Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Educating Muslims


If you were to believe the myopic mainstream media (and, let's face it, most people do), Michael Gove's free school programme is spawning a wave of taxpayer-funded madrasahs, each one covertly indoctrinating the next generation of murderous Islamists by inculcating a hatred of British history, culture and Christian traditions through 'creeping sharia'. These schools are a manifest hindrance to social cohesion, pose an existential threat to our peace and security, and constitute a menace to liberal democracy itself.

As Exhibit A, they hold up the Al-Madinah Free School in Derby, where female non-Muslim staff  are obliged to dress 'decently', which apparently includes wearing a hijab. No staff or students - whatever their beliefs - may eat 'non-halal' (ie haram) foodstuffs; girls are forced to sit at the back of the class behind the socially superior boys (and they are segregated for lunch as well); staff do not appear to be required to undertake DBS (CRB) checks; and in lessons all "sensitive, inaccurate and potentially blasphemous material with be censored or removed completely. If and when teachers are required by the curriculum to convey teachings that are totally against Islam, the Director of Islamic Studies will brief the relevant teachers and advise accordingly".

They define 'against Islam' as 'Darwinism'.

This school, its critics aver, is a law unto itself, and the law is most concerningly that of Allah. This has no place in the state system of education, and has caused even reasoned and intelligent politicians like Labour's Tom Harris MP to come out against faith-based education altogether. Yes, just because of one failing Muslim school in 3,500 state secondary schools, Mr Harris advocates closing all Church of England, Roman Catholic and Jewish voluntary aided or voluntary controlled schools as well, just in case one of them were to become subversively cultic and coercively authoritarian.  

Two points are worth making. Firstly, for Christians, all people are our neighbour and we are commanded to love them, and that includes Muslims. A school is not some utilitarian instrument for the manufacture of cyborgs for the amelioration of the state's GDP: it is a community of people - each one of whom has feelings, hurts and needs - concerned with the development of future mothers, fathers, employees and benevolent citizens. The closure of the Al-Madinah school inflicts suffering upon the children whose education is being disrupted, and worry upon hundreds of parents as they look anxiously around for alternatives. The Christian response should be one of understanding and compassion, not scorn and judgment. 

Secondly, Conservatives believe in the inalienable right of parents to be the primary educators of their children. We tend to respect the rights to freedom of belief and to education in accordance with that belief where it coheres with the common good, the advancement of enlightenment and the development of social wellbeing. Conservatives acknowledge and understand the desire of parents to bring up their children within a framework of belief, and support the state (ie publicly funded schools) where the instilling of religious faith and a moral worldview is a virtue in itself. Conservatives ought not to favour the abolition of state-funded faith schools, and certainly not with any appeal to Article 2 of the Human Rights Act. That countries such as France and the United States have secular state education is immaterial: our history, traditions, institutions and democratic development are different.

It is the Socialist instinct to destroy the ethos of faith schools and force them to conform to a simplistic, illiberal and ultimately totalitarian politically-correct ‘equality’ agenda which has no space for the religious conscience. Secular bodies are increasingly interfering in the admissions policies of faith schools, thereby presuming to discern who does and does not subscribe to a particular basis of faith. If these schools no longer have the power to select children on religious grounds, it is difficult to discern how their distinct ethos can be maintained.

Schools and colleges have to cope with increasing ‘social engineering’ legislation which seeks to impose secular values on their distinct curriculum and ethos. Michael Gove understands this, and is broadening the tolerance of the state that was so constrained by New Labour. All that faith-based schools wish to do is educate children in accordance with their worldview - placing God at the centre of the formative process, teaching morals and spiritual values, with (for example) purity outside of marriage and fidelity within, providing a framework of discipline, imparting respect and tolerance, instilling obedience to scripture and to orthodoxy.

One failing Muslim school does not undermine the case for fundamental religious liberty in education. Conservatives do not want to go down a route of secular reasoning, the logical consequence of which would be the closure of all church schools. Remember the words of Labour's Barry Sheerman MP, who revealingly once observed: “It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith. But as soon as there is a more doctrinaire attitude questions have to be asked. It does become worrying when you get a new push from more fundamentalist bishops. This is taxpayers' money after all.”

You may object to taxpayers' money funding the Al-Madinah school, but the alternative would be to drive this and other such schools into the private sector. It would then be beyond the reach of summary Ofsted inspection, free to impose its own unscrutinised curriculum, and would be vastly more unaccountable than any maintained academy or free school. Don't be persuaded by crass journalism and superficial reporting that the manifest failures of one Muslim school are somehow representative of all Muslim schools; or that the cultic practices of one faith school somehow justify the total separation of religion and education. They do not.

109 Comments:

Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! And it's all going so swimmingly in Sweden, I understand...

15 October 2013 at 09:33  
Blogger Gerhard Swart said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 October 2013 at 10:18  
Blogger Gerhard Swart said...

Why is it that the 'tax payer funded' card is played so readily? Surely people of faith also pay tax?

15 October 2013 at 10:20  
Blogger Gerhard Swart said...

Why is it that the 'tax payer funded card' is played so readily? Surely people of faith also pays tax?

15 October 2013 at 10:22  
Blogger JimS said...

If the price of stopping the abuse of children by indoctrination in the cult of Islam is that we have no 'faith' schools at all then that is a price well worth paying.

15 October 2013 at 10:32  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

JimS, I'm with you on that, although if it was my decision, I'd just prohibit muslim schools. Nothing wrong with Christian and Jewish schools - they've been around for centuries and I don't recall the children being taught that everyone else is essentially the enemy. Or that the Bible contains all one needs to know about science, and just about everything else.

15 October 2013 at 10:54  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...


Sorry, but you run the risk of becoming a 'useful idiot' in the advancement of Islam by writing a piece like this.

A couple of years ago Tom Harris MP said: 'It doesn’t matter what religion a faith school promotes. The only thing that matters is that if children are being abused or brainwashed with narrow minded, damaging lies, then someone has to put a stop to it.'

I think most of us would agree with that.

Of course any failure by any faith school will lead the usual religion-haters into a frenzy, calling for ALL faith schools to be banned (it's the sort of generalised prejudice against religion that is to be expected from the 'enlightened'). But so what – they will hate religion, no matter what the cause.

You say 'You may object to taxpayers' money funding the Al-Madinah school, but the alternative would be to drive this and other such schools into the private sector.'

No it is not. The alternative is to discriminate between the good faith schools and the bad ones – to be able to determine which faith schools are teaching the national curriculum in keeping with the law and also promoting an ethos that sits comfortably with British culture (e.g. boys and girls mixed, reasonable choice in dress, equal access to the syllabus) and which schools are not.

The Al-Madinah school has demonstrably failed to do this, so state intervention is not about forcing secular views on reasonable parents who only want to share their faith with their children. It is about challenging the state-funded teaching of a set of values (religious and social) that are completely at variance with everything that this country has striven for for centuries.

You also grossly fail the children by bolstering the right of the school to promote its own medieval version of society. They are the next generation of Muslims in this country and, if they are going to live here peacefully, need to understand and accept Western values, within which they are free to follow whichever religion they choose.

Christian faith schools achieve this quite comfortably, teaching the national curriculum, tolerance and respect for other religions and cultures, the theory of evolution and so on. There is a lesson in these schools for other religions that are backward facing.

15 October 2013 at 10:55  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Islam isn't a normal religion. It's more of a totalitarian political system. A more valid comparision than with Anglican or Catholic schools would be with the Hitler Youth setting up a permanent training camp in the neighbourhood.

Islam is VERY different, and we need to recognise that sooner rather than later.

15 October 2013 at 11:06  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Ars Hendrik,

You are obviously incapable of discerning the plainest meaning from written text. And you obviously also possess little understanding of equality legislation as it applies to religious adherence, or of the application of the National Curriculum as it applies to private schools, academies and free schools.

15 October 2013 at 11:07  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but you are right, I did forget that free schools are able to depart from the NC, so apologies about that.

They are though supposed to provide a balanced and broadly based curriculum, including English, mathematics and science and to make 'provision' for the teaching of religious education. The school in question failed, hence its remonstration.

As for the point about equality legislation - it's that that I would propose to change, as current legis is also failing.

15 October 2013 at 11:20  
Blogger Corrigan said...

If you were to believe the myopic mainstream media (and, let's face it, most people do)

A hugely questionable assumption, Cranmer. By the way, JimS, if you want the total abolition of faith schools, it can only be because you have an inflexible ideological political agenda which you want to push using the schools as force-feeders.

