The service in my usual church today has been cancelled as the central heating as broken down. It is a while since I last went preaching on the streets. But today, the Lord has moved me to do so again. It may be freezing cold outside, but the heathens will be out shopping in their droves as usual. But today they will hear the Word of the Lord.
So today, I am going to dust down by trusty old megaphone, and take myself onto the streets of Gloucester, where I shall be preaching a sermon based on Genesis Ch 1 which I have entitled, "God the Creator". And yes, it will expose the lie of evolution and the truth of the literal creation which took place around 7000 years ago, as laid down in Genesis.
Around 7000 years?
ReplyDeleteThe Bible says it was just over 6000.
'The service in my usual church today has been cancelled as the central heating as broken down'
ReplyDeleteDivine intervention then...very goddly!
'but the heathens will be out shopping in their droves as usual'
On a Sunday..?
'And yes, it will expose the lie of evolution'
No it won't..that is just your wishful thinking
'and the truth of the literal creation'
Which it is not either true not creation
'which took place around 7000 years ago,'
Sorry Garv..Nope!
'as laid down in Genesis.'
Where does Genesis mention 7000 years...?
Actually the centre of Gloucester's not that big. I have friends who live there. A quick message or two on Facebook telling them to look out for an Irishmen preaching rubbish through a megaphone and and we could have a picture of Garvan on the 'net by the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteOh ye (well, they) of little faith - swanning off just because the heating's broken down. However did they manage in really religion-infested days like the Middle Ages?
ReplyDeleteOh, of course - they were promised Alternative Warming if they defected: starting at the stake, followed by the strong stuff in Hell, weren't they?
"Actually the centre of Gloucester's not that big. I have friends who live there. A quick message or two on Facebook telling them to look out for an Irishmen preaching rubbish through a megaphone and and we could have a picture of Garvan on the 'net by the end of the day."
ReplyDeleteA good idea, of course Garvan's street babbling may just be in his own mind in which case there would be nothing to see. However a failure to spot a deranged Irish religionist would cast serious doubt on Garvan's veracity.
'However a failure to spot a deranged Irish religionist would cast serious doubt on Garvan's veracity.'
ReplyDeleteThe megaphone Yellowcat...don't forget the megaphone!...easy to hear on a calm Sunday afternoon methinks.
Here's a message from Garvan's friend Rick Santorum
ReplyDeleteSo was Garvan spotted on Sunday?
ReplyDeleteSome very good education news:
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach.
The government has announced that "free" schools that wish to teach creationism or intelligent design as science in the classroom will not receive funding.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/15/free-schools-creationism-intelligent-design
I hope you had a good day of preaching Garvan. It is always refreshing to hear of fellow brothers in Christ prepared to give up their time to spread the Word, especially against Satan's great lie (evolution).
ReplyDelete" especially against Satan's great lie (evolution)."
ReplyDeleteespecially against Satan's great lie (creation science).
Corrected it for you Bill.
By the way, Bill, you still have some outstanding questions on the Obscenity Trial post.
ReplyDeleteFor example, do you believe a married couple, where the woman has no womb and cannot therefore bear children, should have sex?
What about post-menopausal women?
Or couples where the man is sterile?
Do you practice foreplay? If so, what is considered acceptable. Support your assertions from the Bible.
Also, Bill, do you believe the Bible talks of a geocentric universe, where the sun goes around the earth? If not, why is Garvan wrong when he believes that it does?
ReplyDeleteI think bill is a sock puppet!
ReplyDeleteWhat? Someone has their hand up his bum? I thought he didn't go into that kind of thing ...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI would respond as follows:
For example, do you believe a married couple, where the woman has no womb and cannot therefore bear children, should have sex?
The two are already one flesh so it does not matter.
What about post-menopausal women?
Ditto.
Or couples where the man is sterile?
Ditto (assuming marriage)
Do you practice foreplay? If so, what is considered acceptable. Support your assertions from the Bible.
I have never had a sexual encounter with a women in my life. I am in my late 20s. And yes, I am proud of that.
"do you believe the Bible talks of a geocentric universe, where the sun goes around the earth? If not, why is Garvan wrong when he believes that it does?"
The Bible teaches no such thing. If Garvan believes it does, then he needs to justify that.
"The Bible teaches no such thing. If Garvan believes it does, then he needs to justify that."
ReplyDeleteInteresting - so whilst both of you claim the Bible is literal and inerrant, and that such a belief is actually essential to salvation, at least one of you must be wrong and basing their faith on a lie.
At least one of you isn't saved.
Oh dear.
Which one is it? Bill or Garvan?
With regard to the sex, then, if sterile married couples can have sex, it rather defeats your view that sex is only for procreation - they are having purely recreational sex, even if it is within marriage.
ReplyDeleteSo what are the boundaries of that sex? What foreplay, roleplay, positions or activities would you consider acceptable, and which would you consider unacceptable. Support your position.
