Do not expect anything better from Cameron’s Tories

After thirteen years of New Labour mismanagement (to put it mildly), what are you hoping for when Dave becomes Prime Minister in a couple of months’ time?

A referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? Forget it. A more sensible relationship with our EU ‘partners’? Not very likely. A better NHS? Schools that educate rather than indoctrinate? A rejection of the climate change scam?

Sorry, but I think you’ll be as disappointed as me when none of these things fails to materialise. New Labour still blames all and sundry on eighteen years of Tory rule, and as long as the Tories stay in power (if indeed they win this time), they will be blaming New Labour for ever. They have good reason, but as we increasingly live in a blame ‘culture’ rather than one where responsibility is the norm, they need to change this lazy attitude if anything good is going to happen with the next regime.

I say regime, because after reading Nick Herbert’s speech at the Cato Institute in Washington DC, the Party is clearly going to be another nightmare of false equality and oppression. Here are some snippets from the speech by the openly homosexual Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. See if you can spot the similarities with New Labour…

So can promoting equality for gay people be compatible with conservatism?

In discussing this I’m going to take three things as given. And if they’re contentious, they shouldn’t be.

Well, let’s find out.

First, since – on the most conservative estimates – around 5 per cent of the population are attracted to the same sex, there are more than 3 million gay people in the UK and 15 million in the United States.

This is contentious straight from the off. I understand that the figure is nearer 2%, but at least he isn’t using Kinsey’s fraudulent 10%.

People often speak of gays as though we are a society apart from the rest, living in our own quarter.

And a few choose to be apart.

But most of us don’t.

We live in every city and town.

We are businessmen and women.

We run shops and stack shelves.

We labour on farms and in factories.

We are fire fighters and police officers.

We save lives in hospitals.

We fight for our countries and sometimes we die for our countries.

Some of us are extraordinary, but mostly we are quietly ordinary.

We are not different. And we don’t want to be different.

We’re not asking for special treatment.

Oh, but you are. Such special treatment, in fact, that the English language is being rewritten for you.

The word ‘marriage’ for example. It means the joining together of man and woman. Always has. Apologists for homosexuality often mention ancient Greece or Rome in an attempt to try and justify this behaviour in a civilised society. This homosexuality was often acted out as pederasty.

Twentieth century historian Foucault declared that pederasty was “problematized” in Greek culture, that it was “the object of a special — and especially intense — moral preoccupation” focusing on concern with the chastity/moderation of the erōmenos (the term used for the “beloved” youth). In Classical times there appears a note of concern that the institution of pederasty might give rise to a morbid condition, adult homosexuality, that today’s eromenos may become tomorrow’s kinaidos, (defined as the passive or “penetrated” partner).

Herbert continues,

Second, we can’t be uninvented. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Our sexuality is a fact. It may be repressed, but it cannot be changed.

This is a barefaced lie. Enough said.

Doctors don’t try to change a person’s colour.

And healers or politicians shouldn’t try to change anyone’s sexuality.

He is using the same old technique of comparing apples with oranges.

Whether it is given by god, or set by nature, homosexuality isn’t nurtured by doting mothers or weak fathers.

A comment left by ‘Len’ on Cranmer’s blog explains how the Almighty could give someone over to homosexual lust.

I think one of the most frightening things is the words in the bible “God gave them up”.

The Scriptures indicate that when a person engages in homosexuality it is an indication they are under God’s judgment. The judgment is described as, “God gave them up.” This happens when a person is in deep rebellion against God. This rebellion manifests itself in homosexuality which would then cause God to give them over to this act. They can be sealed into homosexuality.

A homosexual can repent and trust Jesus Christ as Savior just like any other sinner; however, those that are in deep rebellion against God and not just caught in the power of this sin are given over to it. There is a huge difference between being under the power of sin and being given over to it in judgment by God. A homosexual that is not a reprobate is one that knows the act is wrong and is under condemnation.

There are numbers of homosexuals who are not reprobates as they struggle against this iniquity. There is hope for them in the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ has more power than the lust of homosexuality or any other iniquity!

The reprobate has lost any conviction that the act is sinful. The conscience of a reprobate is dead to God’s conviction of sin. When someone is given over to homosexuality, they have what the Bible calls a reprobate mind. This mind is devoid of God and His word. The Greek word reprobate means unapproved, rejected,worthless.It is also translated castaway and rejected.

