Monty Python's "Life of Brian"

I am old enough (born in 1965) to remember the fuss surrounding the release of this film but, even as a zealous member of the Christian Union at Portsmouth Polytechnic (as was) in 1983-86, thought it was one of the funniest things I had ever seen. However, then, as now (more than 20 years later), I found the closing "Crucifixion" unacceptable...

The film, quite justifiably in my opinion, pokes fun at many things to do with religion, but John Cleese's justification for this particular scene (the Catholic Church's obsession with crucifixes) is no excuse; the film clearly over-steps the mark by making fun of such a seminal moment in human history...

As made abundantly clear by the recent arrest and imprisonment of an English woman in Sudan for agreeing to name a teddy bear "Mohammed" (as if the debacle over the Cartoon was not enough), there is plenty of religious stupidity out there. However, Mohammed was just a man, whereas Jesus claimed to be equal with God and accepted the praise of men as such (why else was he eventually crucified?).

And so, we are back to the classic "trilema" posed by the great C S Lewis. Everyone needs to have a considered opinion - what's yours?

Happy New Year.

Normal service shall be resumed shortly

Hi there,

Long time, no Blog (I know)... during which I have changed jobs, relocated to the other side of the UK, and separated from my wife (divorce now pending). In addition to all this, I have had no end of trouble re-establishing a viable broadband connection at my home address (to enable me to blog easily)...

It is New Year's Eve here in the UK and Channel 4 are having a Monty Python evening -now showing the classic film, "Life of Brian", which I have to admit is mostly one of the funniest things I have ever seen...

Scientology and Me (Panorama 14-May)

John Sweeney deserves only praise for such an honest and transparently human piece of investigative journalism. Hovever, ignoring for a moment some of the more sinister aspects to the behavoiur of it's adherents, Scientology is no more of a "religion" than is "positive thinking".

In fact, leaving aside all the weird ideas about our being descended from aliens and such like (which is almost as wacky as what lies at the heart of Mormonism), any mention of "Jesus" was conspicuous by its absence last night. Therefore, what I would like to know is, why is the cult of Scientology allowed to use a cross as the basis of its emblem and to call itself a "Church"?

See also my comments on the website of "World's Last Chance" (another well-meaning but wayward enterprise) back in January this year.

Re: BBC's 2007 "Castaway" Programme

I am the same age and - I suspect – have the same personality profile as Jonathan, but I am, nevertheless, amazed by his stubbornness. At first, I was amused by the psychological warfare he inflicted on his fellow castaways, especially as he has proved himself – time and again – to be a very useful person to have around. However, I think the joke has since worn a bit thin…

Therefore, when he has clearly been more "sinned against" than “sinner”; why does he not do what Joe and others - to say nothing of common sense – demand; and tell everyone what a completely useless, lying, pillock Hassan is?

Why has the word of someone who broke the water tank by mindless meddling, and is clearly "overdrawn at the intellectual bank", been accepted so unquestioningly by the group as a whole? Sadly, I think the trouble is, that Hassan is not the only one on the programme that is not “playing with a full deck of cards”.

Still, it does make for amusing viewing, for those of us who have nothing better to do with our free time.

Re: The Verdict - "Not Guilty"

With regard to the excellent BBC Drama "The Verdict", I posted this on the associated discussion forum, under the title "It was the only possible outcome!", but reproduce it here nonetheless:

No system of justice is perfect, but ours is pretty good; has stood the test of time; and definitely is not going to be shaken by the outcome of a BBC drama.

The jury's task was to try the case on the evidence not the arguments and, yes "Anna" was very believable, so well you may ask, “Why would she make this all up?", but we all know that people do not always tell the truth.

However, although both the victim and the defendants were "found" to have lied to the police; only "Anna" chose to lie in court when she clearly did not have to. She therefore handed the members of the jury the decisive piece of evidence on which to determine (since no case was proven) whom they should believe.

End of story.