15 October 2013 at 13:10  
Blogger Mr Grumpy said...

If the price of stopping the abuse of children by indoctrination in the cult of Islam is that we have no 'faith' schools at all then that is a price well worth paying.

Why should that be the price unless people are too disingenuous or two cowardly to admit that Islamic schools are likely to raise specific issues of the kind exemplified in this case? In other words, it's the price of liberal orthodoxy.

15 October 2013 at 13:26  
Blogger Corrigan said...

In other words, it's the price of liberal orthodoxy.

That's what I just said.

15 October 2013 at 13:30  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Yes, Mr Grumpy, that was kind of the point I was trying to make (not very well as it turned out).

It's also called throwing the baby out with bathwater.

15 October 2013 at 13:34  
Blogger Corrigan said...

From Wikipedia, and just by coincidence, on this day in...

1529 – The Siege of Vienna ended as the Austrians repelled the invading Turks, turning the tide against almost a century of unchecked conquest throughout eastern and central Europe by the Ottoman Empire.

15 October 2013 at 13:39  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Yup, leave it to the Catholics, eh, Cranmer?

15 October 2013 at 13:40  
Blogger Simon Cooke said...


Thank you for this piece - I was educated at a faith school (a Roman Catholic one) but retain very little faith. However, you are right to condemn the singling out of this one Muslin school.

For balance look at Feversham College here in Bradford:

Feversham College provides an outstanding education for its students. Very skilful teaching and high quality support enable students to achieve extremely well.
Students join the school having attained low standards at Key Stage 2 but they make exceptional academic progress. The school provides a very safe and caring
environment in which students can develop and learn. The Islamic ethos is at the heart of everything that the school does
and underpins students’ commitment, moral purpose and hard work. The personal development of students is outstanding and
behaviour is exceptionally good. Students enjoy their education, they are justifiably proud of the school and they are excellent ambassadors. Leadership and
management of the school are outstanding and there is a strong drive to keep improving. The school has an excellent reputation in the local Muslim community and
it is heavily oversubscribed. Parents who responded to the ques
tionnaire were very positive and supportive of the school.

http://www.fevershamcollege.com/ofsted-report.php

Hope this helps

15 October 2013 at 13:52  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

That's interesting Simon.

I had a quick look at the school's website. On the science page it says:

'Verses in the Qur'an describe the origins of the universe and life, embryonic development, the water cycle and geology.

'the heavens and Earth were of one piece, we parted them and, we made every living thing of water" Qur'an 21:30

'the heavens we have built with power and are expanding it" Quran 51:47'

I will leave that to the scientists among you.

It also says on the page:

'Having Faith* in Science (*Faith in this context does not mean Imaan)'.

I've no idea what 'Imaan' is. Perhaps someone else does and what it means in this context.

15 October 2013 at 14:18  
Blogger Simon Cooke said...

Imaan is more or less the Muslim concept of faith - acknowledging God in all his glory. I guess the writer here is referring to faith as confidence, belief, trust.

15 October 2013 at 14:53  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

This is not a level playing field. In our unequal “equal” society I think it will prove to be be far easier for Islamic schools to pursue their faith based objectives than it will be for a Christian schools to uphold traditional beliefs and values against the tide of secularism.
Worldwide, Islam has been responsible for thousands of terrorist attacks, massive human rights violations, religious and ethnic cleansing, the destruction of churches and other holy places, animal cruelty, wars, revolutions and mass murder. Since its objective is world domination by force, Islam is – as it always has been - a threat to every nation and lifestyle on the planet. Do we seriously believe its values should be taught in any British school?
It is a cult not a religion. Those born into its clutches or converted are trapped by draconian apostasy laws. Any who attempt to escape this ideological prison are often hunted down and suffer extreme violence. Others are ruthlessly executed. Unless Islam drastically reforms it will remain a cult and should be treated as such. The Government should not be ducking its responsibilities to other communities because of the size, influence and militancy of Islam.

15 October 2013 at 14:57  
Blogger Jon said...

I think there are two (rather separate) issues here. There are what parents would like education to be, and what the rest of the country ought to want education to be.

From a parent's perspective, education ought to be about development of life's basic skills (writing, reading, numeracy), imparting knowledge, encouraging critical thinking, as well as socialisation with other kids (which I would suggest also includes a basic value system about how we treat others). Some would (it seems) hope that their kids are also inculcated into a specific world view.

"Society" wants something else. It DOES want the automata to which His Grace refers. And why not? Education is expensive, and the fact that private schools cost more than the taxes paid by people on the national average wage suggests that education must be subsidised by non- parents, companies and other taxpayers to some degree.

For wider society to want to see the inclusion of religious elements in education, there must be a demonstrable benefit to both the learner, and to their productivity in employment. There's no doubt that religious people have a tendency to greater charitable works (which is to be commended) but charities don't pay much tax. And if religious education comes at the expense of a deep understanding of science (because the science either contradicts or a religious book or because the time spent studying religious ideas crowds out other more economic pursuits) then I see no reason why education shouldn't be stripped of it.

Let parents indoctrinate their kids as they see fit, the state should expect that kids are equipped with the basic tool kit to perpetuate the tax base to provide the same opportunities for the next generation!

15 October 2013 at 14:57  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Simon Cook, thanks, I was wondering if it's similar to the Hebrew emunah and it is.

15 October 2013 at 15:58  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace.
Ars quoted; 'It doesn’t matter what religion a faith school promotes. The only thing that matters is that if children are being abused or brainwashed with narrow minded, damaging lies, then someone has to put a stop to it.' How does this MP think he know all the truth? That people of faith tech there children the values that they believe in, why does that have to be lies and brainwashing? He needs to look at his own upbringing and see what has influenced his own thinking.

15 October 2013 at 16:24  
Blogger Peter David said...

I fail to understand the mediocrity of mind when all that people can say is that faith schools are bad when obviously they are the solution. It would seem they do not produce the type of left wing fruit cake that is required by the big brother society and it leaves out most of the wilting lilies from the liberal group. Muslims and their schooling will never meet the standards of the Christian based societies in any manner at all. This is why they do so well with the left wing that is just as intolerant and dictatorial. Socialist, communist, social democrats, national socialists and others of the same breed are the same dog with a different collar and once that is understood the prohibition or control of Muslim schools will follow as will the prohibition of dictatorial mandates from the left who have filled Europe with this problem. Why has no one mentioned the “School Cheque” thus giving back to parents the freedom of choice for there children, something enshrined in any civilized country. Wake up GB time is running out for you fast.

15 October 2013 at 16:44  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I am strongly in favour of responsible faith schools.
Now as I see it the two dangers exist, as follows.

Firstly that the dictatorial secularists will use anti-western militant Islam as the bogeyman to attack and close all, faith based schools, including those Christian and Jewish ones that have provided excellent, socially responsible education for decades. There may exist responsible Muslim and other faith schools as well, but I have no knowledge or experience of this, so I shall sit on the fence on that matter. However we must not allow good, responsible faith based schools to be closed. This must not happen.
Secondly that under the guise of allowing the responsible faith schools of the type mentioned above to continue, we allow irresponsible, society destroying, anti-western and indoctrinating schools, of any religious affiliation to exist.
Those are, it seems to me, the twin perils that society has to navigate around.
Parental choice, perhaps the "school cheque" is the way forward.

15 October 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I am strongly in favour of responsible faith schools.
Now as I see it the two dangers exist, as follows.

Firstly that the dictatorial secularists will use anti-western militant Islam as the bogeyman to attack and close all, faith based schools, including those Christian and Jewish ones that have provided excellent, socially responsible education for decades. There may exist responsible Muslim and other faith schools as well, but I have no knowledge or experience of this, so I shall sit on the fence on that matter. However we must not allow good, responsible faith based schools to be closed. This must not happen.
Secondly that under the guise of allowing the responsible faith schools of the type mentioned above to continue, we allow irresponsible, society destroying, anti-western and indoctrinating schools, of any religious affiliation to exist.
Those are, it seems to me, the twin perils that society has to navigate around.
Parental choice, perhaps the "school cheque" is the way forward.

15 October 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger IanCad said...

I see the Religious Test Acts rearing their heads again.

15 October 2013 at 18:14  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David

"I am strongly in favour of responsible faith schools. "

Who decides? The State?

The problem is not State Schools but the State's involvement in schools

Phil

15 October 2013 at 18:15  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David

"Parental choice, perhaps the "school cheque" is the way forward"

Some parents will chose intollerant schools. So.. do they lose the cheque?

Same point. Who decides?

