I remember snippets of a debate between my parents when I was a small child. My father had just informed me that Father Christmas did not exist & my mother was horrified that I had been told this at such an early age. I still remember dad looking up at her from his armchair and saying 'I will not tell lies to my son.'
My father was not a Christian & the closest he ever came to faith was a belief that 'something doesn't come from nothing.' The fact that something did in fact exist had to have a cause , and dad called that cause God. He had difficulty in accepting Jesus as God though, because he was a man. He could never accept that a man could be God despite the evidence of the gospels.
Reluctantly I have to admit that all this happened a long time ago & I am no longer a small boy, but a grown man fast approaching his sixties. In that time there has been a seismic shift in how our society thinks.
Recently whilst I was drinking coffee in my favourite watering hole I read an article in the Daily Mail that grabbed my attention. No, not that wedding, but an article that concerned TV presenter and historian Dan Snow. Apparently he has admitted to lying to his daughters during a visit to an aviation museum.
So what, you might say. Is not our world full of lies, deceit and fake news? Well apart from the fact that I naively didn't think that Dan Snow would lie, it was also to whom he was lying that shocked me. It was his own flesh & blood, his daughters. How could a father lie to his children. It went against everything that I had been brought up to believe. Then he explained why he lied & I understood. Not that I agreed with him, but at least I understood where he was coming from.
Snow is a historian so it came as a double whammy that he had lied about an historical fact. The lie he told his daughters was that women pilots flew in combat in Spitfires during world war two.
This is not true, they did not, but Snow told his daughters that they did. Why? So that his girls would feel free to 'follow their dreams' when they grew up. Implied in this is the idea that if the girls thought that the role of women in the past was not the same as the role of men then this might make them feel inferior to men today.
Now it is obvious that Dan Snow's motives were good. However I believe this to be an example of how evil can hide within good motives. The role of women in WW2 society was much different to how it is today, but just because it was different does not mean that their contribution to the war effort was not of the highest value.
We must remember the land girls who replaced men on the farms growing food for the nation. The women who made ammunition in the factories, who became mechanics, who flew new planes from the factory to the airdromes & like my mother were involved in the posting of armies across Europe.
Without the women of our nation back in the dark days of WW2 we would have lost that war no matter how brave the men were on the battle field. Snow should have used the facts of history to make his daughters proud to be female and proud of the women who lived before them. Yet he did not.
Unfortunately Snow had fallen (pun) for one of the lies that grip society today. That is the lie that to be equal you have to be the same. To Snow the fact that only men flew Spitfires in combat highlighted the inequality of the genders of WW2 Britain.
What about the fact that women risked their lives in the munitions factories which were a chief target for the Luftwaffe? If they survived air attack then the dangerous ordinance they handled would regularly detonate in the factories that made them. Did these women not risk their lives as did the men who went into battle?. Who can say that a woman blown up in a munitions factory had given less than a man who had been shot by the enemy on the front line? Their roles were different, but they both had the same end in sight.
Yet by playing down the roles actually played by women at the time Snow was showing the creeping political correctness & overt gender politics of today. As a good father Snow wants the best for his daughters & I applaud him for that. I also applaud him for not wanting his daughters to be treated as second class citizens. However for Snow that means women being treated as men, and ignoring the differences between us. That is where we differ.
However having said all this the purpose of this blog is not to discuss gender politics or the very real inequalities of WW2 Britain. The purpose of this blog is to look at what political correctness is doing to us, to truth, to history.
At the end of the day Dan Snows view of gender politics is such that he (a historian) was willing to rewrite history for the sake of his politically correct views on gender. Not for him 'I will not lie to my daughters'. His politics meant more to him than the truth, and this is what worries me. If a society were to throw out truth for the sake of its politics then you have to question its values.
I hope and pray that Dan Snows error was only his, and that those who share his liberal views would not go down that road. I fear that they would though.
Thursday, 31 May 2018
Saturday, 31 March 2018
A tale of two worlds
Long ago in a far off galaxy lived a people who began to be tech savvy. Using their new found tech knowledge they developed a system by which their personal tech machines could speak to others far away or near. They called it the mesh. Businesses & individuals could access news & information on a colossal scale & in an instant. Everyone was happy
After a while the people developed what became known as the relationship media which allowed people to keep in touch easier, old friends to get back in touch and families all over the world to keep in contact. Everyone was happy.
Then the suppliers of the relationship media realised that they could make a lot of money by advertising products to those who used their sites. But the people didn't want to hear about goods or services that they would never want & the advertisers didn't want to waste their time or money. So wanting to maximise profits the relationship media watched what people were buying or the sites they visited. Between them & the advertisers this information was sold & targeted adverts began to appear on peoples screens whenever they accessed the relationship media. But as it was for goods or services the people might want everyone was happy.
Politicians observed what was going on and they began to realise that they could use the relationship media to their advantage. They understood that most people only want to hear opinions close to their own, challenged they went away & valuable advertising opportunities were lost to the relationship media. So they allowed the interference of the politicians who targeted floating voters & the undecided in an effort to get them to think their way & hence vote for them. But the people did not mind or care. Everyone was happy.
Then strange things began to happen in the political world. Political leaders began to be elected who never would have been in the past. In some countries the population woke up to find that important decisions had been made without them realising what was really at issue. The relationship media had been manipulated, cutting proper debate & half the country didn't really know how the other half felt. But it was all democratic so everyone was happy.
In the dark world of international politics some less democratic countries realised that they could flex their muscles, become more influential in the world by manipulating the relationship media in the same way as local politicians. False sites appeared on the relationship media making comments about issues that people were concerned about, but which led the people to be sympathetic to the aspirations of these other nations. But as few knew this was going on everyone was happy.
Soon the relationship media was seen as the most effective propaganda machine ever devised. Politicians employed mesh companies to farm information from the relationship media & use it to help them get elected. The political spectrum became more & more polarised as people were pulled to one side or the other of the political spectrum. It was at this point that a certain unease started amongst the people as they began to see what was going on.
Soon it was big business and powerful politicians who decided what was true or false & the people believed whom they wanted to be right. Information & personal data became the new currency amongst the elites, but distrust of politicians grew to new heights & the very democratic process was endangered as a result. People were no longer happy.
They began to consider what had gone wrong & whose fault was it. Some blamed the interference from other countries, others the power hungry politicians of their own land. Then others began to blame the owners of the relationship media for their greed. Slowly it began to dawn on the people that these were only symptoms of the actual malaise that gripped their world. That the politicians & business leaders of their nation & others were only people the same as themselves. If roles were reversed would anything have developed differently? They thought not. They began to realise that they were the problem. They were definitely not happy.
They cried out in anguish as they racked their brains trying to think of what they could do. Then someone remembered their sacred texts & an old story of a Saviour & a Cross.
This is a story of a people who lived long ago in a far off galaxy. If it resembles a world you know of it is purely coincidental.
After a while the people developed what became known as the relationship media which allowed people to keep in touch easier, old friends to get back in touch and families all over the world to keep in contact. Everyone was happy.
Then the suppliers of the relationship media realised that they could make a lot of money by advertising products to those who used their sites. But the people didn't want to hear about goods or services that they would never want & the advertisers didn't want to waste their time or money. So wanting to maximise profits the relationship media watched what people were buying or the sites they visited. Between them & the advertisers this information was sold & targeted adverts began to appear on peoples screens whenever they accessed the relationship media. But as it was for goods or services the people might want everyone was happy.
Politicians observed what was going on and they began to realise that they could use the relationship media to their advantage. They understood that most people only want to hear opinions close to their own, challenged they went away & valuable advertising opportunities were lost to the relationship media. So they allowed the interference of the politicians who targeted floating voters & the undecided in an effort to get them to think their way & hence vote for them. But the people did not mind or care. Everyone was happy.
Then strange things began to happen in the political world. Political leaders began to be elected who never would have been in the past. In some countries the population woke up to find that important decisions had been made without them realising what was really at issue. The relationship media had been manipulated, cutting proper debate & half the country didn't really know how the other half felt. But it was all democratic so everyone was happy.
In the dark world of international politics some less democratic countries realised that they could flex their muscles, become more influential in the world by manipulating the relationship media in the same way as local politicians. False sites appeared on the relationship media making comments about issues that people were concerned about, but which led the people to be sympathetic to the aspirations of these other nations. But as few knew this was going on everyone was happy.
Soon the relationship media was seen as the most effective propaganda machine ever devised. Politicians employed mesh companies to farm information from the relationship media & use it to help them get elected. The political spectrum became more & more polarised as people were pulled to one side or the other of the political spectrum. It was at this point that a certain unease started amongst the people as they began to see what was going on.
Soon it was big business and powerful politicians who decided what was true or false & the people believed whom they wanted to be right. Information & personal data became the new currency amongst the elites, but distrust of politicians grew to new heights & the very democratic process was endangered as a result. People were no longer happy.