This is an unprecedented time in history. The acceptance of fornication/homosexuality is actually being preached from pulpits and by politicians. Homosexuals are standing boldly in pulpits pretending to be preachers of righteousness. They are deceiving and being deceived. God never changed His position on fornication.

Those that practice this sin will not inherit the kingdom of God contrary to what false teachers may say from the pulpits. The Bible is the final authority not false teachers. The Lord Jesus said His word is the final authority:
“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” John 12:48

This is the reason some people struggle to overcome their sinful lust and others do not.

When Nick Herbert says,

It isn’t a condition to be cured and it can’t be willed away through prayer.

He is also lying.

Third, democracies should subscribe to a fundamental principle: that ‘all men are created equal’.

Some claim that the promotion of gay equality has no place in conservatism. In fact, many deny that conservatives should be interested in the equality agenda at all.

Walk down Real Street with me here. How, in 2010, are homosexuals still unequal? Apart from when it comes to getting ‘married’ to each other, which as I have said, is not inequality, because of the word’s actual meaning.

It is argued that equality is incompatible with liberty … that if men are free, they are bound to become unequal.

Something sensible, at last.

But conservatives who want people to become better through their own efforts can never stand by while others are denied that chance.

And who does homosexuality hinder these days? When there is a clash of interests, what we usually see is the man or woman of conscience being victimised.

Conservatives should always believe that everyone should have an equal chance in life, regardless of any other factors, and that they should not be discriminated against.

This makes no sense, because there are always other factors in all our lives. What Mr Herbert is thus calling for are New Labour-style enforcements that persecute, demean and dumb-down the majority in order that, in their view, nobody feels ‘left out’.

As Robert Levy, the Chairman of this Institute, has recently written:

“Thomas Jefferson set the stage in the Declaration of Independence: ‘[T]o secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.’ The primary purpose of government is to safeguard individual rights and prevent some persons from harming others. Heterosexuals should not be treated preferentially when the state carries out that role. And no one is harmed by the union of two consenting gay people.”

Again he is wrong. History shows how hedonism kills off civilisations.

Today I want to explain why I believe that conservatism is not only entirely compatible with the principle of equality between gay and straight people …

… but that such equality is in fact an essential element of modern conservatism.

Except for the gigantic problem: the elephant in the room, that when people behave in a certain way, their behaviour influences society and others have a right to think and behave differently, even chastise them for what they do.

I want to explain how David Cameron has re-shaped the Conservative Party in the UK.

How we have developed a progressive conservative agenda, to secure important social objectives through conservative means.

Oh dear! There’s New Labour’s favourite word: progressive. What does it mean today?

How we have made a commitment to the vital institution of marriage a central part of our programme.

And how we believe that this institution is strengthened, not weakened, by extending its ambit to same sex relationships.

The original militant homosexual activists deliberately set out to destroy marriage because they saw it as the only way they could ever achieve ‘equality’. You are either for marriage or for homosexuality, i.e. against marriage and normal family relationships.

Ergo, the Tory party is now anti-family by furthering the homosexual agenda.

But I can tell you what happens to a party when it closes the door to sections of our society and is reduced to its core vote. It’s no fun being in opposition for thirteen years.

And I can tell you what happens when a Party opens its doors again and broadens its appeal.

A successful political party should be open to all and ought to look something like the country it seeks to govern.

Hence our Dave being Everyman (and No Man).

In recent history the Conservative Party in Parliament reflected only a section of our society – male, white, professional, grey-suited and straight.

Ah yes, more stereotypes. Some people would have us think that the poor women under the Tories were chained to the kitchen sink.

At the last election, of our 193 MPs elected, just 17 were women, only two black or minority ethnic and two were openly gay.

If we were truly representative of the country we would have 99 women, 16 black or minority ethnic and 10 gay MPs.

So our party leadership recognised the need to change.

Change because we are a national party which needs to be able to speak to, and speak up for, all sections of society in all parts of the country…

We now have more female candidates, more black and minority ethnic candidates and more gay candidates.

He seems to be saying that politicians are so inherently racist, sexist and ‘homophobic’ that the mix in Parliament has to be just right to reflect society. To demonstrate how much of a nonsense this is, even if you take Herbert’s 5% figure for homosexuals, it requires a massive support from the 95% of heterosexuals to take their agenda anywhere.