Re: the World's Last Chance website (Part 2)

As I said, I was not finished with this yet... To my mind, the World's Last Chance (WLC) website oscillates between the absolutely ridiculous and the genuinely surprising, many times; but here are some examples:

Ridiculous

"The official title of the pope is 'Vicarius Filii Dei', which translated is, 'Representative of the Son of God'... Since in Latin certain letters have numerical values, we only need to add them up to come to 666."

Surprising

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical letter, dated June 20, 1894...

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ, hidden under a veil of flesh." The Catholic National, July 1895...

"But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff... [who] requires... complete submission and obedience of will... as to God Himself." Pope Leo XIII, the Great Encyclical Letters, p. 193.

WLC go on to use Revelation Ch 17:1-18 to indicate that the Roman Catholic Church went into its "wilderness experience" in 1798 and came out of it in 1929, by virtue of the Lateran Treaty, by which Benito Mussolini allowed the establishment of the Vatican City as a sovereign state.

I find it amusing to note that, just as the Roman Catholic Church went into her wilderness experience, "God's true church" (i.e. the one that, by then, had supposedly been wrongly observing Sunday as the Sabbath for 300-odd years) came out of it... although I would not contest the assertion that the Catholic Church has used suppression and oppression quite a lot over the centuries to retain "the unity of the faith"...

From 1929, then, it is but a short step to the conclusion that... "Bible Prophecy Reveals Next And Last Pope Will Be A Devil Impersonating John Paul II".

However, since Pope Benedict is not as young as he once was (God bless him), we probably don't have long to wait in order to find out if WLC are right!

Re: the World's Last Chance website (Part 1)

Could it be that the Seventh Day Adventists (who were the first to postulate the idea) are right to suggest that Pope Benedict will be the penultimate pontiff before the final fulfilment of prophecy in the Book of Revelation?... Before dismissing the idea out of hand, on the basis that Jesus said no-one would be able to predict His return, it is important to note that what World's Last Chance (WLC) are predicting is not the Second Coming of Christ (i.e. not the end of the world), but "the beginning of the end..."

Having had to give them some credit for not being so foolhardy as to go against the eschatological teaching of Christ himself, I felt compelled to read on, to see how they justify their ideas, which are built upon the visions of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (c.550BC) and the Apostle John (c.100AD), as recorded in Daniel Ch.2:26-49, and Revelation Ch.13:1-8 respectively.

King Nebuchadnezzar had a vision of a statue made up of four parts, which (as the prophet Daniel revealed) represented 4 empires - that of the Babylonians of his day; and the three that were to come after it. On the other hand, John's vision (the whole book of Revelation) has proven to be much hard to interpret with any certainty. It is generally not contested that the former vision predicted events up to and including the fall of the Roman Empire in 476AD. However, despite some entirely credible interpretations of the "beast", "dragon", and "woman", WLC go and blow it all on a very dubious interpretation of the mention of "42-months, as follows: "...This period is equivalent to three and half years (42 divided by 12 months). And the Bible was written based on the Jewish calendar where every Jewish year is 360 days (30 days for each month). So, three and half years and forty-two months are both equal to 1260 days. The reason why we are changing the months to their equivalent in days is that when God gave time prophecies, He often equated a day for a year "...even forty days , each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years..."; and "I have appointed thee each day for a year..." (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6)."

Thus the 42 months becomes 1260 years; and is equated to the 1260 years for which, as it happens, the Roman Catholic Church held both religious and political power over Europe (538-1798AD), which was brought to an end by Napoleon. However, the key point is that, even if most people would equate the fourth empire of Nebuchadnezzar's dream with the the Roman Empire, WLC equate "the Beast out of the Sea" in Revelation 13, to Church of Rome rather than the Roman Empire.

For many, this will be a leap of faith they feel unable to take, but this is not the half of it. WLC also drag the USA into the picture (as "the Beast out of the Earth" in Revelation 13), and conclude that the worldwide, post-reformation, protestant Church (in it's widest possible sense) has been duped into wrongly adopting Sunday as their Holy Day. Please note, here, that I am deliberately avoiding use of the word "Sabbath" here, because I do not accept arguments about this that are based on a literal interpretation of the Creation stories in the first two chapters of Genesis. I am also mindful of Christ's warning that, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." [Mark Ch. 2:27].