They began to consider what had gone wrong & whose fault was it. Some blamed the interference from other countries, others the power hungry politicians of their own land. Then others began to blame the owners of the relationship media for their greed. Slowly it began to dawn on the people that these were only symptoms of the actual malaise that gripped their world. That the politicians & business leaders of their nation & others were only people the same as themselves. If roles were reversed would anything have developed differently? They thought not. They began to realise that they were the problem. They were definitely not happy.
They cried out in anguish as they racked their brains trying to think of what they could do. Then someone remembered their sacred texts & an old story of a Saviour & a Cross.
This is a story of a people who lived long ago in a far off galaxy. If it resembles a world you know of it is purely coincidental.
Wednesday, 28 February 2018
A ribbon of defiance
For the many fans who went to the Carabao cup final at Wembley last Sunday a small yellow ribbon on the jumper of Pep Guardiola, the Manchester City manager would not have raised many eyebrows. The fact that 6000 of them had been given away outside Wembley would probably have been of equally little interest for most. The fact that these ribbons were snapped up by fans, and worn during the match probably had more to do with supporting their manager than with anything else.
You see the Football Association (FA) had brought Pep Guardiola up on a charge for wearing this seemingly innocuous adornment during previous matches & now he had done it again. What on earth could be wrong with wearing such a thing you might ask?
Well for the FA it was not the actual ribbon, but what it represented that was causing the problem. It was a political statement
Pep Guardiola is from a small town in rural Catalonia. It is staunchly independent and Catalan speaking. I think all of us are aware that Catalonia briefly declared independence from Spain last year & a symbol of this independence movement is the yellow ribbon. The problem that the FA have with this is that they try to promote keeping politics out of sport. They deem the ribbon to be a political symbol and have banned it.
Now most of us reading this blog are not Spanish or Catalan & have only a passing interest in the politics of the region. However we might realise that for Pep Guardiola this ribbon has special significance, & have no problem with him wearing it. We might wonder why the FA are being so hard. But things are not always as black & white as we would like them to be. Do we think that politics should be kept out of sport or should we allow people like Pep Guardiola to be political?
A yellow ribbon that has little significance for us in the UK is one thing, but what if Guardiola had sported a cap for or against Brexit? What if he wore a sweatshirt supporting Donald Trump or Jeremy Corbyn? What if the yellow ribbon was a Nazi swastika or the flag of the Islamic state? Would we allow these things to be worn at a sporting venue?
The problem is that you cannot keep politics or philosophy or religion out of sport. The reason is the fans. Some sports fans may have difficulty articulating their philosophy, politics or religion, because they are not used to doing so, but they all hold a position in all three never the less. Your philosophy is just your way of life, how you live it. Your politics also involves your views on the NHS, taxation, the price of a pint or the level of immigration into the UK. And your view of religion may be just that you have never accepted any religion.
If we all have views, points of view or beliefs then how can we keep politics out of sport. My own view is that you can't, but you can keep people from using sport for their political ends which is a laudable aim.
When I consider these matters my mind always drifts towards the subject of freedom of speech. I am a democrat in that I believe that we all have the right to our own views. No-one should try to stifle other opinions. If you have conservative or liberal leanings then you have the right to debate these with others who might oppose you, but you have no right to ban those who disagree with you. One caveat to this is that no-one has the right to threaten actual bodily harm. Hence 'kill all Muslims' or 'kill all gays' should never be part of civilised discourse.
So I have no problem with Pep Guardiola sporting the yellow ribbon that has go him into trouble although I also understand why the FA don't like it. I also think that Christians should be able to wear crosses at work if they want to, and members of other faiths wear what they think is appropriate. I may not agree with them, and I should be able to say this, but stopping them is another matter.
Rather than becoming more tolerant our society is actually becoming less tolerant. Liberal, politically correct views are being forced onto the public including very small children which I find abhorrent. The call of this blog is that our society becomes more inclusive. Allow dissention, allow disagreement, allow debate. Don't try to ban it.
You see the Football Association (FA) had brought Pep Guardiola up on a charge for wearing this seemingly innocuous adornment during previous matches & now he had done it again. What on earth could be wrong with wearing such a thing you might ask?
Well for the FA it was not the actual ribbon, but what it represented that was causing the problem. It was a political statement
Pep Guardiola is from a small town in rural Catalonia. It is staunchly independent and Catalan speaking. I think all of us are aware that Catalonia briefly declared independence from Spain last year & a symbol of this independence movement is the yellow ribbon. The problem that the FA have with this is that they try to promote keeping politics out of sport. They deem the ribbon to be a political symbol and have banned it.
Now most of us reading this blog are not Spanish or Catalan & have only a passing interest in the politics of the region. However we might realise that for Pep Guardiola this ribbon has special significance, & have no problem with him wearing it. We might wonder why the FA are being so hard. But things are not always as black & white as we would like them to be. Do we think that politics should be kept out of sport or should we allow people like Pep Guardiola to be political?
A yellow ribbon that has little significance for us in the UK is one thing, but what if Guardiola had sported a cap for or against Brexit? What if he wore a sweatshirt supporting Donald Trump or Jeremy Corbyn? What if the yellow ribbon was a Nazi swastika or the flag of the Islamic state? Would we allow these things to be worn at a sporting venue?
The problem is that you cannot keep politics or philosophy or religion out of sport. The reason is the fans. Some sports fans may have difficulty articulating their philosophy, politics or religion, because they are not used to doing so, but they all hold a position in all three never the less. Your philosophy is just your way of life, how you live it. Your politics also involves your views on the NHS, taxation, the price of a pint or the level of immigration into the UK. And your view of religion may be just that you have never accepted any religion.
If we all have views, points of view or beliefs then how can we keep politics out of sport. My own view is that you can't, but you can keep people from using sport for their political ends which is a laudable aim.
When I consider these matters my mind always drifts towards the subject of freedom of speech. I am a democrat in that I believe that we all have the right to our own views. No-one should try to stifle other opinions. If you have conservative or liberal leanings then you have the right to debate these with others who might oppose you, but you have no right to ban those who disagree with you. One caveat to this is that no-one has the right to threaten actual bodily harm. Hence 'kill all Muslims' or 'kill all gays' should never be part of civilised discourse.
So I have no problem with Pep Guardiola sporting the yellow ribbon that has go him into trouble although I also understand why the FA don't like it. I also think that Christians should be able to wear crosses at work if they want to, and members of other faiths wear what they think is appropriate. I may not agree with them, and I should be able to say this, but stopping them is another matter.
Rather than becoming more tolerant our society is actually becoming less tolerant. Liberal, politically correct views are being forced onto the public including very small children which I find abhorrent. The call of this blog is that our society becomes more inclusive. Allow dissention, allow disagreement, allow debate. Don't try to ban it.
Friday, 19 January 2018
Last orders at the end of the world saloon.
At the beginning of the month the BBC commenced a new drama called 'Hard Sun'. Two cops Renko & Hicks are investigating a murder when they stumble on proof that the world faces destruction in fives years time. Apart from the obvious shock & horror this gives them a dilemma. Do they make this known to the public or not? The intelligence services, who already know about this, & are searching for the lost 'proof' are adamant that it is not. In the first of the series Renko & Hicks are hunted down ruthlessly with MI5 threatening the detectives families in an effort to bring them in with the evidence. I have currently only watched the first of the series, but it promises to be very thought provoking.
As I watched episode one it got me thinking of what it would be like if this unlikely scenario were ever to come true & the general public learn of it. I imagined a sort of slow breakdown of law & order as the years went by with criminals no longer afraid of long term jail sentences.
Even law abiding citizens who wanted to keep the status quo for as long as possible would start to think why bother. Why bother with the career ladder when there will be no career? Why bother with your job at all when there will be a bucket list of things you want to do before you die? And with the imminent collapse of the worlds economies and banking system there would be no job, probably no food and riots in the streets. This is indeed a nightmare scenario.
Now scientists have told us that there will be an end to the world. However the timescale they have given us is considerably longer than five years. A cursory google of 'end of the universe' taught me that current theories are that the universe will end in the next 2.8-22 billion years in three possible ways. They are called either the big freeze, big crunch or big rip. You can look up what these are at your leisure.
For those of you who believe that the universe will end in billions of years time there is a lot of comfort. Even the earths own destruction is forecast for billions of years in the future so providing the earth can dodge the odd rogue asteroid, super nova or the stupidity of its inhabitants etc we have a lot of time before we have to consider our species mortality. Of course not so our own personal mortality.
Soothsayers, & self proclaimed prophets regularly preach 'the end is nigh' According to the Daily Express Nostradamus prophesied the end of the world in 2018. The Daily Mirror reported that on Sept 23rd last year a mysterious planet named Nibiru was set to destroy our planet or this year on Oct 15th was set to start a series of natural disasters that will culminate in the earth's demise. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Now those of you who know your bibles will be aware that it also teaches that there will be an end of the world. This prophecy appears in the Book of Revelation and chapter 21 v 1
'Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.'
It may seem a throwaway statement to say that the earth had passed away, but it means that the earth as it was, is now, will have ended.
When will this happen? Will it be in five years or 22 billion years time. Well the bible does not tell us despite many such attempts by people over the years to try & make it do so. Matthew 24 v 36
'No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.'
