I didn't know about this:
Now John, for fairness' sake. What would you say about Muslim claims that the Quran is the Word of Allah?
Friday, 20 November 2009
Humanists target kids in latest anti-religion drive
Humanists target kids in latest anti-religion drive
Posted using ShareThis
They're at it again! Yes, another atheist bus advert has left the terminal: or should I say, since you never get an atheist bus advert and then two come at once we ought to expect a third...
Here's the problem Mr D: If you won't 'allow' parents their God-given responsibility to bring up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord - what would you have them do?
So join me in hopping on board Dawkin's bus headed down 'Logic Lane' to see where it goes.
First stop (Applying the Premise Lane)
Let's take all moral and metaphysical 'nonsense' out of their upbringing and only teach them things you can prove by means of empirical science.
Let's not teach them fair play for a start.
You can't prove fair play is true. Has anyone done an experiment to prove it is true? No. So away with such unproven nonsense.
Can we prove that freedom and democracy is better than tyranny? No. Well scrap it then!
Or that science itself is good? That's not obvious - there's the downsides as well as the ups to consider.
And while we're at it, let's not force kids to believe that all people are equal. Patently this is not so. Some are bigger, stronger, smarter, richer, kinder and more intelligent than others - it's just a fact. Now, Mr D, you are pretty smart but you're not very big or beautiful. However, I digress...
Second Stop (Pushing on Down Logic Lane)
So what shall we teach them? That the sun is 93 million miles from the earth? Yes, OK. But that the Nazis were wrong? What?! You can't impose your values on others! Just present the facts: 6 million Jews were killed and let the kids decide some point in the future whether it was AOK or not.
Third Stop (The Myth of Neutrality Exposed Avenue)
Can we prove that not indoctrinating children is 'good'?
Would Dawkins have us indoctrinate children with the belief that indoctrinating children is bad? How dare he impose his values on other people's children? We can't allow anyone's beliefs to be privileged, can we? Even if they come from the mouths of biology profs.
Last Stop (Irony Terminus)
You may as well get off now.
Posted using ShareThis
They're at it again! Yes, another atheist bus advert has left the terminal: or should I say, since you never get an atheist bus advert and then two come at once we ought to expect a third...
Here's the problem Mr D: If you won't 'allow' parents their God-given responsibility to bring up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord - what would you have them do?
So join me in hopping on board Dawkin's bus headed down 'Logic Lane' to see where it goes.
First stop (Applying the Premise Lane)
Let's take all moral and metaphysical 'nonsense' out of their upbringing and only teach them things you can prove by means of empirical science.
Let's not teach them fair play for a start.
You can't prove fair play is true. Has anyone done an experiment to prove it is true? No. So away with such unproven nonsense.
Can we prove that freedom and democracy is better than tyranny? No. Well scrap it then!
Or that science itself is good? That's not obvious - there's the downsides as well as the ups to consider.
And while we're at it, let's not force kids to believe that all people are equal. Patently this is not so. Some are bigger, stronger, smarter, richer, kinder and more intelligent than others - it's just a fact. Now, Mr D, you are pretty smart but you're not very big or beautiful. However, I digress...
Second Stop (Pushing on Down Logic Lane)
So what shall we teach them? That the sun is 93 million miles from the earth? Yes, OK. But that the Nazis were wrong? What?! You can't impose your values on others! Just present the facts: 6 million Jews were killed and let the kids decide some point in the future whether it was AOK or not.
Third Stop (The Myth of Neutrality Exposed Avenue)
Can we prove that not indoctrinating children is 'good'?
Would Dawkins have us indoctrinate children with the belief that indoctrinating children is bad? How dare he impose his values on other people's children? We can't allow anyone's beliefs to be privileged, can we? Even if they come from the mouths of biology profs.
Last Stop (Irony Terminus)
You may as well get off now.
How Postmodernism poisons the body politic
There is much to ponder in this excellent interview with the courageous Robert Spencer.
We could dwell on Spencer's opening definition of 'slander' according to Islam - slander is nothing to do with the factuality of a statement but merely the negative light it casts (on Islam or Muslims). But what must concern all of us who presently enjoy the benefts of Western civilization is this: the corrosive nature of postmodernism that opens the door to the Trojan horse of Islam.
Spencer's thesis is this: we have the ability to take on radical Islam and save our civilisation, but lacking the self-belief in the inherent superiority of Western society over Islamic societies, we will not take the steps necessary to ensure our survival.
Why?
The reason is what he calls 'moral equivalence'. We simply think it is 'racist', 'Islamophobic', (insert other PC epithet to shut down free thought and discourse here) to say or think that our way of life, that guarantees certain freedoms, equalities etc. is superior to the moribund Islamic societies wedded to a 7th C. text dictated by a polygamist, assassinating, deceiving warlord.
The context of the interview was the 'Rally for Rifqa' - a case of the rights of freedom of religion (even for women) v the 'rights' of Islam. Any Christian ought to ponder the case of Rifqa. If it can happen in the USA it can happen anywhere - especially Eurabia/Europe.