I led our Party’s support for a new law to prevent the incitement of hatred against gay people – subject to our concern that temperate comment should not be criminalised.

The Tories will allow us temperate comment. How very kind of them. Being furious or even mildly annoyed will be a crime then?

And our Party Leader, David Cameron, has publicly apologised for Section 28 …

Of course he has. The momentum of New Labour’s agenda must be kept up.

We needed to say sorry for a stance that was wrong.

It was wrong to protect children from having homosexuality promoted to them?

And we showed that as a Party we were willing to admit mistakes and set a new course.

No, you have shown you are prepared to abandon your principles for votes.

The importance of marriage

In his first speech to the Conservative Conference as Leader of the Party – a major event which brings together party activists from across the country – David Cameron said something extraordinary.

Defying the critics who claimed that party leaders could no longer express a moral preference for the institution, he spoke of the importance of commitment and marriage as the bedrock of our society.

But then he added: “and by the way, it means something whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man.”

And when he said these words, the delegates applauded. Not a half-hearted ripple of applause, but a spontaneous burst of approbation.

At that moment, we knew that the Conservative Party and British politics had changed.

Yes. Then we knew there really was no difference between New Labour and Tory.

I appreciate the view held by some, on a strict reading of their faith, that marriage is a unique arrangement which is only available to a man and a woman.

It is not a strict reading, it is clear and obvious from scripture, nature and common sense.

And we should never dictate to religious organisations who are doing no harm that they should, in their own rites or places of worship, depart from their sincerely-held beliefs.

“Doing no harm?” Let me guess. Keeping your faith to yourself and shutting the heck up at all other times. And let the state brainwash your children.

And why stand against the extension of a civil institution which demands a public declaration of commitment and stability?

Those who argue against legal recognition for gay partnerships often claim that many gay people have promiscuous lifestyles.

Which makes the whole idea of homosexual ‘marriage’ even more ridiculous and pointless than it is already.

But there are few social incentives of the kind which conservatives should naturally embrace for gay people to embrace commitment.

There’s little social support …

… no institutions to encourage fidelity or monogamy …

… and precious little religious or moral outreach to guide gay people into what may be seen as more virtuous living.

Can you believe this? Homosexual behaviour is by nature immoral. The religious or moral outreach comes in the shape of inviting sinners to repent.

So it’s right to recognise commitment in gay partnerships.

In the same way, we should reject discrimination against gay couples who wish to adopt.

So, after admitting that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous, he thinks it is discrimination to reject their applications to adopt.

This shows why the modern warped notions of equality cannot and will not produce a happy, successful society. Not everyone is equal under every circumstance. This is a fact.

I believe that the best parental arrangements are represented by a good father and a good mother, and children should never be treated as some kind of high value consumer good.

But this ideal of a loving and present father and mother is often not realised. So we should not seek to prevent adoption by same-sex couples who may offer a love and stability that is absent from too many homes.

Stability is one of the problems though, isn’t it? And the loony left has for years manufactured a shortage of married couples considered suitable for adoption by making rules that are almost impossible to work with. It has resulted in couples being refused children on such spurious grounds as, they go to church or have too many books.

Society has been turned back to front. After so much conditioning, millions of people see homosexuality as good and normal and going to church as something to be suspicious and frightened of.

Progressive Conservatism

Surely an oxymoron?

I don’t believe that conservatism should be a closed membership club.

We must be open to everyone because we believe that everyone should have a chance.

By everyone, he means homosexuals, of course, but by saying ‘everyone’ he makes it sound more ‘inclusive’.

Consensus on gay issues

In the UK, all three major political parties are now assuring gay people that it’s safe to vote for them.

Typically, far from taking pleasure in this new consensus, the Left has greeted it with dismay.

For over a decade they have sought to build a client state, where groups are beholden to their generosity.

And now they want to open up ‘clear pink water’ between themselves and the Conservative Party.

There’s an election coming, and it suits our opponents to argue that we haven’t changed.

But we self-evidently have changed. I suppose, in a small way, my presence here is evidence of that.

The truth is that there are millions of people who we drove away but who share our values and want to join us.

Gay people are not the property of the Left, or of any party.

They are not an interest group or a political commodity to be traded.

They are not vessels for votes.

Gay people are motivated by the same issues as any other voter.

Judging by the comments left on the Pink News website, homosexuals care primarily about a party’s loyalty to the tribe.