Of course atheists will claim that the bible is no more reliable than Nostradamus or the conspiracy theorists that abound in the media. Yet the bible has a proven track record with prophets prophesying the destruction of the Old Testament nations of Israel and Judah and their subsequent return.
For me the most amazing prophecy comes from the Book of Daniel and chapter nine where Daniel is given a vision of how long it will be from his time until the Jewish Messiah or Christ in the Greek comes. This prophecy fits exactly with the time of Jesus & is so accurate that sceptics have suggested that Daniel could not possibly have known this, so these details must have been written in later. You can't win.
For me it is logical to assume that if the bible is accurate with prophecies that have already happened then why not with the ones still to come. Of course this does not leave us as comfortable as if we were to consider the end of the world as being billions of years in the future. If we don't know the time then it could be today or even in the next few minutes.
The bible teaches us that the end will be preceded by the return of Jesus Christ, but not as a baby, but as God. Then He will judge us & we will all fail. However those who have repented of their wrongdoings (sins) will have received forgiveness as Jesus will have taken their punishment on the cross. For them eternity will be very pleasurable. For those who have never sought forgiveness from Christ eternity will not.
As I watched episode one it got me thinking of what it would be like if this unlikely scenario were ever to come true & the general public learn of it. I imagined a sort of slow breakdown of law & order as the years went by with criminals no longer afraid of long term jail sentences.
Even law abiding citizens who wanted to keep the status quo for as long as possible would start to think why bother. Why bother with the career ladder when there will be no career? Why bother with your job at all when there will be a bucket list of things you want to do before you die? And with the imminent collapse of the worlds economies and banking system there would be no job, probably no food and riots in the streets. This is indeed a nightmare scenario.
Now scientists have told us that there will be an end to the world. However the timescale they have given us is considerably longer than five years. A cursory google of 'end of the universe' taught me that current theories are that the universe will end in the next 2.8-22 billion years in three possible ways. They are called either the big freeze, big crunch or big rip. You can look up what these are at your leisure.
For those of you who believe that the universe will end in billions of years time there is a lot of comfort. Even the earths own destruction is forecast for billions of years in the future so providing the earth can dodge the odd rogue asteroid, super nova or the stupidity of its inhabitants etc we have a lot of time before we have to consider our species mortality. Of course not so our own personal mortality.
Soothsayers, & self proclaimed prophets regularly preach 'the end is nigh' According to the Daily Express Nostradamus prophesied the end of the world in 2018. The Daily Mirror reported that on Sept 23rd last year a mysterious planet named Nibiru was set to destroy our planet or this year on Oct 15th was set to start a series of natural disasters that will culminate in the earth's demise. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Now those of you who know your bibles will be aware that it also teaches that there will be an end of the world. This prophecy appears in the Book of Revelation and chapter 21 v 1
'Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.'
It may seem a throwaway statement to say that the earth had passed away, but it means that the earth as it was, is now, will have ended.
When will this happen? Will it be in five years or 22 billion years time. Well the bible does not tell us despite many such attempts by people over the years to try & make it do so. Matthew 24 v 36
'No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.'
Of course atheists will claim that the bible is no more reliable than Nostradamus or the conspiracy theorists that abound in the media. Yet the bible has a proven track record with prophets prophesying the destruction of the Old Testament nations of Israel and Judah and their subsequent return.
For me the most amazing prophecy comes from the Book of Daniel and chapter nine where Daniel is given a vision of how long it will be from his time until the Jewish Messiah or Christ in the Greek comes. This prophecy fits exactly with the time of Jesus & is so accurate that sceptics have suggested that Daniel could not possibly have known this, so these details must have been written in later. You can't win.
For me it is logical to assume that if the bible is accurate with prophecies that have already happened then why not with the ones still to come. Of course this does not leave us as comfortable as if we were to consider the end of the world as being billions of years in the future. If we don't know the time then it could be today or even in the next few minutes.
The bible teaches us that the end will be preceded by the return of Jesus Christ, but not as a baby, but as God. Then He will judge us & we will all fail. However those who have repented of their wrongdoings (sins) will have received forgiveness as Jesus will have taken their punishment on the cross. For them eternity will be very pleasurable. For those who have never sought forgiveness from Christ eternity will not.
Wednesday, 20 December 2017
A tale of babies, mangers, inns and wise men
It only seems like a few weeks ago that I would sit out in my garden, drink coffee, and read a good book whilst being warmed by the afternoon sun. Now the frosts have arrived, and we have had the first (and hopefully the last) snow of the winter. Now there is, but one word on everyone's lips-Christmas.
We live in a multi cultural society with many different faiths and many people who profess no faith. But there is still one last iconic symbol of the true Christmas, and that is the traditional nativity scene, a stable with Mary & Joseph, the baby Jesus, shepherds, wise men, animals & a star.
When I was a lad Nativity scenes were two a penny. At Christmas time shops had them in the windows, primary schools would make them & churches would display them. Now with the advent of political correctness they are rarer, but still there if you know where to look.
However as our society has become more secular so to has our understanding of what happened in those far off days become less clear. Tradition, nostalgia & a misunderstanding of 1st century culture by people living 2000 years later has coloured what actually happened at the birth of Jesus.
I want to look at how accurate is the traditional nativity scene. How well does it tie in with what the Gospels teach. But first there are a couple of Christmas related items I want us to think about. The ideas presented may or may not be my own opinion.
Christmas celebrations are commanded in the bible
Actually they are not which is why the Puritans of the 17th century banned Christmas, it had no scriptural backing. But not being in the bible does not make it wrong, just not commanded by God.
Jesus was born on the 25th Dec
Well maybe. I only say that because we don't know the day Jesus was born on so the 25th Dec has 1/365th chance of being right. Having said that there are good arguments for Christ's birth being either in the Spring or Autumn.
It is thought that the church decided on the 25th Dec as the day to celebrate Christmas as there was a pre existing pagan celebration on that day which they sought to Christianise. Nothing wrong with that.
Mary was 14 & Joseph only a little older
This is conjecture as the gospels don't give the ages of either parent, only that they were betrothed. Having said that marriages tended to be arranged and the couples very young in 21st century eyes. So it is quite likely that they were in their mid teens.
Mary was heavily pregnant on the journey to Bethlehem.
Mary was certainly pregnant, but it is supposition to say that she was just about to give birth. Luke 2 v 6 just tells us that whilst they were there she gave birth. They could have been in Bethlehem much longer than we think. No cars, buses or airplanes in those days to take them back home.
There was no room at the Inn
Here is where peoples heresy metres might be going into overdrive as I suggest that there was no Inn. Those who know more than me about the original Greek say that the word used in Luke 2 v 7 (Kataluma) actually means 'guest room.' The 2011 version of the NIV Bible translation has now be changed to reflect this.
There were no Premier Inns or the like in 1st century Palestine, and Mary & Joseph would have gone to relatives to stay. However, presumably because of the census, the upper room of the house was full.
Jesus was born in a stable
The Gospels do not say this. It is likely that the kindly relatives who Mary & Joseph wanted to stay with, but couldn't, let them use the lower room of the house where animals lived, hence the manger (animal food trough). By the way there is no mention of any animals being present at the time.
Three wise men visited Jesus after His birth.
The wise men are correctly called Magi or Majoi in Matthew 2. They were astrologers who looked to the skies for guidance. Wise men is a good title though as they would have been intelligent and
knowledgeable.
We don't know how many Magi visited Jesus, only the number of different gifts given ie three. As they are described in the plural there must have been at least two, but probably many more plus the servants and entourage deserving of visiting foreign dignitaries.
Matthew 2 v 11 mentions that the Magi visited Jesus at a house (not a stable). It may have been the same house that Jesus was born in, but I don't know, only that it was in Bethlehem.
When the Magi did not return to King Herod as instructed with details of the babies whereabouts the gospel of Matthew tells us that he became very angry, and ordered the death of all boys under 2 years old around Bethlehem. This was 'in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.' This makes us think that Jesus was anything up to 2 years old at the time of the Magi's visit. It is logical to assume that it took quite some time for the Magi to arrange the trip and get there, no Uber, no trains or planes.
The Star of Bethlehem.
The short answer is that we don't know what the star was, although it probably wasn't a star as stars don't move in relation to other heavenly bodies like this may have done. Whatever it was it held a powerful meaning for the Magi. High powered intellectual types like them did not just take months off work, spend lots of dosh on visiting some child in another country unless they thought it very, very important, and they did.
So here is my review of the traditional nativity scene. Tradition, nostalgia, and even Christmas carols have fogged what the Gospels say happened at the time of Jesus' birth. I haven't mentioned the shepherds as their presence in the nativity scene is born out by the Gospels. However I would urge any of my readers to do what Mary did at their visit & recorded in Luke 2 v 19
'But Mary treasured up all these things, and pondered them in her heart.'
Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you all.
We live in a multi cultural society with many different faiths and many people who profess no faith. But there is still one last iconic symbol of the true Christmas, and that is the traditional nativity scene, a stable with Mary & Joseph, the baby Jesus, shepherds, wise men, animals & a star.
