Notice that I have entitled this post as the "political class", not the "political elite", though our politicians appear to consider themselves thus.
In Scotland despite the opposition of some 64% of those who cared enough to take part in the government's so called consultation, a bill to permit gay marriage was passed almost unopposed! Politicians appear to think they know best.
I am all for equality, but marriage is an institution that stands for more than mutual love. If the only criteria for marriage is a deep and abiding love, as seemed to be the view of the gay leader of the Scottish Conservatives, where does this end? Should siblings not be permitted to wed? If not why not?
That is a serious question - unanswered by the politicians. 100 years ago same sex marriage would have been unthinkable, so why not sibling marriage. Arguably there is a need. Siblings living together lack the tax protections from, for example, inheritance tax, enjoyed by a married couple. Is that fair?
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Politicians are either our representatives or merely those we imbue with the power to rule us. If not the first then what is democracy? Increasingly we bow to the dictat of unelected bureaucrats , in the EU an out of it. Does it even matter if those we elect ignore our wishes?
There are other examples than gay marriage, such as foreign aid perhaps? unfettered immigration? or even EU membership. When we bow to the view of a politician we give up a lot. It behooves the politician to, at least, listen to those who elect him, and if they disagree to explain why, not simply to declare "it is the right thing to do", as was stated by the Scottish deputy First Minister. Such a declaration implies a higher level of - intelligence? - morality? Do we honestly believe either of the foregoing statements applies to our political class?
Is it any wonder that more and more people are disenchanted with politics? I think not. It is past time that those who, evidently see themselves as our moral an intellectual guardians exercised some humility and started listening.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
Thursday, 17 October 2013
Freedom?
I often waffle on about God's gift to us of free will, but how free are we?
I am a fairly well educated adult. I believe passionately that, in most things, I know what is best for me. I may not always choose to do what is best for me, but if I make that choice who are you to try to prevent me?
Politicians in the UK require no particular qualification, or even level of intelligence, in order to secure election. In my experience, perhaps because we give them the power to pass laws which effect us and by which we must be bound, politicians fairly quickly form the view that they must, almost by definition, know better than I do what is good for me and that they have a duty to protect me from myself.
It could be argued that smoking increases the risk of certain illnesses, that failure to wear a helmet on a motor cycle or a seatbelt in a car increases the risk of injury and that in consequence these activities should be controlled, to prevent strain on the health services. But where does that stop? Having sex increases the risk of STD, so should sex be banned? Is there not some better way, which does not restrict freedom?
UK law effectively prevents the individual from lawfully carrying arms with which to protect his or her self, thus restricting freedom of movement, or at least of secure movement, in certain areas. One is expected to rely upon the state, through the police, to protect one, assuming that the state is better able than I am to determine a satisfactory level of protection for my self and those I love.
Politicians, especially it seems those of the Scottish parliament, love to ban things. Fox hunting, smoking in public etc. Now they seek to install a Stalinist like apparatchik to supervise how Scottish parents chose to raise their children. My freedom to raise my child is at risk. If taken with the current PC nonsense which frowns on or even prosecutes discipline of children, and apparent rampant secularism, how long before I am prevented from raising my child as a Christian? Moves are already afoot to remove religion from school!
I will return to this theme in another blog. Freedom is important. We cannot permit a situation where freedom is lost a little at a time in the interests of public or personal safety, political correctness, the protection of minority interests or for any other reason.
Thank you for reading.
I am a fairly well educated adult. I believe passionately that, in most things, I know what is best for me. I may not always choose to do what is best for me, but if I make that choice who are you to try to prevent me?
Politicians in the UK require no particular qualification, or even level of intelligence, in order to secure election. In my experience, perhaps because we give them the power to pass laws which effect us and by which we must be bound, politicians fairly quickly form the view that they must, almost by definition, know better than I do what is good for me and that they have a duty to protect me from myself.
It could be argued that smoking increases the risk of certain illnesses, that failure to wear a helmet on a motor cycle or a seatbelt in a car increases the risk of injury and that in consequence these activities should be controlled, to prevent strain on the health services. But where does that stop? Having sex increases the risk of STD, so should sex be banned? Is there not some better way, which does not restrict freedom?
UK law effectively prevents the individual from lawfully carrying arms with which to protect his or her self, thus restricting freedom of movement, or at least of secure movement, in certain areas. One is expected to rely upon the state, through the police, to protect one, assuming that the state is better able than I am to determine a satisfactory level of protection for my self and those I love.
Politicians, especially it seems those of the Scottish parliament, love to ban things. Fox hunting, smoking in public etc. Now they seek to install a Stalinist like apparatchik to supervise how Scottish parents chose to raise their children. My freedom to raise my child is at risk. If taken with the current PC nonsense which frowns on or even prosecutes discipline of children, and apparent rampant secularism, how long before I am prevented from raising my child as a Christian? Moves are already afoot to remove religion from school!
