Blair feared faith ‘nutter’ label
In an interview for BBC One’s The Blair Years, he said that his faith had been “hugely important” to his premiership.
His ex-spokesman Alastair Campbell once told reporters: “We don’t do God.”
Mr Campbell has now acknowledged to the programme that his former boss “does do God in quite a big way”, but that both men feared the public would be wary.
But while it was commonplace in the US and elsewhere for politicians to talk about their religious convictions, he added, “you talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you’re a nutter”.
British voters imagined that leaders who were informed by religion would “commune with the man upstairs and then come back and say ‘Right, I’ve been told the answer and that’s it’”.
Wow, that’s quite a different take on religion and politics from what we’re used to: if an American politician doesn’t “plug” their own beliefs, which better coincide with those of the majority, they’re burned in effigy.
Isn’t that ironic, though? Here’s a country that is based on the principles of the separation of church and state, it’s one of the main articles of the Constitution, the founding fathers left England in search of religious freedom and now our friends across the pond embody more of our principles than we do.
Given a few years, will Americans be making the “return” journey to the British Isles?
#1 by lisaoflongbourn on 2007/11/25 - 1.11 PM
I liked this article; very interesting to hear about Blair’s faith. I’d be interested to know more of what he believes.
But you are wrong about America. Separation of church and state is not one of the main articles of the Constitution; in fact it isn’t in the Constitution. Perhaps you were confusing the common slogan with this actual quote from the Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Note it has nothing to do with a candidate or elected official mentioning or making decisions based on his faith. The voters can make their decision based on whatever they want, including their faith and the faith of candidates. Government can have prayers; military can have chaplains. The only prohibition is for the federal government (not for any other group)to make a LAW establishing a religion or (a LAW) prohibiting the (people’s) free exercise of religion.
I agree it’s ironic, though. England broke with the Roman Empire over religion, becoming the nation it is today. Pilgrims sought freedom in the New World because the government controlled a sometimes corrupt, economically-driven state church in England. And because of the persecution of dissenters, many strong independent religious movements were birthed, and transferred to America (Great Awakenings). Now England is so atheistic. And America is following, just like you said. Sad, though.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
#2 by FuzzyGamer on 2007/11/26 - 11.02 PM
You’re right, the separation of church and state is not present in the Constitution, I guess I was reading into the phrase
something that wasn’t there. How silly of me.
I won’t argue what the Constitution says or how it can be interpreted.
I will, however, say this: I wish Americans were more like the English. If the population made it clear that they expect their officials to make decisions based on facts and material evidence, as opposed to insight afforded them by an imaginary figure, we would have the separation of church and state, even without it being written out word for word in the Constitution.
The problem is not with the Constitution, it is with the people. We give the politicians the support they are looking for. A few weeks ago the Governor of Georgia held a prayer vigil asking God for rain. The Governor flat-out admitted that people have caused the problem (“We have not been good stewards of our land. We have not been good stewards of our water.”), then disregarded all scientific and reality-based solutions and appealed to an imaginary being (“Lord, have mercy on your people, have mercy on us and grant us rain”). What has gone wrong here? The Constitution says nothing about praying for rain, so it kept quite. But people should not. Residents of Alabama should have been unanimous in declaring the Governor a “nutter”, as I suppose our neighbors across the pond would have done. But Alabamans didn’t.
When you say “sad, though”, you’re referring to the fact that England is atheistic? I did not imply that America was “following”, in the sense that America was becoming more atheistic right along with England. We may be going in the same direction, but England is farther ahead and is leaving us in the dust.
Can we spread the glory between other fictional characters? I’m reading “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” right now and think that Huck definitely deserves a bit of that glory, as does Homer Simpson, Princess Leia, the prophet Muhammad and of course James Bond.
#3 by lisaoflongbourn on 2007/11/26 - 11.23 PM
Muhammad is not a fictional character. Huck Finn, Homer Simpson, Princess Leia, and James Bond all confess to being fictional. But when a person lives on the earth and makes claims, you have to look at the evidence. No historian doubts the real existence of Muhammad or Jesus. They both made claims about who they were and what happened to them. I have faith in Jesus Christ because His claims stand up to evidence. I believe He can send rain because He could provide bread for thousands, walk on water, and calm storms as attested in the most consistent, documented historical text ever. The authors of those texts died for what they wrote therein. If what they wrote was not true at the time, it would be like me claiming that I saw Denver flooded. Everyone would know it didn’t happen, and know that my testimony was fiction. But there was no massive outcry against the gospels. The authors appealed to the authority of witnesses who could verify their story.