When I was a lad Nativity scenes were two a penny. At Christmas time shops had them in the windows, primary schools would make them & churches would display them. Now with the advent of political correctness they are rarer, but still there if you know where to look.
However as our society has become more secular so to has our understanding of what happened in those far off days become less clear. Tradition, nostalgia & a misunderstanding of 1st century culture by people living 2000 years later has coloured what actually happened at the birth of Jesus.
I want to look at how accurate is the traditional nativity scene. How well does it tie in with what the Gospels teach. But first there are a couple of Christmas related items I want us to think about. The ideas presented may or may not be my own opinion.
Christmas celebrations are commanded in the bible
Actually they are not which is why the Puritans of the 17th century banned Christmas, it had no scriptural backing. But not being in the bible does not make it wrong, just not commanded by God.
Jesus was born on the 25th Dec
Well maybe. I only say that because we don't know the day Jesus was born on so the 25th Dec has 1/365th chance of being right. Having said that there are good arguments for Christ's birth being either in the Spring or Autumn.
It is thought that the church decided on the 25th Dec as the day to celebrate Christmas as there was a pre existing pagan celebration on that day which they sought to Christianise. Nothing wrong with that.
Mary was 14 & Joseph only a little older
This is conjecture as the gospels don't give the ages of either parent, only that they were betrothed. Having said that marriages tended to be arranged and the couples very young in 21st century eyes. So it is quite likely that they were in their mid teens.
Mary was heavily pregnant on the journey to Bethlehem.
Mary was certainly pregnant, but it is supposition to say that she was just about to give birth. Luke 2 v 6 just tells us that whilst they were there she gave birth. They could have been in Bethlehem much longer than we think. No cars, buses or airplanes in those days to take them back home.
There was no room at the Inn
Here is where peoples heresy metres might be going into overdrive as I suggest that there was no Inn. Those who know more than me about the original Greek say that the word used in Luke 2 v 7 (Kataluma) actually means 'guest room.' The 2011 version of the NIV Bible translation has now be changed to reflect this.
There were no Premier Inns or the like in 1st century Palestine, and Mary & Joseph would have gone to relatives to stay. However, presumably because of the census, the upper room of the house was full.
Jesus was born in a stable
The Gospels do not say this. It is likely that the kindly relatives who Mary & Joseph wanted to stay with, but couldn't, let them use the lower room of the house where animals lived, hence the manger (animal food trough). By the way there is no mention of any animals being present at the time.
Three wise men visited Jesus after His birth.
The wise men are correctly called Magi or Majoi in Matthew 2. They were astrologers who looked to the skies for guidance. Wise men is a good title though as they would have been intelligent and
knowledgeable.
We don't know how many Magi visited Jesus, only the number of different gifts given ie three. As they are described in the plural there must have been at least two, but probably many more plus the servants and entourage deserving of visiting foreign dignitaries.
Matthew 2 v 11 mentions that the Magi visited Jesus at a house (not a stable). It may have been the same house that Jesus was born in, but I don't know, only that it was in Bethlehem.
When the Magi did not return to King Herod as instructed with details of the babies whereabouts the gospel of Matthew tells us that he became very angry, and ordered the death of all boys under 2 years old around Bethlehem. This was 'in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.' This makes us think that Jesus was anything up to 2 years old at the time of the Magi's visit. It is logical to assume that it took quite some time for the Magi to arrange the trip and get there, no Uber, no trains or planes.
The Star of Bethlehem.
The short answer is that we don't know what the star was, although it probably wasn't a star as stars don't move in relation to other heavenly bodies like this may have done. Whatever it was it held a powerful meaning for the Magi. High powered intellectual types like them did not just take months off work, spend lots of dosh on visiting some child in another country unless they thought it very, very important, and they did.
So here is my review of the traditional nativity scene. Tradition, nostalgia, and even Christmas carols have fogged what the Gospels say happened at the time of Jesus' birth. I haven't mentioned the shepherds as their presence in the nativity scene is born out by the Gospels. However I would urge any of my readers to do what Mary did at their visit & recorded in Luke 2 v 19
'But Mary treasured up all these things, and pondered them in her heart.'
Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you all.
Monday, 4 December 2017
How to be a dangerous subversive in 21st c UK
A couple of days ago the ex leader of the Lib Dem's Tim Farron gave the Theos Annual Lecture 2017. In his lecture he claimed that our society is beginning to view Christianity as dangerous & offensive.
Now some of you may think he is either exaggerating or has been bit by a conspiracy theorist, but if you are keeping your ears to the ground, either on social media, or the usual media then you will know that Farron's views are pretty close to the mark.
Our society has now departed so far from Christianity that councillors have called mainstream Christian views as 'dangerous non mainstream ideas'. I have come across cases of people being banned from social work degrees because they hold that marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman only for example. I could go on.
Of course our country, the UK, is still one of the best nations for religious freedom in the world, but I fear that this freedom is being eroded all the time. In light of this, and with more than a little irony & humour I present my 'Manifesto for dangerous subversives.' The items are given in no particular order.
1) Believe & trust in the God of the Bible
You cannot be a real dangerous subversive if you hold to the idea that God doesn't exist or you follow another faith. You may be an atheist, a political left or right winger, whatever, but if you are not born again then you are part of the system. Only born again Christians have the Holy Spirit changing them from the inside. Only born again Christians are true subversives.
2) Obey the Great Commission
Our society teaches that all faiths should be tolerant of each other & that every viewpoint is valid. The first is right, but the second isn't. If one religion teaches that A is right and another that A is wrong & B is right then one or both of them are wrong. We do not show love for our fellow humans if we let them persist in what we believe to be falsehood. Subversives should ignore the political correct way and instead obey Jesus Christ in Matthew 28 v 16-20 when He told His disciples to go out & make disciples of all nations.
3) Don't buy into the worlds definition of success
Theologian Francis Schaeffer warned about what he called 'personal peace & affluence' being the goal of our life. The bible doesn't teach that having money is wrong, only that its attainment shouldn't be our first priority. Subversives should ignore the values of our world & instead seek an ever growing Christ likeness. This is true success as it will last for eternity.
4) Dare to question what society teaches.
In a world of fake news the true subversive must look to the only source of absolute truth that we have and that is the bible. We don't need to be particularly intelligent or have a degree in theology to observe what our society is teaching & where it is going. Neither do we need to be a Pastor, theologian, author or intellectual to speak to our family, our friends and our work colleagues about the love & hope that we have in Christ. The subversive should subvert the lies and hopelessness of what society is spouting & tell of the peace and hope we have found.
5) Go to church
The subversive realises that there is an enormous amount of social engineering in our society. The pressure to conform to the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, the philosophy, whatever you want to call it now starts at infant school & continues from then on. To meet with fellow subversives, praise God & spend time listening to Him is so refreshing, invigorating, sometimes challenging, but always necessary.
6) Love
You don't need to be on social media for very long to come across the hate filled views of so many. The subversive though knows that we shouldn't use the tactics or the language of the world. Our actions should come out of love for others, not the desire for winning arguments or brownie points from God. The subversive knows that the love that the bible teaches is not a wishy washy warm feeling, but tough.
7) Forgive
The subversive knows that one of the most difficult things he is asked to do is forgive. The natural reaction to being hurt is to react in the same manner if not worse. However subversives are reminded in the bible of how much Christ has forgiven them, so they should show forgiveness to a world that expects only tit for tat retaliation
8) Pray
The subversive realises that His greatest asset he has is unfettered access to the most powerful being in the universe. Spending time with Him, bringing all our hopes, fears and joys to Him is the biggest privilege that we have, and few of us take full advantage, myself including. But if the subversive does spend time in His presence then he will be rewarded with a peace that the outside world doesn't understand and also guidance for the his life.
There are many other items I could add to my manifesto, but those few will do for the time being.
Now some of you may have a little difficulty in thinking of Biblical Christianity as subversive, as the media presents it as either wimpy, irrelevant, or staid & conformist. But true Christianity always has been, and always will be, the most revolutionary teaching ever devised.
There have been political messiahs aplenty, both from the left and from the right. These have sought to subvert the society around them for their own reasons. Some radically changed their society so that economic & social life changed and with them their values. But fundamentally the people remained the same. Inside nothing had changed.
Religions have come & gone. Most teaching the adherent that if they follow this or that set of rules then they will earn the respect of their deity. Only Christianity says that we can never do this. Only Christianity says ignore the teaching of the world. There is only one way to the God who is there & that is to accept that we need changing on the inside. This change is the most radical change ever envisaged & is only possible if you accept Christ as your Lord & Saviour.
My challenge to all my readers is that you become a true subversive. Accept Jesus into your life as King and join your brothers & sisters of past times who subverted their societies and started schools, universities, and charities.
Now some of you may think he is either exaggerating or has been bit by a conspiracy theorist, but if you are keeping your ears to the ground, either on social media, or the usual media then you will know that Farron's views are pretty close to the mark.
Our society has now departed so far from Christianity that councillors have called mainstream Christian views as 'dangerous non mainstream ideas'. I have come across cases of people being banned from social work degrees because they hold that marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman only for example. I could go on.
