CLIMATEGATE & THE THEORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE

(The photos are of a summer hailstorm in my backyard in Brisbane, Australia)

I must admit that I was warming ever so slightly to the possibility of "Global Warming" when my wife asked me if I had noticed that "they" no longer seemed to be calling it "Global Warming" but were now calling it "Climate Change".

I guess the term "Climate Change" is a lot more encompassing than "Global Warming". For example, if the January temperature at the corner of Portage & Main in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada drops anywhere below the usual minus 40-degrees then it safely can be attributed to "Climate Change". Brilliant!

Mind you, now that I'm on to "their" scheming (as alluded to in "their" spin-doctoring use of terminolgy) I'm cooling off somewhat in regard to "their" notion of "Global Warming". And then came "Climategate"...

No doubt the Climate Status Quo deniers and sceptics will see the East Anglia University e-mails as inadmissable evidence in this whole "scientific" debacle regarding the earth's climate. But regardles of how the irrefutable evidence was obtained, it is the smoking gun!

"Climate Change" scientists using data to make it say whatever they want it to say? This is right up there with that other great "scientific" slight of hand, ie, the molecules to man Theory of Evolution! The latter was and still is the slippery slope to the former.

Okay, so you may disagree with the connection I'm drawing between the "sciences" of Evolutionary Theory and that of the Climate Changers, but both are desperate to make their "evidence" fit their pet theories. That's unscientific in my book! (- in anyone's book!)

Britain's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown is calling those scientists who have not jumped on the "Global Warming" bandwagon, "Flat Earthers". This also is unscientific. One should not mix leftist politics with science!
It seems to me that two things were going on:
1) It was being touted as a fact that the global temperature was increasing.
2) It was being touted as a fact that the (supposed) global warming is man made.

It's unscientific to call theories facts. It's also unscientific to ban peer reviews of those who disagree with the theory (as is the case in regard to the molecules to man Theory of Evolution and now with the Theory of Climate Change).

Oh well, I was nearly warming to the idea of "Global Warming" (but still had a long way to go to embrace the idea that it was man made). But that's all fallen by the way now. I'm now back at square one: Climate Status Quo.

DOES GOD HAVE BUTTER FINGERS?

Christians believe that the God who made us is the God who also saves us.

Others say that:

a) We don't need to be saved (and they place posters on the sides of buses telling you not to worry about it!)

b) We save ourselves (by doing whatever they themselves deem to be good things).

c) We cooperate with God (which is to say that God does His bit and we need to do ours).

John Bevere in his book Driven by Eternity teaches that saved people are able to un-save themselves! I wrote a response to Bevere's allegation that God has butter-fingers!

The following are my concluding remarks:

Conclusion
There are many gold nuggets in Driven by Eternity, but it is such a pity that the reader has to crawl around in the decayed and dangerous mineshafts of Dispensationalism and Arminianism to find them! Bevere’s challenge for Christians to live godly lives by keeping God’s Commandments is heartening. His exhortation to do so in order to secure a good seat in eternity is not – although we thank him for the timely reminder that as Christians we ought to be thinking in terms of eternity. However, as Christians we ought to serve the Lord out of love and gratitude for the salvation He has purchased for us on Calvary’s cross. We ought never to presume upon His grace as we strive to love Him with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength, and all our mind, and love our neighbour as ourself.

It was a delight to read in Driven by Eternity of a Heaven that is a real and solid place for real and solid (saved) human beings. And it was good to read about the real and solid New Earth to which the real and solid New Jerusalem descends. Yes, there are some aspects even of these things where we’d beg to differ with Bevere on the basis of Scripture. For example, Bevere speaks of a resurrected Christ who walks through solid walls. However, this is nowhere taught in Scripture. Indeed great care needs to be taken here not to confuse the two natures of Christ and have the divine nature absorb the human nature of Christ even for a moment.

Bevere then ascribes the same divine attributes to resurrected Christians in order for them to do likewise regarding solid objects and also to traverse vast distances at the speed of light by their own power. This is to distort the true nature of man even in his glorified state. To be sure, the resurrected saint will have immortal and incorruptible qualities, but as God always remains God so man will always remain man.

Chapters 17 and 18 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), to which the aforementioned Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, and John Newton were able to subscribe, distils what the Scriptures have to say about the perseverance of the saints and their assurance of grace and salvation. It would be a fitting conclusion to this book review, and is worthwhile reading in order to reassure and strengthen the true Christian:

Chapter XVII: Of the Perseverance of the Saints
I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

Chapter XVIII: Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation
I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favour of God, and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish; yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God; which hope shall never make them ashamed.
II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which wounds the conscience and grieves the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God's withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.

See the full article at: http://web.mac.com/macfhionn/More_Snow_on_the_Ben/Driven_by_Eternity.html

ARE ALL WHO DIE IN INFANCY SAVED?

(Photo by Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh: http://homepage.mac.com/macfhionn/

This subject is one that needs further development.

I have made a stab at developing the Doctrine of Infant Salvation. My e-book on the subject can be found at:

http://web.me.com/macfhionn/Infancy/CONTENTS.html

The following is the Introduction to my "Are All Who Die In Infancy Saved?

The issue of what happens to those who die in infancy can be emotional. Dealing with infants can be like dealing with fire or sticks of dynamite; all ought to be handled with tenderness and the utmost of care. A verse of the Scottish poet, and anti-Calvinist, Robert Burns’ satirical poem about a so-called Calvinist he calls Holy Willie quickly springs to mind and strikes a piercing but painful note in the ears and hearts of those born of the Spirit. The poem is called Holy Willie’s Prayer:

When frae my mither’s womb I fell,
Thou might hae plungèd me in hell,
To gnash my gums, to weep and wail,
In burnin’ lakes,
Where damnèd devils roar and yell,
Chain’d to their stakes…

Do Calvinists really believe that any dying infants go to Hell? Surely all Christians who have suffered the loss of an infant or a little child believe that the Bible gives ample comfort that they will see them again in glory. The 1619 Canons of Dort in Article 1:17 sums up what Calvinists believe regarding their own children who die infancy:

Since we are to judge the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy.

Holy Willie is William Fisher (1737-1809). He was an elder in the Mauchline Kirk Session. His body lies buried in Ochiltree cemetery. Therefore he was not just some windmill in Burn’s mind that he tilted at because of what he perceived to be Fisher’s hypocrisy. It would seem (at least according to the words Burns put in his mouth) that Fisher disagreed with Article 1:17 quoted above.

Fisher is not alone, for some still hold that there have been infants who have died and gone to Hell. Not only that, they add contempt to their objection to the Calvinist view, by alleging that it promotes infanticide! Their reasoning is that it promotes the idea that parents can ensure their children’s election and salvation simply by murdering them or having someone else do it! But, if Article 1:17 of the Canons of Dort is a true statement of Scriptural doctrine, then those who object to it stand in danger of accusing God of promoting the murder of infants, including abortion!

The onus of proof on those who believe that there have been any who have died in infancy and gone to Hell, is to demonstrate their doctrine from Scripture. But know that no Reformed Confession states this contrary position. Even though it is the sovereign Almighty God who holds our breath in His hand, even though it is He who gives us length of days, all murderers, including all abortionists, are held accountable to God for their actions. Hell is a real place awaiting such unrepentant sinners.

We believe therefore that Christians whose children die in infancy have no reason to doubt that their children are with the Lord awaiting them. But does the Bible provide any hope for infants dying outside of the covenant community of God? We believe that the Bible gives probable hope that all who die in infancy are saved, and if so, are saved by the grace of God alone.