Phil

15 October 2013 at 18:17  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

for Christians, all people are our neighbour and we are commanded to love them, and that includes Muslims

<sarcasm>Yes, that’s worked out really well for Christians in the Middle East and everywhere else it’s been tried.</sarcasm>

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

15 October 2013 at 21:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well then, what’s the problem ? A muslim faith school with poor standards. What of it ?

The rise of Islam militancy in this country has little to do with faith schools, but one could argue the best way to poke the hornet’s nest that is extremism is to ban them. Gives the terrorist a bit of self serving justification for his actions by pretending his precious people are being victimised by the kaffir, however tenuous the link. Even his wife (wives) and children would be urging him on, as will the darker characters in his mosque. You’d think an MP like Tom Harris would appreciate that. Apparently not.

Besides, if we are going to have peaceful and mutually agreed apartheid in this country, you just don’t do that sort of thing. You’d think the lead up to the civil disturbances in the north of Ireland would have taught valuable lessons. Again, apparently not.

Because in the end, you do realise separate development of the peoples are this country’s only hope if we are to co-exist together with no blood spilt. (Let’s hope the answer to this one isn’t ‘apparently not’)





15 October 2013 at 21:27  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I would think closing down muslim schools here would be the best way forward if we are to retain our own culture. Little Aysha and Mohmmad should have to attend our state schools or private schools where they should get a knowledge of all other religions or they can attend a Christian or Jewish faith school.

I agree with Ars Hendrick @ 10:55 that “the next generation of muslims in this country if they are going to live peacefully, need to understand and accept western values, within which they are free to follow which ever religion they choose.”

16 October 2013 at 00:09  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Little Aysha and Mohmmad should have to attend our state schools or private schools where they should get a knowledge of all other religions or they can attend a Christian or Jewish faith school. .

Kind of you to think of us, Marie, but no, really, we couldn't; you can have them all.

16 October 2013 at 04:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

You make some salient points but you tend to see the Muslim school as some kind of sect within the judeo/ christian family and we therefore have common ground as a tolerant society whereas Islam is a political ideology garbed in religious terminology.

That we adhere to principles such as defined by a system in which all people are judged as equals before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender.
The vote of every individual counts as much as the vote of any other.
The collective will of the people then determines the rules of the society.

Under Islamic law, because the Qu'ran and Sharia are indivisible, only Muslim males are entitled to full rights. The standing of a woman is often half that of a man's - sometimes much, much less.
Non-Muslims have no standing with a Muslim. In fact, a Muslim can never be put to death for killing an unbeliever.

Have you bought into the nonsense that Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same.
That Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense, and only when it was necessary.
That 'True Muslims' would never act or behave aggressively towards others and that those who do are extremist jihadi's?

"Conservatives acknowledge and understand the desire of parents to bring up their children within a framework of belief, and support the state (ie publicly funded schools) where the instilling of religious faith and a moral worldview is a virtue in itself." The problem is that any Islamic schools worldview on morals is in direct contradistinction from our own!!!
They are taught that Jihad in Islam via the Qu'ran literally means “fight” or “struggle,” . That it it refers to an “inner struggle” rather than holy war..but nothing could be further from the truth.

The Quran specifically exempts the disabled and elderly from Jihad (4:95), which would utter nonsense if the word is being used merely within the context of 'spiritual struggle', would it not. It is therefore unclear why Muhammad and his Qur'an would use such graphic language, such as smiting fingers and heads from the hands and necks of unbelievers if he were speaking merely of that pupil building time we learnt at grammar school called character development.

Within the Hadith collection of Bukhari, 'Jihad' is mentioned over 200 times in reference to the words of Muhammad and each one carries a clear connotation to holy war, with only a handful of possible exceptions. This is what is taught at Muslim schools..When we talk of Jesus at school, they are taught of His Life and Example whereas Muslims are taught of a very different life and example which is in direct conflict with our Saviour's.

Islam does not facilitate any of the west's principles founded in democracy, however imperfect this is!!.

The problem is Islamic, not whether all faith schools should be abolished.

Ernst imagines the horror amongst the political classes if there were ARYAN schools supported by public funds, detailing and extolling the life and example of 'De Fuehrer'...The difference being he has hardly any willing to blow up others to guarantee their entrance into Valhalla !!!

Al-Madinah Free School is merely following bravely what one of the last chapters of the Quran demands - the true believer "strives and fights with their wealth and persons" while the hypocrites are those who "sit at home," refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands.

Blofeld

ps

Isn't insomnia a B^&%%£$!!!!

16 October 2013 at 04:25  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Aid and Comfort: To render assistance or counsel. Any act that deliberately strengthens or tends to strengthen enemies of the nation, or that weakens or tends to weaken the power of the nation to resist and attack such enemies is characterized as aid and comfort.

The giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is an element in the crime of Treason. Aid and comfort may consist of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to provide some support; actual help or the success of the enterprise is not relevant.

Islam is at war with us. Always has been, always will be. We are mad and possibly treasonous to offer it any aid and comfort whatsoever, include funding madrassahs for training bombinos and junior jihadists.

16 October 2013 at 09:09  
Blogger James Church said...

Your Grace, having waded through the comments here, I agree with your article, we shouldn't allow the secularists to close all faith schools based on one or two bad apples. My only observation would be that we already have ofsted as a mechanism for dealing with "rogue" schools. It may be neccessary to retrain ofsted to scratch beneath the surface and address the particular challenges posed by the teaching of extremist ideology in schools (we may want to include the communist agenda in that category as well). Thank you for your perceptive analysis.

16 October 2013 at 09:43  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (21:27)—Panorama once did a programme about the religious divide in Blackburn. At the time the city was nearly half Muslim and one of the cathedral canons, Chris Chivers, said that the segregation between Muslim and non-Muslim was as marked as anything he had seen in apartheid South Africa.

16 October 2013 at 10:57  
Blogger David B said...

"...or that the cultic practices of one faith school somehow justify the total separation of religion and education. They do not,"

Not in themselves, perhaps.

But most faiths and sects are mutually incompatable, and so necessarily many (I would suggest all, but necessarily many) faith schools are teaching vulnerable kiddies at an age when they tend to believe what authority figures tell them are not only being taught things that are wrong, but being taught wrong things at common expense.

Faith schools should receive not one penny of public funds.

David

16 October 2013 at 12:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

David B rattled off

"But most faiths and sects are mutually incompatable (Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs get along swimmingly here in old blighty dear boy but there is a bad apple amongst the bunch,is there not?) and so necessarily many (I would suggest all, but necessarily many) faith schools are teaching vulnerable kiddies at an age when they tend to believe what authority figures tell them (Dear boy when was the last time you attended RE as I cannot remember being ever taught anything in the slightest subversive about religion. As a matter of fact it's expanded as crass nonsense in class that pleases no-one but our leftie luvvies!) are not only being taught things that are wrong (Do expand dear chap on The Good Samaritan, The Prodigal Son and 'Who is my neighbour'..this should be enlightening), but being taught wrong things at common expense (Unlike the joys of living in an atheistic society that has all the bad eggs gotten rid off but with love into Gulags, concentration, internment nd good ol' Labor camps as the politburo liked to call them. Can you feel the love, can you my fine atheist?. Strange how when atheism is in complete control of all it tend to totalitarianism but not you or your ilk..ye are different..Just like we only get the good Muslims here in old blighty, not the nasty ones. Correct?. Your ideological adherents to pure hatred of themselves and others have killed more in 125 years than religion has killed in tens of centuries)

Faith schools should receive not one penny of public funds."

Then neither should secularist indoctrination centers posing as state schools and you lot should keep tongue firmly in gob when Christianity gives you an umbrella of safety and freedom to spout your tripe!!!.

Blofeld

16 October 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David

What you are really saying is

Your worldview should not be taught/modeled for children but mine should

Phil

16 October 2013 at 13:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Atheistic suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Atheism is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the lost..to flip what Marx thought of religion. If only he and Feuerbach could see where atheism led as they both wanted to destroy all religious commitments and to encourage an intensive hatred towards the old God. All religious institutions needed to be eradicated from the earth and from the memory of coming generations, so that they would never again find power over people’s minds through their deception and promotion of fear from the mystical forces of God.

Strange how Marx argued that religious belief had been invented as a reaction against the suffering and injustice of the world yet his atheistic philosophy put into action by communism led to greater suffering and injustice than belief in the Old God did.

"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction". Karl Marx http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

The blind leading the blinded!!!

