Why are Christians so obsessed with sex - HA!

Witty insight from Adam4d

Why Obama was wrong, Uhuru too soft and Ruto right (on this occasion)

Obama inspects a guard of honour while the 'beast'
lurks in the background

So now the dust has kind’a settled and as a Kenyan in the diaspora, it has been fascinating observing how Obama’s visit to his ‘motherland’ was perceived. In Kenya, the excitement and frenzy was tremendous and even now over a week after the visit, newspaper editorials continue to reminisce on the significance of the first sitting American president to visit Kenya – and one of our own to boot! Obama’s Kenyan family have shared publicly that the president promised them he will visit the country again soon while TV programmes continue to be dazzled by the paraphernalia that accompanied the president, like his supersized car, also known as the ‘beast’. Here in the UK, it was noticeable that the visit made lead news for 2 days running on the BBC. It was featured in most newspapers and online newsfeeds and even made the front page for an important UK broadsheet - The Observer. Unsurprisingly for the UK (western?) press the item that got the most coverage was Obama’s championing of gay rights. Part of the reason for this were the following remarks made by Kenya’s Deputy President, William Ruto, prior to Obama’s visit:

“Homosexuality is against the plan of God. God did not create man and woman so that men would marry men and women marry women. We have heard that in [the] US they have allowed gay relations and other dirty things I want to say as a Christian leader that we will defend our country Kenya, we will stand for our faith and our country.”

In a special interview by the BBC where Obama was asked about Ruto’s comments, he responded:

“Yeah. Well, I disagree with him on that, don’t I? And I’ve had this experience before when we’ve visited Senegal in my last trip to Africa. I think that the president there, President Sall, is doing a wonderful job in moving the country forward – a strong democrat. But in a press conference, I was very blunt about my belief that everybody deserves fair treatment, equal treatment in the eyes of the law and the state.”

There had been talk that Obama would not shake Ruto's hand
but he was all smiles when he met Ruto at State House.

Given the entrenched views on both sides and the antipathy with which homosexuality is viewed in Kenya (and Africa more widely) there had been speculation that, when in Kenya, Obama would duck the gay issue and focus instead on security and trade. This however did not happen. Perhaps emboldened by his actions and statements in the US and the recent Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage, Obama ventured to speak up for so called “gay rights,” albeit in a more muted form than in his native land. A key strand in Obama’s answer was his personalising of the issue by comparing homophobia to the racial discrimination that he had encountered in the US. Here is what he said:

I’ve been consistent all across Africa on this. I believe in the principle of treating people equally under the law, and that they are deserving of equal protection under the law and that the state should not discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.  And I say that, recognizing that there may be people who have different religious or cultural beliefs. But the issue is how does the state operate relative to people.

Moments before that interview and both men are smiling but it was Uhuru
that would have the last laugh when he gave
Obama's 'gay rights' agenda the short shrift

If you look at the history of countries around the world, when you start treating people differently -- not because of any harm they’re doing anybody, but because they’re different -- that’s the path whereby freedoms begin to erode and bad things happen.  And when a government gets in the habit of treating people differently, those habits can spread.  

And as an African-American in the United States, I am painfully aware of the history of what happens when people are treated differently, under the law, and there were all sorts of rationalizations that were provided by the power structure for decades in the United States for segregation and Jim Crow and slavery, and they were wrong.  

So I’m unequivocal on this.  If somebody is a law-abiding citizen who is going about their business, and working in a job, an obeying the traffic signs -- (laughter) -- and doing all the other things that good citizens are supposed to do, and not harming anybody -- the idea that they are going to be treated differently or abused because of who they love is wrong.  Full stop.  

And the state does not need to weigh in on religious doctrine.  The state just has to say we’re going to treat everybody equally under the law.  And then everybody else can have their own opinions.  All right?