TAKE ME BACK (TO THE VALE OF LEVEN)

(Words & Music & Performed by Neil Cullan McKinlay - Filmed by Nina)

Take me back to the Vale of Leven

I've seen the world, I've had my fill.

Take me back to the Vale of Leven,

That lays beneath that slumbering hill.

Blackbird's on the telegraph pole,

He's singing songs of love,

Songs that elevate the soul.

Tunes from up above.

My mother's in the kitchen cooking,

She's singing harmony.

The music drifts across the miles to me.

Take me back, to the Vale of Leven

I've seen the world, I've had my fill.

Take me back to the Vale of Leven,

And lay me 'neath that slumbering hill.

ISLAM OR CHRISTIANITY?

I'd like to mention in brief some of the main differences between Islam and Christianity:

1. The God of Islam is Allah. Allah is monotheistic. The God of Christianity is also monotheistic, but unlike the God of Islam, the God of Christianity is the Triune Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God therefore is three Persons yet one God.

2. The prophet of Islam is Mohammed. The Prophet of Christianity is Jesus Christ. Jesus is also Christianity's Priest and King.

3. According to Islam Jesus is a prophet. According to Christianity Jesus is God. He is the Middle Person in the Triune Godhead. Jesus is the Word who became flesh, who is like us in every way apart from sin.

4. According to Islam a person pleases Allah by doing his will, by keeping Shariah law. According to Christianty a person gets right with God through Jesus Christ's perfect keeping of God's Law, which righteousness is imputed to believers. Which is to say that we are condemned because we break God's Ten Commandments, but "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

See the following links for more information about Islam:

http://nordskogpublishing.com/publisherscorner/2009/11/islams-world-peace-now-or-later.html

See the following for more information on "Fort Hood & the Separation of Mosque & State:

http://nordskogpublishing.com/publisherscorner/2009/11/fort-hood-separation-of-mosque-and.html

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

It would seem that the Secular Humanistic (read anti-Christian) Political Correctness Movement’s fifteen minutes of fame is just about over. And we all sigh, “And not a moment too soon!”

Personally I have yet to meet anyone who was happy with the PC drivel we’ve had rammed down our throats for who knows how long now – and believe it or not, I mingle among some non- Christian people!

PC kills free speech. This really became clearly apparent when a Muslim Terrorist shot over forty people at an American Army Base in Texas. The ultra-liberal mass media in America couldn’t bring itself to report 1) That the man was Muslim. 2) That the Muslim Terrorist allegedly yelled “Allahu Akhbar” as he shot innocent people killing fourteen (one of the women was pregnant).

It was left to the more conservative aspect the American news media to deal honestly with this whole issue. Our sympathies lie with the injured and those who lost loved ones.

“Allahu Akbar” does not mean “God is the greatest”, rather it means “Allah is the greatest.” Please don’t ever confuse Allah with the Triune God of Christianity. I’m sure all of Islam including non-terrorist, ie, peace-loving Muslims, will attest to this truth!

As much as Nativity scenes in schools and public places over Christmas-time seem like so much “trinkets and baubles” to me, I say bring it all back! Let the parents and kids rejoice in the birth of Christ again in public expression – FREE expression! FREE SPEECH!

For a humorous but serious song about the meaning of Christmas in a world imprisoned by Political Correctness see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAckfn8yiAQ

LITTLE GREEN MEN

I see that the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences is holding a conference on alien life - astrobiology.

I ask: Would the discovery of biological life somewhere "out there" sound the death-knell for Christianity? Or, to put it another way, would biological life on other planets be evidence, nay, let's put more strongly, would it prove biological evolution?

Romanism wavers (havers?), equivocating somewhat on biological evolution:

"Concerning biological evolution, the [Roman] Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him." http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Two bob each way!

For argument's sake, let's say some strange critters were discovered slithering, or swimming, or hopping, or climbing, (or whatever alien critters do), around somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, then what would this be evidence of? Does it prove anything?

Presupposition: Biological life on earth evolved out of slime... Hold it! What's the presupposition? It's that IF biological life evolved out of slime on earth, THEN it could happen elswhere in the universe. You see, as part of this worldview all that is needed for this to happen are the right conditions.

Think about the above paragraph. There's a whole lot of presupposing going on, is there not?

Please notice that biological life on earth does not prove anything. And neither would the discovery of biological life outside the planet earth prove a thing! All that would happen is that the ears of your presuppositions would be tickled. In other words, it's all in the mind!

Did God create other planets, perhaps similar to this one? Did God create biological life on other planets? Well, why don't we keep on firing our wee probes and rockets into space and keep on looking. But don't tell me that anything we find "out there" is going to prove that biological life grew out of pond scum, or that man evolved from molecules...

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Today alone at 11oo I gave thanks to God for those who laid down their lives in the defence of the freedoms we enjoy in the Western nations.

Wherever evil raises its vile and ugly head, those who truly love peace are compelled by God to seek to cut it off, as it was in the Great War, as it was in WWII, as it is in all the wars against freedom and justice, ie, against the Judeo-Christian Ethic, including that waged in Afghanistan today by the Taliban.

Thank you to all who serve in the defence of Western freedom, especially the Australian Defence Force, the Canadian Defence Force, the British Army, and the American Armed Forces.

May the Prince of Peace soon fully bring to pass His promise:

"Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it.
Many people shall come and say, 'Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.'
For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations, and rebuke many people;
they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." Isiah 2:2-4.

I MISS YOU LOCH LOMOND

(Words, Music, & Performed by Neil Cullan McKinlay - Filmed by Nina)

It's been a while, but I still mind

Fond memories bring me joy!

For on your banks I was inclined

To wander as a boy

Skiffing stones the whole day through

Or just gazing at your islands

Panoramic is the view

The gateway to the Highlands.

(Chorus)

Your clear sparkling water

Fills my heart with pride

While the braes of Ben Lomond

Stand guard by your side

I always will love you

Though I'm far from your shore

I miss you Loch Lomond

I'll see you once more

(2nd Verse)

Fish without fins, waves without winds

There's a floating island too

Bracken brown, ferny green

Purple heather hue

Do greylag geese still make their home

Round by Drumkinnon Bay?

Wild Capercaillie's echo fades

As I grow old and grey

(Chorus)

The Second Use of the Law

I just finished reading Ray Comfort's book The Way of the Master. I recommend this particular book of Comfort! See also: http://www.wayofthemaster.com/index.shtml

Ray Comfort, with helpful comments by Kirk Cameron, takes head on the "Easy Believism" movement that has been distorting the Gospel. (See my own book review of John Bevere's Driven By Eternity for related subject matter): http://web.mac.com/macfhionn/More_Snow_on_the_Ben/Driven_by_Eternity.html

Comfort and Cameron want Christians to use God's Law - properly. No more of the "Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life..." stuff. No! Though they don't state it as such, it's back to the Biblically Reformed "use of the Ten Commandments to convict the sinner of his sins before you show him the grace of God!"

The Way of the Master is very helpful in showing the reader how easy it is to use the Law in this convicting endeavour. "Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever looked lustfully at a woman? Have you ever stole?" etc. etc. The person you are talking to will inevitably admit to these sins. Then comes the mention of Hell as God's just punishment. Only after this comes Substitutionary Atonement whereby Christ pays what you owe God.

Of course if you read the book you'll see that Comfort and Cameron do a far better job than I'm doing here to help get the Church back on track with the Gospel.

Indirectly, one is reminded of Reformed Christianity's threefold use of the Law as stated by Louis Berkhof 1873-1957. (In their book Comfort and Cameron are concerned only with the 2nd use of Law stated in the following):

"1. A usus politicus or civilus. The Law serves the purpose of restraining sin and promoting righteousness. Considered from this point of view, the Law presupposes sin and is necessary on account of sin. It serves the purpose of God's common grace in the world at large. This means that from this point of view it cannot be regarded as a means of grace in the techinical sense of the word.

