Archive for September, 2009

Why Do the Heathen Rage? — International Blasphemy Day

Saturday, September 26th, 2009

Albert Mohler

Ready for a day to honor blasphemy?  According to press reports, September 30 is set as the observance of the first-ever International Blasphemy Day. This could be interesting.

The choice of September 30 looks back to that date in the year 2005, when the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad’s face sparked outcry and protests in the Muslim world and threats toward the West.

Now, as Religion News Service reports, the Center for Inquiry is planning a day of observances to mark the occasion.  Ron Lindsay, a lawyer who serves as president of the Council for Inquiry International, said that the day was part of the group’s effort to expose religious beliefs to investigation.  In the words of the RNS report, the goal is “to expose all religious beliefs to the same level of inquiry, discussion and criticism to which other areas of intellectual interest are subjected.”

Here is one feature of the day as planned by CFI:

You’ve never seen Jesus like this before: dripping red nail polish around the nails in his feet and hands, an irreverent riff on the crucifixion wounds. The provocative title of the painting: “Jesus Does His Nails.”  Blasphemous? Absolutely. Deliberately provocative? You bet.

Artist Dana Ellyn told RNS that she is an “agnostic atheist” whose purpose is to be provocative.  “My point is not to offend, but I realize it can offend, because religion is such a polarizing topic,” she said.

Among other things, CFI International also plans a “blasphemy contest,” “in which participants are invited to submit phrases, poems, or statements that would be, or have been, considered blasphemous.” Winners are to receive a t-shirt and mug.

Bet you can’t wait to see those.

More seriously, participants are also to be encouraged to take up the “Blasphemy Challenge” in which individuals register their blasphemy in the face of Mark 3:29.  In that verse, Jesus warns, “whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” [ESV].  Those who take up the “Blasphemy Challenge” record video submissions which must include the words, “I deny the Holy Spirit.”

The Blasphemy Day events are certain to draw media attention, which is no doubt the whole point of the observance.  That is how a group like CFI can gain publicity for itself and its cause.

How should Christians respond?

First, take no offense. Refuse to play into the game plan of those sponsoring International Blasphemy Day.  The Lord Jesus Christ was and is despised and rejected of men.  Our Lord bore the scorn heaped upon him by his enemies. Christianity is not an honor religion. Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are not commanded to defend his honor, but to be willing to share in the scorn directed to him. Is the servant greater than his master?

Islam is an honor religion, and the major forces in the world today seeking to criminalize blasphemy are Islamic. The riots on the streets of many nations in protest of the Danish cartoons do represent what faithful Muslims believe their religion requires them to do.  Not so for Christianity. We must be those who take to the streets with the Gospel — not with a defense of our honor or the honor of our Lord.  When Christians forget this, we lose our Gospel witness.  The history of the church includes far too many instances of this loss. We dare not add another.

Second, mourn the blasphemy. The warning of Jesus is clear — blasphemy has eternal consequences.  The worst form of blasphemy is the refusal to hear and believe the Gospel.  For that sin there can be no forgiveness. We must mourn the blasphemy, not because honor is at stake, but because souls are at stake with eternal consequences.  God will ultimately and perfectly defend his honor.  On that day, there will be no escape for unrepentant blasphemers.

Third, see this observance for what it really is — an unintended testimony to the existence of God and the foolishness of those who deny Him.  The sheer foolishness of a blasphemy contest with t-shirts and mugs betrays the lunacy of it all.  They can do no better than this?  One testimony to the power of God is the fact that his self-declared enemies come off as so childish and manic. The heathen rage and God sees the foolish grasshoppers.

International Blasphemy Day will come and go. Take note, ponder its meaning . . . and skip the t-shirt.

CHARLES SPURGEON WHY ARE MEN SAVED?

Saturday, September 26th, 2009

“Nevertheless He saved them for his name’s sake.” Psalm 106:8

IN looking upon the works of God in creation, there are two questions
which at once occur to the thoughtful mind, and which must be answered
before we can procure a clue to the philosophy and science of creation
itself. The first one is the question of authorship: Who made all these
things? And the next question is that of design: For what purpose were all
these things created? The first question, “Who made all these things?” is
one which is easily answered by a man who has a honest conscience and a
sane mind; for when he lifts his eyes up yonder to read the stars, he will see
those stars spell out in golden letters this word — God; and when he looks
below upon the waves, if his ears are honestly opened, he will hear each
wave proclaiming, God. If he looks to the summits of the mountains, they
will not speak, but with a dignified answer of silence they seem to say,
“The hand that made us is Divine.”

If we listen to the rippling of the freshet at the mountain side, to the
tumbling of the avalanche, to the lowing of the cattle, to the singing of the
birds, to every voice and sound of nature, we shall hear this answer to the
question, “God is our maker; he hath made us, and not we ourselves.”
The next question, as to design — Why were these things made? — is not
so easy to answer, apart from Scripture; but when we look at Scripture we
discover this fact — that as the answer to the first question is God, so the
answer to the second question is the same. Why were these things made?
The answer is, for God’s glory, for his honor, and for his pleasure. No
other answer can be consistent with reason. Whatever other replies men
may propound, no other can be really sound. If they will for one moment
consider that there was a time when God had no creatures — when he
dwelt alone, the mighty maker of ages, glorious in an uncreated
solitude,divine in his eternal loneliness — “I am and there is none beside
me” — can any one answer this question — Why did God make creatures
to exist? — in any other way than by answering it thus: “He made them for
his own pleasure and for his own glory.” You may say he made them for
his creatures; but we answer, there were then no creatures to make them
for. We admit that the answer may be a sound one now. God makes the
harvest for his creatures; he hangs the sun in the firmament to bless his
creatures with light and sunshine bids the moon walk in her course by
night, to cheer the darkness of his creatures upon earth. But the first
answer, going back to the origin of all things, can be nothing else than this:
“For his pleasure they are and were erected.” “He made all things for
himself and by himself:”

Now, this which holds good in the works of creation, holds equally good in
the works of salvation. Lift up your eyes on high; higher than those stars
which glimmer on the floor of heaven. Look up, where spirits in white
clearer than light, shine like stars in their magnificence; look there, where
the redeemed with their choral symphonies “circle the throne of God
rejoicing,” and put this question “Who saved those glorified beings, and for
what purpose where they saved. “We tell you that the same answer must
be given as we have previously given to the former question — ”He saved
them — he saved them for his name’s sake.” The text is an answer to the
two great questions concerning salvation: Who saved men and why are
they saved? “He saved them for his name’s sake.”