Blofeld

16 October 2013 at 13:53  
Blogger Ivan said...


Christians, supporting Islamic schools in the name of a misguided ecumenism are at best wasting time or at worst enabling an historic enemy to extend his range. There is never any kind of reciprocity, where those who gain these concessions in the West then go on to extol the value of Christian schools in Islamic countries. Though of necessity Muslims send their children to Christian schools, since they are at all times superior to their own schools, this generally does not translate to a better deal for Christians at the national level. The left are happy to conflate Muslim schools with Christian, Jewish or Buddhist ones since the presence of Islam is the acid that dissolves any attempt by the religious to carve out a space for themselves.

16 October 2013 at 14:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Johnny Rottenborough. One feels mutually agreed apartheid is the only way forward, and it must as it will be, be clad in respect for either side. Let the muslim live out his life in peace and tolerance, and there is an excellent chance he’ll allow us the same. Especially in a western society with effective security services. Although one gang slipped through the net, we must not forget many more are now in prison. Would be terrorists know they are up against formidable odds.

As a consequence of this division, there must almost certainly be a revival of all things culturally English and all things religiously as well as culturally Christian by the indigenous and hitherto largely uninterested people, with the latter not being objected to by atheists who will eventually realise they are in common cause. We can finally give ‘liberalism’ the boot it so richly deserves, as of course it was that very laxity which caused the mass immigration to occur. And more splendid news - to maintain population levels, abortion on demand will have to go.

There is much to be said for our new future foisted upon us by the fools we foolishly allowed to govern us, don’t you think ?

When we are up against it, we will come shining through, as we have always done in the past. It now seems apparent when we have no challenge, we slowly rot and waste away…





16 October 2013 at 16:20  
Blogger Len said...

The dilemma of the Christian is that he is called to 'love his neighbour' but where does this 'cross the line'and this 'love' become a sign of weakness or just condoning whatever his neighbour is doing ?.
Is Christianity just a passive religion where we become' doormats 'for anybody who cares to wipe their feet on us?.This would seem to be happening in the UK and the World beyond.
Christianity is being attacked from within and from without and who is defending it?.We look to our leaders but they are sadly lacking in anything other than a politically correct abysmal sort of 'Christianity' and they only 'come out 'when they retire from public office.
Every school in the UK was once a 'faith school' until our respective Governments threw away our Christian heritage for 'a mess of ecumentalism'.
So IF Christians do not become 'salt' and 'light' we will be trampled underfoot.It is already happening!.






16 October 2013 at 18:00  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Len

Love your your neighbour

Dietrich Bonhoeffer had the same dilemma in the 1930s in Germany

He said it was like letting a person you know is drunk go off and run people over

The role of the Christian is to help the victims yes, but also stop the drunk driver, especially if it involves great personal cost.

The problem is the easy response is to throw bandages at the victims. The drunk driver might hurt you personally. So we don't do this and so we have lots of victims.

The problem of the last 100 years has not been the politicians Len.

Or the Bishops

Or anyone else we want to blame.

It has been us. We are more scared of the drunk than God.

In today's world God can still ask anything of us. But we now have to agree with God and the bargain is that it should not make us uncomfortable.

I cannot remember who said it but

"I do not believe in God because I want to live my life as I want

I believe in a God of love because I want to live my life as I want"

Phil




16 October 2013 at 18:29  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (16:20)—It may be that the bishops, in extending the hand of friendship to Islam, are counting on it to jolt the Englishman out of his apathy and into a pew. It’s a risky strategy but I can understand the thinking behind it. Although the prospect of a reproduction contest between Muslims and Christians for the Bun in the Oven trophy is depressing, your solution does have the advantage of sidestepping the logistical nightmare of a forced Muslim emigration; I’m hoping that the public mood will so turn against Muslims that they’ll be queueing up to leave. As must be apparent, I’ve taken the reluctant decision to opt out of His Grace’s ‘loving Muslims’ rota.

16 October 2013 at 20:23  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Phil,

I agree that each individual Christian has to take some of the responsibility for what has and is happening. And relating to Len's point, I believe that we love our neighbour more by pointing to right actions than by remaining silent and condoning the wrong ones. However our democracy such as it is, notwithstanding, society is still led by a few. But the opinion formers now are not Bishops, industrialists or the gentry, as formerly, but media types who with the new type of political/legal establishment took power in order to attack, overturn all that is traditional including Christianity. They don't have a clear agenda or sense of direction other than away from everything to do with the past and towards selfish, irresponsible "selfism", as Peter Hitchins has recently labeled it. There aren't any higher goals or a thought out value system, say of true freedom which should be for everyone, equally, but they are just driving towards their idea of doing what the hell they want to do. And God with his standards, holding them to account, becomes an unacceptable obstruction to be bulldozed out of sight.

In the meanwhile most, but not all, Bishops and the like have lost their way, as they too are a different sort of person to the ones that were formerly leading. But good Christian leaders still exist, often as writer and parish ministers, but held in lowly positions by the new anything goes establishment.

The new leadership won't like the chaos that they are creating, for now kept at bay, temporarily, by an ever expanding State, which is unaffordable in the long term. It's not a new philosophical or religious system forming, just unthinking selfishness in action, hitting out at any form of restriction, I think. They are about "setting up on their own" , to quote CS Lewis , without God.

16 October 2013 at 20:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Johnny R. We both know there is going to be no enthusiastic re-migration of muslims. What little space these types did occupy in the old land has been filled by more of their impoverished brothers. They have nowhere to return to. Then, we have the situation of their off spring who have never known anything other than Britain's grey skies.

Pragmatism, old man. We have to play with the hand we have, and in this game we can’t discard. So, let us forward towards a solution that sees muslims content in their inner city areas with their Sharia recognised as law in their district. Grasp the nettle now, because if violence ensures, they are going to get that anyway as part of the settlement...


16 October 2013 at 21:05  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

>>>>imS said...
If the price of stopping the abuse of children by indoctrination in the cult of Islam is that we have no 'faith' schools at all then that is a price well worth paying.
<<<<

you got it. A most conning plan, eh? Smear all religions (except secular humanism) as being equally evil, ban the lot. You have to hand it to these Fabian conspirators, they're not daft.

16 October 2013 at 21:50  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Jay bee, Islam CANNOT reform, at least not in the sense that I think you mean.

The Protestant Reformation consisted (and I know this is disputed on this blog) in a clearing out of unbiblical accretions and corruptions and a return to a simpler faith more true to Christianity's Holy Book.

Islam is currently undergoing a similar 'reformation' process, its called Wahhabism. They are throwing out the westernisation and modernity and returning to a primitive and original form of Islam. As practiced by the murdering, raping, tyrannical, psychotic, probably demon possessed individual who founded Islam.

Who was it that said that false prophets would arise and lead many astray and that we would know them by their works?

Read the Koran and shudder. The Islamisation of Europe is, IMHO, God's poetic justice on a culture that threw away the inestimable benefits of the Christian revelation.

16 October 2013 at 22:00  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Ars wrote


>>>>I had a quick look at the school's website. On the science page it says:

'Verses in the Qur'an describe the origins of the universe and life, embryonic development, the water cycle and geology.

'the heavens and Earth were of one piece, we parted them and, we made every living thing of water" Qur'an 21:30

'the heavens we have built with power and are expanding it" Quran 51:47'

I will leave that to the scientists among you.
<<<<

I don't call myself a scientist but have had a scientific education and am a biblical creationist.

Biblical creationists do NOT want to stop evolution theory being taught in schools. We merely wish to allow it to be questioned.

Which, I am told, is absolutely intolerable.

16 October 2013 at 22:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Biblical Creationism ? The Inspector fervently believed in the fairies at the bottom of his childhood garden – until one day he caught them buggering each other...

16 October 2013 at 22:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"The Inspector fervently believed in the fairies at the bottom of his childhood garden – until one day he caught them buggering each other..."

Next you'll be telling us that wine becomes blood and bread meat and that there is one continuous line of succession from St Peter?? *Guffaws uncontrollably*

16 October 2013 at 23:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Steve:"Which, I am told, is absolutely intolerable."

Not to scientists, philosophers of science, most atheist, and so on I'd have thought. We expect at least some aspects to be wrong and look forward to improvements. Compare and contrast with Creationists as a general rule.

17 October 2013 at 06:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And since that day, the Inspector was often seen at the bottom of the garden carrying a dog lead even though he didn't have a dog.

17 October 2013 at 06:39  
Blogger Martin said...

Personally I object to the teaching of Evolutionism within the state system. Do I not have to contribute toward the funding of this Victorian pseudo scientific teaching that allows no questioning of its tenets?