2. A usus elenchticus or pedagogicus. In this capacity the Law serves the purpose of bringing the man under conviction of sin, and of making him conscious of his inability to met the demands of the Law. In that way the Law becomes his tutor to lead him unto Christ, and thus becomes subservient to God's gracious purpose of redemption.

3. A usus didacticus or normativus. This is the so-called tertius usus legis, the third use of the law. The Law is a rule of life for believers, reminding them of their duties and leading them in the way of life and salvation. This third use of the Law is denied by Antinomians."

It's my prayer that in all the good work that Comfort and Cameron are doing they won't forget to also tell people the 1st and 3rd uses of God's Law! Well done guys!

DAYLIGHT ROBBERY REVISITED

(Photos by Neil Cullan McKinlay)

A while back I blogged about a major telephone company in Australia wanting to charge its customers $2.50 just for paying their bill! Well, I'm pleased to announce that Telstra (Australia) has scrapped that as a bad idea.

Has this company of robbers seen the light? Has it had a road to Damascus conversion? Has it clothed itself in sackloth, dust and ashes? Has it repented of its breaking of the 8th Commandment (the one about not stealing)? Well, er, no! From what I can determine it has no moral conscience whatsoever. It was merely charging its customers $2.50 in order to try to dissuade them paying their debts in cold, hard, jingling cash. See, Telstra simply wants its customers to go electronic!

Poor old granny and grandad!

"Granny, Telstra wants ye tae pay yer bills oan-line?"

"Eh? Whit's a' this aboot bills oan the washin' line?"

Books, Books, & More Books!

Apologies, I was away on the Darling Downs for a few days!

I mentioned in my previous blog that I was reading Ray Comfort's The Way of the Master. The edition I'm reading goes for about 343 pages. So far, so good. I was going great guns with it (I'm now at page 233) until I picked up Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol. Man, what a page-turning, ripping yarn that one is! How does he know all that technical stuff about modern scientific technology? Gadgets and gizmos! Masons and mysteries! Murder and mayhem! Decoys and distractions! I'm up to page 199 of the 509 paged hard cover edition.

I wish I could read faster. I wish I could remember a lot more of what I read! While reading these two books I am trying to write a piece expounding The Apostles' Creed.

All was going well (sort of - and of course, I was ripping through the Book of Psalms at the same time as all of this!)) until I got home late Friday afternoon and found that a copy of Alexander Tait's The Cup had arrived on my doostep all the way from bonnie Scotland. Ray and Dan are going to have to wait until I've read The Cup.

You see, Alexander Tait is a friend of mine (okay, call me a name-dropper). Anyway, some of you who bother to read my blogs will also know Alexander Tait as Billy Scobie fae the Vale. I immensely enjoyed his previous book Whisky in the Jar - about agoraphobia, illicit whisky distilling on Loch Lomondside, among other things - a great read!

Anyway, maybe sometime in the future I'll blog about each of the books I've mentioned thus far (if I ever finish my present reading regime!)

O, and check out The Apostles' Creed. Then maybe you'll be interested in reading my exposition of it (if I ever get around to finishing it - what, with all these books I have to read!)

Ah, it's great to be back in my comfy blog chair - warp factor four, Scotty!

The Bananaman Gets My Vote!

A friend lent me a book by Ray Comfort called The Way of the Master. I'm only up to page 57, so I won't yet comment on the book. Perhaps when I'm finished reading it... Mind you, I quite liked his Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution book. I also like the fact that Ray Comfort gives away free DVD's and CD's with his books!

Anyway, why am I'm blogging about Ray Comfort? Well, I was "Googling" Ray Comfort to try to find out what he's all about when I noticed that he wants to debate Richard Dawkins (who allegedly refers to Ray Comfort as "an ignorant fool.")

Ray has apparently offered Dawkins $10,000 for the pleasure of his company in a debate. I think that amount has been upped to $20,000. But alas! Mr Dawkins keeps on declining! (Big fearty!)

I just think it would be a real treat to see two people with no (formal) theological training debate theology! (Theo(s) = God, logy = subject of study or interest). Mind you, clearly Ray has studied and is interested in God a lot more than Richard has and is!

Therefore, should this debate ever come about, my money (not that I'm a gambling man!) is on Ray any day! The "Bananaman" has my vote!

Find out more about "The Banana Man" and what he is all about by clicking the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k

THE DAWKINS DELUSION

I've just finshed re-reading Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion. Alister McGrath is an ex-atheist and is presently Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University. Having studied in chemistry and researched in the field of biophysics he knows his way round the science lab.

His book The Dawkins Delusion is, of course, a response and rebuttal to and of the rant of Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion.

Maybe sometime in the future (if God spares him) Dawkins can have a go at dismantling the Triune God rather than raving on about whacko religious people who believe and do crazy stuff - as he does in The God Delusion! Tackle God next time Richard, I dare you!

Also, perhaps Dawkins would like to show us where, eg, Adolf Hitler went wrong in his application of The Theory of Evolution. Yes, perhaps Dawkins could do one of those How To books. "You all know the theory, now let's all put it into practice!" "But isn't that what that maniacal nut-case Adolf Hitler tried to do?" "Er..."

Frankly, I much prefer tried and true Reformed Christianity!

Anyway, back to The Dawkins Delusion. I like the way McGrath conludes his book with the following:

"Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. Sadly, sociological studies of charismatic leaders - religious and secular - indicate that Dawkins may be right to place some hope in this strategy. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support. Yet the fact that Dawkins relies so excessively on rhetoric, rather than the evidence that would otherwise be his natural stock in trade, clearly indicates that something is wrong with his case. Ironically, the ultimate achievment of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that this emperor has no clothes to wear. Might atheism be a delusion about God?"

CHRISTIAN JUSTICE

Does something need to be done with a legal system that doesn’t believe in justice?

It was reported in Australia: “A British judge is at the centre of an investigation after he freed a child rapist who then kidnapped and raped another youngster [a five year old] just eight days later.”

There also are judges in America who don’t believe in justice either, releasing rapists back into the community without them having spent any time in prison.

In Australia there is an unrepentant repeat paedophile being shunted from one location to another because of public outcry, many gathering outside his various homes in protest of him roaming free in their community.

Apparently the parents of the first victim in the British rape case (see above) “who are devout Christians” forgave the serial rapist. (However, we need to know that God only forgives those who repent of their sins!)

Yes! It is great not to harbour a spirit of hatred that seeks revenge. But what does this have to do with justice? Since when did Christians, even “devout Christians”, stop believing in justice? A child, two children, were raped by this young rapist.

According to a newspaper article “The latest victim’s father said: ‘Our son was abused not only by this lad, but also in effect by the British [English?] legal system that was supposed to protect him.’”

As a Christian I heartily agree with this statement. The legal system is for the protection of the innocent.

For the record, here’s a little of what Christians actually believe regarding justice:

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good and you will have the praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” Romans 13:1-4.

“Therefore submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 1 Peter 2:13-14.

If God did not believe in justice then He would never have sent His only begotten Son to the cross to pay for all of our sins.

May the rapists and the judges who release them see the horror of what they are doing. And may justice, Christian justice, soon be restored in the land.

WHO AM I?

I saw an advert on the Net for Genes Reunited which, directed at me said, "Neil, Find Out Who You Are."

No doubt it's all about finding out my family tree. But it got me to thinking: Who am I?

Am I Scottish? Am I Canadian? Am I Australian? I have been, and still am, each of these (it just depends on who I'm talking to at the time!)