Of course our country, the UK, is still one of the best nations for religious freedom in the world, but I fear that this freedom is being eroded all the time. In light of this, and with more than a little irony & humour I present my 'Manifesto for dangerous subversives.' The items are given in no particular order.
1) Believe & trust in the God of the Bible
You cannot be a real dangerous subversive if you hold to the idea that God doesn't exist or you follow another faith. You may be an atheist, a political left or right winger, whatever, but if you are not born again then you are part of the system. Only born again Christians have the Holy Spirit changing them from the inside. Only born again Christians are true subversives.
2) Obey the Great Commission
Our society teaches that all faiths should be tolerant of each other & that every viewpoint is valid. The first is right, but the second isn't. If one religion teaches that A is right and another that A is wrong & B is right then one or both of them are wrong. We do not show love for our fellow humans if we let them persist in what we believe to be falsehood. Subversives should ignore the political correct way and instead obey Jesus Christ in Matthew 28 v 16-20 when He told His disciples to go out & make disciples of all nations.
3) Don't buy into the worlds definition of success
Theologian Francis Schaeffer warned about what he called 'personal peace & affluence' being the goal of our life. The bible doesn't teach that having money is wrong, only that its attainment shouldn't be our first priority. Subversives should ignore the values of our world & instead seek an ever growing Christ likeness. This is true success as it will last for eternity.
4) Dare to question what society teaches.
In a world of fake news the true subversive must look to the only source of absolute truth that we have and that is the bible. We don't need to be particularly intelligent or have a degree in theology to observe what our society is teaching & where it is going. Neither do we need to be a Pastor, theologian, author or intellectual to speak to our family, our friends and our work colleagues about the love & hope that we have in Christ. The subversive should subvert the lies and hopelessness of what society is spouting & tell of the peace and hope we have found.
5) Go to church
The subversive realises that there is an enormous amount of social engineering in our society. The pressure to conform to the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, the philosophy, whatever you want to call it now starts at infant school & continues from then on. To meet with fellow subversives, praise God & spend time listening to Him is so refreshing, invigorating, sometimes challenging, but always necessary.
6) Love
You don't need to be on social media for very long to come across the hate filled views of so many. The subversive though knows that we shouldn't use the tactics or the language of the world. Our actions should come out of love for others, not the desire for winning arguments or brownie points from God. The subversive knows that the love that the bible teaches is not a wishy washy warm feeling, but tough.
7) Forgive
The subversive knows that one of the most difficult things he is asked to do is forgive. The natural reaction to being hurt is to react in the same manner if not worse. However subversives are reminded in the bible of how much Christ has forgiven them, so they should show forgiveness to a world that expects only tit for tat retaliation
8) Pray
The subversive realises that His greatest asset he has is unfettered access to the most powerful being in the universe. Spending time with Him, bringing all our hopes, fears and joys to Him is the biggest privilege that we have, and few of us take full advantage, myself including. But if the subversive does spend time in His presence then he will be rewarded with a peace that the outside world doesn't understand and also guidance for the his life.
There are many other items I could add to my manifesto, but those few will do for the time being.
Now some of you may have a little difficulty in thinking of Biblical Christianity as subversive, as the media presents it as either wimpy, irrelevant, or staid & conformist. But true Christianity always has been, and always will be, the most revolutionary teaching ever devised.
There have been political messiahs aplenty, both from the left and from the right. These have sought to subvert the society around them for their own reasons. Some radically changed their society so that economic & social life changed and with them their values. But fundamentally the people remained the same. Inside nothing had changed.
Religions have come & gone. Most teaching the adherent that if they follow this or that set of rules then they will earn the respect of their deity. Only Christianity says that we can never do this. Only Christianity says ignore the teaching of the world. There is only one way to the God who is there & that is to accept that we need changing on the inside. This change is the most radical change ever envisaged & is only possible if you accept Christ as your Lord & Saviour.
My challenge to all my readers is that you become a true subversive. Accept Jesus into your life as King and join your brothers & sisters of past times who subverted their societies and started schools, universities, and charities.
Monday, 30 October 2017
Red Dwarf and the eradication of evil
I am unashamedly a Red Dwarf fan so I was very happy to see the start of the 12th series. For those of you who have never heard of Red Dwarf (I suppose there may be someone) here is a potted history.
Dave Lister is a repair man on a spaceship. There is a radiation leak and 3 million years later he comes out of suspended animation to find that he is the only human to have survived.
For company Lister only has a hologram of his intolerable, ego centric ship mate Rimmer, the descendant of a cat which has evolved into something that looks like actor Danny John-Jules with vampire teeth, and an android who mops the floors called Kryten.
In the first episode the 'boyz' from the dwarf' receive some sort of distress call. They investigate and find a space station on some sort of moon or planet. Inside they revive a scientist whose lifework was to eradicate evil in mankind. He claims to have succeeded and as evidence points to his test subjects Hitler, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler and some equally horrible woman whose name I couldn't get.
He revives the above named test subjects who greet the 'boyz' with a smile. Of course they still have their old clothes on which for Hitler is Nazi uniform, that moustache and an inability to avoid giving Nazi salutes even when taking round the drinks.
After initial reservations the 'boyz' start to warm to what now appears to be four nice people. Hitler admits to a love of playing the guitar, which is just up Lister's street. Cue a madcap jamming session with Lister and Hitler doing the best, over the top, rock act since the Stones.
I was still chuckling about this a couple of days later as I drank my morning coffee in my local coffee shop. I must have been starting to wake up and a few brain cells commencing to fire as an idle thought crossed my sleepy brain.
The thought was one of those 'what if' thoughts that sometimes cross the minds of SF fans, even fans of comic spoofs such as Red Dwarf. The thought was
''What if it was possible to eradicate evil in mankind.'
Of course you would have to decide exactly what evil was, what caused it, if anything. Was it a 'thing', was it an action, could you learn it and unlearn it?
For the sake of argument let us assume that the scientist on that space station had cured the four subjects of being evil. This meant that Hitler could start again. He could go live in Berlin, rent an apartment, get a job, take his place in polite society. Wouldn't that be wonderful.
Now the caffeine must have been starting to work and a few more brain cells were starting to fire in my head as another idle thought came to mind. What about the Nazi death camps, the six million Jews killed as part of the 'final solution'. What about all the young men and women killed in the second world war largely at Hitler's cause. What would their families think if Hitler could now go free and live the remainder of his life whilst their loved ones had died. I expect that unhappy wouldn't even begin to describe how they would feel.
You see even in this hypothetical situation, with Hitler now cured of evil, he would still have been behind the death camps etc. Curing the problem going forward would not remove the guilt of the past.
Thankfully most of us do not have the legacy of Hitler, Stalin or Vlad the Impaler. However if we think that our pasts are unblemished then we delude ourselves. Our wrong doings, the bible calls them sins, may not be as great as Hitler's, but they are there and by ourselves we cannot remove them.
The bible teaches us that the wages of sin are death which means that all who have ever done wrong in the eyes of God will die. This means that we all deserve death.
If that were the end of the story then we would be a very sorry people with no hope. Yet that same God who says that sin deserves death provides a solution. His own Son would die in our place. He would take the punishment that is rightfully ours. Far from being a people of no hope we can become a people of true hope, hope for the future, and hope now.
Suddenly my coffee tasted just that little bit better.
Dave Lister is a repair man on a spaceship. There is a radiation leak and 3 million years later he comes out of suspended animation to find that he is the only human to have survived.
For company Lister only has a hologram of his intolerable, ego centric ship mate Rimmer, the descendant of a cat which has evolved into something that looks like actor Danny John-Jules with vampire teeth, and an android who mops the floors called Kryten.
In the first episode the 'boyz' from the dwarf' receive some sort of distress call. They investigate and find a space station on some sort of moon or planet. Inside they revive a scientist whose lifework was to eradicate evil in mankind. He claims to have succeeded and as evidence points to his test subjects Hitler, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler and some equally horrible woman whose name I couldn't get.
He revives the above named test subjects who greet the 'boyz' with a smile. Of course they still have their old clothes on which for Hitler is Nazi uniform, that moustache and an inability to avoid giving Nazi salutes even when taking round the drinks.
After initial reservations the 'boyz' start to warm to what now appears to be four nice people. Hitler admits to a love of playing the guitar, which is just up Lister's street. Cue a madcap jamming session with Lister and Hitler doing the best, over the top, rock act since the Stones.
I was still chuckling about this a couple of days later as I drank my morning coffee in my local coffee shop. I must have been starting to wake up and a few brain cells commencing to fire as an idle thought crossed my sleepy brain.
The thought was one of those 'what if' thoughts that sometimes cross the minds of SF fans, even fans of comic spoofs such as Red Dwarf. The thought was
''What if it was possible to eradicate evil in mankind.'
Of course you would have to decide exactly what evil was, what caused it, if anything. Was it a 'thing', was it an action, could you learn it and unlearn it?
For the sake of argument let us assume that the scientist on that space station had cured the four subjects of being evil. This meant that Hitler could start again. He could go live in Berlin, rent an apartment, get a job, take his place in polite society. Wouldn't that be wonderful.