Moving the agenda forward

Read: making you accept homosexuality until you burst.

For the modern Conservative Party, embracing gay equality is neither a temporary phenomenon, nor an agenda which can be reversed.

We know that we have further to go to modernise our Party

If we form the next government, we intend to entrench the progress made on gay equality, and to move the agenda forward.

Entrench. That means forcing us all to comply.

If there is a need for new laws, we will consider them.

That’s because you’re no better than New Labour. How many new laws will there be under the Tories’ miserable rule?

But we will also understand where we should give a lead, and where there is a need for law.

Conservatives should never leap to legislate.

So we will show leadership in demanding action to tackle homophobic abuse in sport, where behaviour and role models can exert such a powerful influence on young people …

… as we should demand action against all abusive behaviour on the playing fields.

We will take the strongest stand against the homophobic bullying of children in schools …

… as we should take a stand against all bullying – and we will not allow our support for faith schools to undermine that stand.

We will insist on action against hate crime where gay people are the victims …

… as we should insist on action against all hate crime which incites fear and violence.

Basically, faith schools are evil and devisive (even though they are better at promoting community cohesion, but why bother with facts), ‘hate’ crimes are worse than any other crimes and ‘homophobic’ bulling is the only sort that exists.

We know all this already.

When I was born in 1963, homosexual conduct was a crime.

It still is a crime against nature.

And families.

And society.

The Tory party is no longer conservative. If you really are going to vote for them, prepare to have to put up with New Labour all over again.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Do not expect anything better from Cameron’s Tories

  1. JuliaM says:

    Check out the ‘Mail’ article on the confidential plans to sneak change past the old guard of the Tory voters (sorry, no link, I’m on my iPhone and still haven’t mastered cut & paste!).

    Why the need to do this all by subterfuge? What happened to standing up for principles, and accepting that if people don’t like them, they won’t vote for you?

    But no. Dave’s bunch are no different to Gordon’s. The desire for power is all that drives them…

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks Julia, I’ll check out the Mail. Just about the whole agenda has been done by subterfuge. Remember when Section 28 was done away with? We were assured that it was an unnecessary piece of legislation and removing it wouldn’t lead to homosexuality being promoted in schools.

    Principles don’t seem to matter anymore. Like you say, they want to win for winning’s sake.

  3. English Viking says:

    I’m back.

    The Tories appear to have adopted the Goebels tactic of constantly repeating enormous lies until people think that they couldn’t possibly be telling such an enormous lies, therefore it must be true. It’s not.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hey buddy,

    Welcome back. I hope things have improved at your end.

    What you say is right and also, as part of the conditioning (as I have said before),

    Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible. The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.

  5. English Viking says:

    Thanks Stewart,

    Things are up and down, but I try to keep ploughing on – and no looking back ;-)

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    You’ll be looking forward to the longer nights.

    P.S. Glad to see you got your pic up seeing as you didn’t like your auto-generated geometrical doo-dah.

  7. English Viking says:

    Hey Stewart,

    What a game it was to get my avatar up on screen!

    I’m not looking forward to longer nights, they currently last about 16 hours a day. At the worst of it, they last about 20 hours a day.

    I’m looking forward to longer days, which will last all day long in a couple of months. Broad daylight at midnight.

    The Winter is really, really depressing. The summer is great, but with it comes the insomnia! Perhaps I’m going a little bit mad, a little more, year after year, eller år etter år?

  8. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hi English,

    That’s what I meant. Longer nights of daylight!

  9. English Viking says:

    What’s it like in sunny Scotland?

  10. Stewart Cowan says:

    Been okay lately down here in the S.W. Was a very sunny day, actually. I put the central heating off a few hours ago. It’s a bit chilly, but okay with a sweatshirt on.

    How do you heat your home?

  11. English Viking says:

    A combination of log burner and under-floor heating, powered by electricity (from the hydro-dam). It is not unusual for a ‘citizen’ to own a considerable piece of land, upon which they grow their firewood. Alas, I do not fit into this category, but the Scandinavians are always pleased to exchange labour for firewood, so I get by.

    One consolation is that the power companies are (mostly) State-owned, so leccy is no too expensive. Where I live, Natural Gas is none existent because of all the difficulties transporting it over the mountains, so everything is electric.