Am I a Plumber? Am I a Presbyterian Minister? Am I an Army Chaplain? I am mostly an Army Chaplain at the moment, but cannot discount the others.

But do we measure who we are by our nationality or what we do or both?

I'm also a husband, a father, and a grandfather, as well as a brother.

I'm a pet-owner. I'm a singer. I'm a song-writer. I'm a writer. I am sure I am many other things too! I think I've reinvented myself more times than the pop singer Madonna!

The bottom line is that I already know who I am.

I am a citizen of Heaven. I am an adopted son of God. I am an (albeit at the moment imperfect) image of God. Yes, being Triune, God is therefore one yet many, unity in diversty. So am I!

I can see that I reflect God somewhat in many things. That's good enough for me!

A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL

We wouldn’t need to speculate about our origins or about the origin of the universe if we could access accurate information from an observer who was there in the beginning. But what would we do with such information were it available to us? Would we discard it out of hand because it does not fit our presuppositions about ourselves or about the universe in which we live? Would we adjust it by adding to and taking away from the information as our presuppositions determine? Or would we accept the information and continue to seek a greater and a deeper understanding of the information given?

In every court of law when witnesses are called to testify they are cross-examined as to their character: character lends to the credibility of their testimony. We have information about our origins and the origin of the universe given us by an observer who was there in the beginning: the Triune God.

Because it does not fit with his presuppositions about biological life the Darwinian Evolutionist rejects even the very notion of revelation from God – rejecting therefore what the Bible has to say about the creation of the universe and biological life. Thus the Darwinian Evolutionist begins his study of biological life by an outright rejection of God and the revelation God has given in His written Word.

Upon this Atheistic premise then the Darwinian Evolutionist relegates God and His Word to some nefarious realm he derogatorily calls ‘faith’ (by which he means anything that does not fit his own set of Naturalistic presuppositions!) The Darwinist alleges that he deals only in facts. Thus, when considering the creation around him, the Darwinian Evolutionist does so with a total disregard of the input of theology – though paradoxically he finds he needs to expend a lot of time and effort attacking the theology he bars from influencing his worldview!

Jonathan Sarfati explains a little the method of interpretation based on assumption as used by Naturalists such as Evolutionists:

"It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.
"Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc."[1] Thus Safarti.

Because Darwinian Evolutionist assumptions are based upon the philosophy of Materialism the supernatural is vehemently denied. Thus Naturalists believe (i.e., have faith) that the natural is all there is – that the physical universe is the sum total of all things. Then the Darwinian Evolutionist reads back into the very origins of the universe what he considers to be the process of Natural Selection on earth – assuming that the process of Natural Selection is a true and accurate copy of the original. But in the final analysis Natural Selection is a mechanism or a process, and as such, cannot be at the same time that which originated itself. A process must have a means other than itself in order to come into being.

For the Darwinian Evolutionist the primary question therefore still remains: How could the Natural Selection process come into being from nothing? How can something come from nothing? Evolution is a philosophy with no platform of support. The Evolutionist has no soapbox to stand on while he preaches his Materialistic doctrines. This is what happens when philosophy divorces itself from theology – as Evolutionism has done.

[1] Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Internet.

SEEING THE LIGHT!

I'm a bit loath to try another joke, seeing as no one thought my last effort funny! Anyway, I'm sure I heard Billy Connolly tell this one (and, of course, he tells it better than I ever could!):

This man comes into the doctor's surgery. "Who are you?" says the doctor as the man enters.

"I'm a moth," promptly replies the man.

"You're a moth? What makes you think that you're a moth?"

I don't think I'm a moth. I AM a moth!"

"Let's get this straight," says the doctor with a concerned tone in his voice. "You believe that you are a moth?"

"I don't believe that I am a moth. I AM a moth!"

The doctor looks him in the eye and says, "If you're a moth, then you should go and see a psychiatrist. Why did you come here?

The man replied, "I was going past your window when I saw your light was on!"

(PS I know that the picture above is not of a moth but of some sort of Tasmanian butterfly (the Meadow Argus) - because I took the photo! However, I posted it to try to help with the humour!)

Pacific Island Nations Devastation

As our prayers go up to God, so our hearts go out to those suffering devatation from the earthquakes and resulting tsunamis in those Pacific Island nations affected.

Communication breakdown, loss of property, injury, fear, and more tragic, the loss of loved ones brings much misery indeed.

It is in times like these that we seriously seek solace in our God through Jesus Christ.

The following is in the Samoan language. It is meant as an encouragement. It and other pieces of encouragement (in Samoan) may be found on my Website by clicking the following:

http://web.mac.com/macfhionn/Site/1._O_le_Faatusa_ole_Atua.html

O le faatusa o le Atua

O le Atua Tolu Tasi e tumu o ia i faamanuiaga matagofie mo le tagata. Sa ia foai mai lona lava faatusa I tauala mai I faatusa e 5 ina ia mafai ona matagofie lona foafoaina o le lalolagi:
1, sosogi (taste); 2, tago poo pa’i (touch); 3, faalogo (hear); 4, pupula (sight); ma le 5, manogi (smell).

Ma, i ona lava tamatamai-lima, sa ia tusia le tulafono o le alofa i lana tama’i fa’ata a’o ia feulaina atu le manava ola ia te ia. O le Atua le Tama, le Atua le Alo ma le Atua le Agaga Paia e faavae ile alofa i lo latou Atua Tolu-Tasi, ma o le faatusa lea na saunia e le Atua Tolu-Tasi i lona foafoaina ole tagata ola ina ia alofa atu i le Atua faapea ona tagata tuaoi I le faamaoni, usiusitai ma le faamaualalo.

Sa totoina e le Atua le faatoaga. Sa ia tuuina atu iai lana tama’i fa’ata, ma le fiafia ma le ‘mavaega o galuega’ sa osia ina ia tonu le la mafutaga. O le iuga o le maliu ona o le le usitai, e sau faatasi ai ma le tautoga o le ola e faavavau pe a usitai ma alofa. O iina, na aumaia ai le tagata, o le tama’i fa’ata a le Atua, ma tuuina atu I le faatoaga sa ia faia e galue ai. O le faatusa sa ia manao ina ia faatuputeleina ma galueaina e Atamu, ma ina ia ‘aia so’o se fua o le faatoaga, vagana ai le fua o le laau faasaina.

O lea laau sa suesueina ai le malosi o le usitai ma le faatuatua o Atamu i lona Atua ma le ‘feagaiga o galuega’ sa osia. Ua ai i le laau faasaina, ma ua pei ua tipi eseina le lima o Le na fafagaina ia. Ua ia fa’ato’ilaloina le faatusa o le Atua. Ma o iina, ua faasalaina ai ile faasalaga o le oti le tagata; o le mea lea ua malaia ai le laueleele; ua momotu ese le nonofo fealoa’I ma le Atua; ua momotu ese le agaga mai le tino, ma ua momotu ese ile ola faavavau le mafutaga ma le Atua.

O le Upu a le Atua o loo molimauina i tusitusiga ma lomiga i tausaga e tele ua mavae atu, ua pouliuli le lalolagi ina ua pau ifo ma le leo tele le tama’I fa’ata ma nuti nini’I, ua motusia le feagaiga ma le Atua ina ua agasala Atamu. E pei o le nuti nini’I i luga o se foloa sima o se fa’ata, e faapena ona nuti le faamoemoe sa fausia e le paia o le Atua mai le vavau mo le tagata e aofia ai oe ma a’u. O le aina o le fua o le laau faasaina e Atamu ma Eva, ua nuti ai le kate mai le fatu o le tagata ola. Sa tutulieseina e le Atua ia Atamu ma Eva mai le faatoaga i Etena, ua leai se faamoemoe sa tuuina atu e le Atua I le tagata. Ua fausia e Atamu se pa puipui o le tagata ola mai le Atua.