I will return to this theme in another blog. Freedom is important. We cannot permit a situation where freedom is lost a little at a time in the interests of public or personal safety, political correctness, the protection of minority interests or for any other reason.
Thank you for reading.
Friday, 30 August 2013
Spare the rod
Spare the rod and spoil the child. Perhaps a view point out of favour today, but should it be?
Again the source is, I believe the bible. I have already made my view that the whole of the bible is not to be taken literally clear, and incidentally, I discovered recently that the Church of Scotland have shared my view since the 1600's. They say that the bible contains the word of God, not that the bible is the word of God.
Anyway returning to my point, spare the rod and spoil the child. Nowadays corporal punishment of children in the UK is outlawed. Even a parent spanking a child runs the risk of censure, and even arrest. Should that be the case? Is it wise?
I think the answer to both questions is NO.
Growing up I can only once recall being spanked by my father. I was very young, pre school certainly, and I was using the gas oven as a garage for my toy cars. As a parent I can only imagine my mothers anxiety. She spoke to me explaining that it was wrong, and dangerous. She ticked me off many times all to no avail. What should she do? Stop using the oven? Sh spoke to my father and when I defied him and continued to play in the oven he spanked me. He did not beat me, or use an implement, in fact I doubt he hit me more than once - I never did it again. Was I damaged by the event - of course not.
Nor was I damaged when strapped by my primary school teacher for talking when she told me to be quiet, nor on the occasions I was strapped for misbehaviour at secondary school. I never repeated an offence. The experience did not teach me that violence solved problems, nor did it cause me mental health issues in adulthood. It did teach me to respect the rules.
Today many children have comparatively minimal contact with parents who both work. Care, and thus discipline, is delegated to nursery or school teachers, neither of which are permitted to administer any real discipline. Often, I suggest, bad behaviour is rewarded. If, as a child, I had learned that misbehaving in class would lead to my being sent home, I suspect I would rarely have been at school!
Young children are allowed to get away with more by parents who only see them for a short time each day. Undisciplined young children become undisciplined teenagers.
I do not advocate a return to the birch, but youths passing through Glasgow's Barlinnie prison en route to young offenders institutions appear, at least on the surface, to see the experience as a feather in their war bonnet!
Spare the rod and spoil the child. Children need to be disciplined. They need defined boundaries and to know the consequences of crossing these. A pre school child does not have the intellectual maturity to be reasoned with. Offering a bribe for good behaviour generates the understanding that bad behaviour will be rewarded. Can anyone seriously argue that the loss, by the young, of respect for authority, and consequent delinquency, has not grown in direct proportion to the decline in discipline? I think not.
Of course no normal parent would want to smack their child, but that is part of a parents responsibility. I recall my wife, a school teacher in tears on the only occasion she ever administered the strap to a pupil. Parents, teachers or anyone in authority who relishes the administration of punishment are flawed, but those who do so with the child's best interest in mind should be applauded not punished.
Spare the road and spoil the child indeed. We need to return to a place where responsible adults and authorities are permitted to administer discipline to teach our children right from wrong. Modern liberal weakness and hand wringing is deeply damaging and should be stopped. Our children deserve our best, even if we do hate having to do it.
Thanks again for reading
Again the source is, I believe the bible. I have already made my view that the whole of the bible is not to be taken literally clear, and incidentally, I discovered recently that the Church of Scotland have shared my view since the 1600's. They say that the bible contains the word of God, not that the bible is the word of God.
Anyway returning to my point, spare the rod and spoil the child. Nowadays corporal punishment of children in the UK is outlawed. Even a parent spanking a child runs the risk of censure, and even arrest. Should that be the case? Is it wise?
I think the answer to both questions is NO.
Growing up I can only once recall being spanked by my father. I was very young, pre school certainly, and I was using the gas oven as a garage for my toy cars. As a parent I can only imagine my mothers anxiety. She spoke to me explaining that it was wrong, and dangerous. She ticked me off many times all to no avail. What should she do? Stop using the oven? Sh spoke to my father and when I defied him and continued to play in the oven he spanked me. He did not beat me, or use an implement, in fact I doubt he hit me more than once - I never did it again. Was I damaged by the event - of course not.
Nor was I damaged when strapped by my primary school teacher for talking when she told me to be quiet, nor on the occasions I was strapped for misbehaviour at secondary school. I never repeated an offence. The experience did not teach me that violence solved problems, nor did it cause me mental health issues in adulthood. It did teach me to respect the rules.