    One thing that makes me smile is that most of the electricity produced in my area is from hydro-electric dams, with glacial melt powering stations on the sides of mountains; the more it rains (or snows, when it melts), the more the stations produce leccy, the cheaper it gets.

    I’m a happy man when it rains.

  12. English Viking says:

    BTW,

    It’s minus 11 now.

    That’s pretty warm really. Minus 28 is not unusual. Minus 40 is not unheard of.

    Kind of takes your breath away, but it so really, really fresh, that it is worth it.

  13. Stewart, English,

    You spend more time obsessing about homosexuality than any of the gay people I know.

    Perhaps you should get a room.

    Also, it just struck me that religion is a lifestyle choice. Given the dysfunction which can arise from it it’s the thing which isn’t natural.

  14. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    The difference between my lifestyle choices and those of homo’s are that I do not want to force other people’s children to learn about mine and I also recognise that some people find religion offensive and are not remotely interested in it, unlike the rainbow warriors. I also do not wish to see a change in the law to allow persons, like yourself, who criticise Christianity, to be branded the ridiculously titled ‘Hate Criminal’, although I am sailing close to the wind, simply by using the abbreviation ‘homo’.

    PS The old trick of calling opponents of the promotion of homosexuality homos themselves won’t cut it. Perhaps you are projecting latent emotions?

  15. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian,

    What English said. You might also ponder the fact that homosexuality is thrust at us every day. Either we put up with it or react against it.

  16. Jim Baxter says:

    How DO you get your avatar to work on this system because these weird kaleid…collide…shape things do ma heid in. English, please advise, if you’d be so kind.

    ‘homosexuality is thrust at us every day’

    Really Stewart – are you Larry Grayson now?

  17. “homosexuality is thrust at us every day”

    ***snigger***

    Oh. Damn. Jim got there before me.

    I don’t think religion should be taught in science classes- if you want Creationism taught do it in RE with all the other myths. And I don’t think there should be any blasphemy laws. I don’t care about restricting your right to worship. But repeating prejudiced nonsense over and over as if doing so will make it less ridiculous has nothing to do with religion.

    And you do go on and on about homosexuality. So it’s only fair to keep mocking your obsession with something you say disgusts you so.

  18. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson

    ‘But repeating prejudiced nonsense over and over as if doing so will make it less ridiculous has nothing to do with religion.’

    Neither will constantly repeating lies about evolution and homos convince me you have the first idea about science. (Nor will pasting links to Wiki, so don’t bother:-))

    And you do go on (and on and on) about Christianity. So it’s only fair to keep mocking your obsession with something you say you dislike so much.

  19. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    Go to Gravatar.com and log in or open a new account. This can be tricky if you are registered by that name somewhere else, you may have to go there first and log in, then go back to Gravatar. Once in, follow on screen instructions. Should take about 5 mins. Took me 2 hours.

  20. Jim Baxter says:

    Thanks English. The name has indeed been taken although I have no idea if I am the one who has taken it. I tried logging in to the one that I know is me but then got confused as happens easily.

    Stewart, how about shifting to another blog provider? No?

    Orrible blue shape it is then.

  21. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    You could modify your moniker slightly, ie Dr Jim, James Baxter, Jim Baxter 1 etc.

  22. English,

    I don’t go on about Christianity, I call out your dumb and unfounded prejudices and your inability to accept recorded facts, repeatable experiments and reality in general. Every so often I’ll mention christianity because you use it as an excuse for your prejudice and wilful ignorance.

    I don’t understand your idea of science, which seems to be ignoring anything which doesn’t conform to your narrow world view.

    Oh, and here’s the wikipedia link for Science. Anybody who isn’t English Viking should feel free to read it and work out whether it conforms to his take on the subject.

  23. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    You DO go on about Christianity, ad nauseum, and then become abusive when I highlight that anything that has been neither observed, nor repeated in a lab, is not science, it is religion. Every so often I’ll mention your religion, because you use it as an excuse for your prejudice and willful ignorance.

  24. Projecting much?

    I’ve mentioned and linked to loads of things which have been observed and/or replicated in labs. But you always claim that any science which doesn’t back up your unscientific world view (which is any science as far as I can see) somehow isn’t science.

  25. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    Has the Big Bang been replicated? Has the development of a species into an entirely separate family been observed? Can science create DNA, with or without RNA, which it would need to simultaneously create to get either?

    No is the word you are looking for.