Surely what sauce for the goose is the same for the gander. When Dawkins can demonstrate the descent of all life from an original form, then Evolution should be allowed in the science classroom. Otherwise it belongs in religious teaching.

17 October 2013 at 08:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

DanJ0 said...

Steve:"Which, I am told, is absolutely intolerable."

"Not to scientists, philosophers of science, most atheist, and so on I'd have thought. We expect at least some aspects to be wrong (but the general tenets to correct?) and look forward to improvements. Compare and contrast with Creationists as a general rule."

Ernst has asked for just one proof of macro evolution..a tragic specimen caught between one species with a leg and a flipper and a wing and an arm and another but nothing.
We are told it is intolerable and unthinkable to even request this physical proof but that it is definitely there, you flat earther, whereas Atheists can demand proof of a non physical entity outside time and space and we say He is definitely there!!

Blofeld

17 October 2013 at 09:23  
Blogger Len said...

Evolution is an unproven faith based(dare I say it?)' religion.'
yet it is taught in our schools as undisputed fact.We are brainwashing our youth into a system based on the theories of man.

This evolutionary religion intends to displace Christianity and is indeed doing so in many cases but it has no moral framework to replace christianity.Everyones moral code is now 'relative'to what ones wants and desires are.So we now see what was once 'minority groups'are now demanding that their 'moral values' take prority over what was previously the foundations of our society.This is quite plainly a recipe for disaster as we slip lower and lower by increments as the floodgates are opened to give full rein to the fallen nature of man.It is patently obvious to any observer that this is happening and to deny the fallen nature of man is to just deny the problem exists and to sleepwalk into the coming chaos.



17 October 2013 at 11:16  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

This reminds me of what ex-pope Benedict said of Dawkins' Selfish Gene – that it contained within it science fiction (this was in response to a criticism that religion itself was a form of science fiction). Benedict had his tongue firmly in cheek when he said this – he was clearly not saying that genetics or evolution are fiction – but was pointing out that Dawkins has used the words of the biologist (and Nobel Prize winner) Jacques Monod in the SG.

The science fiction was where Monod/Dawkins has implied an intention or purpose to a particular activity, which is of course entirely speculative (the example was of animals 'choosing' to leave the water to hobble around on the ground until their fins turned to legs).

Monod, an atheist, also once said that the most remarkable thing about the theory of evolution was that so many people thought they understood it.

The point is, a belief in evolution does mean a denial of the existence of God – that is a classic false dichotomy. Similarly, a 'creationist' in not only someone who denied the possibility of evolution, etc, but is simply a person who believes in God. George LeMaître was a creationist (a Catholic) but also an outstanding scientist, for example.

17 October 2013 at 12:28  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ars, indeed, evolution as a mechanism in the process of Creation is not incompatible with the belief in a Creator. Apparent contradictions with literal biblical interpretations are no more or less challenging than literal contradictions regarding astronomy, which appear to have been resolved in favour of science by most creationist. The facts that the universe does not revolve around the Earth and that the Heavens are not crystalline spheres with holes for the stars, for example, have not in the mind of believers disqualified the Bible.

At issue is the common assumption by evolutionists and creationists alike that acceptance of Evolution leaves only the possibility for random chance as the cause of all existence and removes the need for a Creator. This position is both theologically unsound, as well as rationally pseudo-scientific.

17 October 2013 at 15:32  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Thanks Avi.

Yes, even the grumbling old atheist physicist Fred Hoyle thought the 'spontaneous' creation of life utterly improbable. And, of course, the transition of one species into another does absolutely nothing to explain where everything came from in the first place. Quite literally nothing at all.

17 October 2013 at 15:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Well, yeah, atheism presupposes that the hypothesis of pure unguided chance in observable processes logically extends to origins of existence. An Aristotelian view and as much a statement of faith as the theistic one. The logical fallacy that follows is that there are competing religious models of creation and that biblical theist have to account for thhis. But we don't since origins is a statement of faith, by theists and atheists, we cansay that evrryone else wrong. Period; next item please......

17 October 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "Personally I object to the teaching of Evolutionism within the state system."

The teaching of a scientific theory? Why on earth would you object?

17 October 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Is methodological naturalism okay as an assumption in science lessons in State schools or should teachers be qualifying observable phenomena with reference to the possible whims of a god too?

17 October 2013 at 17:36  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Dawkins

Coherently putting forward the atheist viewpoint on this matter and showing how evolution is totally sorted as soon as you add in an "intelligent designer" or "higher level life form". Er that was in our book first Dawkins 4000 years ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEcVOucw7Cc


What amuses me is that he then goes on to say that the intelligent designer (that helped us into existence) must have been created by Evolution! An assertion he cannot possibly even begin to know or prove.

Phil

17 October 2013 at 20:49  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

The problem is that the Evolutionary Dogma is just as inflexible and resistant to change as Catholic Church in the Middle ages.

I don't think that it is confined just to Evolution. I think that Science has become resistant in many ways to new ideas.

My daughter (postgraduate Physics PhD student) says that Physicists are loath to give up on theories that are becoming untenable. They add constants and mangle formulas to make them fit their worldview. She finds it funny because she is convinced that it will all come crashing down on them at some point in the future when it becomes completely obvious that many dearly loved theories simply do not work.

I had a similar experience many years ago as a postgraduate investigating the behaviour of rocks under pressure. Current theories were not giving any sensible answers, so I looked at new ones which seemed much more promising. The UK uni told me that I had to submit my thesis based on the old theories, as this is what the uni "believed" in (words to that effect). In short whatever I said it was clear that the uni department was not going to give up the old gods and I was told effectively to shut up. So I wrote my paper on something that I believed was complete nonsense and was passed with a good mark. I got my degree, the uni kept its gods, luckily in time more and more people started to say the theories were nonsense as well.

Does it matter?

One result of changing the theory might be that (hopefully) buildings should now stay up better in an earthquake.

Phil

17 October 2013 at 21:22  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

I think, Phil, you came up against the immovable object of a vested interest – tenure in universities can be very cosy and no one on the inside likes to rock the boat. It does change, of course, as the next generation of thinkers and teachers always wants to make their own mark, but it sometimes seems to move as slowly as tectonic plates.

The profession of scientist is as jealousy-ridden and competitive as any other – just look at the way they scrap over issues like global warming and, of course, evolution.

18 October 2013 at 09:04  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ars Hendrik and Avi.

"Yes, even the grumbling old atheist physicist Fred Hoyle thought the 'spontaneous' creation of life utterly improbable. Quite literally nothing at all."

You are both wrong. Macro evolution explains the MECHANISM for simple to complex life on earth without a Creator..

"And, of course, the transition of one species into another does absolutely nothing to explain where everything came from in the first place." This is quite a different question but merely muddies the waters as none can go back to the initial moment of matter, whereas evolution as a process states how we got here from microbe to man and is observable from evidence around us and in us SUPPOSEDLY!!!

Blofeld

18 October 2013 at 13:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Old Ernst was reading the joys of multiculturalism within the rag called the Metro, whilst going to Moorfield's eye hospital in London.

One school closed for EID and all the non muslims were sent home for the day..This led to a diatribe from muslims and atheists regarding them being forced off school, work etc because of Christian holidays such as Easter and Christmas...The media do love creating a Christian as the baddy and chastising us through their letters page.

Fact.

1. Not all schools close for EID, this is an exception! All schools allow Muslims to leave class for the festival and the non Muslim child is forced to attend to do things like finger painting and pretending to be trees blowing in the wind etc in the school assembly hall but not to be allowed to proceed with the school curriculum until the muslin child returns. The non muslim will be punished with non attendance mark should they not come into school. Ernst's grandson did this yesterday!!!!
2. Christmas nativity plays are a no no as we would be forcing non Christians to partake in a cultural tradition of English heritage at that festive period and may offend their sensibilities so we have 'Charlie Chickens Merry Party' on a farm instead.
3. Mrs B tells me of the Muslim civil servants who demand time off for their religious festivals that are easily granted yet they will fight the Christian tooth and nail for time off during the critical work period (red dates for guaranteed staff numbers) over Christmas and Easter, which means the Christian looses out on the key periods over the holidays or not getting the dates they wanted. If it meant nothing why does the muslim not go in on the days over the Christmas period or Easter when it is open??

Thought these holidays are offensive or unobserved by non Christians!!

It appears you can have your MultiCulti cake and eat it but only if you are non christian!!

God, I am starting to hate my country but in a different way from Milliband Snr..Not 'what it is' but 'what it has become'.