O le mavaega sa osia ma Atamu na aofia ai ma ona aiga, auga-tupulaga ma gafa e tau ia Atamu. O le ala I le ola e faavavau e afua I le usitai ma galuega fai ma le faamaoni, ae paga lea, sa vavaeeseina e le Atua le tagata ina ua agasala Atamu.

AE PEITAI, o le Atua Tolu-Tasi o se Tama e tumu o ia i le alofa. Aua ua faapea lava ona alofa mai o Ia I le lalolagi, sa vave ona toe fausia e le Atua lona faatusa sili, e ala mai I lona alo pele o Iesu Keriso, o le faatusa ola sa ia foaiiina mai I le lalolagi.

O lea faatusa E LE PEI o le faatusa sa ia faia I le uluai tagata ola o le sa agasala muamua I luma o le Atua, ae o lesu Keriso sa ia usitai, galue ma le faamaoni ma le loto maualalo. Sa auina mai ia e le Atua ma nofo faatasi ma ona tagata I le lalolagi. E pei o le uluai tagata, sa faapea foi ona nofo vaavaaia lo tatou Alii, tele faaosoosoga sa fetaia’I ma ia, sa iai foi ma le ‘laau’ I le taimi o soifua ai Iesu I le lalolagi. Le laau lena sa tautau ai lo tatou Alii Faaola, ‘le satauro’ ina ia faamagaloina ai oe ma a’u mai le agasala. Sa faamaoni le Alii o Iesu I lona usiusitai I le Atua, loto alofa ma fesoasoani I soo se tagata, sa fai o Ia ma faatusa ola o le Atua I le lalolagi ma sa ia osia lava le feagaiga ma le Atua, seia oo lava ina tautau o ia I le satauro ina ia magalo ai le tagata agasala.

O lona usitai I le Atua ua mafai ai ona faafiafiaina lona Tama I le Lagi i lona faamaoni, alofa ma le usitai. O lea, sa toetu manumalo mai ai o ia mai le oti. Ua faia e le Atua le ‘feagaiga o galuega-paia a Iesu Keriso’ I e o loo talitonu ma le faamaoni ia te Ia mo le ola faavavau. Ma, I le Agaga Paia, e oo mai I le aso lenei, o loo galue pea le Atua e faafouina agaga ma loto o ona tagata I lona faatusa paia.

Afai la o e iloa, o loo nuti le faatusa o le Atua I lou olaga, ua tatau nei loa ona e valaau atu I lo tatou Alii Faaola ina ia alofa mai, ta’u atu au agasala, suiina lou olaga ma mulimuli atu ia te Ia, I le suafa o lo tatou Alii o Iesu Keriso, AMENE.

Faaliliuina e: Sara Seiaemoe Slade-Brunt

LOSING MY RELIGION

In a weekend edition of Brisbane’s Courier Mail newspaper there is a section dealing with Entertainment, Travel, and Culture, ETC for short. I like to look at the brief book reviews therein.

I noticed that one Paul Williams has written a brief review of LOSING MY RELIGION – Unbelief in Australia by Tom Frame, (in the Sept. 26-27 edition of the Courier Mail’s ETC).

Your guess is as good as mine as to why he does so, but Williams alludes to Chris Hitchens’s God is not Great and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion. After this brief digression Williams has the following to say regarding Frame’s book:

“Frame begins with the deeply flawed contention that if he were provided with undeniable proof that God did not exist, he would give up his faith. But that reverses a basic scientific premise of the onus of proof. Empiricists tell us that it is not up to atheists to disprove God’s existence, but rather the religious to supply the proof of existence as it is they who invoke faith.” Thus Williams.

To cut right to the chase: Whereas Frame believes that [the Triune] God is, the atheist believes that [the Triune] God is not. Bottom line: Both Frame and the atheist believe that the evidence supports their contrary positions. Both use the same evidence to prove their contrary positions.

Thus Frame wishes to prove a positive, i.e., that God is. And the atheist wants to prove a negative, ie, that God is not. Where then is the empirical evidence that God is not? How does the atheist make the Triune God vanish? He can huff and puff all he wants, he can hold his breath all he wants, but the same evidence he thinks disproves God’s existence is what actually proves it!

Bottom line: It’s not about evidence. It’s about presuppositions, i.e., worldviews. Whereas Frame presupposes that God is, the atheist presupposes that God is not. Frame can point to creation (space, time, matter) and everything in it, stars, moon, birds, trees, insects, fish, birds, animals, DNA etc, etc, as evidence of his presupposition that God is. He can bring in the human conscience, morals, ethics, laws etc. etc. as evidence that God is. He can bring in the sixty-six books of the Bible.

All the atheist can do is attack all this evidence and claim on Materialistic grounds that this evidence is not permissible. Not permissible to whom? To Materialists such as contemporary atheists! Bottom line: Frame is not a Materialist!

So, Frame is correct where he contends: “that if he were provided with undeniable proof that God did not exist, he would give up his faith.”

Materialism by definition is anti-God who is Spirit. But as Williams says, “The basic scientific premise is the onus of proof.” So, go ahead, prove empirically that God does not exist where all the evidence according to Frame’s worldview says that He does! Therefore the Materialist will have to extend his borders beyond the philosophy of Materialism (i.e., the philosophy in which the presuppostion is that Matter is all that is) to convince Frame!

SUPER BOWL - THEN THERE'S THE DUST BOWL

"Has anyone seen the Sydney Harbour Bridge?" The eastern seaboard of Australia was hit by a dust-storm that was enough to out-do David Copperfield. Yes, he might be able to make a jumbo-jet disappear, but the Sydney-siders had their old "Coathanger" removed! As the French Canadians say, "They turned around, and there it was, gone!"

Brisbane is 1,000 kilometres north of Sydney. Our city too turned sepia! Same with Cairns which is 1700 kilometres north of Brisbane!

There I was (in Brisbane) hanging out a load of washing (domesticated bloke that I am!) As I was pegging away I was thinking that I was in for some good drying - what, with the wind that was starting to whip up. Next thing the daylight turned a pale shade of eerie! Our wee white Westie came in from the outside looking more like a Cairn Terrier as to colouration!

"They" are telling us not to be too quick to wash our cars as "they" are expecting another dust storm (Brisbane water restrictions are being relaxed for a few days so that we can wash the place!) "The Grapes of Wrath" - "Of Mice and Men" or what!

If I remember correctly this used to happen to Winnipeg every year as the winds trasported the farmers topsoil into the city for free back in the 80's when we lived there.

As usual the alarmist media has to inject the ominous into the already ionized Aussie atmosphere. Would you know it, a lot of the red dust-blanket came from a(n) uranium mine! This must be the reason why our wee dust-covered Westie started to glow when it got dark!

SNOW ON THE BEN

I gave my Blog page the title "Snow off the Ben" after my (now defunct) Website "Snow on the Ben"

The title "Snow On the Ben" comes from a piece I wrote when I had just moved to Tasmania. It was Christmas eve of 2001 and I was at home all alone feeling a wee bit sad! Dorothy was still living up in Brisbane, having to tie up some loose ends before coming to join me in Tasmania.

SNOW ON THE BEN

My heart is in pain. It longs to see my ben, the ben again. It aches to see Ben Lomond with snow on his head in winter, to feel, to smell his cold fresh breath once more. It yearns to sit on one of his shoulders in summer, to hear the little bird that whispers sweet nothings in his ear. O little skylark, your song is music to my ben’s ears. It also soothes my breaking heart.

