It all comes back to you having a homosexual fantasy sir, sadly you feel ashamed that imagining homosexual sex arouses you, in particular imagining dirty homosexual sex and the mixture of arousal and shame is projected as disgust first onto your “generic gays” and from there onto real gays.

    The “generic gays” you profess to be disgusted by aren’t real gay people, real gay people are holding down jobs, paying off mortgages, shopping at the supermarket making dinner for their kids, watching telly, have ordinary homely relationships… but those gays don’t interest you at all, the gays that really hold your interest are the ones who go cruising at night in strange out of the way places seeking dirty, dangerous, anonymous sex with strangers, just like the ones in your homo fantasy English Viking.

    Or something very like that (IMHO)

  41. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘It all comes back to you having a homosexual fantasy sir, sadly you feel ashamed that imagining homosexual sex arouses you, in particular imagining dirty homosexual sex and the mixture of arousal and shame is projected as disgust first onto your “generic gays” and from there onto real gays.’

    Projected as disgust? As in the psychoanalytic sense of the term?
    Shouldn’t it be the ‘dirty’ behaviour that is attributed (projected) onto others, not the disgust? Also, I thought that practoners of psychoanalysis were very cautious about using such terms without an understanding of someone, allegedly gained in prolonged therapy.

    It is possible to find behaviour disgusting without wishing, consciously or otherwise, to engage in it yourself.

  42. Jim Baxter says:

    But even if the disgust is born of an anxiety about yourself, it may be no less a real disgust. Ascribing an unconscious motive to someone’s disgust does not of itself mean that the disgust is false.

  43. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs,

    That you resort to such childish name-calling is evidence of your immaturity, which is also a common trait in the numerous homosexuals I have met during the course of daily life. It doesn’t annoy me, I might have told you before, I’ve been called a lot worse things and have long since abandoned concern for the opinions of other men.

    People will believe what they want, regardless of evidence, proof, facts. You’re living proof of that. I just think it’s a bit of an easy get-out to accuse your opponent of being a homosexual for no other reason other than his strident views on homosexuality.

    Let’s put it like this. Do you disagree with paedophilia Mr Gibbs? Does it disgust you? Do you think there should be laws against it? Do you think that those that practise such vile, sinful acts whilst considering themselves perfectly normal are sick in the head? Ahh, you do! That’s because you’re a closet kiddy-fiddler, isn’t Mr Gibbs? You project your sick fantasies onto others in the hope that no-one will notice that you’re abnormal, deluded, corrupt, isn’t that so? Oh go ahead, deny it, louder and louder; the more you do, the more we’ll all know it’s true.

    Playground stuff, really. (Nah, nah, nah nah, nah!)

  44. P Gibbs says:

    (Jim Baxter wrote: “I thought that practoners of psychoanalysis were very cautious about using such terms without an understanding of someone, allegedly gained in prolonged therapy.”)

    Applying terms without an understanding of someone is not okay whether we are talking about the psychoanalysis of homophobia or pseudo-religious disapproval of homosexuals.

    (Jim Baxter wrote: “But even if the disgust is born of an anxiety about yourself, it may be no less a real disgust. Ascribing an unconscious motive to someone’s disgust does not of itself mean that the disgust is false.”)

    No, simply that the homophobes disgust is falsely applied to others because of an imagined behaviour, instead of the homophobe applying that disgust to his own reponses that he cannot accept, and it follows that in this case gays are the ones who must then be punished for the homophobes naughty thoughts about gays.

    Disgust felt for anothers imagined behaviour… imagined in the sense that the homophobe will not ever and need not ever be confronted by the reality of gay anal sex he is not privy to it except in his imagination where generic gays keep repeatedly and constantly acting this particular activity…it is the homophobes fantasy that he repeats to get the thrill that results in a disgust fix.
    The homophobe is disgusted by his own fantasies of gay sex not by real gays.

    (English Viking wrote:I just think it’s a bit of an easy get-out to accuse your opponent of being a homosexual for no other reason other than his strident views on homosexuality.)

    If anything you are a homophobe who is aroused in some way by thinking about gay sex and getting a childish thrill from being both aroused and disgusted at the same time by your imaginings of what is for you a forbidden thing.