Blofeld

18 October 2013 at 13:32  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Hello Blofeld.

I could well be wrong as I am no scientist. I think Hoyle was saying that the spontaneous creation of life was such a mathematical improbability that it was almost impossible (he had his own ideas about where life came from).

But I agree with you that evolution (something I have no problem accepting as likely to be true) concerns changes in organisms.

Your latter point about muddying the water is also true - speculation about the origins of 'everything' is exactly that.

Regards.

18 October 2013 at 13:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ars Hendric

"But I agree with you that evolution (something I have no problem accepting AS LIKELY to be true) concerns changes in organisms.
" Hardly scientific fact but as the evolutionary process has occurred across all types of species to arrive at mankind *TA DAH* where is this evidence. I have waited since the 60's to see this evidence promised and each 'Eureka we have it' from the scientific community as been followed by silence until the next Eureka declaration. Evidence? Nothing seen or dug up at great public financial cost towards funding programs to do this specific task Why, because there is none and it will never be found!!!
Ernst is running out of years to see the glory of evolution but the next generation of thinking human beings will be just as disappointed as ol' Ernst

Blofeld

18 October 2013 at 15:00  
Blogger Len said...

It is only the Bible which descibes how life began.(After all who else was there besides God?.)

Evolutionary theories range from a lightning flash hitting the 'primordial soup'(where did the primordial soup come from? ..where did the Earth come from?) to 'life' arriving sitting on a meteorite.Also the' big bang'theory (once there was nothing then it exploded?)

Any life form which (as Ernst stated) had one back leg and one flipper would not have lasted very long!.Also imagine blind animals trying to survive whilst they evolved eyes?.

18 October 2013 at 15:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len said...

"Any life form which (as Ernst stated) had one back leg and one flipper would not have lasted very long!.Also imagine blind animals trying to survive whilst they evolved eyes?." Indeed my fine chap.

They look around and see order yet believe complex laws with unbelievably fine balance included come from chaos with no designer. Utter nonsense but the willfully blind lead the blinded as a cop out from any accountability to the real world we live in.
There are no easy answers but they ask futile scientific questions that have an unscientific answer built in if you read their language "Yes, even the grumbling old atheist physicist Fred Hoyle thought the 'spontaneous' creation of life utterly 'improbable'." Whereas Evolution should be verifiable by known evidence but there is none.

Blofeld

18 October 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Any life form which (as Ernst stated) had one back leg and one flipper would not have lasted very long!.Also imagine blind animals trying to survive whilst they evolved eyes?."

I'm not sure you two have actually understood the concept.

18 October 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

I have heard this lots of times as well.

If we were only as clever as you we would get it. Really get it, that life is just random chance, we are just randomly created blobs of water and chemicals nothing more nothing less and life is only about today, our existence is meaningful only in so much as what we are or feel at that particular time. If we are special it is because of the relationships that we form and certainly not because we are special to some God who claims he loves us despite who we are.

So if someone starts treating you personally like randomly created blobs of water and chemicals, deep down you know that you have nothing to complain about

Right?

What significance can randomly put together water and chemicals really have, or for that matter, what rights?

Phil

18 October 2013 at 20:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

DanJo

"I'm not sure you two have actually understood the concept."
Oh, Explain dear boy, do please do. Old Ernst is waiting to be entralled by it all.

If you could explain how the giraffe evolved it's neck and means of supplying blood to the noggin whether raised or lowered and it's powerful heart that provides such high blood pressure to function at all and the wonder of the birth of a newborn giraffe from a height of about 5 feet and how the front feet exit first rather than the head which would probably break on contact with Terra Firma and also if it came out last would break it, to soften the drop on the rest of the animal vulnerable parts, would be most appreciated young man.

Are you going to suggest that all of this could have evolved in this one class of animal, lacking any conceivable close relatives in the animal kingdom, and becoming so developed solely due to a supposed lack of food at ground level. Dear boy this would be utterly preposterous.

Why have not others which feed at ground level and being equally vulnerable to big cat predators , and being bombarded by the same cosmic radiation and mysterious natural sectional process achieved a more giraffe-like stature also?

You do know that there are others that do feed from trees also.
The gerenuk gazelle of Africa has the longest neck in the family of gazelles, has a long tongue, and eats leaves from trees while standing on its hind legs.
The markhor goat of Afghanistan climbs trees as high as 25 feet to eat leaves from trees.
Other mammals do desire the leaves of trees but none of them will ever become giraffes.

But the giraffe most certainly did not evolve from any other 'less-than-giraffe' creature. Unless you know of one and Ernst would be delighted to be enlightened.

Blofeld

18 October 2013 at 20:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps DanJo lad.

All mammals have fur or hair on their bodies and giraffes are no exception.
But did you know that a giraffe's coat is special because it is like a fingerprint.

Each giraffe has its own distinct pattern. Even within the same group of giraffes, no two coats are identical.

A baby giraffe can recognize its own mother from inside a large herd by her unique coat pattern. How did this evolve??

18 October 2013 at 21:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "If we were only as clever as you we would get it."

It's naught really to do with me. When someone writes this: "Also imagine blind animals trying to survive whilst they evolved eyes?" they clearly don't understand the thing they are talking about. It's not about being clever or stupid, it's about subject ignorance.

"So if someone starts treating you personally like randomly created blobs of water and chemicals, deep down you know that you have nothing to complain about"

Reductionist bollocks.

18 October 2013 at 21:32  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJD

Evolution doesn't make it to theory, nor to hypothesis. It is a thesis waiting it's demonstration.

Until you can demonstrate the descent of all life from an original living form a thesis it will remain.

18 October 2013 at 21:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "Oh, Explain dear boy, do please do. Old Ernst is waiting to be entralled by it all."

Well, at least you're looking at multiple aspects of the species rather than just the long neck relative to the necks of other species.

I'm not going to pretend to be an evolutionary biologist and argue for this or that explanation for any given species. The physiology of the giraffe, or the possible development of the eye, or a wing, or whatever, is common fare for religionists and you can google around to your heart's content for possible explanations. You're hardly breaking new ground asking questions like that. All I'm doing here is pointing out misunderstandings in the basic process stuff. If it doesn't make the trip then hey ho, it's not a big deal for me.

Of course, one might throw back a question about why your god created something like a giraffe in return. Was it having a laugh? Or why he created those famous eyeball-eating parasites, which is not quite so funny. Because it can, I suppose, if it wills it. That's the extraordinary explanatory power of a god hypothesis. It covers anything and everything one might want to cover.

18 October 2013 at 21:53  
Blogger Len said...

Danjo I take your answer to Ernst as being "I don`t know"?.

Just believe ...in evolution?.

18 October 2013 at 22:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Danjo I take your answer to Ernst as being "I don`t know"?."

Yes, that's correct. As I essentially said. You think that's a problem for me?

"Just believe ...in evolution?."

Here we have another misunderstanding. You want to equivocate over the meaning of belief to make a particular point by the look of it. I accept, not believe. It's a working assumption. I believe the sun will 'rise' tomorrow but that's not belief in the way you mean, is it?

18 October 2013 at 22:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You may have seen a story about a very old skull in the news at the moment. Apparently, it might undermine some current evolutionary ideas or beliefs about the origin of our species. Does that worry me? Not a bit. No doubt some academics cherish those ideas and discoveries but for the theory it's just more stuff to work with.

18 October 2013 at 22:16  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"Reductionist bollocks"

Of course it is, but then at the root of it, so is Darwinism.

That is why Dawkins talks of the possibly of us being descendants of little green men to get himself out of his intellectual hole.

Phil

18 October 2013 at 22:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

DanJO

" When someone writes this: "Also imagine blind animals trying to survive whilst they evolved eyes?" they clearly don't understand the thing they are talking about. It's not about being clever or stupid, it's about subject ignorance." Do you even know anything about the theory of evolution and its family line tree of imaginary links??

You seem to be unaware that scientists make all kinds of guesses and often disagree.

For example, debate has raged about whether dinosaurs were warm- or cold-blooded. It is even difficult to tell whether a dinosaur was male or female from its bones.
There is much speculation about such things but you seem delightfully ignorant of such things that give flesh to sensible debate. *Ignorant Chuckles*

Originally, before sin, all animals, including dinosaurs, were vegetarian.
Genesis 1:30 states, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, which has life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.”

This means that even Mr T. Rex, before sin entered the world, ate only plants.

Some people object to this by pointing to the big teeth that a large T. Rex had, insisting they must have been used for attacking animals.
However, just because an animal has big, sharp teeth does not mean it eats meat, does it. It just means it has big, sharp teeth!

