Christian News
Bill's blog

Stephen Fry's on RTE (
Raidió Teilifís Éireann)

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." ...Anne Graham

In an interview with Irish broadcaster RTE, he said: "I'll say 'bone cancer in children - what's that about? How dare you. How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil.'

"Why should I respect a capricious, mean minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain."

So, Stephen Fry doesn't want to go to Heaven, especially on God's terms. What he obviously isn't aware of is that where he IS going is a lot less pleasant, whether on God's terms or not.

What Stephen Fry, his supporters (of whom there are many judging by the thumbs up sign on his You Tube video (48,244 against 3,269 thumbs down - today 8th February 2015) and many Christians do not realise is that God doesn't totally preside over this world. When sin was first committed (not during the "big bang") the enemy took over this world. The evil done by humans is the root cause of the world's problems. God created a perfect world, but man wouldn't have it. God gave man free will. Does anyone believe that God created Hitler, Eichmann and Himmler and all the other wicked zealot's to be as evil as they were? No, it was their unfettered decision that made them so.

Why does God allow all the suffering in the world they ask. Well why shouldn't He? Everywhere He looks, he sees rejection of Himself, disbelief and even Christians doubting His existence and giving credance to Stephen Fry's comments. Most of the world is NOT Christian and those who profess to be, authenticate their stance by going to church for one hour per week - not every week however, only when the weather is fine.

So, the people who have a relationship with the Lord are probably a single figure percentage of the world's population. So, I ask again, why shouldn't He allow bad things to happen. Anne Graham (Billy's daughter) was asked a similar question to this, and this is how she answered it:

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11 ).
Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives, and being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school... the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself, and we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about, and we said OK.

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. The school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued (there's a big difference between disciplining, touching, beating, smacking, humiliating, kicking, etc.), and we said OK. Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents, and we said OK.

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said OK. Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. Agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good.

Then the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. Let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing?

Well, that was written and sent to me several years ago. Today is February the 8th, 2015 and at this time, we have to wonder what God sees when He looks at us. He sees people he created beheading other people whom He created. In England every Friday and Saturday night, He sees English men (whom He created)  kicking and stamping on the heads of other English men whom He created.

He sees men raping girls, and because the girl has had too much to drink, the men justify their actions by saying, "She was asking (or begging) for it."

He sees us watching end enjoying television productions that are filled to overflowing with disgusting filthy activity and terminology. I was guilty of this last night. I saw a film where a single father was bringing up three daughters. The household was filled with the most vile obscene language imaginable, coming from the father and the girls equally. One of the girls was engaged in oral sex with a boyfriend. A few questions came to my mind: what were the producers thinking when they decided to make such a film? What did they think it would achieve? The other question: why on earth did I watch it, what was I thinking when I decided to stick with it to the end? It shows that many of have not reached the pinnacle of our Christian growth yet, but it's often said that before one can resolve a problem, one has to recognise its existence. So, I am now hoping to climb the next rung of my growth ladder by denouncing and renouncing such films as the one I watched on BBC2 last night.

What depths the BBC has sunk to since those early days when relatively mild expletives such as fart and bloody would never have emerged from the loudspeaker of our televisions. Now, it's no holds barred and I suspect this is down to those people within the BBC who not only sympathise with Stephen Fry's views, but also dispensed all that nonsense on the six o'clock news on Friday night about new scientific discoveries concerning the "big bang" and how a precise number of billions of years ago specific things started to happen.

I don't doubt for one minute that some people (Christians included) will disagree with much of what I've said here, but that's the prerogative of us all in our part of the world. Try saying it in some countries and see what happens. I have great admiration for people who could preach such as this straight from the heart in front of a congregation, but as we're all unique, I have to accept that writing is my ministry whereas verbal presentatiuon is that of other people. God bless you - yes, even the non believers and Stephen Frys of this world - if you're reading this to the end.