Now the caffeine must have been starting to work and a few more brain cells were starting to fire in my head as another idle thought came to mind. What about the Nazi death camps, the six million Jews killed as part of the 'final solution'. What about all the young men and women killed in the second world war largely at Hitler's cause. What would their families think if Hitler could now go free and live the remainder of his life whilst their loved ones had died. I expect that unhappy wouldn't even begin to describe how they would feel.
You see even in this hypothetical situation, with Hitler now cured of evil, he would still have been behind the death camps etc. Curing the problem going forward would not remove the guilt of the past.
Thankfully most of us do not have the legacy of Hitler, Stalin or Vlad the Impaler. However if we think that our pasts are unblemished then we delude ourselves. Our wrong doings, the bible calls them sins, may not be as great as Hitler's, but they are there and by ourselves we cannot remove them.
The bible teaches us that the wages of sin are death which means that all who have ever done wrong in the eyes of God will die. This means that we all deserve death.
If that were the end of the story then we would be a very sorry people with no hope. Yet that same God who says that sin deserves death provides a solution. His own Son would die in our place. He would take the punishment that is rightfully ours. Far from being a people of no hope we can become a people of true hope, hope for the future, and hope now.
Suddenly my coffee tasted just that little bit better.
Friday, 29 September 2017
Harvests of the world
Last weekend Therfield Chapel had its annual Harvest Festival service. Our Pastor Joshua Jones was preaching and it fell to me to lead the service and prayer time. As I sat at home considering appropriate prayers for inclusion at a harvest service it occurred to me that there are many harvests in our world, and not just ones of food, as important as these are. I touched on some of these 'other harvests' in my prayer time & now I would like to think further about this in my blog.
It is important to remember that a harvest is when we reap what we have earlier sown, and only a cursory glance at the world around us tells us that what we are reaping today is far from all good. Seed is not always good and in my view our world is reaping the harvest of sowing much bad seed down the years. I have chosen only a few bad seed to look at, not because these are the only ones, but because this is a blog and not a book.
The seeds of pride and power I will take together. According to the bible pride is the original sin and indeed this is at the heart of all the bad seed sown. Pride and the wanting of power is at the heart of all dictatorships & warlords that blight so many countries today. They cause so much poverty that is completely needless. Somalia, Libya and Syria are examples of just three of these nations.
Our country is not immune of course. We may not have open warfare between pride filled, and power hungry groups, but pride is at the heart of much in our country. Do our politicians always do what they believe to be the best for the nation, or the best for their party and hence themselves? Do our business leaders really care at all for their customers, or is it all about the bottom line? And us, as individuals, do we really care for those around us? Are we willing to build them up even at our expense?
This brings me onto the next bad seed and that is 'I'. I don't just mean myself of course, but the cult of individualism that has taken over our nation. I am reminded of the run up to the last election where I lost count of candidates telling us to vote for selfish reasons, for the party that will give 'us' the most (them). It was all party ideology and no time for proper cross party discussion as to what our country really needed. I am not being naïve as I didn't expect this, not with our current worldview.
The philosophy of our age is to be concerned with the individual, be selfish. We are to be inward looking, concerned with only things that effect us, our friends, and immediate family.
The next seed is, believe it or not, freedom. I foresee a few raised eyebrows at my inclusion of this. Is not freedom a good thing, what people have fought for and laid there lives down for. Of course freedom can be a good thing, a very good thing, but we must look a little closer at what we mean by freedom.
My bible teaches me that we were never created to be little gods. The true creator God never meant us to have absolute power over our lives, even if this is actually possible. We were never meant to be inward looking, concerned only with things that effect us, but to be outward looking. The bible teaches us that Christians are part of the body of Christ. This is a picture showing believers as parts of the body, but with Christ as our head, our leader.
As parts of the body of Christ Christians should let the head rule, just as it does in a real body. This means we voluntarily give up some of our freedom to Christ, and accept Him as the ultimate power in our lives. Our nations worldview encourages us to be masters of our own fate. Christianity says this is not possible (the subject of another blog perhaps), and true freedom comes with a lessening of the 'I' and an increase of Christ in our lives. It is actually a fallacy that we can be completely free. As someone once wrote 'No man is an island', and indeed as soon as we acknowledge another person then there has to be compromise.
The results of these and other harvests of the world are found in the UK as a nation that no longer has any true basis for its values. Hence just about any belief system, or philosophical view is allowed. Absolute truth went out when our nation ceased to truly follow Christ. With no absolute truth our countries worldview tells
us to be wary of anyone with claims of truth. In fact it is very intolerant of any faith/view that disagrees with its interpretation of tolerance. Irony abounds.
In such a world the next casualties are free speech and the freedom to proclaim your faith to any who would listen. The later will only concern some, but the former should worry everyone.
If you are happy with the harvests of the world then fine. I believe that Christianity supports freedom of speech as our Lord never forces Himself into the lives of anyone, and hence you have a right to your views, even if I disagree with them. However if you think that there must be a better way then I urge you to consider Christianity. You might find it a little more radical than you thought, but millions of people down the years would testify to its ability, (or more accurately Christ's ability) to change lives.
It is important to remember that a harvest is when we reap what we have earlier sown, and only a cursory glance at the world around us tells us that what we are reaping today is far from all good. Seed is not always good and in my view our world is reaping the harvest of sowing much bad seed down the years. I have chosen only a few bad seed to look at, not because these are the only ones, but because this is a blog and not a book.
The seeds of pride and power I will take together. According to the bible pride is the original sin and indeed this is at the heart of all the bad seed sown. Pride and the wanting of power is at the heart of all dictatorships & warlords that blight so many countries today. They cause so much poverty that is completely needless. Somalia, Libya and Syria are examples of just three of these nations.
Our country is not immune of course. We may not have open warfare between pride filled, and power hungry groups, but pride is at the heart of much in our country. Do our politicians always do what they believe to be the best for the nation, or the best for their party and hence themselves? Do our business leaders really care at all for their customers, or is it all about the bottom line? And us, as individuals, do we really care for those around us? Are we willing to build them up even at our expense?
This brings me onto the next bad seed and that is 'I'. I don't just mean myself of course, but the cult of individualism that has taken over our nation. I am reminded of the run up to the last election where I lost count of candidates telling us to vote for selfish reasons, for the party that will give 'us' the most (them). It was all party ideology and no time for proper cross party discussion as to what our country really needed. I am not being naïve as I didn't expect this, not with our current worldview.
The philosophy of our age is to be concerned with the individual, be selfish. We are to be inward looking, concerned with only things that effect us, our friends, and immediate family.
The next seed is, believe it or not, freedom. I foresee a few raised eyebrows at my inclusion of this. Is not freedom a good thing, what people have fought for and laid there lives down for. Of course freedom can be a good thing, a very good thing, but we must look a little closer at what we mean by freedom.
My bible teaches me that we were never created to be little gods. The true creator God never meant us to have absolute power over our lives, even if this is actually possible. We were never meant to be inward looking, concerned only with things that effect us, but to be outward looking. The bible teaches us that Christians are part of the body of Christ. This is a picture showing believers as parts of the body, but with Christ as our head, our leader.
As parts of the body of Christ Christians should let the head rule, just as it does in a real body. This means we voluntarily give up some of our freedom to Christ, and accept Him as the ultimate power in our lives. Our nations worldview encourages us to be masters of our own fate. Christianity says this is not possible (the subject of another blog perhaps), and true freedom comes with a lessening of the 'I' and an increase of Christ in our lives. It is actually a fallacy that we can be completely free. As someone once wrote 'No man is an island', and indeed as soon as we acknowledge another person then there has to be compromise.
The results of these and other harvests of the world are found in the UK as a nation that no longer has any true basis for its values. Hence just about any belief system, or philosophical view is allowed. Absolute truth went out when our nation ceased to truly follow Christ. With no absolute truth our countries worldview tells
us to be wary of anyone with claims of truth. In fact it is very intolerant of any faith/view that disagrees with its interpretation of tolerance. Irony abounds.
In such a world the next casualties are free speech and the freedom to proclaim your faith to any who would listen. The later will only concern some, but the former should worry everyone.
If you are happy with the harvests of the world then fine. I believe that Christianity supports freedom of speech as our Lord never forces Himself into the lives of anyone, and hence you have a right to your views, even if I disagree with them. However if you think that there must be a better way then I urge you to consider Christianity. You might find it a little more radical than you thought, but millions of people down the years would testify to its ability, (or more accurately Christ's ability) to change lives.
Wednesday, 23 August 2017
Are you worth as much as Neymar?
You don't have to be a football fan to be aware of the hottest football news of this summer as it has been in all the media. It is of course the transfer of Brazilian superstar Neymar from Barcelona to Paris Saint Germain (PSG) for the princely sum of £198 million pounds.
On top of the transfer fee PSG will have to stump up Neymar's salary + add on's + tax which gives a sum over 5 years of approx £450 million. This not only beats the previous record of Paul Pogba to Manchester United into second place, but smashes it into oblivion.