Into this subject I shall endeavor to look this morning. May God make it
profitable to each of us, and may we be found among the number who shall
be saved “for his name’s sake.” Treating the text verbally — and that is the
way most will understand — here are four things. First, a glorious saviour
— “He saved them;” secondly, a favored people — “He saved them;”
thirdly a divine reason why he saved them for his name’s sake;” and
fourthly an construction conquered, in the word “nevertheless,” implying
that there was some difficulty that was removed. “Nevertheless he saved
them for his name’s sake.” A Savior; the saved; the reason; the obstruction
removed.

I. First, then, here is A GLORIOUS SAVIOR — “He saved them.” Who is to
be understood by that pronoun “he?” Possibly many of my hearers may
answer “Why, the Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of men.” Right, my
friends; but not all the truth. Jesus Christ is the Savior; but not more so
than God the Father, or God the Holy Ghost. Some persons who are
ignorant of the system of divine truth think of God the Father as being a
great Being full of wrath, and anger, and justice, but having no love, they
think of God the Spirit perhaps as a mere influence proceeding from the
Father and the Son. Now, nothing can be more incorrect than such
opinions. It is true the Son redeems me, but then the Father gave the Son
to die for me, and the Father chose me in the everlasting election of his
grace. The Father blots out my sin, the Father accepts me and adopts me
into his family through Christ. The Son could not save without the Father
any more than the Father without the Son, and as for the Holy Spirit, if the
Son redeems, know ye not that the Holy Ghost regenerates? It is he that
makes us new creatures in Christ, who begets us again unto a lively hope,
who purifies our soul, who sanctifies our spirit, and who, at last, presents
us spotless and faultless before the throne of the Most High, accepted in
the beloved. When thou sayest, “Saviour,” remember there is a Trinity in
that word — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, this Savior being
three persons under one name. Thou canst not be saved by the Son without
the Father, nor by the Father without the Son, nor by Father and Son
without the Spirit. But as they are one in creation, so are they one in
salvation working together in one God for our salvation, and unto that God
be glory everlasting, world without end, Amen.

But, note here, how this Divine being claims salvation wholly to himself.
“Nevertheless HE saved them.” But, Moses, where art thou? Didst not
thou save them, Moses? Thou didst stretch the rod over the sea, and it
crave in halves; thou didst lift up thy prayer to heaven, and the frogs came,
and the flies swarmed, and the water was turned into blood, and the hail
smote the land of Egypt. Wast not thou their Savior, Moses? And thou
Aaron, thou didst offer the bullocks which God accepted, thou didst lead
them, with Moses, through the wilderness. Wast not thou their Savior?
They answer, “Nay, we were the instruments, but he saved them. God
made use of us, but unto his name be all the glory, and none unto
ourselves.” But, Israel, thou west a strong and mighty people; didst not
thou save thyself? Perhaps it was by thine own holiness that the Red Sea
was dried up, perhaps the parted floods were frighted at the piety of the
saints that stood upon their margin; perhaps it was Israel that delivered
itself. Nay, nay, saith God’s Word; he saved them; they did not save
themselves, nor did their fellow-men redeem them. And yet, mark you,
there are some who dispute this point, who think that men save themselves,
or, at least, that priests and preachers can help to do it. We say that the
preacher, under God, may be the instrument of arresting man’s attention,
of warning him and arousing him; but the preacher is nothing; God is
everything. The most mighty eloquence that ever distilled from the lips of
seraphic preacher is nothing apart from God’s Holy Spirit. Neither Paul,
nor Apollos, nor Cephas, are anything: God gave the increase and God
must have all the glory. There are some we meet with here and there who
say, “I am Mr. So-and-so’s convert; I am a convert of the Revelation Dr.
this or that.” Well, if you are, sir, I cannot give you much hope of heaven,
only God’s converts go there; not proselytes of man, but the redeemed of
the Lord. Oh, it is very little to convert a man to our own opinions; it is
something to be the means of converting him to the Lord our God. I had a
letter some time ago from a good Baptist minister in Ireland, who very
much wanted me to come over to Ireland, as he said, to represent the
Baptist interest, because it was low there, and perhaps it might lead the
people to think a little more of Baptists. I told him I would not go across
the street merely to do that, much less would I cross the Irish Channel. I
should not think of going to Ireland for that; but if I might go there to
make Christians, under God, and be the means of bringing men to Christ. I
would leave it to them what they should be afterwards, and trust to God’s
Holy Spirit to direct and guide them as to what denomination they should
consider nearest akin to God’s truth. Brethren, I might make all of you
Baptists, perhaps, and yet you would be none the better for it; I might
convert you all in that way, but such a conversion would be that you would
be washed to greater stains, converted into hypocrites, and not into saints.
I have seen something of wholesale conversion. Great revivalists have risen
up; they have preached thundering sermons that have made men’s knees
knock together. “What a wonderful man!” people have said. “He has
converted so many under one sermon.” But look for his converts in a
month, and where will they be? You will see some of them in the alehouse,
you will hear others of them swear, you will find many of them rogues and
cheats, because they were not God’s converts, but only man’s Brethren, if
the work be done at all, it must be done of God for if God do not convert
there is nothing done that shall last, and nothing that shall be of any avail
for eternity.

But some reply, “Well, sir, but men convert themselves.” Yes, they do, and
a fine conversion it is. Very frequently they convert themselves. But then
that which man did, man undoes. He who converts himself one day,
unconverts himself the next; he tieth a knot which his own fingers can
loosen. Remember this — you may convert yourselves a dozen times over,
but “that which is born of the flesh is flesh,” and “cannot see the kingdom
of God.” It is only “that which is born of the Spirit” that “is Spirit,” and is
therefore able to be gathered at last into the spirit-realm, where only
spiritual things can be found before the throne of the Most High. We must
reserve this prerogative wholly to God. If any man state that God is not
Creator, we call him infidel, if any man entrench upon this doctrine, that
God is the absolute Maker of all things, we hiss him down in a moment,
but he is an infidel of the worst kind, because more specious, who puts
God out of the mercy throne, instead of putting him out of the creation
throne, and who tells men that they may convert themselves whereas God
cloth it all. “He” only, the great Jehovah — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
— and he saved them for his name’s sake.

Thus have I endeavored to set out clearly the first truth of the divine and
glorious Savior.