Today many children have comparatively minimal contact with parents who both work. Care, and thus discipline, is delegated to nursery or school teachers, neither of which are permitted to administer any real discipline. Often, I suggest, bad behaviour is rewarded. If, as a child, I had learned that misbehaving in class would lead to my being sent home, I suspect I would rarely have been at school!
Young children are allowed to get away with more by parents who only see them for a short time each day. Undisciplined young children become undisciplined teenagers.
I do not advocate a return to the birch, but youths passing through Glasgow's Barlinnie prison en route to young offenders institutions appear, at least on the surface, to see the experience as a feather in their war bonnet!
Spare the rod and spoil the child. Children need to be disciplined. They need defined boundaries and to know the consequences of crossing these. A pre school child does not have the intellectual maturity to be reasoned with. Offering a bribe for good behaviour generates the understanding that bad behaviour will be rewarded. Can anyone seriously argue that the loss, by the young, of respect for authority, and consequent delinquency, has not grown in direct proportion to the decline in discipline? I think not.
Of course no normal parent would want to smack their child, but that is part of a parents responsibility. I recall my wife, a school teacher in tears on the only occasion she ever administered the strap to a pupil. Parents, teachers or anyone in authority who relishes the administration of punishment are flawed, but those who do so with the child's best interest in mind should be applauded not punished.
Spare the road and spoil the child indeed. We need to return to a place where responsible adults and authorities are permitted to administer discipline to teach our children right from wrong. Modern liberal weakness and hand wringing is deeply damaging and should be stopped. Our children deserve our best, even if we do hate having to do it.
Thanks again for reading
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
Euthanasia, abortion and suicide
The title of this post covers three of the most contentious and difficult subjects facing us today. There are no easy answers just difficult perplexing and, often, distressing questions. I am fortunate not to have required to give any of these consideration in relation to my own life, but here are my thoughts.
Euthanasia - it is argued that we have a right to chose the manner of our own death, that it is right that people suffering terribly should be assisted to die. We wouldn't allow an animal to suffer like that; he/she has no quality of life; he/she wants to die.
I believe that God ultimately decides who will be born and who will die. It is argued that you will never be asked to suffer more than you are able to cope with - God will end that suffering when He considers it best. If, therefore you chose to end a life through compassion, for example, you are acting as god. It is murder, no matter what you might call it, and no matter the method used, drugs, deprivation of food or water. In short, you commit euthanasia at the risk of angering God. Now, if you are prepared to risk that, so be it, but the decision should not be taken lightly, nor should anyone be coerced into doing so or assisting in such an act. Euthanasia is murder, a direct breach of one of the commandments.
Abortion is another difficult area. God decides if a woman will become pregnant. We all know of birth control failures and of couples being told that conception is impossible yet who go onto conceive. So, it follows, that abortion defies the will of God. But what if there is a good reason? Again the person aborting must decide if he/she is willing to defy God. Not a decision to be taken lightly, but not, I believe, necessarily as serious as euthanasia. It must depend on whether you are taking a life or just destroying a bunch of cells to which God intends to imbue life at a later date.
The question, therefore, is has life already been imbued, does the foetus or embryo have a soul? I think it is unlikely that God would ensoul a foetus until its development is complete When is that?
I have seen remarkable pictures of very young foetuses which are clearly complete. Modern medicine can help very immature babies to survive. Conversely, I have seen aborted mature foetuses which bear little resemblance to a baby. I am no doctor. Considering abortion, would, I believe, need careful thought. Abortion before "ensoulment" would be against God's will, but after "ensoulment" would, again, be murder.
Killing can sometimes be justified, murder cannot.
What of suicide? You are attempting to dictate a course of action to God. You risk much. No method of suicide guarantees success, and failure could leave you terribly disabled. A risk I would hesitate to take.
Time is relative. Perhaps the brief second of pain when, for example, shooting oneself, would seem like an eternity.
Suicide defies God's will, but is not murder.
None of these three actions should be undertaken without consideration of the consequences of angering God. I believe that God is loving and compassionate. Perhaps if your intention is good, your punishment would be small, but remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Thank for reading
Euthanasia - it is argued that we have a right to chose the manner of our own death, that it is right that people suffering terribly should be assisted to die. We wouldn't allow an animal to suffer like that; he/she has no quality of life; he/she wants to die.
I believe that God ultimately decides who will be born and who will die. It is argued that you will never be asked to suffer more than you are able to cope with - God will end that suffering when He considers it best. If, therefore you chose to end a life through compassion, for example, you are acting as god. It is murder, no matter what you might call it, and no matter the method used, drugs, deprivation of food or water. In short, you commit euthanasia at the risk of angering God. Now, if you are prepared to risk that, so be it, but the decision should not be taken lightly, nor should anyone be coerced into doing so or assisting in such an act. Euthanasia is murder, a direct breach of one of the commandments.