Notice how Obama repeatedly frames the issue in terms of pursuing equality and in particular, a desire that people be not treated differently – by the State – because of ‘who they love’. As a parallel to the experiences of homosexuals when they are treated differently (as is the case in Kenya where homosexuality is punishable with up to 14 years imprisonment), Obama pointed to the painful history of segregation experienced by African-Americans in the US.

As a black Christian, I am getting increasingly tired and offended at this persistent comparison between race and gender to promote homosexuality. Why do people perpetuate this comparison to justify the sin of homosexuality? Can anyone show me where in Scripture one’s sin colour is described as wicked or evil? Yet I can think of numerous texts that explicitly condemn homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. More and more I’m becoming convinced that those who trot out this comparison have not actually read the Scriptures carefully but are attempting to deploy an emotive argument to defend a wicked and sinful act. If I had 5 minutes with Obama, I would urge him to start by considering Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount (especially chapter 5 v 27-32) as well as his comments on divorce, all of which make clear that sex/marriage only exists between a man and woman in the context of marriage. Added to this are St Paul’s clear denunciations (e.g. Romans 1:18-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) which leave no wiggle room for the biblical view that homosexuality (among other sexual sins) are things to be repented of and which only Christ can redeem. A failure to do so (as with all other sin) will lead in the end – Scripture warns us – to eternal judgement.

None of this though was mentioned by the Kenyan president, Uhuru Kenyatta in his response to Obama. Instead Uhuru completely sidestepped Obama’s equality message and focussed instead on the prevalent view in African society that homosexuality is un-African. This is what Uhuru said:

“…the fact of the matter is that Kenya and the United States, we share so many values -- our common love for democracy, entrepreneurship, value for families.  These are things that we share.  But there are some things that we must admit we don’t share -- our culture, our societies don’t accept.  It is very difficult for us to be able to impose on people that which they themselves do not accept.  

This is why I repeatedly say that, for Kenyans today, the issue of gay rights is really a non-issue.  We want to focus on other areas that are day-to-day living for our people:  The health issues that we have discussed with President Obama.  These are critical.  Issues of ensuring inclusivity of women, a huge section of society that is normally left out of the mainstream of economic development.  What we can do in terms of infrastructure; what we can do in terms of education; in terms of our roads; in terms of giving our people power, encouraging entrepreneurship.  These are the key focuses.  

Maybe once, like you have overcome some of these challenges, we can begin to look at new ones.  But as of now, the fact remains that this issue is not really an issue that is on the foremost mind of Kenyans, and that is the fact. 

Notice that unlike Obama, Uhuru never explicitly states what his views on the subject of homosexuality are. Instead his response comes across as a mere respecting of the will of the people and a desire not to impose on the citizenry what they do not accept. Uhuru’s answer therefore never addresses the morality of homosexuality. Is it wrong or is it right? Is it evil or is it good? Is it beneficial or harmful? Uhuru’s answer never makes this plain and for this reason is actually open to the charge of homophobia. If the principle reason why Uhuru is not keen on gay rights is because it is the majority view currently, what happens when it ceases to be? Furthermore, isn’t it the responsibility of good leaders to make decisions that they believe are right irrespective of what public thinks because ultimately such decisions will be for the good of the people? Because Uhuru’s answer gave no moral framework apart from his concern to respect the wanainchi[i], the question arises: what if they are wrong, what if their antipathy for homosexuals is because they think they are easy targets? Let’s change the subject for a moment. Consider Nazi Germany. By all accounts Fascism was hugely popular in 1930’s Germany and accepted by the majority of the German people. If one were to employ the same lines of argument Uhuru deployed in response to Obama, it is difficult to see how he could condemn Nazism given its popularity then. If one were to rely simply on what is prevalent in a society, one would be on shaky ground indeed. The solution then – especially for those who claim to be followers of Christ – is to frame our responses in moral categories. It is never good enough to depend on the populace when justifying a viewpoint, action or policy. As a former dean of St Paul’s Cathedral in London once put it: Whoever marries the spirit of the age will find himself a widower in the next. To avoid such a fate, our call as Christians is to state clearly when called upon why certain actions are wrong (e.g. homosexuality, adultery and polygamy to name but a few) and to do so by referring to the God of Holy Scripture who has kindly revealed clearly His good and perfect will for humanity. I therefore find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with the Deputy President – William Ruto when he described Homosexuality as dirty and as being against the plan of God. Or as Jehovah the LORD succinctly puts it: thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination. Indeed.