II. Now, secondly, THE FAVORED PERSONS — “He saved them.” Who are
they? You will reply, “They were the most respectable people that could be
found in the world; they were a very prayerful, loving, holy, and deserving
people; and, therefore, because they were good he saved them.” Very well,
that is your opinion, I will tell you what Moses says, — “Our fathers
understood not thy wonders in Egypt, they remembered not the multitudes
of thy mercies; but provoked him at the sea; even at the Red Sea.
Nevertheless he saved them.” Look at the 7th verse, and you will have
their character. In the first place, they were a stupid people — “Our fathers
understood not thy wonders in Egypt.” In the next place, they were an
ungrateful people — “they remembered not the multitude of thy mercies.”
In the third place, they were a provoking people — “they provoked him at
the sea even at the Red Sea.” Ah, these are the people whom free grace
saved, these are the men and these the women whom the God of all grace
condescends to take to his bosom and to make anew.
Note, first, that they were a stupid people. God sends his gospel not
always to the wise and prudent, but unto fools;

“He takes the fool and makes him know
The wonders of his dying love.”

Do not suppose, my hearer, because you are very unlettered and can
scarcely read — do not imagine, because you have always been brought up
in extreme ignorance, and have scarcely learnt to spell your name, that
therefore you cannot be saved. God’s grace can save you, and then
enlighten you. A brother minister once told me a story of a man who was
known in a certain village as a simpleton, and was always considered to be
soft in the head, no one thought he could ever understand anything. But
one day he came to hear the gospel preached. He had been a drunken
fellow having wit enough to be wicked, which is a very common kind of
wit. The Lord was pleased to bless the word to his soul, so that he became
a changed character; and what was the marvel of all was, his religion gave
him a something which began to develop his latent faculties. He found he
had a something to live for, and he began to try what he could do. In the
first place he wanted to read his Bible, that he might read his Saviour’s
name; and after much hammering and spelling away, at last he was able to
read a chapter. Then he was asked to pray at a prayer-meeting; here was an
exercise of his vocal powers. Five or six words made up his prayer, and
down he sat abashed. But by continually praying in his own family at home,
he came to pray like the rest of the brethren, and he went on till he became
a preacher, and, singularly enough, he had suddenly — a depth of
understanding and a power of thought, such as are seldom found among
ministers who only occasionally occupy pulpits. Strange it was, that grace
should even tend to develop his natural powers, giving him an object,
setting him devoutly and firmly upon it, and so bringing out all his
resources that they were fully shown. Ah, ignorant ones, ye need not
despair. He saved them; not for their sakes — there was nothing in them
why they should be saved. He saved them, not for their wisdom’s sake,
but, ignorant though they were, understanding not the meaning of his
miracles, “he saved them for his name’s sake.”

Note, again, they were a very ungrateful people, and yet he saved them.
He delivered them times without number, and worked for them mighty
miracles but they still rebelled. Ah, that is like you, my hearer. You have
had many deliverances from the borders of the grave; God has given you
house and food day after day, and provided for you, and kept you to this
hour; but how ungrateful you have been, As Isaiah said, “The ox knoweth
his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but my people cloth not know,
Israel cloth not consider.” Mow many there are of this character, who have
favors from God, the history of which they could not give in a year; but yet
what have they ever done for him? They would not keep a horse that did
not work for them, nor as much as a dog that would not notice them. But
here is God; he has kept them day by day, and they have done a great deal
against him but they have done nothing for him. He has put the bread into
their very mouths, nurtured them, and sustained their strength, and they
have spent their strength in defying him, in cursing his name and breaking
his Sabbath. “Nevertheless he saved them.” Some of this sort have been
saved. I hope I have some here now who will be saved by conquering
grace, made new men by the mighty power of God’s Spirit. “Nevertheless
he saved them.” When there was nothing to recommend them but every
reason why they should be cast away for their ingratitude, “Nevertheless he
saved them.”

And note, once more, they were a provoking people — “They provoked
him at the sea, even at the Red Sea.” Ah! how many people there are in
this world that are a provoking people to God! If God were like man, who
among us would be here to-day? If we are provoked once or twice, up
goes the hand. With some men their passion stirs at the very first offense
others, who are somewhat more placid will bear offense after offense, till at
last they say, “there is an end to everything, and I can bear that no longer;
you must stay it, or else I must stay you!” Ah! if God had that temper,
where should we be? Well might he say, “My thoughts are not as your
thoughts; I am God, I change not, or else ye sons of Jacob had been
consumed.” They were a provoking people, “nevertheless he saved them.”
Have you provoked him? Take heart; if you repent, God has promised to
save you; and what is more, he may this morning give you repentance, and
even give you remission of sins, for he saves provoking people for his
name’s sake. I hear one of my hearers say, — “Well, sir, that is
encouraging sin with vigilance!” Is it indeed, sir! Why? “Because you are
talking to the very worst of men, All you are saying that they may yet be
saved.” Pray, sirs, when I spoke to the worst of men, did I speak to you or
not? You say “No; I am one of the most respectable and best of men.”
Well then, sir I have no need to preach to you, for you think you do not
need any. “The whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick.”
But these poor people, whom you say I am encouraging in sin, need to be
spoken to. I will leave you. Good morning to you! You keep to your own
gospel, and I wonder whether you will find your way to heaven by it. Nay,
I do not wonder, I know you will not, unless you are brought as a poor
sinner to take Christ at his word, and be saved for his name’s sake. But I
say farewell to you, and I will keep on in my course. But why did you say I
encourage men in sin? I encourage them to turn from it. I did not say he
saved the provoking people, and then let them still provoke him as they
had done before; I did not say he saved the wicked people, and then let
them sin as they did before. But you know the meaning of the word
“saved;” I explained it the other morning. The word “saved” does not mean
merely taking men to heaven, it means more — it means saving them from
their sin; it means giving them a new heart, new spirits, new lives; it means
making them into new men. Is there anything licentious in saying that
Christ takes the worst of men to make them into saints? If there be, I
cannot see it. I only wish he would take the worst of this congregation and
make them into the saints of the living God, and then there would be far
less licentiousness. Sinner, I comfort thee; not in thy sin, but in thy
repentance. Sinner, the saints of heaven were once as bad as thou hast
been. Art thou a drunkard, a swearer, an unclean person? “Such were some
of them; but they have been washed — but they have been sanctified.” Is
thy robe black? Ask them whether their robes were ever black? They will
tell you, “Yes, we have washed our robes.” If they had been black, they
would not have wanted washing. “We have washed our robes, and made
them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Then, sinner, if they were black, and
were saved, why not thyself?

“Are not his mercies rich and free?
Then say, my soul, why not for thee?
Our Jesus died upon the tree,
Then why, my soul, why not for thee?”

Take heart, penitents; God will have mercy on you. “Nevertheless he saved
them for his name’s sake.”