Abortion is another difficult area. God decides if a woman will become pregnant. We all know of birth control failures and of couples being told that conception is impossible yet who go onto conceive. So, it follows, that abortion defies the will of God. But what if there is a good reason? Again the person aborting must decide if he/she is willing to defy God. Not a decision to be taken lightly, but not, I believe, necessarily as serious as euthanasia. It must depend on whether you are taking a life or just destroying a bunch of cells to which God intends to imbue life at a later date.
The question, therefore, is has life already been imbued, does the foetus or embryo have a soul? I think it is unlikely that God would ensoul a foetus until its development is complete When is that?
I have seen remarkable pictures of very young foetuses which are clearly complete. Modern medicine can help very immature babies to survive. Conversely, I have seen aborted mature foetuses which bear little resemblance to a baby. I am no doctor. Considering abortion, would, I believe, need careful thought. Abortion before "ensoulment" would be against God's will, but after "ensoulment" would, again, be murder.
Killing can sometimes be justified, murder cannot.
What of suicide? You are attempting to dictate a course of action to God. You risk much. No method of suicide guarantees success, and failure could leave you terribly disabled. A risk I would hesitate to take.
Time is relative. Perhaps the brief second of pain when, for example, shooting oneself, would seem like an eternity.
Suicide defies God's will, but is not murder.
None of these three actions should be undertaken without consideration of the consequences of angering God. I believe that God is loving and compassionate. Perhaps if your intention is good, your punishment would be small, but remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Thank for reading
Sunday, 30 June 2013
The Bible - truth or fiction (2)
So if I am correct and the Bible is not the whole, unadulterated, word of God, how much attention should you give to it's text?
This crops up, again, whenever there is a debate involving non believers. The argument is put that the Bible condones slavery; that the Bible bans the eating of certain foods; that the Bible is against homosexual relationships.
To address the question, I think we first need to consider why the Bible was written. God is our Heavenly Father. Any father is naturally concerned with the welfare of his children. He will set guidelines, provide advice, attempt to steer his children along the path he considers best for them. That applies to earthly fathers. I suggest it would apply even more so to God, whose love for us is unimaginably more than we could hope to devote to our children.
At the time the Bible was written, slavery was,virtually if not literally, universal. Slaves had legal rights in the Roman Empire, for example. How would one best protect a slave? I suggest that the consequences of running when there is, in effect, nowhere to go, would outway the advantage. A slave who obeyed his master had certain protections. The Bible is not condoning slavery - I am aware of no passage stating that slavery is laudable or to be encouraged - it is suggesting how the slave might best survive the condition. Today we squirm, but 2000 years ago it would have been looked at in a different light.
While certain foods are banned in the Old Testament. Jesus said no food was unclean. Again pork and shellfish, if not properly kept or prepared, can cause serious food poisoning. The Bible is seeking to protect primitives from the consequence of their lack of knowledge.
As regards homosexuality, the Bible is uncompromising. Jesus said we should love one another, and I believe the Bible is not stating that men should not love other men. That would be nonsense. The intention is to ban men from 'lying with another man as with a woman' - penatrive sex?
I believe the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, but perhaps less clear as to what constitutes homosexuality. I think the only course for a practicing Christian is not to become engaged in a sexually active relationship with a member of the same sex.
The Bible is, as I have said intended to provide us with an insight into how God would wish us to exercise our free will. Those who seek to discredit religion by attacking any holy book, are at best seriously misguided and at worst simply evil. Returning to the original question, we should pay close attention to what the Bible says, but must allow our God given free will to interpret it. What we should not do, is simply ignore those parts of the Bible with which we disagree or which we find uncomfortable.
This crops up, again, whenever there is a debate involving non believers. The argument is put that the Bible condones slavery; that the Bible bans the eating of certain foods; that the Bible is against homosexual relationships.
To address the question, I think we first need to consider why the Bible was written. God is our Heavenly Father. Any father is naturally concerned with the welfare of his children. He will set guidelines, provide advice, attempt to steer his children along the path he considers best for them. That applies to earthly fathers. I suggest it would apply even more so to God, whose love for us is unimaginably more than we could hope to devote to our children.
At the time the Bible was written, slavery was,virtually if not literally, universal. Slaves had legal rights in the Roman Empire, for example. How would one best protect a slave? I suggest that the consequences of running when there is, in effect, nowhere to go, would outway the advantage. A slave who obeyed his master had certain protections. The Bible is not condoning slavery - I am aware of no passage stating that slavery is laudable or to be encouraged - it is suggesting how the slave might best survive the condition. Today we squirm, but 2000 years ago it would have been looked at in a different light.