After all, you have declared certain things as being so awful that you think the perpetrators are mentally ill. and yet they can be practised by a married couple, even one that can't have sex for any other reason than recreational sex.
So someone with no experience of sex, who therefore has not managed to have any meaningful relationship with a woman thinks that he is a suitable person to advise others, when he clearly has serious and unresolved emotional issues himself.
ReplyDeleteBill, really you should try some recreational sex, it can be great fun.
Bill what is your view on abortion?
"Bill what is your view on abortion?"
ReplyDeleteThere's trolling and there's TROLLING :)
I'm sure Bill does engage in recreational sex. Just not with other people.
I believe that abortion = murder and abortionists should be treated as murderers (ie, death penalty or life imprisonment).
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I do not engage in recreational sex. I intend to engage in sexual relations as and when the Lord gifts me with a wife, not before then. Only on marriage in sex possible, when the two become one flesh. That is why homosexuals can never be together in the eyes of God. They cannot become one.
Hi Bill,
ReplyDeleteYou never answered my question as to what counts as recreational sex between a married couple.
What is allowed and what is forbidden? And justify your answers.
(I love the way you say 'Lord gifts you with a wife.' Makes her sound like a new fridge.)
You know how some children are abused by their parents?
ReplyDeleteDo you know what the child abuse rate is in households with lesbian parents?
Go on, guess.
Bill is scared by the idea that two people of the same can love and respect each other as much as two people of the opposite gender.
ReplyDeleteHe reckons they chose that.
He's obviously never been in love with another person.
Love - romantic love - is not a choice.
But Bill can prove it is if he wants to. Is he ready to take the challenge?
Bill, may be you can tell us when you think abortion would be a suitable treatment, if you can not think of any possible cases then you have not given the matter serious thought and are a very shallow and cruel person.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Bill is scared by the idea that two people of the same can love and respect each other as much as two people of the opposite gender.
He reckons they chose that.
He's obviously never been in love with another person.
Love - romantic love - is not a choice."
Indeed Bill does come across as emotionally crippled, which is why he chooses to love a fictional character rather than a real person, I would say that he is one of the last people who should be giving advice to anyone.
Of course homosexuality is a choice, otherwise they would have pinpointed a "gay gene" years ago. People turn homosexual for all sorts of reasons (ie, desire for a bit of 'something different' or for the thrill of the 'taboo factor'.)
ReplyDeleteUtter nonsense garvan. Don't use terms like "gay gene" as though you think you have the slightest understanding of biology.
ReplyDeleteHuman sexuality is a spectrum, most people are mostly heterosexual some are more bisexual and open to experimentation while others are exclusively homosexual, have no choice in the matter and have been aware of their sexuality most of their lives.
This indicates that the cause is definitely biological.
What about other animals that are homosexual? Did they just decide to be different?
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
ReplyDelete"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
ReplyDeleteAnd then encouraged Abel and Eve.
Still no answer on what you regard as acceptable foreplay by a married couple, Bill.
ReplyDeleteActually the Bible's quite interesting. Apparently humans got started because Eve had sex with her sons as well as with Adam. So the idea of a man and a woman becoming 'one flesh' wasn't really an original intent.
ReplyDeleteCreationists will tell you that as the human genome became 'corrupted' this wasn't possible any more - the issues caused by inbreeding took effect.
So later on the Bible forbids marriage (ie sex) between close relations. Although Noah and his family were obviously having sex with close relations as well (even that can't explain current human genetic diversity, though, but that's another story).
So, according to the Bible, you shouldn't have sex with your sister not because it's immoral, but because it's not biologically sound. If you could correct the genetic problems then I guess they think it would be OK.
Finally, why is it always 'Adam and Steve', and not 'Maeve and Eve'? In other words, why do people like Bill only ever rail against male homosexuality?
ReplyDeleteBill said...
ReplyDelete"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
God made nothing, god is the creation of humans, an artefact of the brain. Humans evolved from other primates,in one species of very close evolutionary relatives, the Bonobo their society seems to be organised much like a swingers party.
Bill do you seriously believe that abortion is unacceptable under any circumstances?
ReplyDeleteCan you please attempt to offer justification for your position, try and avoid recourse to superstition if possible.
The thing is that when Garvan and Bill say 'being gay is a choice' what they mean is 'engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same gender is a choice'. So, in that respect, it's a choice in the same way as being heterosexual is. I don't know about Garvan or Bill, but I chose whether I have sex or not.
ReplyDeleteHowever being attracted to someone isn't a choice, as anyone who has been in love or even just fancied someone will know. And despite what Garvan and Bill tell you, being gay isn't about sexual acts - it's just about being attracted to people who happen to be the same gender.
Personally I find women attractive. Not all women. Some don't do anything for me. So I find very attractive. My wife finds men attractive. Not all men. Some don't do anything for her.