---

[i] Wanainchi is Swahili for the locals

50 shades of grey- who has more issues?

Cartoon via: Adam4d

Gender agenda - a funny guide

Why Muslims are not satisfied with Islam & why the counter-offensive won't work?

Irony of all ironies that in a video (see below) trying to campaign against Muslims converting to Christianity, the video actually acts a big plug for the Christian faith! The reason why this sort of thing is bound to fail is because the Muslims haven't addressed the questions raised in the video e.g. the dense/incomprehensible teaching of Islam, the rampant animosity/hostility present in Islamic culture, the widespread lack of charity (despite that being one the pillars of it's faith). The Save Maryam campaign says that their strategy to redress these issues is to launch the first Islamic youth channel:

The problem lies in a lack of Islamic knowledge resulting in poor faith. So we want to launch [Indonesia's] first Islamic youth TV channel which will share the message of Islam in a way the youth of today can understand and will want to understand [...] We want to preach less and listen more.

All I can say to that is HA! If someone thinks that by simply starting a TV station focussed on the youth that the tide against Christianity will be stemmed then... how can I put this, they're stuffed!

Ultimately, such campaigns are futile because of a Man you know who changed the course of history - he was born in an obscure village, the child of peasant woman, for 3 years he was an itinerant preacher. He never wrote a book, never had a family and never owned a home. He didn't go to college, never travelled 200 miles from the place he was born. He did none of the things we usually associates with greatness and yet compared to all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that have ever sailed, all the parliaments that have ever sat, all the kings that have ever reigned, NONE, have not affected human civilisation like the life, death and resurrection of that One Man. Until Islam can find such a One - their only hope and the right response is to surrender. As St Paul writes:

Christ Jesus, 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Why showing pictures of dismembered babies is not exciting to abortionists

The Guardian recently published a story about the archaeological discovery of incontrovertible evidence that the Carthaginians sacrificed infants to the gods. Although everyone in antiquity knew that the Carthaginians were baby-killers, this was not enough for modern researchers: the establishment dismissed the stories as "black propaganda" by ancient rivals. And although archaeological evidence to support ancient tales had been found during the 20th century, this still was not enough to satisfy academia. Here are the key paragraphs of the article:

Argument has raged on the subject since cemeteries known as tophets – after the biblical account of a place of sacrifice – were excavated in the early 20th century on the outskirts of Carthage in modern Tunisia, and then at other Carthaginian sites in Sicily and Sardinia. The graves held tiny cremated bones carefully packed into urns, buried under tombstones giving thanks to the gods. One has a carving which has been interpreted as a priest carrying the body of a small child. Some archaeologists and historians saw the finds as proving ancient accounts of child sacrifice; others insisted they showed tender respect for cherished children who died before or soon after birth.

"The inscriptions are unequivocal: time and again we find the explanation that the gods 'heard my voice and blessed me'. It cannot be that so many children conveniently happened to die at just the right time to become an offering – and in any case a poorly or dead child would make a pretty feeble offering if you're already worried about the gods rejecting it." 

"Then there is the fact that the animals from the sites, which were beyond question sacrificial offerings, are buried in exactly the same way, sometimes in the same urns with the bones of the children." Although hundreds of remains were found, there were far too few to represent all the stillbirth and infant deaths of Carthage. According to Quinn, there were perhaps 25 such burials a year, for a city of perhaps 500,000 people. 