III. Now we come to the third point — THE REASON OF SALVATION: “He
saved them for his name’s sake.” There is no other reason why God should
save a man, but for his name’s sake, there is nothing in a sinner which can
entitle him to salvation, or recommend him to mercy; it must be God’s own
heart which must dictate the motive why men are to be saved. One person
says, “God will save me, because I am so upright.” Sir, he will do no such
thing. Says another, “God will save me because I am so talented.” Sir, he
will not. Your talent! Why thou drivelling, self-conceited idiot, thy talent is
nothing compared with that of the angel that once stood before the throne,
and sinned, and who now is cast into the bottomless pit for ever! If he
would save men for their talent, he would have saved Satan; for he had
talents enough. As for thy morality and goodness, it is but filthy rags, and
he will never save thee for aught thou doest. None of us would ever be
saved, if God expected anything of us: we must be saved purely and solely
for reasons connected with himself, and lying in his own bosom. Blessed be
his name, he saves us for “his name’s sake.” What does that mean? I think
it means this: the name of God is his person, his attributes, and his nature.
For his nature’s sale, for his very attributes’ sake, he saved men; and,
perhaps, we may include this also: “My name is in him” — that is, in
Christ; he saves us for the sake of Christ, who is the name of God. And
what does that mean? I think it means this;

He saved them, first that he might manifest his nature. God was all love,
and he wanted to manifest it; he did show it when he made the sun, the
moon, and the stars, and scattered flowers o’er the green and laughing
earth. He did show his love when he made the air balmy to the body, and
the sunshine cheering to the eye. He gives us warmth even in winter, by the
clothing and by the fuel which he has stored in the bowels of the earth, but
he wanted to reveal himself still more. “How can I show them that I love
them with all my infinite heart? I will give my Son to die to save the very
worst of them, and so I will manifest my nature.” And God has done it, he
has manifested his power, his justice, his love, his faithfullless, and his
truth, he has manifested his whole self on the great platform of salvation. It
was, so to speak, the balcony on which God stepped to show himself to
man — the balcony of salvation — here it is he manifests himself, by saving
men’s souls.

He did it, again, to vindicate his name. Some say God is gruel; they
wickedly call him tyrant. “Ah!” says God, “but I will save the worst of
sinners, and vindicate my name; I will blot out the stigma; I will remove the
slur; they shall not be able to say that, unless they be filthy liars, for I will
be abundantly merciful. I will take away this stain, and they shall see that
my great name is a name of love.” And said he, again, “I will do this for my
name’s sake, that is, to make these people love my name. I know if I take
the best of men, and save them, they will love my name; but if I take the
worst of men, oh, how they will love me! If I go and take some of the
offscouring of the earth, and make them my children, oh, how they will
love me! Then they will cleave to my name, they will think it more sweet
than music; it will be more precious to them than the spikenard of the
Eastern merchants; they will value it as gold, yea, as much fine gold. The
man who loves me best, is the man who has most sins forgiven: he owes
much, therefore he will love much.” This is the reason why God often
selects the worst of men to make them his. Saith an old writer, “In the
carvings of heaven were made out of knots; the temple of God, the king of
heaven, is a cedar one, but the cedars were all knotty trees before he cut
them down.” He chose the worst, that he might display his workmanship
and his skill, to make unto himself a name; as it is written, “It shall be unto
me for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.” Now, dear
hearers, of whatever class you are, here is something I have to offer well
worthy of your consideration, namely — that if saved, we are saved for the
sake of God, for his name’s sake, and not for our own.

Now this puts all men on a level with regard to salvation. Suppose that in
coming into this garden, the rule had been that every one should have made
mention of my name as the key of admittance; the law is, that no man is to
be admitted for his rank or title, but only by the use of a certain name. Up
comes a lord; he makes use of the name and comes in: up comes a beggar,
all in patches, he makes use of the name — the law says it is only the use of
the name that will admit you — he makes use of it and he enters, for there
is no distinction. So, my lady, if you come, with all your morality, you must
male use of His name: if you come, poor filthy inhabitant of a cellar or a
garret, and make use of His name, the doors will fly wide open, for there is
salvation for every one who makes mention of the name of Christ, and for
none other. This pulls down the pride of the moralist, abases the selfexaltation
of the self-righteous, and puts us all, as guilty sinners, on an
equal footing before God, to receive mercy at his hands, “For his name’s
sake,” and for that reason alone.

IV. I have detained you too long; let me close by noticing obstacles
removed, in the word “nevertheless.” I shall do that in somewhat of an
interesting form, by way of parable.

Once on a time, Mercy sat upon her snow-white throne, surrounded by the
troops of love. A sinner was brought before her, whom Mercy designed to
save. The herald blew the trumpet, and after three blasts thereof; with a
loud voice, he said, “O heaven, and earth, and hell, I summon you this day
to come before the throne of Mercy, to tell why this sinner should not be
saved.” There stood the sinner trembling with fear; he knew that there
were multitudes of opponents, who would press into the hall of Mercy, and
with eyes full of wrath, would say “He must not, and he shall not escape;
he must be lost!” The trumpet was blown, and Mercy sat placidly on her
throne, until there stepped in one with a fiery countenance, his head was
covered with light, he spoke with a voice like thunder and out of his eyes
flashed lightning “Who art thou?” said Mercy. He replied, “I am Law; the
law of God.” “And whet hast thou to say?” “I have this to say,” and he
lifted up a stony tablet, written on both sides. “these ten commands this
wretch has broken. My demand is blood; for it is written, ‘The soul that
sinneth it shall die.’ Die he, or justice must.” The wretch trembles, his
knees knock together, the marrow of his bones melts within him, as if they
were foe dissolved by fire, and he shakes with very fright. Already he
thought he saw the thunderbolt launched at him, he saw the lightning
penetrate into his soul, hell yawned before him in imagination, and he
thought himself cast away for ever. But Mercy smiled, and said, “Law, I
will answer thee. This wretch deserves to die; justice demands that he
should perish — I award thee thy claim.” And oh! how the sinner trembles.
“But there is one yonder who has come with me to-day, my king, my Lord,
his name is Jesus, he will tell you how the debt can be paid, and the sinner
can go free.” Then Jesus spake, and said, “O Mercy, I will do thy bidding.
Take me Lord, put me in a garden, make me sweat drops of blood, then
nail me to a tree, scourge my back before you put me to death; hang me on
the cross; let blood run from my hands and feet. Let me descend into the
grave; let me pay all the sinner oweth. I will die in his stead.” And the Law
went out and scourged the Savior, nailed him to the cross, and coming
back with his face all bright with satisfaction, stood again at the throne of
Mercy, and Mercy said, “Law, what hast thou now to say?” “Nothing,”
said he, “fair angel, nothing.” “What! not one of these commands against
him?” “No, not one. Jesus, his substitute, has kept them all — has paid the
penalty for his disobedience, and now, instead of his condemnation, I
demand as a debt of justice that he be acquitted.” “Stand thou here,” said
Mercy, “sit on my throne; I and thou together will now send forth another
summons.” The trumpet rang again. “Come hither, all ye who have aught
to say against this sinner, why he should not be acquitted ,” and up comes
another — one who often troubled the sinner, one who had a voice not so
loud as that of the Law, but still piercing and thrilling — a voice whose
whispers were like the cuttings of a dagger. “Who art thou?” says Mercy.
“I am Conscience, this sinner must be punished; he has done so much
against the law of God that he must be punished; I demand it; and I will
give him no rest till he is punished, nor even then, for I will follow him
even to the grave and persecute him after death with pangs unutterable,”
“Nay,” said Mercy, “Hear me” and while he paused for a moment she took
a bunch of hyssop and sprinkled Conscience with the blood, saying “Hear
me, Conscience, “The blood of Jesus Christ. God’s Son, cleanseth us from
all sin, Now hast thou ought to say?” “No,” said Conscience, “nothing.”