But I didn't think I'd see them going out in the USA too.
We could dwell on Spencer's opening definition of 'slander' according to Islam - slander is nothing to do with the factuality of a statement but merely the negative light it casts (on Islam or Muslims). But what must concern all of us who presently enjoy the benefts of Western civilization is this: the corrosive nature of postmodernism that opens the door to the Trojan horse of Islam.
Spencer's thesis is this: we have the ability to take on radical Islam and save our civilisation, but lacking the self-belief in the inherent superiority of Western society over Islamic societies, we will not take the steps necessary to ensure our survival.
Why?
The reason is what he calls 'moral equivalence'. We simply think it is 'racist', 'Islamophobic', (insert other PC epithet to shut down free thought and discourse here) to say or think that our way of life, that guarantees certain freedoms, equalities etc. is superior to the moribund Islamic societies wedded to a 7th C. text dictated by a polygamist, assassinating, deceiving warlord.
The context of the interview was the 'Rally for Rifqa' - a case of the rights of freedom of religion (even for women) v the 'rights' of Islam. Any Christian ought to ponder the case of Rifqa. If it can happen in the USA it can happen anywhere - especially Eurabia/Europe.
The lights are going out all over Europe and I doubt we will see them go on again in our lifetime.
But I didn't think I'd see them going out in the USA too.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Justified by Faith Alone and Justified by Works
Are we justified by faith alone (Galatian 2.16) or justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2.24)?
Isn't this an obvious contradiction in the Bible? Listen to this sermon as I address this important topic. This sermon looks at James' and Paul's different contexts and uses of words such as 'justified/righteous', 'works' and 'faith'.
We are justified by faith alone and we are justified by works. How can that be? Click here and look on the audio widget for 8/11/9 Faith and Works, speaker: Jim Gourlay.
Isn't this an obvious contradiction in the Bible? Listen to this sermon as I address this important topic. This sermon looks at James' and Paul's different contexts and uses of words such as 'justified/righteous', 'works' and 'faith'.
We are justified by faith alone and we are justified by works. How can that be? Click here and look on the audio widget for 8/11/9 Faith and Works, speaker: Jim Gourlay.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Video: free speech win in gay hate law
Video: free speech win in gay hate law
Posted using ShareThis
There is something illogical about this statement from the Ministry of Justice:
The reality is that laws always have unintended consequences (or if you are cynical, intended consequences). It is also a fact that many New Labour laws have been abused - wtiness Wolfgang what's his name being rugby tackled by the police under provention of terrorism laws at the Labour party conference etc.. And it is a fact that homosexuals are in no need of 'protection' from people who criticise their practice. They deserve protection, and already have it, as we all do, from thugs who would attack them physically.
In recent years the homosexual lobby have been deliberately 'taking offence' and 'telling sir' as a political weapon. It's time for them to disarmed by pernicious legislation. It's time for an end to the 'minority victim' culture of 'offence' that is robbing the UK of the vestiges of its hard-won freedom.
Posted using ShareThis
There is something illogical about this statement from the Ministry of Justice:
A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the government was “very disappointed” at the Lords vote, adding: “There is no doubt about the threshold of this offence. No ‘freedom of expression’ section is needed to explain it. The threshold is a high one.If the section merely clarifies what the Bill already contains, namely provision for people to freely criticise, then it is harmlessly superfluous. And if so, why the 'considerable disappointment' felt by the Ministry?
“The offence only covers words or behaviour that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred.”
But she added the government could no longer delay the passage of the Coroners Bill.
“It is with considerable disappointment, therefore, that the government has agreed not to remove the ‘freedom of expression’ section.”
The reality is that laws always have unintended consequences (or if you are cynical, intended consequences). It is also a fact that many New Labour laws have been abused - wtiness Wolfgang what's his name being rugby tackled by the police under provention of terrorism laws at the Labour party conference etc.. And it is a fact that homosexuals are in no need of 'protection' from people who criticise their practice. They deserve protection, and already have it, as we all do, from thugs who would attack them physically.
In recent years the homosexual lobby have been deliberately 'taking offence' and 'telling sir' as a political weapon. It's time for them to disarmed by pernicious legislation. It's time for an end to the 'minority victim' culture of 'offence' that is robbing the UK of the vestiges of its hard-won freedom.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Hundreds protest at sex swap Jesus play
Hundreds protest at sex swap Jesus play
Posted using ShareThis
Had this play been called, 'Muhammada - how I learnt to love being one of several wives after my operation,' I suspect this would have made international news. But of course, it wouldn't have been put on. Glasgow Council wouldn't dare. Hypocrisy? Don't dare to think it - that's homothoughtia - and that'll be banned soon enough.
Posted using ShareThis
Had this play been called, 'Muhammada - how I learnt to love being one of several wives after my operation,' I suspect this would have made international news. But of course, it wouldn't have been put on. Glasgow Council wouldn't dare. Hypocrisy? Don't dare to think it - that's homothoughtia - and that'll be banned soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