The pain is chronic; it grumbles on, it rumbles like thunder over the loch, my loch, Loch Lomond. Fish without fins, waves without winds. You are my ben’s mirror. He beholds his face in you. As a child, in summer, I threw stones, ‘skiffers’, at my ben’s looking glass, but the mirror never broke the way my heart is broken. In winter I tried to etch my name with a pair of skates on my ben’s mirror, but it was ben that wrote his name on me. Thank you ben for watching over me in my childhood, my youth, in my Balloch.

The whole Vale looked up to you. You were the toast of the town. Even Munro lifted his glass to you. The sheep kissed your feet. O ben, Ben Lomond, will I ever see you again?

View of Ralphs bay from my window

Here I am in the uttermost part of the world. I’ve been placed here to proclaim the Lord’s Gospel. The Lord Himself says: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!” Lord, could you not have sent me on home leave to announce the good news? Why did I say to You that I’d go wherever You sent me?

Mind you, the people here are of a noble character, they are fair-minded. They are receiving Your Word with all readiness. Like the Bereans of old, they are searching the Scriptures daily to find out if the things I say about You are so. Some of them lie awake in bed all night, like the red deer ruminating on the slopes of the ben, pondering the things they are hearing. Maybe I do like it here after all!

Wallaby outside my house

You have given me a house Lord, a home for my family. You have granted me a view of some of Your handiwork from my window. I see the waters of the Derwent flood Ralph’s Bay. And my eye is drawn to Mount Wellington, ‘Ben’ Wellington, with his ‘pipe-organ’, for he is the centre of the window painting you presented me, Lord. Ah, but alas, my Saviour, you painted in the ben, my ben, didn’t You? He’s there on the right of Your beautiful masterpiece. I look at him and my heart cries for home. Tears run from my eyes like cataracts on my ben. My heart is in the heilins, my heart is not here, my heart is in the heilins, a chasing the deer… Lord, will You put snow on my substitute ben come winter?

I walk through the wood, the ‘bush’ with my other best friend, wee Jamie (Seamus beag). I pretend he’s my faithful deerhound instead of the Sydney Silky terrier that he is. We see rabbits, but they are not Scottish rabbits. Ah, but perhaps their ancestors are! I pretend they are highland rabbits just the same. I make believe the bounding kangaroos are deer. The big ones are red deer, the wallabies are roe. Lord, I suppose I can learn to love them too!

Wee Jamie

I catch a glimpse of a startled turkey-looking bird, wings on full gallop, trying to outfly a false alarm of danger. It’s only me! Lord, I declare him to be capercailzie! And what is that twittering sound hanging in the air? Lord, have you sent the skylark to play upon my heartstrings? He sounds like he is plucking all the high notes on the harp, the ‘tree of music’. However, Lord, the grass is not green like Scottish grass; it has withered for want of refreshment. Yet there I see a beauty, Your beauty, as it gives me a friendly wave. Will You be pleased to send seasons of refreshing to this land?

Anglican Church in Tasmania

But Lord, I have been absent from my beloved over long. And there is a hoary frost forming on my head. But Lord, will I see snow on the ben, my new ben, this coming winter? Will he frost my windows with his breath? Breathe on me, breath of God; fill me with life anew… Will he whistle for me to bundle up and come out to play? Will he really be as good a friend to me as my old ben? Awake, O north wind, and come, O south! Blow upon my garden, that its spices may flow out. And will my new ben watch over me like my old ben? For I to the hills will lift mine eyes, from whence doth come mine aid. My safety cometh from the Lord, who heav’n and earth hath made.
O Lord, tell me why You have brought me to Tasmania. What is Your answer? All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, because the breath of the Lord is upon it; surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades

My mother walking on frozen Loch Lomond

, but the word of the Lord stands forever. O Zion, you who bring good tidings, get up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, you who bring good tidings, lift up your voice with strength, lift it up, be not afraid; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God’.

Sun setting over Mount Wellington

Thank You Lord. May my love for You and my neighbour be as deep as the snow on the ben!

Old photo of Loch and Ben Lomond

View from my old house in Tasmania

YouTube: Me reciting Snow On the Ben: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjvbeJudvH4&t=67

("SNOW ON THE BEN" is included in my paperback book "The Song of Creation & Other Contemplations")

E-book version at Aamazon: http://www.amazon.com/SONG-CREATION-OTHER-CONTEMPLATIONS-ebook/dp/B006WRZDES/ref=la_B006NTVAWY_1_16?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354496095&sr=1-16

SNEACHD AIR A’ BHEINN

One for the Gaelic speakers out there!

The following is a Gaelic translation of my "Snow on the Ben", translated by Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh: FREUMH A TALAMH TIORAM @

http://homepage.mac.com/macfhionn/

SNEACHD AIR A' BHEINN

Tha mo chridhe fo cràdh. Tha fadachd air ach am faic e mo bheinn, a’ bheinn a-rìst. Tha pian ann a dh’fhaicinn Beinn Laomainn le sneachd air a ceann sa gheamhradh, a dh’fhaireachdainn, a dh’fheuchainn a h-analach fuair fionnair as ùr. Tha e miannach air suidhe a dhèanamh air tè dhe na guailnean aice as t-samhradh, a chluinntinn an eòin bhig ud a bhios a’ cagarsaich neonithean milis na chluais. O uiseig bhig, is binn t’òran ann an cluasan mo bheinne. Agus tha e toirt faochaidh mar an ceudna dham chridhe a tha briseadh.

Chan eil deireadh air a’ chràdh; tha e a’ dèanamh cànrain gun abhsadh, mar an tàirneanach os-cionn na locha, mo locha-sa, Loch Laomainn. Iasg gun itean, tuinn gun ghaothan. Is tusa sgàthan mo bheinne. Bidh i sealltainn a gnùise annad. Nuair a bha mi nam phàiste, as t-samhradh, thilg mi clachan, “leum-liuchdadairean”, air sgàthan mo bheinne, ach cha do bhris an sgàthan ud mar a tha mo chridhe briste. Anns a’ gheamhradh dh’fheuch mi rim ainm eitseadh le paidhir bhròg-spèilidh air sgàthan mo bheinne, ach is e a’ bheinn a sgrìobh a h-ainm ormsa. Mo thaing dhut, a bhanacharaid, a bheinn-charaid, airson faire a chumail orm nam leanabachd, nam òige, nam Bhealach.

Bha am Magh Leamhna air fad a’ coimhead suas riut. Dh’òladh am baile gu lèir deoch-slàinte riut. Thog an Rothach fhèin a ghlainne dhut. Phòg na caoraich do chasan. O bheinn, a bheinn Laomainn, am faic mi a-rìst thu a-chaoidh?

Seo agad mise air taobh thall buileach an t-saoghail. Chaidh mo chur an seo a shearmonachadh Soisgeul an Tighearna. Tha an Tighearna E Fhèin ag ràdh:“Cia sgiamhach casan na muinntir sin a tha a’ searmonachadh soisgeul na sìthe, a tha a’ toirt sgeòil aoibhnich air nithean matha!” A Thighearna, nach b’urrainn Dhut mise chur air fòrladh dhachaigh gu bhith cur an cèill an deagh sgèil? Carson an duirt mi Riut gun rachainn taobh sam bith a chuir Thu mi?

