SITE NOTICE | MORE..Gospel of John Third Printing! We're excited to announce the third printing of the Gospel of John Personal Edition booklets! To date we have seen over 200,000 copies printed and sent out. .. click for more info!
As a former atheist I can understand why unbelievers reject creationism, because they don't want to entertain it. What I can't get my head round is why they accept the impossible theory of evolution instead. The fossil record shows that it didn't happen, the modern science of genetics shows that it couldn't happen, so how do intelligent, thinking people continue to be taken in
A kid at our local school said their 'personal and social education' classes were 'like something out of Gary Glitter's diary'. While these committees are putting all their energies into undermining parents, they fail to realise that chidren's own consciences are offended by this 'progressive morality'.
You're doing the right thing, Max, God bless your family.
From the Daily Telegraph: One of the more unlikely donors [to fund the adverts] was the religious think tank Theos, which was set up two years ago with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor. Theos gave ¬£50 to the cause as it believes the "weak" adverts will encourage people to think about God.
San Jose John wrote: Amen. Here in CA one can see many cars with bumperstickers that say "who would Jesus bomb?", but NONE which say "who would Muhammed bomb". Why? People don't want their car blown-up so they blame and slander the one who won't do it instead of the one who will. Go figure!
That is utterly shocking. These people should read Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
The comedian Ricky Gervais, who uses material highly offensive to Christians in his stand-up routine, was none the less honest when asked why he targeted only Christians and not other religions. He replied "I'm not stupid".
The media in general know that Christianity is a soft target that can be attacked with impunity. One preposterous BBC drama production (Bonekickers) recently portrayed a Christian fanatic beheading a peaceful Muslim, generating a multitude of complaints from the public. The BBC defiantly defended their decision to show it
Lance Eccles wrote: I follow Jesus Christ, and therefore I follow his vicar (representative) on earth, successor to St Peter, the Rock on which Jesus founded his Church. At the same time, I know that you do not accept that the pope is the vicar of Christ, or that he is the successor of Peter.
Exceptional message, don't miss it Scholarly research, vivid illustations, a warm concern for his hearers and a calm style of delivery make all of Pastor Barnett's sermons a joy. It is also useful that he gives a synopsis of each of his messages on Sermonaudio; it would be useful if all broadcasters did this.
It's true that things are degenerating horribly, but much of the blame lies squarely at the feet of government. The Scottish Parliament recently imposed a law legalising the exposure of schoolchildren to proselytizing homosexual literature(one notorious piece prepared for schoolchildren of 8(yes,8!) years old by gay rights lobbyists had a section on 'the use of pain'!) The people of Scotland were horrified, and one millionaire businessman privately funded a referendum. There were many more opposing votes in this referendum than the government's majority, but they still would not allow the public an official vote on the matter because of course the vox pop would have overwhelmingly rejected such a law. Many of us canvassed all the parlimentarians, and the responses were overwhelmingly weak and cowardly. The bill was steamrolled past the few brave parliamentarians who, in the face of the usual cheap accusations of 'bigotry', raised their voices for the majority. It is enshrined in legislation today. What chance do future generations have? (Ref Scottish Parliament, the repeal of Clause 2A)
When you choose to commit a crime that carries the penalty of imprisonment, you surely have to accept that your choices thereafter are likely to be limited to 'take it or leave it' from time to time. Or were they all in prison because they were falsely convicted? It was insensitive to offer a forbidden food, but another meal was only a few hours away, and these gentlemen were not force-fed the ham. If they had been,then they would certainly have a case.
This is a bit rich, coming from a body which is not democratically elected, and which is so corrupt that its financial audits can't be signed off. Even if this was a ruling that made any sense at all, why should anybody believe a word they say?