The Roman historian Diodorus and other ancient historians gave graphic accounts of Carthaginian child sacrifice: "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping towards the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire."

That last detail is particularly striking. It echoes the abominable practices of the Canaanites, who killed babies and built foundations on the bodies of sacrificed humans (Could the Canaanites be related to the Carthaginians?). Apparently their god - Moloch - was in the form of a humanoid oven with a fire-pit for a belly and arms upon which you placed the baby so that it would roll into the fire.

Now here is the interesting part dear reader. We Westerners would have no hesitation condemning the Carthaginians for their barbaric and wicked practices. In fact part of the reason that the debate in the academy has been so intense is because many do not want to believe that people were that wicked. Nevertheless, and this is very interesting dear reader... how can we - we the 'civilised' people of the West - consider the Carthaginians awful, when we routinely offer up hapless infants to the god Abortion. This really is about us. You and me. How twisted and demented have we become that we can scoff at the Ancients whilst condoning the travesty of little infants being decapitated daily in our midst? Where is the straight thinking in that? Is that why showing pictures of dismembered baby parts is not that exciting to abortionists? Does it make their terribly incoherent logic crumble when the awfulness of their evil is made apparent?

Kyrie Eleison. Lord have mercy.

Want a blossoming democracy today?

The solution is simple—if you have a time machine: Send a 19th-century missionary.

That from a great piece at CT charting the innumerable (and often assumed) blessings of Christianity on our world.

Here is another taster:

Areas where Protestant missionaries had a significant presence in the past are on average more economically developed today, with comparatively better health, lower infant mortality, lower corruption, greater literacy, higher educational attainment (especially for women), and more robust membership in nongovernmental associations.

Read the full thing here

Debunking the overpopulation myth in 3 easy steps

An interesting read from the Population Research Institute with some illuminating graphics (see left) and fun statistics e.g:

- Demographers estimate that at least 20 billion people lived on earth between the years 8000 B.C. and 0 A.D. (That’s right, the idea that half of all people who have ever lived are alive currently is a myth!)

-  Plankton make up 3 times more biomass than all 7 billion humans combined.

- Every man, woman, and child on earth could each have 5 acres of land.

- Every man, woman, and child on earth could each have a half acre of arable land.

- If we wanted to squeeze close, everyone in the world could stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the island of Zanzibar.

Check out the full article here

Chandler v Hitchens - Chandler cornered, not a pretty sight

Chandler from Friends (aka Matthew Perry) was in a debate yesterday with Peter Hitchens (who knows a thing or two about drugs). The debate starts of gently but by the end there is blood on the studio floor! I'll leave you to work out whose...

Ethical dilemmas: Is copying theft?

It all started so innocently. I was once visiting a parishioner and during the course of our conversation it transpired that we both like Mozart. Next thing I know he had copied one of Mozart's concertos for me to listen to. Rather than say something(!) about the illegality of copied music, I smiled and accepted the cd only to later dispose it! Now here is my question, even though it is illegal (I think?!) to copy music in the UK, is it actually theft in the way that stealing has been historically understood? 

Think of it this way when the parishioner copies a concerto for me, how is that comparable to a thug stealing my car? In that latter case I lose and are dispossessed of something I own - my car. With the copying of music however, the record company still has/'owns' the piece of music - but so do I. So are the authorities being accurate when they describe those who copy music as "pirates"/"thieves"? I'm not convinced and the video below makes the point rather humorously: 

Wednesday wit: Happy to be a Postmodern until...

The cartoon below reminds me of a comment by a comedian (I think it was Marcus Brigstocke) saying that he used to be very liberal until his house got burgled and then suddenly he found himself a supporter of capital punishment!