Many animals today have sharp teeth but are basically vegetarian. The giant panda has sharp teeth like a meat-eater’s, but it eats bamboo. Perhaps the panda’s teeth were beautifully designed to eat bamboo. To explain why a giant panda has teeth like a meat-eaters today, yet eats bamboo, evolutionists have to say that the giant panda evolved as a meat eater, and then switched to bamboo. Sounds desperate and silly, does it not?

Different species of bats variously eat fruit, nectar, insects, small animals, and blood, but their teeth do not clearly indicate what they eat.

After sin entered the world, everything changed. Maybe some animals started eating each other at this stage.

By the time of Noah, God described what had happened this way: “So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth”

Dear boy, you remind me of the fellow that asked why the word dinosaur was not found in the bible and when told the KJV was only printed into English in 1611 and the word Dinosaur was only invented in 1841, he said 'yeah but why is the word Dinosaur not in the Bible'.

Blofeld

ps

"Or why he created those famous eyeball-eating parasites, which is not quite so funny." Death is not funny but He came to ensure the thing that afflicted us could be cured by His death on our behalf for the sins we deserved to be judged for and that have brought such misery upon the earth.
Everything on Day 6 was beautiful and perfect for God’s purpose. Nothing God had made was bad or evil. There was no struggle for existence, no disease, no suffering, no sin, and, above all, no death of people or animals! Our relatives did it and we continue in rebellion by our willing choices as you prove and delight in!

"Because it can, I suppose, if it wills it.(God did not will it or wills us to do anything. There is freedom of choice even for you to live a hedonistic life if you so wish as you tell us you do..You have not been struck by lightening have you.

But one day you will have to give an account before someone who created you and has power to pass judgment on your actions. Be of good cheer therefore, as there is nothing to fear but fear itself then??"

18 October 2013 at 22:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofled: "There is much speculation about such things but you seem delightfully ignorant of such things that give flesh to sensible debate."

Can you point to anything I've actually written here to justify that? In fact, I've alluded to pretty much the opposite I'd have thought in my skull comment.

18 October 2013 at 22:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"You may have seen a story about a very old skull in the news at the moment................Not a bit. No doubt some academics cherish those ideas and discoveries but for the theory it's just more stuff to work with."

Nebraska Man had a lot of theory from very little evidence. We knew what he ate, how tall he was, how he hunted, suggestions were made as to what his wife would look like and some even commented on what sort of language he might speak.

All this from just one tooth, that turned out eventually to be from a pig!

This and many others like it, doesn't inspire confidence in the intellect or the honesty of Darwin's followers.


Phil


18 October 2013 at 22:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "There is freedom of choice even for you to live a hedonistic life if you so wish as you tell us you do.."

Except I tell people here that I don't, at least in the normal sense of that word. But don't let that stop you.

18 October 2013 at 22:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "This and many others like it, doesn't inspire confidence in the intellect or the honesty of Darwin's followers."

Therefore the thrust of the theory is false? Or are you throwing mud, hoping that people will think that?

18 October 2013 at 22:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "But one day you will have to give an account before someone who created you and has power to pass judgment on your actions. Be of good cheer therefore, as there is nothing to fear but fear itself then??""

You'd better hope it's not called Allah ... as I often say when religionists of one flavour or other present a false dichotomy to atheists.

18 October 2013 at 22:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

You'd better hope it's not called Allah ... (What proof have you that Allah is the Creator and judge of mankind rather than the ramblings of a bedhoiun caravan robber, that Mohammed was the true prophet of Allah when he constantly contradicts himself or is contradicted by the memories of others of what he said or when he stated in his ramblings in the quran that Abraham offered Ishmael instead of Isaac as sacrifice, and on a mountain in Arabia instead of Mount Moriah in Israel; or that Moses was plucked from the Nile by his own mother, not sister; and a Samaritan molded the golden calf, even though the Samaritans *sniggers* did not appear on the historical scene until after the exile of the Jews to Babylon.
How about when in his second revelation, his "Journey to Heaven", revered by Muslims, Mohammed was supposedly picked up by Gabriel for a trip to Heaven, and on the way he prayed twice at the "Furthest Mosque", alluding to the second Jewish Temple of Jerusalem. Local skeptics, after Muhammad’s revelation, more knowledgeable regarding the matter, gleefully pointed out that at that time, the Temple had been a pile of rubble for over 500 years courtesy of Titus and his father Emperor Vespasian as reported by Josephus, The Jewish War.. )as I often say when religionists of one flavour or other present a false dichotomy (Dear boy, do you really feel it's like being back at school and you have two competing teams and you are the last person on the fence waiting to be chosen by either so there is an 'either you are with us or against us' mentality thing going on ??) to atheists.
Dear boy, you present a false dilemna...you appear to think there are many options available and some here present to you one of many but hope you choose ours over the others.

Under Islam, a passport to Heaven is based on a continuous effort based on good deeds to other Muslims, but NOT TO INFIDELS. The exception is that of a Muslim who dies in Jihad, or Holy War against infidels!
If killed fighting infidels, he then proceeds directly to Heaven, regardless of his worldly conduct and has the odd seventy virgins tossed in as fayre reward for his duty.
Christians aspire to Heaven based on an acceptance that Jesus is the Son of God and we cannot save ourselves by any means; good works are secondary and the fruit of faith.

A practicing Christian or Jew will attempt to bring an unbeliever to God through showing love for his fellow man and by peaceful means; a Muslim practicing his religion is obliged, by numerous passages of the Koran, to offer only servitude or death for those rejecting Islam.

Do you even have a deeper comprehension of Islam and how it views you other than it comes from Saudi Arabia, they pray a lot and Allahu Akbar is a common everyday exclamation amongst Allah's adherents as they go about their peaceful business??.

19 October 2013 at 00:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

PS

By your passionate espousal and defence of Atheism you make the common mistake that others/the majority hold as passionately and firmly to your ideas of life whereas this is not true and is more in your head than a reality.

I am reminded of my father who is an atheist and who always initiates conversations about God's non existence then gets angry if you answer back with evidence.
This conversation happened in August during the summer riots in England.

After a diatribe that no one believes in God anymore, only fools do and that he is the norm.. I immediately asked him about each of his brothers and sisters, some who had died. " Did Uncle ( ) believe in God", "Yes" he answered. Did Aunty ( ) believe in God", "Yes" he answered. and on through all his family...Finally I asked him "Did your Father and Mother believe in God?" "Yes" he answered.

So I asked him "How are you the norm when your whole family believe/ed in God and Jesus and how are they the fools and you are not!!!

He refused to speak to me further for the rest of the holiday about God and I returned home to old blighty!

Blofeld

19 October 2013 at 00:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"a false dichotomy"

A quote of Muhammad from the Hadith, “I am the prophet that laughs when killing my enemies.”, just about illuminates his base character, does it not.
or
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

Quotes from Holy Bible :

Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

Acts 3:19
Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Colossians 1:13-14
For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 11:25
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. "

and

Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

A false dichotomy? Hardly!

Blofeld

19 October 2013 at 01:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Is the core criterion that we actually like the god for it to be the true one out of the various options then?

19 October 2013 at 07:39  
Blogger Len said...

Danjo, The criterion for judging whether a religion is actually true or not is by what it says especially regarding prophesy.
IF anyone REALLY wanted to know the Truth about the God of the BIble all the evidence is there to examine.BUT it requres honesty and discarding a lot of prejudices .Not everyone is prepared to face the Truth about God and about themselves.
There are many religions who all have their own particular 'gods'which are demonic beings posing as gods to obtain worship and to gain control over gullible human beings.
Al Shebab gunmen' took time off' gunning down innocent men women and children to pray to their 'god' who glorifies in death.
IF you really want to know the Truth about God then look to Bible Prophesy and the Living Word of God Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ came to give us 'Life' other 'gods' bring bondage deception,and death.I include the religion of man 'Secular Humanism 'as being amongst the greatest deceptions.

19 October 2013 at 13:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

DanJ0 said...

"Is the core criterion that we actually like the god for it to be the true one out of the various options then?" I have showed you the message of Christ and the message of allah and you ask me such nonsense?

If love holds no importance to you as a human being and your fellow man and violence and hatred are to be admired and revered equally as love, then it is a false dichotomy, is it not.

If there is a god and God is all violence and hate then all you are doing is shaking your fist at yourself and not god at a mirror for no reason. And when someone hates and beats you because you are 'different' then why complain as Allah has commanded it to be so!!!