Gun teagamh tha a’ mhuinntir an seo àrd-bheusach, tha iad còir is cothromach. Tha iad a’ gabhail T’ Fhacal dan ionnsaigh leis an uile thogradh. Coltach ris na Berèanaich o shean, tha iad a’ rannsachadh nan Sgriobtar gach aon là, a dh’fheuchainn a bheil na nithean sin a chanas mise mud dhèidhinn mar sin. Bidh cuid dhiubh a’ laighe nan dùisg nan leapannan fad na h-oidhche, coltach ris na fèidh ruadha a’ cnuasachadh air leòidean na beinne, a’ beachd-smaoineachadh air na nithean a tha iad a’ cluinntinn. Is dòcha gu bheil an t-àite seo a’ còrdadh rium as dèidh a h-uile càil!

Tha thu air taigh a thoirt dhomh, a Thighearna, dachaigh dham theaghlach. Tha Thu air sealladh a bhuileachadh orm dhe chuid dhen obair-làimhe Agad bhom uinneig. Chì mi uisgichean an Deruent a’ lìonadh Camas Railf. Agus tha mo shùil air a tarraing gu Beinn Bail’ Uelinn le a ‘h-òrgan-pìoba’, oir is ise teis-meadhan an deilbh-uinneige a thug thu dhomh, a Thighearna. Ach, mo thruaighe, a Shlànaighir, pheant Thu a-steach a’ bheinn, mo bheinn-sa, nach do pheant? Tha i an siud air taobh dheis T’annas-làimhe àlainn. Bheir mi sùil oirre agus gabhaidh mi cianalas airson mo dhachaigh. Bidh deòir a’ ruith bhom shùilean mar easan air mo bheinn. Tha mo chridh’ air na slèibhtean, chan eil mo chridhe an seo, tha mo chridh’ air na slèibhtean, an tòir air na fèidh... A Thighearna, an cuir Thu sneachd air mo bheinn ùr nuair a thig an geamhradh?

Bidh mi coiseachd tron choille, (tron ‘bhuis’, mar a chanas iad an seo) còmhla rim shàr-charaid eile, Seumas beag (‘wee Jamie’). Leigidh mi orm gur e cù-seilge dìleas nam fiadh agam a th’ann, an àite an abhaig Sìoda Shidni a th’ann dha rìribh. Chì sinn coineanaich, ach chan iad coineanaich na h-Alba. Ged is mathaid gur ann à Alba a bha an sinnsirean! Co-dhiù no co-dheth, leigidh mi orm gur e rabaidean Gàidhealach a th’annta. Gabhaidh mi orm gur e fèidh a th’anns na cangaruthan sìnteagach. Is e fiadh ruadha a th’anns an fheadhainn mhòir, agus ruadhagan a th’anns na ualabaidhean. A Thighearna, saoilidh mi gum b’urrainn dhomh fàs bàidheil riusan cuideachd! Gheibh mi aiteil de eun coltach ri circ Fhrangaich is clisgeadh air, na sgiathan nan làn othail, ‘s e air tì teicheadh air iteig bho chunnart nach eil ann. Chan eil ann ach mise! A Thighearna, is e capall coille a bhaisteas mi air. Agus gu dè am fuaim ceilearach ud crochte san adhar? A Thighearna, an do chuir Thu uiseag far a bheil mi a chluich air teudan mo chridhe? Bho choltas a fuaime tha i a’ cluich àrd-phongan uile na clarsaich, “craobh a’ chiùil”. Gidheadh, a Thighearna, chan eil am feur glas mar fheur na h-Alba; shearg e bho chion dibhe ùrachail. Ach an siod is lèir dhomh bòidhchead, Do bhòidhchead-sa, ‘s e a’ smeideadh rium gu càirdeil. Am bi Thu deònach ràithean ùrachaidh a chur ris an tìr a tha seo?

Ach a Thighearna, is ann tuilleadh is fada a tha mi air a bhith air falbh bhom eudail. Agus tha liath-reothadh a’ nochdadh air mo cheann. Ach, a Thighearna, am faic mi sneachd air a’ bheinn, air mo bheinn ùir, an geamhradh seo ri tighinn? An reòth i m’uinneagan le a h-anail? Sèid ormsa, anail Dhè; lìon mi le beatha as ùr... An leig i fead rium ach an sgeadaich mi mi fhìn gu blàth ‘s gun tig mi a-mach a chluich? Am bi i da-rìribh na caraid dhomh a-cheart cho math rim sheann bheinn? Èirich, a ghaoth tuath, agus thig a ghaoth a deas, sèid air feadh mo liosa, rachadh fàile a spìosraidh a-mach. Agus an cùm mo bheinn ùr faire orm mar a rinn mo sheann bheinn? Oir mo shùilean togam suas a-chum nam beann, on tig mo neart. On Dia rinn talamh agus nèamh, tha m’fhurtachd uile teachd.

O Thighearna, innis dhomh carson a thug Thu mi dhan Tasmain. Dè Do fhreagairt? Is feur gach uile fheòil, agus tha a h-òirdhearcas uile mar bhlàth na machrach; Tha am feur a’ seargadh, am blàth a’ crìonadh, nuair a shèideas gaoth an Tighearna air; gu cinnteach is feur an sluagh. Tha am feur a’ seargadh, am blàth a’ crìonadh; ach seasaidh facal ar Dè-ne gu sìorraidh. O thusa a tha a’ tabhairt deagh sgeòil do Shion, gabh suas gu sliabh àrd; O thusa a tha a’ tabhairt deagh sgeòil do Ierusalem, tog do ghuth le neart; tog e, na biodh eagal ort; abair ri bailtean Iùdah, Feuch, ur Dia!

Tapadh Leat, a Thighearna. Gum biodh mo ghràdh Dhutsa agus dham nàbaidh cho domhainn ris an t-sneachd air a’ bheinn!

Confused Evolutionists

Why do Alchemists (such as Richard Dawkins - of The God Delusion infamy) try to confuse people by mixing Christianity in with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.?

Do these Astrologers do it so that they can discredit Christianity by giving it a bad name by associating it with religious extremism and extremists?

When was the last time you saw a Southern Baptist strap dynamite to himself and blow up himself and a bunch innocent people?

That Evolutionist Adolf Hitler has no Christian to compare himself to! The Christian is taught to "esteem others better than himself." (Phil. 2:3b)

Why don't people like Dawkins stop trying to make gold out of lead, a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and money out of bagging Christianity?

Yes, we've all got the picture, Dicky! Your god is creation! (Rom. 1:25). The Christian God is the Creator of creation. (As they do with Christianity and other religions, Dawkins and his ilk like to confuse one with the other).

As Atronomers don't like being referred to as Astrologers, neither do Christians like being confused with non-Christians! However, and more importantly, God does not like being confused with non-gods! "You shall have no other gods before Me" Exodus 20:3.

A JOKE!

I heard a great joke the other day:

A man wandered into a Pentecostal Church. It was all arms waving in the air and yelling and cheering (like when Scotland scores a goal at Hampden - for those who don't know!)

At a certain point in the service the bloke at the front invited people to come up so that he could pray for them.

A man came up, having a real worried look on his face. "What's your problem?" inquired the preacher. "My hearing," replied the awfully worried looking man.

So off the preacher man went dancing around waving his arms in the air and working himself into a right lather while repeating "Yabba, dabba, doo!" (or whatever it is they say in these places when they're supposed to be praying!)

After all the theatrics (and the laying on of hands all over the worried man), the preacher finally pauses for breath and looks the worried man in the eye and puffing away he says, "What about that hearing?"

"Yes," replies the worried man, "It's on Wednesday!"

FAITH & REASON (REVISITED)

(Photos by Neil Cullan McKinlay)

I was reading in a newspaper about a film that failed (as of Sept. 14, 2009) to find a distributor in the United States. It is a film about Charles Darwin. It is called Creation.