We both find each other very attractive. That wasn't a choice. The choice was in deciding that we found each other attractive enough that we want to spend the rest of our lives together.
The thing is, Garvan and Bill are both saying that any man can, if he so chooses, go out and start finding men attractive. Try it. I have. Couldn't manage it. Try as I might, I couldn't find other men attractive. I'm sure I could have found opportunities to have sex with other men (but didn't, obviously, despite the fact it's been offered*), but that's not the same - there wouldn't have been any attraction.
So, to reiterate, being gay isn't a choice. The actions that stem from it are, but no more so than those that stem from being heterosexual.
*I have certain advantages in that area with regard to attracting certain types of men. Those who know me will know what I mean :)
In relation to abortion, the Bible says DO NOT KILL, so that is why I believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI think Kaptain Kobold has confirmed that sexuality is very much a subjective matter and depends on our own desires. Irrespective of what people "feel" about others, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and therefore I believe it to be so.
I have counselled many confused teenagers over the years about these matters, and nearly all of them have realised these feelings are just a passing phase and can be resolved with prayer, support and guidance from a loving Christian community.
"I think Kaptain Kobold has confirmed that sexuality is very much a subjective matter and depends on our own desires."
ReplyDeleteI also said that it wasn't a choice. Don't haul me as someone who agrees with you, because I certainly don't.
"Irrespective of what people "feel" about others, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong"
Only your interpretation of it. Which is as subjective - more subjective - that people's sexuality will ever be. It has been pointed out that you and Garvan show that with your differing views of geocentrism and whether animals have souls.
"I have counselled many confused teenagers over the years about these matters, and nearly all of them have realised these feelings are just a passing phase"
'Nearly all'? And what of the ones who didn't? Tell us about them.
Were they all members of your 'church'? Or, at least, from families with an association with the 'church'?
And how many of those "confused teenagers" ended up not just confused but self-loathing, or determined to go ahead and try to form a heterosexual relationship that resulted in two people being unhappy due to your counselling?
ReplyDeleteIf Bill has done as he has said then he has probably caused a lot of damage to vulnerable people, if he had any decency he would be ashamed of himself.
ReplyDeleteBill said..."Bible says DO NOT KILL, so that is why I believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances."
Before that he said "abortionists should be treated as murderers (ie, death penalty "
So in the space of a few posts ch contradicts himself.
He quite clearly has no concern for people and would be happy to risk a woman's life rather than simply removing a clump of cells that may spontaneously abort any way.
If you restrict abortions and women go to dodgy providers.... if they can't afford to just leave for an area where they can get abortions, then yes women die. Plenty of world wide examples of that:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3776113
or
http://isla.igc.org/Features/Globalization/AbortionsEng.html
But how is this for just lovely? Apparently with no opt out for victims of sexual violence:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-abortion-texas-idUSTRE8091XF20120110
'Rights' eroded and removed step by step.
That is why all decent people need to support a woman's right to chose. Fascist extremists such as Bill should never be allowed allowed to inflict their warped beliefs on real people.
There was a case in Ireland where a pregnant under age rape victim was forced to take case to court and threaten suicide etc etc to be allowed to travel to obtain her needed abortion.
Maybe Bill thinks but the poor girl needed to be punished for being raped by being forced to carry the traumatic pregnancy to term?
What about ectopic pregnancy, or women suffering from cancer where chemotherapy would cause a pregnancy to terminate?
Either bill is being incredibility simplistic and has not really given the matter any thought, or he has thought about it and does not care, in which case he is a seriously sick, evil, twisted apology for a human being.
Yellowcat - thank you and well said.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for Bill to tell us what he regards as acceptable foreplay for a married couple.
ReplyDeleteSomehow I have a sneaking feeling Bill thinks foreplay is entirely pointless - it's not supposed to be fun, especially not for the woman. With any luck, there will either never be a Mrs Bill, or she'll swiftly disabuse him of this notion.
ReplyDelete" it's not supposed to be fun, especially not for the woman."
ReplyDeleteHe's obviously never read 'The Song Of Solomon' :)
>"He's obviously never read 'The Song Of Solomon"
ReplyDeleteWhich starts out with lots of dodgy "Carry On" style nudge-nudge descriptions and is then largly just a list of really cheesy chat-up lines and doesn't fit well with the religious nonsense that it has been squished in with.
>"Thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks,
thy hair is as a flock of goats,
that appear from mount Gil'e-ad.
Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn,
which came up from the washing;
whereof every one bear twins,
and none is barren among them.
Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely:
thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.
Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armory,
whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, "
Etc, etc, blah, blah.
Most christian religionists seem unaware of its content. And they like quoting from all the lists of things that you can't do, but they don't like quoting all the frisky stuff in Solomon. I wonder why?