I am not finished yet, but this will do for now...

George W. Bush - Are You Mad ?

I really thought that the President might actually take heed of the advice offered by the Iraq Study Group, despite the fact that it would require the consumption of a large serving of "Humble Pie" (...it was stupid of me - I know).

Can you believe it, though, this guy makes Tony Blair's behaviour over Iraq seem entirely rational. In fact, in the face of such madness, one might be forgiven for even considering the World's Last Chance website to be credible!

Jesus Christ should be our Rock

"JESUS CHRIST IS THE ROCK ON WHICH WE STAND...
...AND THE ROCK OF WHICH WE SHOULD BE MADE!"
(Thank-you to Jeremy Simpkins, the Pastor of Jubilee Church, on Teesside (UK),
for being the "divine spark" of inspiration for the above illustration)

What exactly is a Hybrid Embryo (?)

The announcement that the UK Government may ban this scientific research has prompted a lot of discussion in the media (e.g. BBC News website).

Before ranting on about the moral and ethical implications of this, it is always useful to check the facts... If scientists are taking the egg from a cow and removing all its contents before putting in human DNA from a stem cell, resulting in an embryo that is 99.99% human, that is a bit like putting a Snickers bar inside a Mars bar wrapper, and an ethical or moralistic argument against it cannot really be sustained...

However, the question that remains - and on which a variety of objectors should continue to focus - is, "From where and how are the stem cells obtained?"

The Lost Gospel of Judas

I first read about this earlier this year in an issue of the excellent National Geographic magazine. Now, having seen an audio-visual presentation of pretty much the same information by Channel Four, as a Bible-believing Christian, I feel compelled to comment as follows:

The Gospel of Judas is indeed a very revealing insight into the early development of Christianity. However, I do not see any justification for claiming that within 30 years of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the early Christians had become anti-Jewish to such an extent that they would deliberately set out to demonise Judas. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept that, many centuries later, the character of Judas has been used by those wanting to pursue an anti-Semitic agenda.

In the long run, however, I am certain that the emergence of documents such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and other ancient manuscripts will be of great benefit to believer and skeptic alike. This is because, no matter what the message, they help to cement the foundations of Christianity in the remarkable and historical person of Jesus Christ.

Both National Geographic and Channel Four make far too much of the existence of the Gnostics. You do not have to be a post-doctoral research fellow in theology to know about Gnostics (a cursory glance at the NIV Study Bible will suffice). Yes the Gnostics were one of many groups that existed in the 1st and 2nd Century AD, but it is ludicrous to paint Irenaeus, an early Bishop of Lyon, as some kind of anti-Semitic conspirator. All he was doing was trying to ensure the clarity of the message of the Church. Gnostics were mystics who believed that salvation lay in "the divine spark within each one of us", but St Paul said that we should see our physical bodies as the Temple of the Holy Spirit. So, clearly, there must have been more to it than that.

I suspect that the Irenaeus (i.e. the Early Church) took objection to Gnosticism because, a bit like the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses, they replaced the the all-inclusive "gospel" (i.e. good news) with a "only-those-in-the-know" message. Whereas, the latter does not fit easily with Jesus' commanding his followers to "go unto all nations..." (see Matthew 28:18-20).

However, there is a world of difference between the mysticism of the Gnostics; and their rejection of the notion of the Trinity - and those that peddle the myth that Jesus did not die on the Cross and that Mary Magdalene had his love child. (I must admit though, the Vicar of Dibley, yesterday, was extremely funny!).

Radioactive Poisoning is a Messy Business!

Given that short-lived (alpha particle) radiation from polonium-210 cannot even find its way out of a paper bag, the supposedly hi-tech assassins of Mr Litvinenko seem to have been very untidy. Unless, of course, they intended to leave trails of polonium everywhere, to throw people off their scent. The scientists amongst you will of course be quick to point out that the police are not finding polonium (Po-210), but the product of the decay process, which is lead (Pb-206).