Why sex really matters

The thesis:

1) The Scientific world is 'blinkered' in that it views/presumes that men and women are 99.9% equal

2) Men and women are not equal

3) The study of disease, because it treats the sexes as equal, is flawed. This widespread presumption (of male/female equality) cannot for example account for why some conditions/illnesses are more widespread in women more than men (and vice versa). For example why is that lupus occurs in about 6 times more women than men? And why is that Autism spectrum disorder occurs in about 5 times more boys than girls? David Page argues that the Scientific world has ignored the issue of male/female distinction to the detriment of patient treatment/care. Watch his illuminating talk below...

Abortion: run away, don't throw the life away

Incredible how many different emotions you'll experience watching this!

Death of the NHS predicted 30 years ago

There is one defining cause of the decay of the NHS: the colossal increases in its funding and the barely imaginable multiplication of its senior managers and employees have created an institution which no longer exists for the health of the people it was set up to serve, but for the benefit of the hordes of highly-unionised staff who operate it. This was always predictable and indeed, more than 30 years ago, it was actually predicted by Dr Max Gammon in what has come to be known as Gammon’s Law: 

“In any bureaucratic system… increase in expenditure will be matched by fall in production… Such systems, and particularly the NHS will act rather like black holes in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources, and shrinking in terms of emitted production.” [Via Cranmer's blog]

I hope those like the US of A who are keen to establish a nationalised health system are listening while those here in the UK better get started on a suitable elegy for the not too distant demise of the NHS!

Knox's warning to the Queen

Those who know me know that I'm a big big fan of the Monarchy – – – I love the Queen, I love the palaces, I love the pomp, I love the ceremony, I love the interesting outfits – you name it – if it’s linked to the Monarchy – I’ll be there – I love all things Royal. I think part of my appreciation for the Royal family comes from my being a foreigner – I was born and bred in Kenya (East Africa) and so for me coming to England and seeing an actual Monarch – someone who wears a crown, sits on a throne, has the most fancy outfits ever...        I mean did you see the fantastic robe she wore a couple of months ago for the State opening of parliament? For me those kind of things only occurred in fairy tales and so when I arrived in England I was like wow – it’s for real – an actual Queen – how amazing! The other wonderful thing about the Queen is how she has confidently displayed her Christian faith – regularly seen attending church and over the years speaking winsomely (in her Christmas broadcast) of the unique hope found in the only true Saviour Jesus Christ. It was with deep sadness therefore to read earlier this week of her assent of the homosexual marriage bill into law. I know there is a sense in which her signature was rubber stamping exercise; more a nod to tradition rather than the result of her deliberate consideration. I also partly sympathise with her given the enormous pressure she is under from various clamouring voices and often hostile (i.e. atheistic) viewpoints. Nevertheless she is the Queen – God has given her the right as Sovereign to rule over our Kingdom and to govern her people well. Beyond that she ought to remember that all pomp, glory and esteem will one day fade when we all will stand before the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. If that be the case she ought to adhere and seek out His counsel rather than submit to the folly of our age which is attempting to do the impossible and redefine marriage – an absurd and untenable task, akin to trying to defy gravity or push water uphill. God is the one who determines what’s right or wrong not the houses of parliament or the number 10 policy unit or the European Union. John Knox put this well in a letter that he wrote interestingly to the other Elizabeth reminding her of who the ultimate source of good and righteous laws is: 

Neither the consent of people, process of time, nor multitude of men, can establish a law which God shall approve. But whatsoever He approveth (by His eternal Word) that shall be approved, and whatsoever He dampeneth shall be condemned, though all men on earth hazard justification of the same.

I esteem a lot and pray often for our Queen. I hope therefore that she (and her ministers) will take heed – God’s word not ours determines what's right.

Heart before the course

On this day in July 1949, American missionary and Auca Indian martyr Jim Elliot recorded in his journal:

It is dangerous to get the cart before the horse, but essential in God's program to get the heart before the course

In other words we are to believe in Christ, before we attempt to serve Him. Thus the Christian minister cannot give what he does not already have, he cannot preach what he does not already live