As I watched this eye watering transfer unfold in the media I was incredulous. Along with many other people I was gob smacked. Is Neymar really worth that much? Then in the back of my mind a question was raised - How do you measure worth?
To most of us it seems obvious that doctors, nurses and teachers etc have more inherent worth than footballers, and even as a life long football fan I am inclined to think that way. But clearly PSG think differently. To them footballers are worth more than doctors etc as I bet that their medical team get paid a fraction of what Neymar earns
So am I right or are PSG? How do we measure worth? Is there a coherent way of measuring worth? Are some people worth more than others and if so why?
If doctors are worth more than footballers then is our worth dependent on what we do? Does our job or lack of one dictate our worth? Certainly if the media presents the truth then some politicians think like that as 'contributing to society' ie paying taxes and not claiming benefits, seems of utmost importance to them. In other words are those who get on in the world worth more than those who don't?
I don't agree with this thinking. The bible does teach the importance of work, but it doesn't teach that our value comes from this. If it did then it would mean that the old, the handicapped and the low paid would be worth little or nothing and that is not what I read in my bible.
There has to be a better way of measuring worth and indeed we find it in that well known bible passage John 3 v 16
'For God so loved the world that He gave His one & only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'
Everyone wants to matter, and this passage tells us that we all matter to God and crucially equally. So are you worth the same as Neymar? Of course you are, as I am. We are worth the life of Jesus Christ.
On top of the transfer fee PSG will have to stump up Neymar's salary + add on's + tax which gives a sum over 5 years of approx £450 million. This not only beats the previous record of Paul Pogba to Manchester United into second place, but smashes it into oblivion.
As I watched this eye watering transfer unfold in the media I was incredulous. Along with many other people I was gob smacked. Is Neymar really worth that much? Then in the back of my mind a question was raised - How do you measure worth?
To most of us it seems obvious that doctors, nurses and teachers etc have more inherent worth than footballers, and even as a life long football fan I am inclined to think that way. But clearly PSG think differently. To them footballers are worth more than doctors etc as I bet that their medical team get paid a fraction of what Neymar earns
So am I right or are PSG? How do we measure worth? Is there a coherent way of measuring worth? Are some people worth more than others and if so why?
If doctors are worth more than footballers then is our worth dependent on what we do? Does our job or lack of one dictate our worth? Certainly if the media presents the truth then some politicians think like that as 'contributing to society' ie paying taxes and not claiming benefits, seems of utmost importance to them. In other words are those who get on in the world worth more than those who don't?
I don't agree with this thinking. The bible does teach the importance of work, but it doesn't teach that our value comes from this. If it did then it would mean that the old, the handicapped and the low paid would be worth little or nothing and that is not what I read in my bible.
There has to be a better way of measuring worth and indeed we find it in that well known bible passage John 3 v 16
'For God so loved the world that He gave His one & only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'
Everyone wants to matter, and this passage tells us that we all matter to God and crucially equally. So are you worth the same as Neymar? Of course you are, as I am. We are worth the life of Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, 26 July 2017
Hello Ladies and Gentlmen
I take it as given that all of us want to feel welcome wherever we go, be that amongst our friends, work colleagues or in society in general. Hence I understand why Stonewall champions the rights of the LGBT community. How gay people were treated in decades past was terrible and I oppose anyone or any organisation that would seek to cause harm to the property or person of any homosexual or heterosexual. All of us ought to be able to live safely in our homes or go about our business without the threat of harm.
But just because I wish no harm on any homosexual person doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything that Stonewall stands for or seeks to do. For example the issue of gender neutrality. A seemingly innocuous article in my newspaper caught my eye on the 14th July 2017. It was in the i newspaper and was titled 'End of the line: Goodbye Ladies and Gentlemen.'
The above article informed us that transport workers across London have been told to stop using the words 'ladies and gentlemen' in public address announcements in order to comply with a city wide bid to become more gender neutral. Apparently LGBT activists have appealed to the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to change what they called 'outdated language'. TFL (Transport for London) boss Mark Evers said that TFL wants 'everyone to feel welcome on our transport network' and 'we have revised the language that we use in announcements & elsewhere and will make sure it is fully inclusive, reflecting the great diversity of London.
For some people, just me querying Stonewalls actions would be enough to label me as homophobic which is not true. I do not like the term homophobic as it seems to be used to belittle any who disagree with the party line. If the government were to do this then we would all be up in arms. Democracy means dealing and debating with those you disagree with. Calling them names is childish. All those who did not vote for the Tory party in the recent elections are not toryphobic. Perhaps homophobic could be used for right wing bigots who hate homosexuals. I do not hate homosexuals.
As I said earlier I support Stonewalls right to represent the LGBT community. As a Christian I also call upon the church to reach out and show the love of God to gay, transgender and intersex people, but also to question their lifestyle. This already happens with heterosexuals so why not homosexuals? In this blog I do not intend to bible bash and indeed I hope to be as fair and neutral as I can. My intent is to question the subject of gender neutrality as I see it in society and particularly as I found it in this article.
TFL cite ' a city wide bid to become more gender neutral.' Now I am not a resident of London so I am not aware whether Londoners have been presented with details of the above bid. Neither am I aware whether they have been presented with the arguments for or against this, or whether they have had the opportunity to voice their opinion on this policy. If they have then fine, but if they haven't then why not? A city wide policy effects all Londoners & the mayor needs to heed all views and not just those from one side of the argument.
In the article activists state that 'ladies and gentlemen' is archaic language which is nonsense. I may not be in the first flush of youth, but I still use the term. I admit that thee, thy, thou and forsooth have dropped from my vocabulary and may be confined to history, but 'ladies and gentlemen-COME ON.
I understand that TFL want everyone to feel welcome on their transport network and I should hope so to. What I fail to understand is why 'ladies and gentlemen' should be seen as anything other than a fully inclusive term. There have been times when I have had to stand up in front of others at our chapel, and call everyone to order because something is about to start. I can assure you that on those occasions my words of 'ladies & gentlemen' were meant to include all those present.
Historically 'ladies & gentlemen' is a term of inclusiveness so why does Stonewall want it removed? Gay men are still men, gay women are still women. Your gender does not dictate your sexual orientation in our society. Even transgender people were born as one sex, but then choose to live as another. Of course there is the case of 'intersex' people whose sex can be unclear, but I do not think that they are the issue.
I have been fighting against accepting the following conclusion as I dislike conspiracy theories and don't want to be labelled as a conspiracy theorist. However I cannot deny that there is pressure put on us by society to accept certain views and beliefs. The use of the term homophobic is one example. If you disagree with me then ask yourselves the following. When did you last see the homosexual lifestyle questioned anywhere in the media? When did you last see any debate on gender neutrality? All we get are films, programmes and newspaper articles that promote the homosexual lifestyle as championed by Stonewall. Whilst we should not gloss over the injustices done to gay people in the past, never the less unquestioning support of homosexuality/gender neutrality is not the way forward. Articles such as in the i newspaper give support to gender neutrality, but they fail to give reasons why this is a good thing.
As a Christian I believe that men and women should celebrate their maleness or femaleness rather than accept the pressure to, in some way, hide it. I am not talking about gender stereotypes which are a social construct, but a recognition that both sexes have worth because they are Gods construct.
To be candid I don't really care how TFL make their public announcements. What does bother me is that a relatively small pressure group can get TFL to change a perfectly up to date, and inclusive term for their own reasons.
So Ladies and Gentlemen let us oppose this gender neutrality pressure. There is no reason why anyone should think that this term is anything other than meant to be inclusive and hence no reason for anyone to be offended or feel left out.
My prayer is that going forward we will have meaningful debates in society. I want to hear Stonewalls arguments, and I also want those who disagree to be able to do so. I ask for more democracy, not less.
But just because I wish no harm on any homosexual person doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything that Stonewall stands for or seeks to do. For example the issue of gender neutrality. A seemingly innocuous article in my newspaper caught my eye on the 14th July 2017. It was in the i newspaper and was titled 'End of the line: Goodbye Ladies and Gentlemen.'
The above article informed us that transport workers across London have been told to stop using the words 'ladies and gentlemen' in public address announcements in order to comply with a city wide bid to become more gender neutral. Apparently LGBT activists have appealed to the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to change what they called 'outdated language'. TFL (Transport for London) boss Mark Evers said that TFL wants 'everyone to feel welcome on our transport network' and 'we have revised the language that we use in announcements & elsewhere and will make sure it is fully inclusive, reflecting the great diversity of London.
For some people, just me querying Stonewalls actions would be enough to label me as homophobic which is not true. I do not like the term homophobic as it seems to be used to belittle any who disagree with the party line. If the government were to do this then we would all be up in arms. Democracy means dealing and debating with those you disagree with. Calling them names is childish. All those who did not vote for the Tory party in the recent elections are not toryphobic. Perhaps homophobic could be used for right wing bigots who hate homosexuals. I do not hate homosexuals.