But that does not make any difference. It still implies that the polonium was sprinkled all over the place, because - whether it was inside someone's body, or a metal box, or even a paper bag - it should not be there to be found.

I think the Metropolitan Police should "come clean", and tell us the whole story - stable and unstable isotopes; atomic numbers; the works.

This "dumbing-down" of news items has got to stop!

Apologies for the Slave Trade?

Thanks to Tony Blair deciding to express regret for the UK's part in the Slave Trade, this has been Big News here this week.

However, actions speak louder than words and, today, the ongoing slavery we should be apologising for (and abolishing) is the burden of debt that we refuse to remove from developing economies that cannot help themselves because of unfair trade rules, etc., etc..

Furthermore, given the content of the Stern Report, we had better start saving now in order to fund the claims for reparations that will likely be made in the future by the millions that will be affected by our failure to mitigate the effects of global warming. Nevertheless, President Bush, an apology would be most welcome...

Thank God for James Lovelock

It is just as well that James Lovelock is a patient man; undeterred by any amount of criticism and/or ridicule. Personally, I was very sceptical of his Gaia hypothesis up until only a few years ago, when the BBC first broadcast their excellent "Earth Story" series presented by Sir Aubrey Manning. I suspect that I was not the only one to watch it that said to themselves, "Wow, so there is solid evidence for the Earth being a self-regulating entity after all!"

Prior to this, as a Christian and a geologist who rejects tortological arguments based on the anthropic principle (i.e. "the universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it"), I had regarded James Lovelock's ideas merely as another clever atheistic attempt to explain the contingent nature of our existence (i.e. "it needn't have been this way at all"). However, now it would seem that the Gaia hypothesis is an idea whose time has finally come.

Having developed an interest in the fundamental influence that geology has on landscape at an early age, my main motivation for having pursued a career in hydrogeology was and is the belief that we have been entrusted with the job of looking after our planet. So, I for one should like to apologise to James Lovelock for having regarded his ideas with suspicion for so long and, I suspect, along with many others, hope that the global village community has finally woken-up to the reality of our culpability in the phenomenon of climate change, and our responsibility for doing something about it.

Therefore, the publication - and general acceptance - of the Stern Report has come not a moment too soon. The only remaining question now is, "How long will James Lovelock have to wait for his Knighthood?"

Martin C. Lack Bsc(Hons) MSc CGeol FGS
www.geosus.org.uk

Rape is Wrong, but am I too ?

When it comes to sexual self-gratification, can someone please tell me where is the flaw in my logic? We all know the Biblical story of Mary and Joseph, but how many of us find it hard to accept that Mary may well have been a young teenager at the time of her betrothal to Joseph?

So, if a man is attracted to little children we call him a paedophile. If a man is attracted to retired people we call him a gerontophile. Therefore, surely, if a man is attracted to another man we should call him a homophile? You see, although I agree that consenting adults should be free to do as they please, I do not agree that young people should be taught that homophilia (a.k.a homosexuality) is normal.

Charles Darwin identified a mechanism that he believed explained how plants and animals have progressively developed over geological time. He was struck by the fact that we live in a world where organisms are demonstrably in competition with each other for scarce resources, and where those best-suited to their environment are most likely to survive (i.e. “the survival of the fittest”). Darwin went on to call this process “natural selection”.

Therefore, leaving aside the argument as to whether evolutionary thinking is compatible with faith in God (dealt with on my website), in terms of natural selection alone, the future does not look good for homophiles. They are infertile and incapable of sexual reproduction and, therefore, without human intervention they should lose out in this fight for survival.

However, on the contrary, it seems that the “gay rights” movement is destined to make homophilia a socially acceptable form of dysfunctional behaviour and, with the help of equal adoption rights, make it possible for such people to “have children”. If so, what chance do their adopted children have of seeing their parents behaviour for what it is?