“Covered is his unrighteousness
From condemnation he is free.”

Henceforth I will not grieve him; I will be a good conscience unto him,
through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The trumpet rang a third
time, and growling from the innermost vaults, up there came a grim black
fiend, with hate in his eyes, and hellish majesty on his brows. He is asked,
“Hast thou anything against that sinner?” “Yes,” said he “I have he has
made a league with hell, and a covenant with the grave, and here it is
signed with his own hand. He asked God to destroy his soul in a drunken
fit, and vowed he would never turn to God; see, here is his covenant with
hell!” “Let us look at it,” said Mercy; and it was handed up, whilst the grim
fiend looked at the sinner, and pierced him through with his black looks.
“Ah! but,” said Mercy, “this man had no right to sign the deed; a man must
not sign away another’s property. This man was bought and paid for long
beforehand; he is not his own; the covenant with death is disannulled, and
the league with hell is rent in pieces. Go thy way Satan,” “Nay,” said he,
howling again, “I have something else to say: that man was always my
friend, he listened ever to my insinuations; he scoffed at the gospel, he
scorned the majesty of heaven; is he to be pardoned, whilst I repair to my
hellish den, for ever to bear the penalty of guilt?” Said Mercy, “Avaunt,
thou fiend; these things he did in the days of his unregeneracy; but this
word ‘nevertheless’ blots them out. Go thou to thy hell; take this for
another lash upon thyself — the sinner shall be pardoned, but thou —
never, treacherous fiend!” And then Mercy, smilingly turning to the sinner,
said, “Sinner, the trumpet must be blown for the last time!” Again it was
blown, and no one answered. Then stood the sinner up, and Mercy said,
“Sinner ask thyself the question — ask thou of heaven, of earth, of hell —
whether any can condemn thee?” And the sinner stood up, and with a bold
loud voice said, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?”
And he looked into hell, and Satan lay there, biting his iron bonds; and he
looked on earth, and earth was silent; and in the majesty of faith the sinner
did even climb to heaven itself, and he said, “Who shall lay anything to the
charge of God’s elect? God?” And the answer came, “No; he justifieth.”
“Christ?” Sweetly it was whispered, “No; he died.” Then turning round,
the sinner joyfully exclaimed, “Who shall separate me from the love of
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” And the once condemned sinner
came back to Mercy; prostrate at her feet he lay, and vowed henceforth to
be hers for ever, if she would keep him to the end, and make him what she
would desire him to be. Then no longer did the trumpet ring, but angels
rejoiced, and heaven was glad, for the sinner was saved.

Thus, you see, I have what is called, dramatized the thing; but I don’t care
what it is called; it is a way of arresting the ear, when nothing else will.
“Nevertheless;” there is the obstruction taken away! Sinner, whatever be
the “nevertheless,” it shall never the less abate the Savior’s love; not the
less shall it ever make it, but it shall remain the same.

“Come, guilty soul, and flee away
To Christ and heal thy wounds;
This is the glorious gospel-day,
Wherein free grace abounds.
Come to Jesus, sinner, come.”

On thy knee weep out a sorrowful confession; look to his cross, and see
the substitute; believe, and live. Ye almost demons, ye that have gone
farthest in sin, now, Jesus says, “If you know your need of me, turn unto
me, and I will have mercy upon you: and to our God, for he will
abundantly pardon.”

Saints, Please be encouraged today. I must give you a word that will be bless your soul

Friday, September 25th, 2009

This was emailed to us eChurchWebsites Blog and we just wanted to share it by way of encouragement:-

Saints, Please be encouraged today. I must give you a word that will be bless your soul. In the last few weeks we have all heard the rhetoric behind the health care issue, the Acorn issue, the disrespect of our President during congressional meetings, abortion issues etc. The Holy spirit wants everyone to know according the Psalm 75 vs 5,6, this is God’s will concerning you and you. Everything is working and aligning itself up toward the Coming of Christ. So since this is true, why are we upset, why are we not in agreement with being aligned with the coming of Christ. People we did not do any of this, God did it! In order to prepare us for the coming of Jesus. So why be dismayed, why be upset, why be full of contention, but rather be glorified by the return of our Lord and Savior according to I Thess 4:13-18. Know that all of this is aligning up with the coming of Christ and today instead of joining in on the discord, rejoice in the Lord and be sure you are aligning yourself up for His return.

Pastor Veronica J. Woodard

It is modern myth that CO2 is melting the Arctic sea ice. No doubt many people will take immediate offence at the mere title of this post but they would do well to listen to the data before they jump. CO2 is supposed to heat the earth’s atmosphere and then would melt the ice from above.

Friday, September 25th, 2009

From the Migrant Mind

CO2 is not melting the Arctic.

It is modern myth that CO2 is melting the Arctic sea ice. No doubt many people will take immediate offence at the mere title of this post but they would do well to listen to the data before they jump. CO2 is supposed to heat the earth’s atmosphere and then would melt the ice from above. The atmosphere can’t get past the ice to warm the water below so the only logical conclusion is that a warm atmosphere should melt the ice from above.

But what is happening is the Arctic ice is melting from below due to warm waters that normally are about 100-200 m below the surface. I am going to show that due to a change in the winds, the Arctic ocean became more salty (salinization). The increase in salinity caused the underlying deeper waters to come into contact with the ice above, which melts the Arctic ice from below. Unless one can demonstrate that the wind change is due to global warming, one can’t claim that CO2 is melting the Arctic ic.