While certain foods are banned in the Old Testament. Jesus said no food was unclean. Again pork and shellfish, if not properly kept or prepared, can cause serious food poisoning. The Bible is seeking to protect primitives from the consequence of their lack of knowledge.
As regards homosexuality, the Bible is uncompromising. Jesus said we should love one another, and I believe the Bible is not stating that men should not love other men. That would be nonsense. The intention is to ban men from 'lying with another man as with a woman' - penatrive sex?
I believe the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, but perhaps less clear as to what constitutes homosexuality. I think the only course for a practicing Christian is not to become engaged in a sexually active relationship with a member of the same sex.
The Bible is, as I have said intended to provide us with an insight into how God would wish us to exercise our free will. Those who seek to discredit religion by attacking any holy book, are at best seriously misguided and at worst simply evil. Returning to the original question, we should pay close attention to what the Bible says, but must allow our God given free will to interpret it. What we should not do, is simply ignore those parts of the Bible with which we disagree or which we find uncomfortable.
Sunday, 23 June 2013
The Bible truth or fiction?
One of the arguments which comes up time after time when you talk religion is - do you believe the bible is literally true?
That is an important question, since it touches on the theory of evolution, and such matters as gay marriage.
I am not inclined to the belief that every word in the bible, as published today, is from God and the absolute truth - but I do believe that it could be.
In other words, I do not discount the idea that archaeological discoveries are tests placed for us by God. It is remarkable to a non scientist such as myself that the number of finds appears to have ballooned in recent years, but in my heart of hearts, no I do not believe that God created the world in six days an rested on the seventh.
So how do we reconcile belief with disbelief in parts of the Good Book? It comes down to a couple of points, namely:
1. Once again man has had a hand in it, and that makes it susceptible to interference from the dark powers. The bible as written today was put together by holy men who decided,by committee, what went in and what did not. Did God have input? Of course. Did the devil deceive? Of course.
2. Translation of original text is not always spot on. For example, everyone has heard of the commandment thou shall jot kill, but should it not be thou shall not murder? There is a difference.
Of course these problems do not address every issue.
It is remarkable, returning to Genesis, that the order of creation follows what is generally accepted by science today. Could primitives really have understood the concept of a time frame measured in billions of years? I think not. Possibly we should consider the time scale in terms of the lifespan of a human when compared to God. Maybe we should be talking about God's days, a bit like the life of a dog - a dog year is supposed to be a seventh of a human year. Time is after all relative. Who has not felt time fly when spent in a lover's arms, or, conversely, drag during a particularly tedious lecture or sermon.
I will doubtless revert to this in future blogs. Meantime, I would suggest that the bible was originally written to provide primitive man with a set of rules to help him explain the world round him an to help him live safely in accordance with God's will. Is the bible literally true? I think not. Could it be? Certainly. Does it matter? Not so long as we use it as a guide to help us understand the will of God and to live our, very short, lives as He would want us to.
Homosexuality, what we should or should not eat and slavery will be blogged on next. You have been warned gentle reader. Thank you for reading.
That is an important question, since it touches on the theory of evolution, and such matters as gay marriage.
I am not inclined to the belief that every word in the bible, as published today, is from God and the absolute truth - but I do believe that it could be.
In other words, I do not discount the idea that archaeological discoveries are tests placed for us by God. It is remarkable to a non scientist such as myself that the number of finds appears to have ballooned in recent years, but in my heart of hearts, no I do not believe that God created the world in six days an rested on the seventh.
So how do we reconcile belief with disbelief in parts of the Good Book? It comes down to a couple of points, namely:
1. Once again man has had a hand in it, and that makes it susceptible to interference from the dark powers. The bible as written today was put together by holy men who decided,by committee, what went in and what did not. Did God have input? Of course. Did the devil deceive? Of course.
2. Translation of original text is not always spot on. For example, everyone has heard of the commandment thou shall jot kill, but should it not be thou shall not murder? There is a difference.
Of course these problems do not address every issue.
It is remarkable, returning to Genesis, that the order of creation follows what is generally accepted by science today. Could primitives really have understood the concept of a time frame measured in billions of years? I think not. Possibly we should consider the time scale in terms of the lifespan of a human when compared to God. Maybe we should be talking about God's days, a bit like the life of a dog - a dog year is supposed to be a seventh of a human year. Time is after all relative. Who has not felt time fly when spent in a lover's arms, or, conversely, drag during a particularly tedious lecture or sermon.
I will doubtless revert to this in future blogs. Meantime, I would suggest that the bible was originally written to provide primitive man with a set of rules to help him explain the world round him an to help him live safely in accordance with God's will. Is the bible literally true? I think not. Could it be? Certainly. Does it matter? Not so long as we use it as a guide to help us understand the will of God and to live our, very short, lives as He would want us to.