P.S. I am not homophobic (i.e. I do not feel threatened by homosexuals). On the contrary, I feel great compassion for them. (Please see the relevant chapter in Why Men Don't Iron", by Anne and Bill Moir).

Well what a Summer that was!

Hi folks,

Long time no blog, eh? Well what with being made redundant, being unemployed, re-landscaping the back garden, and having no access to the Internet at home (until Tiscali sort out what is wrong with the Broadband Connection that we are supposed to have)... but enough of the excuses already... After a very strange summer (in more ways than one), I am now back in employment (working for the UK's Environment Agency)...

Martin.

What's in a Name?

I have decided to re-name this blog to reflect my overall philosophy about life, rather than as an advertisement for my Christian Apologetics website (i.e. "Geoscience and Jesus etc...").

It was St Paul that first described the global Christian movement (recognisable disciples of Jesus through the ages) as the body of Christ. ("...one body with many parts..."), in which case none of us is the head (that is Jesus), but neither is any of us an appendix (i.e. an organ without any apparent function).

The trick is, however, not to spend your whole life trying to find out what your function actually is...!

Successful Information Exchange?

Simon said...
Why should science worry about gods, Martin? If scientists started trying to squeeze gods into things, we'd be going back about 1000 years.

In the long and winding road of scientific progress, not one step has been taken by religion.

From talking to various Christians, Christianity seems to be about general self-loathing and mistrust of humanity. Being brought up in a Christian society, we're given a sense of guilt about natural body functions and insticts and so we grow up feeling bad about ourselves and with a desire to "repent".

Isn't it all about feeling bad because you fancied your mate's wife, or pigged-out on a meal, or lay on the sofa watching TV all day, or wished your bullying boss would drop dead? - all things which are relatively harmless.

The picture came from a google image search. Horrible, isn't it?


Martin Lack said...
"In the long and winding road of scientific progress, not one step has been taken by religion.".... If it was not for the Christian concept of a rational God, western civilisation/science would not have developed the way it has.

"From talking to various Christians, Christianity seems to be about general self-loathing... all things which are relatively harmless.".... Most of the world's belief systems acknowledge that no-one is perfect; most conceive God as perfect and/or just. Religions are imperfect man's ideas about how to make himself acceptable to such a perfect God.

Therefore Christianity is not a religion, since its central point is that we cannot make ourselves perfect and so should not make ourselves miserable trying; just be grateful that God has solved the problem.


Simon said...
Martin, what gives you the idea the Christian god is any more rational than the others?

"Therefore Christianity is not a religion, since its central point is that we cannot make ourselves perfect and so should not make ourselves miserable trying; just be grateful that God has solved the problem."

So Christianity isn't a religion. Well, I learn something new every day.

Football and Fosters

I must come clean and admit I did not send you a postcard from our recent 3112-mile round trip to Venice (but don't feel miffed; we only sent them to close family this year). This was really fantastic; a drive through - or rather over - the Alps comes highly recommended; it is "ahhhssohm", as our American friends would say.

Anyway, although we came back with over 100 bottles of wine and about 6 litres of spirits (that's us sorted for another year), I did not get any beer!

What a dreadful omission, I hear you say... Well, I have just been checking beer prices in Morrisons this lunchtime, and 24x440ml cans of Fosters for £12 was the best I could find; which is just a little over £1.10/litre (about the same as you'd pay in Calais I think.

So, while it lasts; enjoy the football and the Fosters (I will),

Martin.

Everyone says I'm mad but...

Later today I am setting off on a 2400-mile, 18-day, round trip to Caorle (near Venice), with me doing all of the driving. However, I am not a good passenger, but I like to navigate too! Having Driven to Normandy two years ago, and Bordeaux last year, the children are psychologically prepared; as well as physically (they both recently bought Gameboys). Nevertheless, I hope they will take time to enjoy some of the scenery. I certainly will... Although I have been to Switzerland before (literally decades ago), I have never been driven - let alone driven myself - all the way through it and out the other side. Anyway, the main point of this post is to warn any visitors/commentators not to expect an instant response, as I am not going to be replying this side of the 6th of June.