Not only do I believe that God can send rain because of Jesus’ life, but because there is rain, and there is me, and there is the capacity to think and to believe. If there is no God, then there is no basis on which to consider my thoughts and interpretations as valid, because they come from what atheists must necessarily consider a random blob of tissue and electric impulses: a brain, no more capable, without divine design and logic and information and language, of comprehension than tea leaves.
At least in some points you are logical. I appreciate your admission that separation of church and state is not constitutional. What is also good progress is that you recognize the battleground in a republic: the wills and minds of the people who elect officials. I mourn that so few people consider the revelation of God when choosing their leaders. You mourn that so many do. At least we agree where we contend.
I think you said that you weren’t implying that America was following England towards larger percentages of atheists, and then you said we’re going in the same direction. At least you understood me. I am sad that England has so abandoned God, and I am sad that America has so (but so far to a lesser degree) abandoned Him.
As a complete side note, I am apalled that I used “, though” twice in the same paragraph above. What sad writing. My apologies.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Again, thank you for the factual information you provided concerning former Prime Minister Blair and the English people. I find it culturally relevant and representative.
#4 by FuzzyGamer on 2007/11/27 - 6.20 PM
I’m glad you’re picking up on my mistakes, thank you.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said that Muhammad was a fictional character. But Jesus was. Yes, there may have been someone called Jesus of Nazareth who lived from about 2 BC to 36 AD. No, there was no one called Jesus of Nazareth who lived from about 2 BC to 36 AD and healed people of leprosy, walked on water, fed thousands with one loaf of bread or anything else the Bible may say about him. Your argument of “it’s written, therefore it must be true” is just as bad as “it says it’s true, therefore it must be true”. If you actually live by this reasoning, how do you reconcile the differences presented in the Bible, the Torah, the Qur’an, the collected works on Scientology and a sticky-note in my wallet? About the latter: the sticky-note says “Jesus was a serial killer and a rapist. He robbed people and kicked dogs. Instead of blood, hamster diarrhea flowed throw his veins.” See, that note exists, there is no massive outcry against it and, just like the rest of the works I mentioned, it is completely unfounded in reality or scientific fact.
The brain is a blob of tissue and electric impulses, but not a random one. Human brains are the products of a billion years of evolution. That is not random.
#5 by lisaoflongbourn on 2007/11/27 - 8.18 PM
If evolution is not random, what is it?
Does a blob of tissue and electric impulses grant credence to your thoughts or logic?
Why did you put in quotes, “if it’s written, therefore it must be true”? I didn’t say that. I said the Bible makes claims that Homer Simpson doesn’t, so you have to consider the claims. You provided no evidence that Jesus did not do what you said, and I provided the logical explanation of historic witnesses to the written account.
For a full treatment of evidences for Jesus’ life as recorded in the Bible, I refer you to Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Not to slack off on the argument, but there is too much evidence and too many arguments to put in a comment on a blog.
My intent here is to be as honest and logical as possible while pointing out where your comments and post are falacious, illogical, dishonest, and ad hominem. So if anyone else is reading, both sides of this discussion will be fairly represented.
For the record, since neither you nor anyone alive are eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, there would be no validity to a massive outcry against your post-it note from your wallet. You were clearly not following my argument. But I believe that your post-it note, allegedly written two millenia after the events they report and without any historic, scientific, or archaeological corroboration, is considerably less reliable than the Bible. I find what it says to be inconsistent with historical sources, and so logically discredity your post-it, without massive outcry.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
#6 by FuzzyGamer on 2007/11/28 - 1.01 AM
Evolution is not random: the changes that increase the population will remain, while the others will be pushed out. Sure, the mutation that bring about the changes are random, but that is not evolution. Evolution is merely the process through which the changes are reinforced or weeded out, be that random or not.
I’m sorry you interpreted the quotes as me quoting you, I was merely summarizing your position, that since the Bible exists, since “there was no massive outcry against the gospels”, then the Bible must be true.