However I sincerely doubt your fellow atheists would dare say this openly as they would be held to scorn and ridicule, as the monsters that had sway over china, russia, cambodia that annihilated their fellow citizens in the name of nothingness because they could...What is man?; For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?!!

Blofeld

19 October 2013 at 14:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "If there is a god and God is all violence and hate then all you are doing is shaking your fist at yourself and not god at a mirror for no reason. And when someone hates and beats you because you are 'different' then why complain as Allah has commanded it to be so!!!"

Who knows what a god which created reality as we know it is really like if, indeed, it exists at all in any meaningful sense to us?

You're merely combining theology with cosmology to support your personal theistic aspirations, I think.

"I have showed you the message of Christ and the message of allah and you ask me such nonsense?"

Shall I judge them by my standards of liberal humanism then? Truly, you've created a suitable god not the other way around.

19 October 2013 at 15:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 October 2013 at 18:30  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 October 2013 at 18:30  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"Therefore the thrust of the theory is false? Or are you throwing mud, hoping that people will think that?"

Mud? Never!

I don't dispute the observable theory that natural selection works within species.

However, evolutionists take this further not just to make 2+2=5 but that 2+2 = 6 million

Christian view point aside for a min the attempts to prove or even observe, that natural selection works outside of species has failed.

Attempts to force it e.g. irradiating fruit flies for many generations have failed also. (Lots of mutated fruit flies only no new insect or even a different species of fruit fly, also no "evolved resistance" to radiation observed.)

When it stops working you need a new theory not make the old one fit and persecute those that disagree with you.

Why you would think it is a Religion!

Phil

19 October 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"I don't dispute the observable theory that natural selection works within species."

What's your god's purpose there, do you think?

20 October 2013 at 07:58  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

I'm not God so I don't know

I would guess that that God thus enable those species that he has created better fit their environment.

That is 2+2=4 (perhaps)

2+2=5 says that we stretch this to say that groups of species are derived from a common ancestor.

2+2= 6 million is that we can stretch this to life spontaneously occurring out of nothing.

The last is a huge stretch from observable occurrence, whatever your faith nor none.

Phil



20 October 2013 at 17:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

It does not matter one hoot how some on this blog may try strenuously to deny it. The fact stands that atheism is a belief system!

Atheism has made a secular belief system of having no God and their focus is always on nature and it's power to supposedly create something from nothing and then something into something completely different from itself, despite the known world denying such evidence.

An atheist must therefore assume that inter-relational unique complex living organisms arose from cold disorderly chaos, laws are 'creatio ex nihilo' by 'Nihilo'. Something had to come from nothing. They have no explanation for a beginning of when or why, it just did, so there.
There is no purpose at all in what we see and call the wonderful created world and why we should give two hoots about others except the obvious 'evolutionary' rule in the animal kingdom of 'Take what you can with no mercy, give nothing back to anyone' period!!.

Atheism thereby assumes that the potential/possible gives rise to the actual/existing. That because we can vainly imagine something (potential) this in itself deems it so (Actual)! Then we are entering the higher realm of nonsense stated by Pablo Picasso that "Everything you can imagine is real". This is not scientific fact but falsely assuming it's a part of real life because you can imagine it so.
This is the nonsense 'evolution' masquerading as fact when it should be ruthlessly condemned to a waste-bin with Picasso's quote!!

However all designs have a designer, and the universe has proven upon genuine investigation to be incredibly designed and finely balanced within set laws. We learn that even the minutest organism is more complex than the Atlantis space shuttle.
How is this an accident and where is this mysterious design process that nature has used historically and has supposedly been empirically tested and seen by science.

They declare "There is no God." but to know this one absolute fact, an atheist would have to be omniscient, knowing ALL things, having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would to have personally inspected ALL places in the present known universe and in ALL time, having explored EVERYWHERE seen and unseen. ALL things of matter or things invisible, to say unequivocally God does not exist.

This is not a serious position to hold, of there being "No God" , with the logical inconsistency this entails?

Is it fair, reasonable or just for God or we Christians to condemn atheists for lack of evidence.

Since they claim HE has not given ample evidence of His existence they are left with no other choice but to NOT believe in Him, aren't they and yet...

21 October 2013 at 01:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Psalm 19 :1-7
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork.
2 Day upon day uttereth speech, and night upon night showeth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
4 Their sound has gone forth through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath He set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

and ;

Romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

with;
Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

All this shows the minutest power in action and explains Atoms. It tells us that things are made from the invisible things and that ALL this was not known until modern science discovered the invisible atoms.

But then the evidence for God is like an atom!!!

No one has ever actually SEEN an atom as they cannot see God. Humans like to that they must see something before they believe in it but what is it they are hoping to see and what is the reality. This is the rub of the problem. I am sure there are some people who object to that since there have been claims that electron microscopes have imaged atoms. I believe that illuminating an object with electrons, capturing those electrons and recreating an image is also indirect evidence.

Now no one has actually 'SEEN' an atom, but the scientific community have seen so much evidence of their 'existence' that most of us believe and take them on faith that this is fact. Using the tracks generated by an atomic force microscope, science has built a very nice picture of an atom but the atom itself is not seen, only the image of the atoms. Bit like the "firmament showeth His handiwork but NOT Him."

Fallen mans natural inclination is to distance themselves as far as possible from God, even if they think He may exist they can't be bothered to give thought to who could He possibly be and would He have distinct attributes and character traits and can He be bothered to allow Himself to be discovered by little old we. What would make Him UNIQUE and verifiable amongst false claims made by others who do not know Him?

Some look in the Bible and see some value in its counsel/proverbs and use its ethics and moral codes to fashion rules for a lifestyle of humanism by removing God and adding self only, for their own human benefits so to rule their own lives and answer only to themselves

No one can say there is not enough evidence. They can only say I don't accept it or I don't understand it and I WILL live my life how I choose and see fit.

For the evidence is overwhelming indeed and they are without excuse.

Blofeld

21 October 2013 at 01:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld:"It does not matter one hoot how some on this blog may try strenuously to deny it. The fact stands that atheism is a belief system!"

You jumble up multiple things, including materialism, and call the composite thing atheism.. It's no wonder you end up repeatedly begging the question in your comments.

21 October 2013 at 05:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

For example, this:"They declare "There is no God." but to know this one absolute fact, an atheist would have to be omniscient, knowing ALL things, having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist."

You won't find me or any other sensible atheist assert that no god or gods exist. I see plenty of religionists imagine we do for their own comfort though.

21 October 2013 at 05:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld:"However all designs have a designer, and the universe has proven upon genuine investigation to be incredibly designed and finely balanced within set laws."

The appearance of design doesn't imply a design, of course. Also, it seems like a trivial word game but where did the design for your god come from? It must be much more complex than the universe it supposedly created. The usual trick of defining it as an uncaused cause i.e. that creation requires a creator because it is matter and energy but the creator does not because it is a different sort of thing, doesn't really cut it does it? That just moves the problem one large step away.That's well before theists make an enormous leap from a creating thing or process to a human-centric god who created a vast, vast universe for a poxy little planet like ours to sit in and who cares greatly what couples do in private in their Laura Ashley wallpapered bedrooms.

21 October 2013 at 05:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Me:"You won't find me or any other sensible atheist assert that no god or gods exist. I see plenty of religionists imagine we do for their own comfort though."

Meaning, we won't claim we know. The burden of proof would fall on us and we can't meet it. I don't know there is no god, as I often say here, but we have to carry on nonetheless so we need working assumptions. A belief in a particular god may suit some people but the consequences of having such a belief are onerous and far too much given the grounding for it.

21 October 2013 at 06:07  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"You jumble up multiple things, including materialism (materialism is what defines atheism. Materialism is the idea that everything is either made only of matter or is ultimately dependent upon matter for its existence and nature.
Is this not the case then?
Don't most forms of materialism tend to reject the existence of spirit or anything non-physical?

Atheists are usually materialists of some sort like you, are they not, rejecting the idea that there exists anything independent of the workings of matter and energy and the rules that govern their actions are determined as relativism/pick and mix, depending on the person's situation and lifestyle!) , and call the composite thing atheism (Because it is!).
It's no wonder you end up repeatedly begging the question in your comments.(It is your lack of reasoning that leaves the question a begging. Reasoning involves using the laws of logic.
These include the law of non- contradiction, which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship.

All you try to do is borrow from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. Man's basic morality and accountability to others is what you snatch from 'Made in Gods image' on which reasoning is based but minus the persons image this comes from..It appears then that you can have your cake and eat it!! )"

22 October 2013 at 12:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older