  26. Jim Baxter says:

    Thanks again English but blue shape it shall be – whit’s furrye’ll no go by ye as they say in Wigtonshire – Brethren country that is down there. Even the folk that run the pubs. Portpatrick? Don’t get me started.

    I have a business partner with a unique moniker – he might start posting here. We run a little workshop together turning out ‘Krugerrands’ made of tungsten which we flog to half-wits on e-bay. I say ‘partner’ – he takes a cut and that’s it – I never see him. Calls himself ‘Customer Complaints Manager’. Mind you, nobody ever complains twice so he must be good with people.

  27. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    Brethren with pubs? Are you sure?

    They must either be rubbish pubs or rubbish Brethren!

  28. Stewart Cowan says:

    Looks like I need to open a complaints department. Anyway, I used Gravatar.com and got done and dusted in a few minutes, although my own gravatar doesn’t work on this blog. Mmm…

  29. Stewart Cowan says:

    Abracadabra…

  30. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hey! I had to log out of the Real Street control panel to get it to appear. It works on the email address, doesn’t it?

  31. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jim,

    Yes, I was that half-wit. Do you make sovereigns too? How much for cash?

  32. Stewart Cowan says:

    I signed in again. Never mind. You know it’s me anyways, with the weediest-looking auto-generated thingy on the blogosphere. I’m the one who should be complaining. Who can I blame for this?!

    Ian,

    You obviously don’t understand that science can ‘prove’ Creationism just as well as it can demonstrate the Theory of Evolution.

    The TofE makes you believe that given enough time, anything is possible via mutations. Of course, it is *possible* but IMHO practically impossible.

  33. Stewart

    Your opinion may be honest, but it is still just opinion and has been shown to be wrong by the science.

    What is the scientific proof of creationism? I’m intrigued.

  34. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    Quite sure. Plymouth gin on sale too.

    Stewart, the customer is always right in our little metallurgy business – we’re old fashioned that way. How many would you like and which monarch? St George and the Dragon only though – we don’t do shield sovereigns – the customer isn’t that right. We do a nice Edward VII. Nice easy bald head. Victoria Jubilee heads are a bit trickier – particularly getting the Queen’s crown and her Victoria and Albert Order insignia looking convincing.

  35. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian,

    There is tons of evidence that the Genesis account is true, from the global Flood to genetic matters.

    Conventional mythology (TofE, geological periods, etc.) depends on assumptions every step of the way.

  36. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jim,

    I’m starting to believe you…

  37. Jim Baxter says:

    As for how much – let’s see – the London Fix was at £722 for a Troy ounce on Tuesday so we’ll go with that. Eight grammes of tungsten and 2 microns worth of 24 carat gold plating per coin – ooh, do you ten for a grand since it’s you. The 24 carat gold would be the giveaway, 22 carat being slightly redder with the 8% copper. But most poor schmos just think it looks especially golden and are even more pleased. And who is going to scratch a gold coin to see what might be under the surface?

    Win-win, all the way.

  38. Stewart Cowan says:

    I bought my coins in 2007 when gold was about £430 an oz, so even if they’re fake, I’ve saved a lot of money compared with buying fake ones now…

  39. Jim Baxter says:

    Every cloud has a silver lining eh?

  40. Stewart,

    So give me a few links to these tons of evidence and I’ll go and have a look. You moan and moan about how I won’t look at the evidence for creationism then, when asked for some, you don’t give me any.

    Whilst you’re about it, tell me some of the assumptions the “mythology” of science are based upon.

    I’ve shared evidence to back up what I say, but you and English have offered up nowt. Any reasonable person will figure this means you have no evidence, or it’s so weak you’re afraid to let anyone outside your blessed circle analyse it.

    Put up or shut up.

  41. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    I offer you the evidence as laid out in the most excellent publication ‘In the beginning’ By Roger Forster.

    PS Constantly claiming opinion as evidence won’t work.

    Shut up or shut up. I don’t care which.

  42. English,

    As you’re becoming ever more obnoxious I take it it’s dawning on you that you’re losing the argument.

    Anything online that will prove anything?

  43. Do you mean “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood” by Walt Brown. I can’t find any such book by Roger Forster.

    If you can’t even properly cite the books you claim as evidence you’re not doing very well.