Let’s start by looking at the vertical temperature profile of the Arctic ocean. The surface layer, the layer in which the ice floats, is in general is fresher than the warm Atlantic sea water below.


Note that about 200 meters beneath the sea surface, the water temperature is 2 deg C–well above the melting point. If that heat can get up to the surficial layer, past the fresh water, it would melt the ice. Since fresh water is less dense than salt water, the density difference is what keeps the warm water from the ice.
Now, the halocline, the layer of fresh water is about 50-100 meters thick. The ice above is only about 3 meters thick–people think the Arctic sea ice is hundreds of feet thick but it isn’t (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay.wadhams.html). What happened in the Arctic is that the halocline, the freshwater layer has been destroyed, or significantly reduced, and that has allowed heat from below to rise beneath the ice, melting it.

Here is how this happened. Below is a comparison of the wind patterns in the 70s and 80s vs, the late 80s and 90s.

The left picture is 1979-1988; the right is 1989-1997. The big high pressure cell (red) present in the earlier times is gone in the later times. And that has had a big impact on the freshwater flow in the surficial waters of the Arctic ocean.

“This study was motivated by observations of significant salinification of the upper Eurasian Basin that began around 1989. Observational data and modelling results provide evidence that increased arctic atmospheric cyclonicity in the 1990s resulted in a dramatic increase in the salinity in the Laptev Sea and Eurasian Basin. Two mechanisms account for the Laptev Sea salinization: eastward diversion of Russian rivers, and increased brine formation due to enhanced ice production in numerous leads in the Laptev Sea ice cover. These two mechanisms are approximately the same intensity and are linked to changes in wind patterns. The resulting Laptev Sea salinity anomaly was then advected to the central Eurasian Basin. The strong salinization over the Eurasian Basin altered the formation of cold halocline waters, weakened vertical stratification, and released heat from the cold halocline layer upward. Our analysis suggests that local processes in the Laptev Sea may have a dramatic basin-wide impact on the thermohaline structure and circulation of the Arctic Ocean.” Johnson, M. A., and I. V. Polyakov, The Laptev Sea as a source for recent Arctic Ocean salinity changes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2017-2020, 2001

The impact of that increased salinization is that the ice is no longer protected from the warmer waters below. Johnson and Polyakov state:

The replacement of fresh surface waters with more saline waters reduced vertical stratification and increased heat flux, releasing heat from cold halocline layer to upper layers of the Eurasian Basin. The corresponding heat flux increase for the 1989-1997 period is as much as 3 W/ m-2 (Figure 4B) in this region, comparable to the change in heat flux over the Lomonosov Ridge and Amundsen Basin computed from SCICEX’95 data and a 1-D mixing model [Steele and Boyd, 1998].” Johnson, M. A., and I. V. Polyakov, The Laptev Sea as a source for recent Arctic Ocean salinity changes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2017-2020, 2001

Swift et al, say the same thing–that the heat from below is warming the ice above, melting it.

The halocline is the principal density structure of the Arctic Ocean, separating the cold surface mixed layer from the warm Atlantic layer that lies below about 200 m. The climatic importance of the halocline is well recognized [e.g., Aagaard et al., 1981]. Some observations have suggested that regionally the halocline has thinned dramatically during the past 10-15 years, possibly sufficiently to increase the upward heat flux to the sea surface and its ice cover [Steele and Boyd, 1998]. Other recent work has linked large and rapid changes in the properties of halocline waters to shelf processes, including the melting of sea ice on the Barents shelf [Woodgate et al., 2001] and increased freezing in the Laptev Sea [Johnson and Polyakov, 2001]. There is in any event ample justification to seek evidence of earlier halocline changes similar to those during the 1990s.” Swift, J. H., K. Aagaard, L. Timokhov, and E. G. Nikiforov (2005), Long-term variability of Arctic Ocean waters: Evidence from a reanalysis of the EWG data set, J. Geophys. Res., 110, C03012 ftp://odf.ucsd.edu/pub/jswift/2004JC002312.pdf p.8,9

Swift et al looked at records of temperature over the past 50 years looking for previous warming periods. They show a very interesting plot which shows the temperature structure of the Arctic Ocean over time. This picture is from the Nansen Basin.

You can see that there were warm periods in the underlying water three times during the past, the early 1950s, the mid 1960s and the early 1970s.
What is happening in the Arctic is not unprecedented. Shoot, 5000 years ago, all the permafrost around the arctic was melted.

” We find that beginning about 1976, most of the upper Arctic Ocean became significantly saltier, possibly related to thinning of the arctic ice cover. There are also indications that a more local upper ocean salinity increase in the Eurasian Basin about 1989 may not have originated on the shelf, as had been suggested earlier. In addition to the now well-established warming of the Atlantic layer during the early 1990s, there was a similar cyclonically propagating warm event during the 1950s. More remarkable, however, was a pervasive Atlantic layer warming throughout most of the Arctic Ocean from 1964–1969, possibly related to reduced vertical heat loss associated with increased upper ocean stratification. A cold period prevailed during most of the 1970s and 1980s, with several very cold events appearing to originate near the Kara and Laptev shelves. Finally, we find that the silicate maximum in the central Arctic Ocean halocline eroded abruptly in the mid-1980s, demonstrating that the redistribution of Pacific waters and the warming of the Atlantic layer reported from other observations during the 1990s were distinct events separated in time by perhaps 5 years. We have made the entire data set publicly available.” Swift, J. H., K. Aagaard, L. Timokhov, and E. G. Nikiforov (2005), Long-term variability of Arctic Ocean waters: Evidence from a reanalysis of the EWG data set, J. Geophys. Res., 110, C03012

Now as long ago as 1998 it has been known that the warm waters beneath the ice was in direct contact with the ice, yet the global warming hysteriacs continue to ignore the scientific data

Changes are also seen in other halocline types and in the Atlantic Water layer heat content and depth. Since the cold halocline layer insulates the surface layer (and thus the overlying sea ice) from the heat contained in the Atlantic Water layer, this should have profound effects on the surface energy and mass balance of sea ice in this region. Using a simple mixing model, we calculate maximum ice-ocean heat fluxes of 1–3 W m?2 in the Eurasian Basin, where during SCICEX’95 the surface layer lay in direct contact with the underlying Atlantic Water layer. Steele, M., and T. Boyd (1998), Retreat of the cold halocline layer in the Arctic Ocean, J. Geophys. Res., 103(C5), 10,419–10,435

Remember that the warm underlying Atlantic water is in direct contact with the ice above and that this is due to the salinization of the Arctic water. Here is the history of the salinization of the Arctic.