Homosexuality, what we should or should not eat and slavery will be blogged on next. You have been warned gentle reader. Thank you for reading.
Sunday, 26 May 2013
Worship?
I have already made it clear, I hope, that there is only one God. There are however many religions. If they are all worshiping the same God, as I have argued, is there a right way to do so? Is it even necessary to worship God at all? After all, if we can't understand the nature of God is worship not futile? Does God even care?
I am a father. I love my daughters unconditionally and I would do everything in my power to make them happy. Do I care if they give me a Father's Day gift? Do I love one girl more than the other because she might have given me a gift which I appreciate more than the gift given by the other? Of course not. We are all God's children. God loves us all. Surely Gods's love is far greater than a mere human could imagine, but even if it was not, can we really believe that God will love some of us more than others because of the type of gift we give Him, or because some of us give more than others? Again of course not!
The way we worship, if we chose to do so - the religion we chose - can be of no consequence to God. Why would it? We are like small children vying for our parents attention, clamouring to be the favourite child. No true loving parent would pick a favourite, and certainly not based upon the equivalent of who gave the best present.
That is why violence and hatred based on religious differences is so futile and stupid. God loves life. Why would any father wish one of his children to kill another just because one gives chocolate on Father's Day while the other gives a flat screen TV. Why would God?
I suggest, dear reader, that on each occasion through history up to and including the terrible treasonous murder in London last week, when violence is done in the name of God, the perpetrator has been misled by the forces of darkness. God wants us to love each other, not hate and kill each other.
I will blog in the future about why I believe that some devout people can come to be so misled. Meantime, thanks again for reading.
I am a father. I love my daughters unconditionally and I would do everything in my power to make them happy. Do I care if they give me a Father's Day gift? Do I love one girl more than the other because she might have given me a gift which I appreciate more than the gift given by the other? Of course not. We are all God's children. God loves us all. Surely Gods's love is far greater than a mere human could imagine, but even if it was not, can we really believe that God will love some of us more than others because of the type of gift we give Him, or because some of us give more than others? Again of course not!
The way we worship, if we chose to do so - the religion we chose - can be of no consequence to God. Why would it? We are like small children vying for our parents attention, clamouring to be the favourite child. No true loving parent would pick a favourite, and certainly not based upon the equivalent of who gave the best present.
That is why violence and hatred based on religious differences is so futile and stupid. God loves life. Why would any father wish one of his children to kill another just because one gives chocolate on Father's Day while the other gives a flat screen TV. Why would God?
I suggest, dear reader, that on each occasion through history up to and including the terrible treasonous murder in London last week, when violence is done in the name of God, the perpetrator has been misled by the forces of darkness. God wants us to love each other, not hate and kill each other.
I will blog in the future about why I believe that some devout people can come to be so misled. Meantime, thanks again for reading.
Sunday, 12 May 2013
Bad things happen
So, if I am correct and God really is looking after us, how come bad things happen?
I think there are three reasons for terrible things happening:-
1. I know it's a bit of a cliche, but God really does move in mysterious ways. I have already said in an earlier blog that we can't hope to understand God. We certainly can't hope to understand His reasons for doing or not doing something or other. Sometimes what seems to be a bad thing turns out to be a blessing in disguise. For example, the prisoner who, with time on his hands, comes to appreciate his family on the outside, previously neglected.
2. Our free will can make things go wrong. God gave us free will, it would be illogical if, having done so, He chose to control our every move. We make mistakes and bad things arise as a consequence.
3. Lastly there is what I referred to previously as the forces of darkness. I am talking about the devil. I believe that when cast from heaven the devil ended up here. Did God give the devil "ownership" of earth and everything on it? Some people believe so. The devil was able to offer Jesus the world if he would renounce God and worship the devil instead. That would make no sence unless the devil had the power follow through on his offer. He has power on earth. Why would God do such a thing? God felt compassion for the devil, I guess. Also God has faith in us, that we will use the free will he gave us to ignore the temptation placed before us by the devil. Sometimes we do, often we do not. Bad things happen because the devil wants them to. And when they do how do we react? Often by saying "there can't be a God or such a horrible thing would not have happened"! In truth organised religion, which often teaches that God is all powerful, that nothing ever happens which is not His will, plays into the devils hands on this. They don't call him master of lies for nothing.
So I reckon that these are the three reasons that bad things happen. When they do, God, I believe mitigates, He makes a bad situation bearable, He gives us release if we simply can't stand it any more. I will blog some more on that another time.
Meantime, trust in God, even when terrible things happen, He is with us and we can count on him even if sometimes we can't understand what is going on!
Thanks for reading.