The burden of proof is not on me. I do not need to show that Jesus of Nazareth did not produce matter out of thin air (feeding thousand with only a few loaves of bread). Is your proof of this simply that the Bible says so? Or that the Bible says so and no one has corrected it?
Once again, how do you reconcile that logic with other religious texts that make contradictory claims? Or with science? Scientific knowledge has been scrutinized more than the authors of the gospels: constantly on-going scientific research proves, time and time again, concepts that flat-out contradict statements made in the Bible.
OK, I am more than happy to discredit the sticky-note in my wallet. While we’re at it, can we discredit the Bible, or at least parts of it that are inconsistent with historical sources? For example, let’s toss out a bit of Genesis: the Bible’s claim of a 7 day story of creation is inconsistent with archaeological evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years (and the universe is something like 13.7 billion years old); the story of Noah’s ark, which runs into a wall on a number of points, such as the sheer size of the Ark (an obscene excess of wooden ship construction) and the logistics of its cargo (gathering, transporting and caring for all the animals); the proposition of the story of the Tower of Babel as the explanation for humanity’s wide-spread presence on the planet is contradictory to the hundreds, if not thousands, of archaeological finds that predate the Biblical event by thousands of years.
#7 by lisaoflongbourn on 2007/11/28 - 9.51 AM
Archaeology is the study of manmade objects from the past. Are you saying there is archaeological evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
I think you mean geological. Which means you assume at least one of the following, and maybe other things as well: 1. A geological column with specified ages. 2. Radiometric dating is correct.
Unfortunately, your heavily scrutinized science is done by scientists who concur on similar assumptions. Like those who study the Bible assuming there must be a natural explanation for things or they didn’t happen (as in your objection to “gathering” the animals for Noah’s ark. He didn’t gather them. God brought them.)
I reconcile logic with other religious texts because they do not have inner consistency, or historical evidence. The Bible does. Again, I refer you to a much larger volume on the evidence that exists, Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict. For matters of evolution, you can look at http://www.icr.org at which, among other things, some amazing Ph.D.’s have been working on a cosmology that explains all the evidence in our earth’s crust much better than any naturalist has composed. Their cosmology is, however, entirely natural. It simply used the Bible as a guidebook to discovering it, much as Newton and other famous scientists have done. They also deeply address radiometric dating.
Note in my last comment I did not use the word evolution to say that your brain is random. You admitted that in the theory of evolution, your brain came about by random mutations (selected by natural selection or whatever mechanism you believe in). The mutations still happened randomly. There is still not evidence for your thoughts to have any validity.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
#8 by lisaoflongbourn on 2007/11/28 - 11.46 AM
Ok, I did say evolution, but not when I first brought it up.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
#9 by FuzzyGamer on 2007/11/28 - 7.49 PM
You’re right, I did mean “geological” in one instance.
The heavily scrutinized science is done by scientists who concur on similar assumptions that 2+2=4. The rest are testable theories, not assumptions that have never been tested. That is the difference between science and the Bible. In science, if a scientist is presented with a new theory, he is also presented with the information to test and verify the theory for himself. If I say that I’ve discovered a new property of plastic cups to reflect x-rays, another scientist can test by theory by placing a plastic cup in front of an x-ray machine and seeing if the x-rays are indeed bouncing off. Does the Bible make any claims which can be verified?
Thank you for saying that. I haven’t laughed so hard in quite a while. My coworkers must think I’ve gone insane. The Bible has inner consistency? Not only can the Bible not agree on the simple things, like which came first, the trees (Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27) or man (Genesis 2:4-9), or whether Jesus began his ministry after the arrest of John the Baptist (Mark 1:14) or before (John 3:22-24), but it contradicts itself on a few big things, such as the question of blasphemy being an unforgivable sin (Mark 3:29) or not (Acts 13:39, Colossians 2:13, 1 John 1:9). (For more contradictions, and the source of the ones I mentioned, go to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html)
Yes, I’m aware of the Institute for Creation Research. They can show that the Bible is compatible with theory of the Big Bang, but only if you squint real hard, assume that 1=3 (nothing new for Christianity, right?) and disgard non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian theories of light travel. If I did that, I could show that I’m made of chocolate. Of course, if anyone tries to make any verifiable predictions based on this new “science”, they’d fall flat on their face. I’ve tried eating my fingers, they don’t taste of chocolate. More importantly, all around us is technology that depends on those principles. If we are to disregard them, we then have to explain all over again exactly how this technology works (for example GPS systems), and how it happened that the now-invalid theories have been valid all this time and have been the basis for other tested and verified theories. I have no problem with this procedure, by the way, as the pruning of false assumptions and theories is the basis for science. I can discard the theory of evolution in a heartbeat if an alternative is proposed that can more easily explain the problems with the old theory and make more accurate predictions. I don’t think that you feel the same way about discarding parts of the Bible when a better theory comes along.