As I said earlier I support Stonewalls right to represent the LGBT community. As a Christian I also call upon the church to reach out and show the love of God to gay, transgender and intersex people, but also to question their lifestyle. This already happens with heterosexuals so why not homosexuals? In this blog I do not intend to bible bash and indeed I hope to be as fair and neutral as I can. My intent is to question the subject of gender neutrality as I see it in society and particularly as I found it in this article.
TFL cite ' a city wide bid to become more gender neutral.' Now I am not a resident of London so I am not aware whether Londoners have been presented with details of the above bid. Neither am I aware whether they have been presented with the arguments for or against this, or whether they have had the opportunity to voice their opinion on this policy. If they have then fine, but if they haven't then why not? A city wide policy effects all Londoners & the mayor needs to heed all views and not just those from one side of the argument.
In the article activists state that 'ladies and gentlemen' is archaic language which is nonsense. I may not be in the first flush of youth, but I still use the term. I admit that thee, thy, thou and forsooth have dropped from my vocabulary and may be confined to history, but 'ladies and gentlemen-COME ON.
I understand that TFL want everyone to feel welcome on their transport network and I should hope so to. What I fail to understand is why 'ladies and gentlemen' should be seen as anything other than a fully inclusive term. There have been times when I have had to stand up in front of others at our chapel, and call everyone to order because something is about to start. I can assure you that on those occasions my words of 'ladies & gentlemen' were meant to include all those present.
Historically 'ladies & gentlemen' is a term of inclusiveness so why does Stonewall want it removed? Gay men are still men, gay women are still women. Your gender does not dictate your sexual orientation in our society. Even transgender people were born as one sex, but then choose to live as another. Of course there is the case of 'intersex' people whose sex can be unclear, but I do not think that they are the issue.
I have been fighting against accepting the following conclusion as I dislike conspiracy theories and don't want to be labelled as a conspiracy theorist. However I cannot deny that there is pressure put on us by society to accept certain views and beliefs. The use of the term homophobic is one example. If you disagree with me then ask yourselves the following. When did you last see the homosexual lifestyle questioned anywhere in the media? When did you last see any debate on gender neutrality? All we get are films, programmes and newspaper articles that promote the homosexual lifestyle as championed by Stonewall. Whilst we should not gloss over the injustices done to gay people in the past, never the less unquestioning support of homosexuality/gender neutrality is not the way forward. Articles such as in the i newspaper give support to gender neutrality, but they fail to give reasons why this is a good thing.
As a Christian I believe that men and women should celebrate their maleness or femaleness rather than accept the pressure to, in some way, hide it. I am not talking about gender stereotypes which are a social construct, but a recognition that both sexes have worth because they are Gods construct.
To be candid I don't really care how TFL make their public announcements. What does bother me is that a relatively small pressure group can get TFL to change a perfectly up to date, and inclusive term for their own reasons.
So Ladies and Gentlemen let us oppose this gender neutrality pressure. There is no reason why anyone should think that this term is anything other than meant to be inclusive and hence no reason for anyone to be offended or feel left out.
My prayer is that going forward we will have meaningful debates in society. I want to hear Stonewalls arguments, and I also want those who disagree to be able to do so. I ask for more democracy, not less.
Wednesday, 28 June 2017
Grenfell Reflections
The pictures of Grenfell Tower on fire on the 14th June will sear the memories of all who witnessed it for the rest of their lives, that I am certain. I vividly remember the haunted faces of fire crew resting after attacking the blaze. Also the harrowing stories of people banging on windows, unable to escape the flames, or throwing children into the arms of people several stories beneath before they succumbed to the fires.
Before Grenfell I had thought that stories such as this only occupied disaster movies. Tower blocks did not burn up like some sort of towering inferno in the real world. My first reaction was to think that I was witnessing some sort of terrorist atrocity, but no, and in some ways worse, this was no attack.
As more and more information came to light it became clear that a whole catalogue of events had transpired to cause this disaster. We could look at length at the dangerous cladding, the lack of sprinklers, proper fire doors or escape routes, but whatever the reason we as a society allowed people to live in an unsafe building at risk of fire. And has transpired in the two weeks since Grenfell there are many, many other buildings that are not safe as well, and not just because of the cladding.
Now I am a born again Christian and I believe in a God who created and loved the residents of Grenfell tower. Because of this every last resident had worth. There was no unimportant person in Grenfell that fateful night be they black or white, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, British or not, English speaking or not.
Now I don't know why God allowed the fire to take hold, but clearly He did. It certainly wasn't because He doesn't care or understand. He understands loss as it was his Son Jesus that died on the cross which means He can really empathise with those who lost loved ones at Grenfell.
The God of the bible is not only a God who loves, but is also a God of truth and justice. So He will understand the residents desire to get to the bottom of what caused this tragedy, and I hope and pray that the truth will out. The police are already investigating this tragedy and if some sort of wrongdoing or negligence is proved then the culprit or culprits ought to answer to the courts.
For me though the ultimate answer to what caused the fire in Grenfell is a system that equates worth with money and power. Those who do not have much of either are herded into low cost accommodation where low cost maintenance and low cost protection awaits them.
The bible calls this the sin of materialism. Sin is not a word that is used much today, and in today's parlance appears to either refer to eating too much chocolate, having elicit sex, or a word reserved for the actions of paedophiles, rapists and the like. But for the purposes of this blog it refers to going against God. In the case of Grenfell going against God means not looking after His creation people, not giving them the worth that beings created and loved by God deserves.
We have to ask ourselves some questions. Why was there so much smoke in the corridors and stairwell when fire doors should have been fitted? Why couldn't the residents escape down a fire/smoke proof stairwell or outside stairs? Why did the cladding appear to catch fire? Why wasn't there sprinklers provided? and these are just off the top of my head.
Someone has to answer for what happened at Grenfell, and I hope that the legitimate quest for answers will not get hijacked by outside political forces who wish to stir up trouble for the government and will use Grenfell as a means to an end.
Now the bible does not teach that having money or possessions is wrong per se, but warns against the love of money as it corrupts.
Now I do not know whether there has been any corruption involved with Grenfell, but never the less we as a society should use Grenfell to examine how we do things. For governments and councils this includes the provision of quality and safe social housing.
Someone once wrote (and I paraphrase) that the mark of a civilised nation is how well it treats its weakest members. With each new tower block failing fire tests (over 75 at the time of writing) our civilised nation is looking more and more shame faced.
Before Grenfell I had thought that stories such as this only occupied disaster movies. Tower blocks did not burn up like some sort of towering inferno in the real world. My first reaction was to think that I was witnessing some sort of terrorist atrocity, but no, and in some ways worse, this was no attack.
As more and more information came to light it became clear that a whole catalogue of events had transpired to cause this disaster. We could look at length at the dangerous cladding, the lack of sprinklers, proper fire doors or escape routes, but whatever the reason we as a society allowed people to live in an unsafe building at risk of fire. And has transpired in the two weeks since Grenfell there are many, many other buildings that are not safe as well, and not just because of the cladding.
Now I am a born again Christian and I believe in a God who created and loved the residents of Grenfell tower. Because of this every last resident had worth. There was no unimportant person in Grenfell that fateful night be they black or white, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, British or not, English speaking or not.
Now I don't know why God allowed the fire to take hold, but clearly He did. It certainly wasn't because He doesn't care or understand. He understands loss as it was his Son Jesus that died on the cross which means He can really empathise with those who lost loved ones at Grenfell.
The God of the bible is not only a God who loves, but is also a God of truth and justice. So He will understand the residents desire to get to the bottom of what caused this tragedy, and I hope and pray that the truth will out. The police are already investigating this tragedy and if some sort of wrongdoing or negligence is proved then the culprit or culprits ought to answer to the courts.
For me though the ultimate answer to what caused the fire in Grenfell is a system that equates worth with money and power. Those who do not have much of either are herded into low cost accommodation where low cost maintenance and low cost protection awaits them.
The bible calls this the sin of materialism. Sin is not a word that is used much today, and in today's parlance appears to either refer to eating too much chocolate, having elicit sex, or a word reserved for the actions of paedophiles, rapists and the like. But for the purposes of this blog it refers to going against God. In the case of Grenfell going against God means not looking after His creation people, not giving them the worth that beings created and loved by God deserves.
We have to ask ourselves some questions. Why was there so much smoke in the corridors and stairwell when fire doors should have been fitted? Why couldn't the residents escape down a fire/smoke proof stairwell or outside stairs? Why did the cladding appear to catch fire? Why wasn't there sprinklers provided? and these are just off the top of my head.
Someone has to answer for what happened at Grenfell, and I hope that the legitimate quest for answers will not get hijacked by outside political forces who wish to stir up trouble for the government and will use Grenfell as a means to an end.
Now the bible does not teach that having money or possessions is wrong per se, but warns against the love of money as it corrupts.
Now I do not know whether there has been any corruption involved with Grenfell, but never the less we as a society should use Grenfell to examine how we do things. For governments and councils this includes the provision of quality and safe social housing.
Someone once wrote (and I paraphrase) that the mark of a civilised nation is how well it treats its weakest members. With each new tower block failing fire tests (over 75 at the time of writing) our civilised nation is looking more and more shame faced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)