Clearly about the time that the Arctic ice began to melt, the sea became more salty. CO2 is not melting the ice; the underlying warm water coming into contact with the ice from beneath is what is melting the Arctic ice.

Why do the global warming hysteriacs NEVER, EVER tell you this? Is it because they simply are pushing a political agenda rather than real science?

Noting that “families are beleaguered and under siege,” Pope Benedict XVI called upon Church leaders to support the natural family, “founded upon marriage a a conjugal alliance in which man and woman mutually give and receive.”

Friday, September 25th, 2009

Catholic Culture

Families ‘under siege’ since acceptance of divorce, Pope says

Noting that “families are beleaguered and under siege,” Pope Benedict XVI called upon Church leaders to support the natural family, “founded upon marriage a a conjugal alliance in which man and woman mutually give and receive.”

Pope Benedict made his remarks on September 25 to a group of bishops from Brazil who were making their ad limina visits to Rome. The bishops of Brazil– the country with the world’s largest Catholic population– have been traveling to Rome in groups, arranged by ecclesiastical provinces, for consultations with Vatican officials.

Pope Benedict said that pastoral support for family life is vital today because “the secularized word is dominated by profound uncertainty” on the question of what constitutes authentic marriage and family life. That uncertainty, he added, is most evident in countries where divorce had become accepted.

The results of widespread divorce have been devastating, the Holy Father pointed out, with the consequences most harmful for the children of broken homes. He said that “the majority of those who feel orphaned are not children without parents but children with a surplus of parents.”

Iranian nuclear site has been under surveillance since 2006 – MI6 has been aware that the Iranians were building a secret underground enrichment facility at Qom in Iran for “some months”

Friday, September 25th, 2009

By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent – Telegraph

The site, north east of Qom, off the Qom to Aliabad highway is a former missile site operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Building work “started in earnest” in the middle of 2006, sources said, with workers tunneling into the side of a mountain to excavate a space big enough for around 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium.

While that may sound large, sources say the amount produced would be “insufficient for a civilian fuel reactor,” particularly using the old P1 centrifuges based on a 1970s design developed by the Pakistani programme run by AQ Khan.

Intelligence also suggests that the site is “not yet operational.”

A National Intelligence Estimate by the US Government in December 2007 said Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 but British intelligence has always been skeptical of that assessment.

The intelligence was said to have been gained through compromising Iran’s computer network and seizing a journal containing detailed notes.

The CIA has also been running a covert program known as the “Brain Drain” which was designed to entice Iran’s nuclear scientists to defect to the West, but had limited success.

In February 2008, further information was gained from a laptop computer slipped out of the country by an Iranian nuclear engineer that contained information said to be inconsistent with “any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon.”

MI6 has always set great store by human intelligence and among the defectors to the West has been Brigadier General Ali Reza Asgari, Iran’s deputy defence minister, who disappeared on a trip to Turkey two years ago and is thought to have been handled by a European intelligence agency rather than the Americans.

The last and perhaps most obvious piece in the intelligence jigsaw is satellite imagery which has existed of this site for some time and has been able top reveal the building activity. Such pictures cannot reveal what the site was being used for but the need to transport equipment to it means that communications can be intercepted.

Sources have said that on this occasion three intelligence services worked together – the CIA, MI6 and the DGSE of France – with MI6 playing a “very big part.”

A US official, who said the information had come from “a variety of sources and disciplines,” added: “The US and its partners have been observing and analysing this site for several years. Earlier this year, there was an accumulation of evidence that gave us high confidence that this was intended to be a uranium enrichment facility.”

The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) – one of several groups representing the 100,000 or so Episcopalians who have left their denomination for more conservative climes – has posted a video for the benefit of a this weekend’s Lutheran CORE meeting near Indianapolis.

Friday, September 25th, 2009

Hat-tip Virtue Online

By Julia Duin

I was just about to go to bed at 1 a.m. today when I saw that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) – one of several groups representing the 100,000 or so Episcopalians who have left their denomination for more conservative climes – has posted a video for the benefit of a this weekend’s Lutheran CORE meeting near Indianapolis. I last wrote about that here.

Lutheran CORE has drawn 1,200+ folks to a meeting to discuss what future – if any – conservatives have in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America now that that the denomination has OK’d gay clergy as of last month. The CORE folks have given every indication they’re heading out the door to form a new group or join with other dissident Lutheran groups.

And CANA is encouraging them to move out, according to a short video posted on YouTube. CANA’s lead bishop, Martyn Minns, until recently the rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Va., shows up in somewhat informal garb with a number of icons and religious paintings behind him. Am not sure the reason for the rodeo music accompaniment but sure enough, the bishop tells Lutherans that “We know the pain; we’ve been there” in reference to how his parish and 14 other churches left the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia from 2005-2007 – and the ensuing lawsuit that occurred when they tried to take their property with them. (They won the suit on the local level but it is on appeal).

“We know the joy and freedom that came when we move away from a church that has frankly lost its way,” the bishop said. “You’re not alone…”

Watch it here:

Lutheran Core Website

The BBC should actively seek to redress its “innate liberal bias”, says the Conservatives’ spokesman for culture. Jeremy Hunt quoted the phrase applied to the BBC by its former political editor Andrew Marr in 2007.

Friday, September 25th, 2009

The Christian Institute

The BBC should actively seek to redress its “innate liberal bias”, says the Conservatives’ spokesman for culture.

Jeremy Hunt quoted the phrase applied to the BBC by its former political editor Andrew Marr in 2007.

Mr Marr has also described the BBC as “a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people compared with the population at large”.

The BBC has been frequently accused of a bias against Christians and Christian values.

In June this year, the Church of England challenged the broadcaster over claims it treats Christianity like a ‘freak show’.

In the same month, former Radio 2 host Don Maclean said the BBC was supportive of Islam while taking a consistently negative angle on Christianity.

The broadcaster came under fire recently when it received complaints about a drama that portrayed a British extremist Christian beheading a moderate Muslim.

The offending episode of “Bonekickers” was aired in July last year and sparked renewed accusations of anti-Christian bias at the BBC.

Daily Telegraph writer, Damian Thompson, said: “We are deep into the realms of BBC bias and ignorance here.

“Only a BBC drama series would, to quote the complainant, ‘transfer the practice of terrorist beheadings from Islamist radicals to a fantasised group of fundamentalist Christians’.”