Can you please explain the statement about my thoughts having validity? Are you saying that the sum of the parts cannot be more than the parts? That without God’s interference the random blob of tissue and electric impulses can be no more than a random blob of tissue and electric impulses?
#10 by lisaoflongbourn on 2007/11/28 - 9.49 PM
I’m trying very hard not to attack you personally here. But you have, in this comment series alone, thrown up so many refutable points that I don’t know where to begin.
Let me answer your question. I am saying that the random blob of tissue and electric impulses, while according to your belief producing consciousness, still has no validity. You have no grounds on which to believe that your brain is rational. You have no grounds to believe that rationality exists. In the beginning was information, logic, the word. You are trying to say that a book can be read without language, when letters were “naturally selected” into their places. Without the language, there is no meaning.
ICR is not interested in making the Bible compatible with the Big Bang. It is refuting the Big Bang. Darwin motivated scientists to devise cosmologies that fit with a natural explanation for the world. His theory of evolution revolutionized the science world, and changed a lot of long-held scientific methods and beliefs. The science held prior to his publications, to some extent, were functional sciences. ICR is saying that we can revolutionize science again in a way that explains the world we find when we study it, better than the big bang cosmologies based on assumptions like a consistent decay rate for radioactive materials. As far as I know, and I heard them speaking on their latest theories just this summer, they are not trying to throw out Einstein (though I would have no problem with that if it turns out he was wrong; nor do I think he would object; I’m sure he threw enough of his own theories away).
The reason technologies work is because they are circularly based on assumptions. The factors can be shown, scientifically, to correlate at a consistent ratio. Either that or they aren’t based so much on cosmologies as you think.
The Bible is consistent.
1. God created trees before man. On the sixth day of history, He created a garden, in which He placed the man he just formed. Then he specifically planted the trees in the garden, and made one of each type of animal in front of Adam so that they could be named. Chapter two is not revising chapter 1. It begins on day six.
2. Mark 1:14 plainly says that this passage begins when Jesus went to Galilee, while John is talking about a time when Jesus went to Judea. Clearly these are not the same times. What’s your point?
3. Mark 3 says that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. I understand the meaning of this phrase is not immediately clear to everyone, but it is commonly understood to refer to rejecting the Holy Spirit’s convicting the soul of its need for salvation. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is in essence rejecting forgiveness, and that is unforgiveable. What you said, “blasphemy is unforgivable,” is refuted by Mark 3:28, which says all blasphemies will be forgiven, but… (and then it lists on specific kind of blasphemy as the exception.) Additionally, the other passages you quoted were written to believers, those who had already received the Holy Spirit and were thus not guilty of the specific blasphemy. They were redeemed, atoned for, and forgiven.
I’ll put the refutations of radiometric dating assumptions here to make it easier to find. To calculate a date based on radioactive decay, you assume: Rate of decay is constant (which there is evidence has not been the case), ratios in the former environment were the same as today, and there has been no contamination of the sample.
The technology for detecting C-14 can measure ages to an upper limit of 95,000 years (assuming there has been no change in decay rate). This is the smallest amount our instruments can detect. If C-14 is detected at all, the sample has to be 95,000 years old or less. Not even a single C-14 atom could remain in an item that is 1,000,000 years old. Not one atom. Naturalist scientists have conveniently and without any evidence adjusted for what is called a “radiocarbon barrier.” This assumption universally assumes that all samples have been contaminated with enough C-14 in situ that would account for 40,000 years of age. However, this yields infinite ages for some objects. This is not science. It is an assumption to make their testing functionally compatible with an old-age view of the earth, including the pre-cambrian (in geological column) marbile, granite, and calcite which contain C-14. Diamonds, which are so hard that they are impossible to contaminate, include C-14, even those found 100 mi. beneath the earth’s crust. These diamonds are still believed to be 1-3 billion years old.