The Ark Of The Covanant Is Found

From Church Times - 14th March 2014

Westminster rules on gay marriage in shared

churches and chapels


Click to enlarge

High office: the then Leader of the Opposition, William Hague, and his wife, Ffion, enter the House of Commons after posing for pictures following their wedding in St Mary Undercroft, in December, 1997

High office: the then Leader of the Opposition, William Hague, and his wife, Ffion, enter the House of Commons after posing for pictures following their wedding in St Mary Undercroft, in December, 1997 

PROPOSALS to convert the House of Commons chapel, St Mary Undercroft, into a multifaith centre (News, 15 March 2013) so that MPs and peers could use it to solemnise same-sex marriages, have been blocked.

Black Rod, Lt. Gen. David Leakey, confirmed that the original suggestion that the chapel be converted into a multifaith centre had been modified "so that the chapel would be a multi-denominational chapel; in other words, still a Christian place of worship rather than multifaith. None the less, there are no plans to take the proposal forward."

The chapel is a Royal Peculiar, under the care of Westminster Abbey, and one of the few remaining areas of the Palace of Westminster still under royal control. Chris Bryant, the MP who first put forward the idea, suggested that the proposal was personally blocked by the Queen, who visited the chapel in December. "She is a very conservative woman," he said.

As a Church of England chapel, St Mary Undercroft could be used to conduct same-sex marriages only if the General Synod gave its consent to same-sex marriage in the C of E.

The Government has published draft regulations concerning the use of military chapels for same-sex marriages. The regulations, which are due to come into force in June, re-quire the Secretary of State for Defence to "consult with the relevant governing authority of any relevant religious organisation which in his opinion makes significant regular use of the chapel", before applying for it to be registered as a venue for same-sex marriages.

The regulations specifically exclude C of E chapels, however, which would require the Secretary of State to certify that the chapel "is not consecrated according to the rites of the Church of England".

The Government has also introduced regulations detailing how "informally shared" church buildings can be registered for same-sex marriages. The rules, which cover arrangements that have not been made under the Sharing of Church Buildings Act 1969, require all qualifying shared churches to give consent before a building can be registered.

A qualifying shared church is one that has used the building "for public religious worship on two or more occasions in each calendar month" in each of the preceding six months, or nine of the preceding 12 months, the Equalities Minister Helen Grant told a Commons committee last month.

The registration of a shared building will specify which of the sharing churches will be able to conduct same-sex marriages in it, Ms Grant said. "If a religious organisation gives its consent to the building being used to conduct marriages of same-sex couples by another sharing organisation, this consent will not enable it to solemnise marriages of same-sex couples. Any sharing organisation wishing to conduct such marriages will need to provide separate explicit consent from their own governing authority."

In a formal response to its consultation on the subject, the Government explained that this was required so that the regulations did not "undermine the religious protections set out in the 2013 Act" by providing "a route through which some members of a religious organisation could solemnise a marriage of a same-sex couple without the consent of their governing authority".

The first official notices of intention to marry, or preliminaries, were made yesterday, in preparation for the first same-sex marriages on Saturday 29 March.

The Evangelical Group on General Synod, has questioned the House of Bishops' guidance on same-sex marriage, saying that it ignores "the position of lay people holding a bishop's licence or commission".

In a letter to its members last weekend, the Revd John Dunnett, who chairs the Group, said: "We believe that such lay ministers, who, along with ordained ministers, should offer an exemplary lifestyle, should be expected not to enter into same-sex marriages, and those who have contracted same-sex marriages should not be licensed or commissioned."

The letter said that "while affirming that everyone should be welcomed in our churches, we continue to believe that appropriate sacramental discipline should apply to those who choose to enter into any sexual relationship other than within marriage between a man and a woman."

Mr Dunnett also questioned the Bishops' guidance that prayers rather than a blessing might be offered to same-sex couples. The distinction between the two was "without reasoned theological difference, and likely to lead to confusion".

On Ash Wednesday, the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Richard Chartres, spoke in St Paul's Cathedral about several weeks in which "my mail box and daily delivery has been full of indignation.

"From the various angles of the debate on human sexuality, the vitriol has flowed in, denouncing the errors and shortcomings of others seemingly blind to the lack of charity which rage against the others betrays. . . There is a word for all of us in today's Gospel: 'If there is any one among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.'"