According to a Gallup poll taken in February, 2009 39% of Americans believe in the Theory of Evolution. I suppose this is an amazingly low number seeing that we've had the Theory of Evolution sermon preached to us in school, museums, books, magazines, documentaries, movies, - at every turn since Darwin had his The Origin of Species published 150 years ago!

According to the newspaper article the Creation movie details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason."

The following is (another) excerpt from my book The Nexus: The True Nature of Nature:

We have seen [ie, in a previous chapter] what Theology and Philosophy have to do with each other. They are distinct but interconnected – i.e., two railway carriages that have access to each other. But what do Theology and Philosophy have to do with Faith and Reason? It is commonly thought that Faith and Theology are on one hand, and Reason and Philosophy are on another hand, but that these two hands can never shake. This is to say that Faith, as viewed by some, involves itself only in the supernatural, whilst Reason encounters only the natural. And, it is not an overstatement to note that Faith and Theology are, derogatorily, seen by some as dealing in fiction, whilst Philosophy and Reason deal only with fact.

Science today has come to mean that which deals only with the natural, that which deals only in fact. Therefore modern ‘science’ is thought of as that which deals only with physical things. Thus modern ‘science’ is equated with Reason, and religion, regardless of whether it is Christian religion or not, is equated in the modern mind with Faith – i.e., faith like the little train called ‘The Power of Positive Thinking,’ that against all the ‘evidence’ to the contrary, still says, as it faces the steep incline, ‘I think I can. I think I can.’

It is widely believed that Faith and Reason are incompatible in that they are thought to deal with different things. However, we have already taken note that both Theology and Philosophy are dealing with revelation of God – whether that revelation comes written in a Book or through the things God has made. Faith and Reason deal with the same revelation of God.

Here is the rub: All men reason according to presupposition. Which is to say that even those who engage themselves in scientific study base their results on assumptions. Their conceptions are based upon their preconceptions. Assumption is simply Faith by another name. Thus all men conduct their scientific study according to Faith.

Greg Bahnsen was a disciple of Cornelius Van Til, the father of what has come to be known as Presuppositional Apologetics. Dr Bahnsen says,

"For Van Til, like Augustine, reason is not the platform (precondition) for faith, but vice versa."[1]

Van Til, therefore, like Augustine before him, pulls the rug of Reason from beneath the feet of those who believe in neutrality in scientific study.

If Faith were built upon Reason, and not the other way round, then man would be autonomous and Reason would be the measure of all things. This is, of course, the prevalent Philosophy in today’s West. Reason has become estranged from Faith and has filed for divorce. If this divorce is permitted to come through man will effectively set up himself as his own god.

It should be clear by now that unbelievers’ Philosophy, (i.e., their life and worldview) is built upon their Faith and not upon their Reason. Thus ‘Reason’ is simply the foxhole from which fallen man attacks the revelation of God, which constantly bombards him on all fronts.

[1] Greg L Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, p. 54

DAYLIGHT ROBBERY!

In Australia one of the big phone companies (Telstra) is wanting to charge their customers $2.50 just to pay their bill!

Could you imagine walking into a (Scottish) fish and chip shop and being handed your Haggis Supper, Deep Fried Mars Bar, and bottle of Irn-Bru to wash it all down with, after you handed over the cash, the lassie behind the counter said, "That'll be anither ane pound and twinty-five P." You would reply something like, 'Whit's the extra ane pound twinty five fur?" And they would reply, "It's fur paying yer bill."

Has the whole world gone mad? Is it a bunch of wee boys still at primary school who are running the show nowadays? They need their bums skelped! Have they no respect for common decency? Have they no common sense? Are they completely devoid of any morals?

The 8th Commandment: "You shall not steal." Exodus 20:15.

PS - It's great having a Blog page - it lets me get things off my chest! Now what about them pesky Evolutionist-fanatics, Anti-Trinitarian Unitarians, etc., etc., etc.

GOOD SHEPHERD

Filmed by Nina - Words & Music by Neil Cullan McKinlay

GOOD SHEPHERD

There came a Shepherd long ago,
Searching for His sheep.
He will not rest till all His flock
Is safely in His keep.
With open arms He calls to them
His voice is soft yet clear.
And they come home to Him again.
The Shepherd loves them dear.

Good Shepherd I will heed Your call,
For this I must confess:
I cannot find my own way out

Of this darkened wilderness.

And all along the narrow path

in through the narrow gate

came dirty fleeces, all His flock

in such a sorry state

for all had wandered to the place

He'd told them not to go

the Shepherd took them one by one

and made them as white as snow.

Good Shepherd will You cleanse me too?

for this I must confess

those scarlet sins that stain my soul

have left my life a mess.

And with the storm there came the wolf

to maim, destroy and steal

the little flock just stood its ground

at the Shepherd's heel.

as a mother hen protects her young

beneath a wing so warm

the Shepherd's voice, His loving care

are shelter from the storm.

Good Shepherd I will cling to You

for this I must confess

without the refuge of Your love

I know no happiness!

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEXUS

The following is an introduction to my unpublished book The Nexus: The True Nature of Nature:

This is a book about two conflicting worldviews. In particular it is about how differently Calvinists and Darwinists view the world. If you are under-whelmed with excitement at the mere thought of attempting to read a whole book dealing with this topic, then let me reassure you with an old North American Indian adage: ‘Walk a mile in another man’s moccasins before you criticize him’! This is very much the path we have taken throughout this book. As we travel together we will examine the nature of things – as seen through the eyes of both John Calvin (1509-64) and Charles Darwin (1809-82). As you already can see, the year 2009 is the five-hundredth and two-hundredth anniversary of the birth of each of these men respectively.

Why write a book about the thoughts of two men from so long ago? Well, Calvin with his ‘Institutes of Christian Religion’ and Darwin with his ‘The Origin of Species’ have very much influenced Western thinking. For example, arguably many of the democratic freedoms we in the West today enjoy owe a great debt to the busy pen of John Calvin – including the freedom of speech that allowed Charles Darwin to pen his ‘The Origin of Species.’

Mind you, was it not for Evolutionary Thought we would not be entertained by the likes of Star Trek and Star Wars movies. For, the premise for all the alien life-forms in these and other movies of their ilk is due to the Theory of Evolution. Think about it: If it is believed that life has somehow evolved on earth then it is likely to have somehow evolved elsewhere in the universe. Such-like views are extrapolated from Darwin’s Theory of Evolution so called. The millions of dollars spent funding SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) projects are also based on the Theory of Evolution.

However, as much as watching movies with aliens in them, and as much as serious alien searches in outer space also can be fun and exciting, there is a downside to the Theory of Evolution that also needs to be noted. For, it is from the views espoused in Darwin’s The Origin of Species that much of the Militant Atheism in our own day has arisen! Make no mistake, Calvinism and Neo-Darwinism are two very much opposed worldviews. They are locked in mortal combat. So serious is this matter that, if it hasn’t already, Western democracy will become detached from its Judea-Christian moorings to be set adrift in the uncharted seas of relativity – i.e., if Neo-Darwinism is permitted to cut the West’s Biblical moorings.

By first looking at ‘The Question that Divides’ and then considering ‘The Tie that Binds’ The Nexus book is a call for the return to the way of thinking that made the Western nations great in the first place; i.e., to thinking Biblically. Calvin shows us how to do this: We use the Scriptures as our ‘spectacles.’

Yes, there will be much sabre-rattling heard from the Atheist Fundamentalists’ camp at the mere thought of a book of this sort, but all I ask is that the reader ‘Walk a mile in another man’s moccasins before you criticize him.’ However, if you would walk a mile with me please also keep in mind what Jesus says in Scripture, ‘Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.’ In other words, really hear me out before you agree/disagree with me!