Talk about inconsistent! And this is just one example. Josh McDowell records dates taken from radiometric techniques that gave varying ages for a single tusk by millions of years. Somehow I think not. The RATE team at ICR made predictions based on their creation-based cosmology concerning helium diffusion rates in 1998. They published their predictions in 2000, and were able to measure their prediction in 2001 (an outside lab, with no idea of their predictions, did the measurements). To their utter amazement, the data statistically matched their predictions perfectly, rendering the evolutionary cosmology’s predictions wrong by a factor of 100,000 times. That’s a lot.
In response to your objection about the ark of Noah, it has no specific objection. Studies have been done on the dimensions of the ark and found that its size would uniquely enable it to maintain stability in a catastrophic flood. It also allows for storing food and giving the kinds of animals plenty of space. Answers in Genesis has a great collection of articles ranging from technical to easy to read answering all the questions and objections about the ark. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp Most questions can be answered by taking the dimensions in Genesis literally, realizing that Noah made the ark according to God’s scheme, details for which were not put in the Bible, and that on board were representatives of every kind of animal, which does not always correspond directly to our species list.
The Tower of Babel is not particularly an explanation for the dispersion of man across the globe. But there is no logical objection to all mankind residing in a Middle-Eastern region at one point, and migrating from there to the other continents. Evolution would require the same thing. Your objection seems to be based yet again on dates, this time actually for archaeology. Again, the dates are based on assumptions made by men who rejected the biblical account and were not open to younger ages. Sometimes ancient cultures inflated their dynasty ages to make them seem more impressive, maybe. Or maybe they historicized mythology. Maybe they, like modern man, preferred to believe in an ancient world and rejected evidence to the contrary. The RATE study and discordant dates should be sufficient to cast doubt on any dates assigned to geology or to archaeology.
Unwrapping the Pharaohs is a new book (by a Ph.D. scientist) providing an alternate interpretation of a famous archaeology. Christians find reason to question the “accepted” dates and timelines. They go in with scientific perspectives and provide alternate, natural theories/explanations. At least consider them. Geology is experiencing a quiet trend toward explaining phenomenon by catastrophe, as opposed to the dominant explanation prevalent in Darwin’s scientific community, of slow erosion and sedimentation. Creation scientists have been arguing for catastrophic geology for at least decades. Give us some credit!
However, you are right. Ultimately I find it more sound to believe in a book proven trustworthy, valid, and true through millenia than to be carried about with every “better” changing theory that fallible scientists produce. Scientists have been wrong way too many times for me to give up my faith because anti-God propagandists suggest a contradictory scientific explanation. History shows the Bible has been validated after futher research.
Ok, I think I’ve addressed everything I can or am willing to that you have posted so far. Obviously no one can prove that Jesus did or did not multiply loaves and fish to feed five thousand men. We can only test the reliability of the witnesses and documents which tell us he did so. One thing Josh McDowell points out in Evidence that Demands a verdict is that if we use the same literary tests for historicity that we apply to all ancient literature, we either accept the Bible is true or throw out every literary source for our understanding of history that exists. The Bible is more reliable than they are. That can be proven. It has. Read the book.
Look, I don’t want to run away from a debate. But I don’t want to keep arguing if you’re going to use illustrations like chocolate fingers, x-ray glasses, and 2+2=4 (unless the math has direct application). I am convinced the Bible is true. I believe that this country had better trust in God, or God will judge it. I believe the people have the right to vote their conscience in America, and if my conscience asks that I vote for someone who shares my dependence on God, that is my right. Your right is to not vote for such a person if you feel it would be wrong or detrimental to your country.
There is an answer to everything, which can be found with little searching. Hopefully this conversation has given every reader a sufficient selection to prompt them to research farther. I cannot promise to continue the conversation on any additional points.
http://www.icr.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.josh.org/apologetics
http://www.blueletterbible.org
and feel free to read my blog or the links it contains for a sample of what a comprehensive understanding of the Bible and a biblical worldview looks like.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
#11 by FuzzyGamer on 2007/11/28 - 10.13 PM
I guess all I can say is “thanks for stopping by”.