    (English Viking wrote: Let’s put it like this. Do you disagree with paedophilia Mr Gibbs? Does it disgust you? Do you think there should be laws against it? Do you think that those that practise such vile, sinful acts whilst considering themselves perfectly normal are sick in the head? Ahh, you do! That’s because you’re a closet kiddy-fiddler, isn’t Mr Gibbs? You project your sick fantasies onto others in the hope that no-one will notice that you’re abnormal, deluded, corrupt, isn’t that so? Oh go ahead, deny it, louder and louder; the more you do, the more we’ll all know it’s true.)

    I totally disagree with paedophilia exactly as I disagree with any non-consenting or abusive kind of sex or violence, I certainly don’t think about it all the time (obviously when new reports of abusive religious clergy crop up) nor do I derive some cheap thrill in the form of useless disgust and nor do I go out of my way to harrass paedophiles constantly.
    But the overriding feeling I have is not of disgust for the perpetrator but a protective feeling that I would want to sheild the victims and protect any future potential victims.
    I totally support laws which are in place and think they should be applied strictly to protect the vulnerable and to control abusive paedophiles and to keep them separate from those they would abuse.
    There’s no comparison, paedophilia really does harm and abuse others and it is criminal.

    It is so not playground stuff English Viking.

  45. English Viking says:

    I’m sure child abuse victims the world over will be thrilled to know that a homosexual wishes to ‘shield’ them from further abuse.

    The point made was not whether or not homosexuality was harmful (it is), nor whether it equates with paedophilia, nor issues of consent, it was whether or not it was a valid argument to suggest that those who oppose homosexuality are therefore homosexual, by virtue of their denials and dislike of the practice, the sole evidence for this claim being a Youtube clip narrated by Gore Vidal, a notorious homosexual pornographer.

    To illustrate the inane reasoning contained in this argument, I used exactly the same logic to suggest that, as you claim you totally disagree with paedophilia, you are therefore a paedophile. The louder you protest, (following your logic) the greater the evidence of a sick, suppressed desire to carry out acts of child abuse, and the stronger the accompanying feelings of self-loathing and disgust, projecting them blah, blah, etc…

    If anything you are a paedophobe who is aroused in some way by thinking about child abuse and getting a childish thrill from being aroused and disgusted at the same time by your imaginings of what is a forbidden thing. (If you recognise those words Mr Gibbs, it’s because they’re yours in your latest post, well 95% of them anyway.)

    My advice to you Mr Gibbs, is to admit that you made a ridiculous mistake in your reasoning, in a childish attempt to provoke some righteous outrage from someone you thought could be easily offended. It’s best to admit that you were completely wrong, lest your opponent continues, by your very own logic, to imply that you are a closet paedophile.

    PS I assure you that there is nothing pseudo about my religion.

  46. P Gibbs says:

    Debating anti-gay pseudo-religious bigots on the topic of homosexuality is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

  47. English Viking says:

    Mr Gibbs,

    You’re showing your subconscious obsession with faeces again, and rather disturbingly you seem to closely associate it with harmless leisure activities and unconditional victory. Strange.

  48. P Gibbs says:

    Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

  49. English Viking says:

    Mr Gibbs,

    I am not a Catholic so you are wasting your breath with Latin chants. (So are the Catholics, but that’s another matter).

    The Son of God, The Lord Jesus Christ is the only man ever to have had the authority to forgive sin and make propitiation for it. Luke 5 v 21,24. KJV.

    According to the Catholic rite (it is solely a Catholic invention, the words absolve and absolution do not appear in The Bible), the person receiving ‘absolution’ needs to have confessed and repented. It also needs to be administered by an ordained priest. I do not repent of my views on these matters, you are not a Catholic priest (Obviously, otherwise you would have been ex-communicated by now.)

    In the words of the great man, Martin Luther, I cannot and I will not recant.

  50. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    ‘The Son of God, The Lord Jesus Christ is the only man ever to have had the authority to forgive sin and make propitiation for it. Luke 5 v 21,24. KJV.’

    This is O/T but that doesn’t seem to matter any more (asking our generous host’s leave nonetheless).

    Just out of interest – serious interest I should say, in what religious people think – what happened to everyone who lived BC then, in your view?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>