In January the beeb sparked outrage when a BBC One drama portrayed pro-life campaigners as murderous terrorists.

In the same month a BBC presenter, Jeremy Vine, said he believed that Christ is who he said he was, but doesn’t think he would be allowed to say so on air.

He told Reform Magazine that it has become “almost socially unacceptable to say you believe in God”.

Last year the BBC’s Director General, Mark Thompson, admitted his view that Islam should be treated more sensitively than Christianity because Muslims are less integrated and more of a minority group.

In October last year, the conductor of the BBC Philharmonic orchestra spoke of an ‘ignorant’ secular liberal minority in the media seeking to drive religion from the public sphere.

And in 2006 the Archbishop of York said that Christians took “more knocks” in BBC programmes than other faiths.

He added: “They can do to us what they dare not do to the Muslims. We are fair game because they can get away with it.”

EDITOR

As we speak another example of dangerous BBC bias is being broadcast as identified by Harry’s Place a few minutes ago:-

The BBC are at this very moment interviewing an employee of Press TV on Radio 5 Live, who is suggesting that the concerns about Iran’s nuclear aspirations are spin to strengthen Obama’s position and who is arguing against sanctions. The interview is being conducted as though the journalist is a objective uninvolved commentator.

The BBC are not telling their listeners that Press TV are a Iranian government funded operation, the station’s slavish support of the regime, and the problems they have had with impartiality.

Disappointing.

New legal guidance on assisted suicide has succeeded only in taking our country down a literal dead-end of ever-increasing darkness, though obviously the idea was to make things clearer for those contemplating this awful step.

Friday, September 25th, 2009

Previous recent Posts

DPP could cause ‘constitutional crisis’ on assisted suicide

Assisted suicide (Euthanasia) guidelines laid out by Keir Starmer Director of Public Prosecutions

Assisted suicide: The worm has turned – The response to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ “guidelines” for when assisted suicides in England and Wales won’t be prosecuted has been almost universally hostile.

Life Bite by Charles Gardener

THE DEAD-END OF DARKNESS

New legal guidance on assisted suicide has succeeded only in taking our country down a literal dead-end of ever-increasing darkness, though obviously the idea was to make things clearer for those contemplating this awful step.

It follows the much-publicised campaign of multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy who wanted to be sure her husband would not face prosecution if he accompanied her to ‘Dignitas’, the Swiss clinic where others have gone to end their lives.

Now the Director of Public Prosecutions has published interim guidelines which suggest protection for family members assisting suicide if they are seen to be doing it on compassionate grounds rather than for financial gain or from some other dark motive.

It will surely still be a matter of interpretation and, in theory, a potentially dangerous mission though of course we know that, in the present climate, the likely result of such action is that a legal blind eye will come into play.

So Debbie Purdy is feted as a heroine for single-handedly taking on what she refers to as “the last taboo”.

She has exercised her freedom to die – and yet millions have since the 1967 Abortion Act been denied the freedom to live through similar campaigns by liberally-minded people who managed to hoodwink the British population with hollow arguments about when a ‘foetus’ becomes a living being. The original act was trumpeted as a way of saving young women from the horrors of back-street abortions and was not meant as a ‘contraception’ for social convenience. But it was an inevitable slippery slope to what has become a silent holocaust.

But to listen to the BBC’s early evening radio news programme PM, you would think we were celebrating a great national victory akin to winning the bid to host the Olympics. For in devoting the best part of half-an-hour to the subject, I heard not a word of dissent (unless it was slipped in during the first few minutes, which I missed). Why, for example, did they not interview the Christian Legal Centre, who have issued a statement on the matter expressing “deep concern” over the guidelines?

The CLC have been campaigning for a recovery of Christian values to our society in the course of which they have highlighted a number of cases of discrimination against believers in the workplace, and in their statement barrister Andrea Williams expressed her serious misgivings.

“Our hearts of course go out to elderly and unwell people who are suffering from horrible medical conditions and to their loved ones. But we believe that all life should be protected in law and that the guidelines published today will cause great harm to individuals and society.

“We should learn from other jurisdictions where assisted suicide has been legalised. Very soon, elderly and vulnerable people surveyed by researchers report a shift in perception towards seeing themselves as a burden on their families and being under a ‘duty to die’.

“Additionally, we are concerned that the system will be open to abuse and to a creeping, ever-widening application, which has been observed in previous cases in our own legal history where laws have been injudiciously liberalised.

“We shall do all we can to raise awareness of these under-estimated factors in the run-up to the consultation. (The guidelines will be subject to consultation before becoming fully established policy). In other jurisdictions similar laws have soon been abandoned when the damage becomes evident, but only after that damage has been done. We would rather we turn back from this profoundly mistaken policy before that is allowed to happen.”

The case of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang – the Christian hotelier couple charged with a crime for criticising Islam – was mentioned on the BBC’s flagship debate show last night.

Friday, September 25th, 2009

:!: CLICK HERE FOR MOST RECENT POST & UPDATE :!:

Previous Post

Christian hotel owners Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang hauled before court after defending their beliefs in discussion with Muslim guest

The Christian Institute

The case of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang – the Christian couple charged with a crime for criticising Islam – was mentioned on the BBC’s flagship debate show last night.

The case was compared with that of Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, who has been allowed to stay in post despite breaking the law by employing an illegal immigrant.

The Question Time panel, which included Government equalities minister Harriet Harman, was asked why Baroness Scotland has not resigned or been dismissed.

Harriet Harman replied by saying that Baroness Scotland had made an “administrative error” and should be allowed to keep her job.

But fellow panellist Fraser Nelson opposed that viewpoint. He said: “an administrative technical error. That’s what you call it when Government ministers break the law.”

He said this attitude is what drives the readers of his Sunday newspaper column “absolutely mad, because they know if they were to do something the law would come on them like a tonne of bricks.”

He then gave the example of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang who were arrested for offending a Muslim during a discussion about religion.

He said they wouldn’t get off the hook by saying, “sorry it was a technical error, I shouldn’t have brought up the subject we were discussing”.

He added: “I don’t think the Government realises just how heavy-handed it has become with the small people while the big guys get away with anything.”

The Vogelenzangs are facing a criminal trial in December. They are alleged to have offended a Muslim by saying Mohammed was a warlord and traditional female Islamic dress is a form of bondage.

The facts of the case are disputed and the couple have pleaded not guilty to a “religiously aggravated” public order offence.

The couple’s defence is being financed by The Christian Institute’s legal defence fund.

Contribute to the legal fund here:-

Support The Christian Institute’s legal defence fund.

Switch to our mobile site