  44. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    I beg your pardon, I meant Roger Price. I have so many books, including those from Forster and Price (both Roger, and also Foster, whose Christian name is also Roger) that I got confused in all the excitement. You have to get it second hand from Amazon, as it is out of print.

    You ask for on-line evidence. I have repeatedly tried to state my opinion that a thing is not a fact, simply because it appears on the net, or is believed by large numbers of people, all over the world. This includes Christianity.

    I am of the opinion that it is puerile to simply post links to persons who believe the same things as me and call that evidence. I also believe it equally inane to post links to people who don’t believe the same things as me and try to pick fault with their argument, and call that evidence. The link war is never ending and can never be won, by either side.

    You could purchase the aforementioned book, read it, then Google the propositions to find cleverer people than you (and me) who think they have a rebuttal. You post these rebuttals. I then Google……. you get the picture. This proves nothing.

    I openly admit that I cannot prove the existence of God, nor the truth of Christianity, in any form other than experiential. I know that this is not science. I admit it. It does not prove my faith false.

    You think that you can prove the non existence of God, that Christianity is false, but you have to use theories, expostulations, extrapolations, guesses. This is not science. It does not prove my faith false. (Nor yours true.)

    You claim (in hope) that I am losing the argument. I am not trying to win. This is not a game. I state my opinions, my beliefs, my faith. You state yours. I doubt I will change your mind. You must, by now, be doubting that you can change mine. Other people’s opinions are irrelevant.

    I would like all men to come into the knowledge of saving grace, through faith. I know that this will not happen. I accept that. No amount of pseudo scientific journals and links will change my attitude to Christ. I hope I go to the grave with the confidence that God loves me, enough to send His son to die in my place. If I am wrong, I guess I will never know. If you are wrong, you will always know.

    PS if you view my little word games as obnoxious, it was not my intention to be so, merely a limitation of the medium to express humour. I apologise.

  45. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘If I am wrong, I guess I will never know. If you are wrong, you will always know.’

    I thought I said that, more or less, if the other way around, weeks ago. There’s no greater flattery than downright plagiarism I suppose.

    ‘God loves me, enough to send His son to die in my place’

    What DOES that mean? I thought Christ was resurrected and now reigns in heaven so how is he dead and what difference did his ‘death’ make anyway even if he were dead? And when you, the faithful, die you will not die.

    I’ve never understood any of it. It confirms my belief though that, unlike religions which celebrate life, such as Hinduism, Christianity celebrates death and its most fervent adherents are dead throughout their lives – as was the intention of the conspirators who lent it credence, for their own evil purposes, in the first place.

  46. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    If you really wish to waste your time on this spinning rock trawling previous comments, you will find that the comment that you think was plagiarised was a response by yourself to the same comment made previously by myself. I am a lot of bad things, but plagiarist is not one of them.

    The punishment for sin is death; Christ did not sin; He died, as a substitute for me (and you) who have sinned; He was resurrected and is now seated in the heavens; He does not yet rule this planet; That day will come on His return.

    All Christians die a physical death, because all Christians have sinned. They will not, however, suffer the second death Revelation 20 v 14, into which Death itself will be cast, along with all unrepentant sinners, the Devil and his angels (demons) and hell (hades). It is a common misconception that persons who do not repent will spend eternity in hell. They will not. They will spend it in the Lake of Fire, as outlined in Revelation.

    A brief synopsis of Christian theology, I know, but no less valid for its compression.

    PS If Christianity is a tool of oppression, used to suppress the masses into compliance, how come most people think it rot?

  47. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    I usually quote from memory. I seldom trawl.

    Thank you for the synopsis. I am none the wiser. You just quote tripe at me which I could read for myself. You explain nothing.

    Most people did not think it rot until recently when science freed their thinking.

  48. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    Science is the new rot, that traps the people and enslaves their minds.

    PS Do you accept that I am not a plagiarist?

  49. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    Your rot is a rot that has rotted the mind of man for centuries and which we are now in sight of freeing ourselves from. Your beliefs are beliefs that see the light and know that it is bad. Your beliefs are to truth what spirakeets are to the brain, your beliefs are a pox on thought.

    I shall of course accept your word on the plagiarism allegation sir. Apart from believing you to be an honest man among men, while believing you to be hopelessly deluded as a thinker, it will save me a trawl. And we surely can all agree that internet trawls are to be derided.

    Perhaps you will forgive my ailing memory.

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>