1. I know it's a bit of a cliche, but God really does move in mysterious ways. I have already said in an earlier blog that we can't hope to understand God. We certainly can't hope to understand His reasons for doing or not doing something or other. Sometimes what seems to be a bad thing turns out to be a blessing in disguise. For example, the prisoner who, with time on his hands, comes to appreciate his family on the outside, previously neglected.
2. Our free will can make things go wrong. God gave us free will, it would be illogical if, having done so, He chose to control our every move. We make mistakes and bad things arise as a consequence.
3. Lastly there is what I referred to previously as the forces of darkness. I am talking about the devil. I believe that when cast from heaven the devil ended up here. Did God give the devil "ownership" of earth and everything on it? Some people believe so. The devil was able to offer Jesus the world if he would renounce God and worship the devil instead. That would make no sence unless the devil had the power follow through on his offer. He has power on earth. Why would God do such a thing? God felt compassion for the devil, I guess. Also God has faith in us, that we will use the free will he gave us to ignore the temptation placed before us by the devil. Sometimes we do, often we do not. Bad things happen because the devil wants them to. And when they do how do we react? Often by saying "there can't be a God or such a horrible thing would not have happened"! In truth organised religion, which often teaches that God is all powerful, that nothing ever happens which is not His will, plays into the devils hands on this. They don't call him master of lies for nothing.
So I reckon that these are the three reasons that bad things happen. When they do, God, I believe mitigates, He makes a bad situation bearable, He gives us release if we simply can't stand it any more. I will blog some more on that another time.
Meantime, trust in God, even when terrible things happen, He is with us and we can count on him even if sometimes we can't understand what is going on!
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, 5 May 2013
Who is God?
There are just under seven billion people on this planet (I Googled it) of whom around five and three quarter billion express a belief in a god or gods (Google again!).
I imagine that a significant majority of those expressing a belief will pray, at least occasionally, and, in all probability, present their preferred "deity" with a shopping list of requests whenever they do. It is surely inconceivable that the same believers would all (excluding perhaps some whose faith is particularly strong) continue to pray, and indeed to believe, if their prayers were never answered, or if the ratio of those answered to those ignored did not exceed that of random chance.
Of the believers, again according to Google, the largest single group are Christian - 2.1 billion with Islam just behind at 1.5 billion.
I recall a conversation I had a number of years ago with a evangelical Christian pastor. He was of the view that Muslims believed in a different God from that believed in by Christians because they called their God Allah. But can he possibly be right? I think not.
I was born and raised as a Christian in the UK. Therefore, I pray to God. Had I been French, I would have prayed to Dieu, if Spanish to Dios, Zulu to Nkos and if Russian to Boch. All the same God but with different names. Is it such a stretch, therefore, to believe that Allah is also the same God, after all both Christianity and Islam share a holy book, or at least part of one, as, for that matter, does Judaism. Certainly I think that no one would doubt that the Christian and Jewish God is one and the same.
I do not think there is more than one God. I understand that most polytheistic religions recognise a creator with the other gods being subordinate to that creator. Is that such a huge step away from a belief in Angels? Maybe, that is for you dear reader to decide.
What I would suggest is clear that someone answers the prayers of even those , roughly 2 billion believers who are not Christian, Muslim or Jew. Certainly some will argue that the powers of darkness might answer prayers in order to mislead. There can be little doubt that is true, if it were not there would be no suicide bombers. No one can seriously believe that God wants you to murder innocents, yet for centuries some have argued precisely that, misled I believe.
Given that prayers are answered more often than not - in my experience upwards of 95 per cent of the time, it cannot matter what you call God, he is still listening.
I think it is futile to speculate on the nature of God. God embraces both the male and female aspect, after all God creates. I have no reason to doubt that God created the whole universe. It is highly likely that life exists on other planets so God must be able to split off fragments of His self to be able to keep track of all of us living things. To an extent Christians accept this by the Trinity, God the father, God the son and God the Holy Ghost, three aspects of one God, explained by St Patrick by reference to a shamrock.
The bible states that God made man in his image - I would suggest that cannot be literally true, all men and women have different images. I prefer the interpretation that God gave us free will, but that is for another blog.
I do not think we can ever truly understand God. All we can do is give thanks that he is there for us. God is not just great, God is awesome and indescribable from the point of view of mere humans.
Thanks again for reading.
I imagine that a significant majority of those expressing a belief will pray, at least occasionally, and, in all probability, present their preferred "deity" with a shopping list of requests whenever they do. It is surely inconceivable that the same believers would all (excluding perhaps some whose faith is particularly strong) continue to pray, and indeed to believe, if their prayers were never answered, or if the ratio of those answered to those ignored did not exceed that of random chance.
Of the believers, again according to Google, the largest single group are Christian - 2.1 billion with Islam just behind at 1.5 billion.
I recall a conversation I had a number of years ago with a evangelical Christian pastor. He was of the view that Muslims believed in a different God from that believed in by Christians because they called their God Allah. But can he possibly be right? I think not.
I was born and raised as a Christian in the UK. Therefore, I pray to God. Had I been French, I would have prayed to Dieu, if Spanish to Dios, Zulu to Nkos and if Russian to Boch. All the same God but with different names. Is it such a stretch, therefore, to believe that Allah is also the same God, after all both Christianity and Islam share a holy book, or at least part of one, as, for that matter, does Judaism. Certainly I think that no one would doubt that the Christian and Jewish God is one and the same.
I do not think there is more than one God. I understand that most polytheistic religions recognise a creator with the other gods being subordinate to that creator. Is that such a huge step away from a belief in Angels? Maybe, that is for you dear reader to decide.
What I would suggest is clear that someone answers the prayers of even those , roughly 2 billion believers who are not Christian, Muslim or Jew. Certainly some will argue that the powers of darkness might answer prayers in order to mislead. There can be little doubt that is true, if it were not there would be no suicide bombers. No one can seriously believe that God wants you to murder innocents, yet for centuries some have argued precisely that, misled I believe.
Given that prayers are answered more often than not - in my experience upwards of 95 per cent of the time, it cannot matter what you call God, he is still listening.
I think it is futile to speculate on the nature of God. God embraces both the male and female aspect, after all God creates. I have no reason to doubt that God created the whole universe. It is highly likely that life exists on other planets so God must be able to split off fragments of His self to be able to keep track of all of us living things. To an extent Christians accept this by the Trinity, God the father, God the son and God the Holy Ghost, three aspects of one God, explained by St Patrick by reference to a shamrock.
The bible states that God made man in his image - I would suggest that cannot be literally true, all men and women have different images. I prefer the interpretation that God gave us free will, but that is for another blog.
I do not think we can ever truly understand God. All we can do is give thanks that he is there for us. God is not just great, God is awesome and indescribable from the point of view of mere humans.
Thanks again for reading.
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
Believe it or not
When you listen to folks talking about God one word comes up repeatedly - "believe", as in "do you believe in God?" Or, "I believe/don't believe in God"
The question I guess is why?
If the conversation was about almost anything else the word would hardly arise. For example could you imagine a conversation beginning "do you believe in dogs?", or "I don't believe in the planet Saturn". So why, when talking about God?
I took the time to look up "belief" in the dictionary. Evidently it, at least, can imply lack of empirical evidence. Well dear reader, I will nail my colours to the mast; I believe in God. I, however, believe that there is empirical evidence of God's existence.
See what I mean, I have hardly begun this discussion and I am already using the word "believe"!
Look around you, there is evidence go God everywhere.
Many years ago I was asked to consider what I would think if I found a gold watch lying in the street. Would I think it had been left there by someone, or in the alternative, would I think that all the various elements and constituent parts had come together in exactly the right place at exactly the right time, perhaps over billions of years, to create the watch by cosmic accident?
I will leave it to you, dear reader, to form a view. This is a subject I may, will, return to, because, you see I don't just believe in God, I know God exists, watches over us and answers our prayers.
That is the subject of another post. Knowledge implies the application of logic and the existence of empirical evidence. If you do not agree with my view, then you should prove me wrong, rather than insisting, perhaps, that I prove anything, especially if you are not open to the evidence before you.
I do not know if anyone but me will read this blog, but if you have taken the time to do do I thank you.
The question I guess is why?
If the conversation was about almost anything else the word would hardly arise. For example could you imagine a conversation beginning "do you believe in dogs?", or "I don't believe in the planet Saturn". So why, when talking about God?
I took the time to look up "belief" in the dictionary. Evidently it, at least, can imply lack of empirical evidence. Well dear reader, I will nail my colours to the mast; I believe in God. I, however, believe that there is empirical evidence of God's existence.
See what I mean, I have hardly begun this discussion and I am already using the word "believe"!
Look around you, there is evidence go God everywhere.
Many years ago I was asked to consider what I would think if I found a gold watch lying in the street. Would I think it had been left there by someone, or in the alternative, would I think that all the various elements and constituent parts had come together in exactly the right place at exactly the right time, perhaps over billions of years, to create the watch by cosmic accident?
I will leave it to you, dear reader, to form a view. This is a subject I may, will, return to, because, you see I don't just believe in God, I know God exists, watches over us and answers our prayers.
That is the subject of another post. Knowledge implies the application of logic and the existence of empirical evidence. If you do not agree with my view, then you should prove me wrong, rather than insisting, perhaps, that I prove anything, especially if you are not open to the evidence before you.
I do not know if anyone but me will read this blog, but if you have taken the time to do do I thank you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)