That man again!

 

Who cares about history?

I will not dignify D. A.'s remarks with a response! That is very humble of me!

Lalaland or 'Realpolitik'

"The first duty of any Government is to safeguard its people against external aggression. To guarantee the survival of our way of life. (M. Thatcher, 1976)" = Speech at Kensington Town Hall ("Britain Awake") (The Iron Lady) | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

Only one as dangerously naive as Jeremy Corbyn (in 1990) would disagree. "It is sad that the Minister and many Conservative Members seem to be pretending that the Soviet Union is our enemy. I do not believe that it has ever intended to invade western Europe. That theory was put forward by NATO and the Marshall plan. Today, they are once again seeking to raise the spectre of some Russian menace. A country that lost 20 million people in the second world war fighting fascism is not about to embark on a war against anyone." Source: First Day's Debate - Hansard - UK Parliament. 

Do I need to mention Ukraine? Starmer served under Corbyn! And then there was D. Abbott (https://found21.blogspot.com/2025/11/blog-post.html). 

We have such short memories! At least we have access to Hansard - at this present time that is! 

Fire from above not below !!!

 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1836822470232764 

I note that “God is not done with Scotland” (sic), but we do not know how and when God’s Spirit moves and when a candlestick is about to be removed.

I also note that ‘the church’ (whatever that term might mean) is “to reignite the fire”. For real? What about Zechariah 4:6? Or, Luke 12:49? Or, John 15:5? Well - one must not be a Bible-basher or frighten people, who are looking for safe spaces, with the Gospel!

What has been forgotten is the sovereignty of God – who elects and reprobates. Nothing happens unless He alone wills and moves.

We have been witnessing God’s departing (if not yet departed) glory in many places. We need to be with Elijah on Mt. Carmel, not with the Baal worshippers, if we want to see the fire fall - 'senkrecht von oben'!

Behind this forthcoming event one detects the ashes of the heresy of Pelagianism with its origin in an other fire – from the pit!

With Christ no longer being the head of the national Church, the church has been decapitated, breathing less and less and soon becoming a corpse! 

An old hymn may be of some help:

O thou who camest from above

the fire celestial to impart,

kindle a flame of sacred love

on the mean altar of my heart.

There let it for thy glory burn

with inextinguishable blaze,

and trembling to its source return

in humble prayer and fervent praise.

Jesus, confirm my heart's desire

to work and speak and think for thee;

still let me guard the holy fire

and still stir up the gift in me.

Still let me prove thy perfect will,

my acts of faith and love repeat,

till death thy endless mercies seal,

and make the sacrifice complete.

Beware of any red flags !!!

Today's Daily Telegraph must be fake news and is completely biased. Surely, white flags, Palestinian flags and rainbow flags are safe enough. 

The value of a human life

Published letter in the Berwickshire News (July 2025)

In the light of the recent political vote on abortion, please allow me to point out to your readers that animal cruelty, according to the ‘Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024’ (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2024/4/pdfs/asp_20240004_en.pdf ), may result in a hefty fine or even imprisonment.

The unborn child has been not afforded the same legal status since 1967. And yet, there is me still naively thinking as a Christian that Jesus is still right all along (see Matthew 10:31).

Those involved in abortion have not necessarily committed the unforgivable sin, but I am not so sure about politicians who have no hesitation when it comes to discriminating against the most vulnerable in our society, the unborn, the disabled, the poor, and the elderly. The cheapening of human life will cost all of us dearly.

'Lousy' and 'thick'

Watching Justin Welby has done wonders for my blood-pressure. On the positive side, he seems rather affable, a smooth operator, in touch with the world’s thinking (though always cautiously a step behind), just kind of nice.

Notwithstanding Justin Welby’s ingenuous self-designation as a "conservative believer in biblical truth" (c. 31:28), he is all over the place, which means ‘neither here nor there’, but then Anglicanism is a broad church, though less so – and thankfully – in Africa.

His misplaced egological humility (my apologies to Uriah Heep; at least Charles Dickens cannot sue me!) on the clear teaching of biblical sexuality may be forgiven since on his own admission, he is a ‘lousy theologian’ (c. 1.17), and I really do not wish to contradict him at all. He is also, on his own admission, just 'thick' (c. 36:34). I always used to think that ’thick’ people do not know they are ‘thick’! I just don’t get it, I guess! 

But Welby is not 'thick'! He is fully versed in what Jesus Himself teaches about human sexuality (c. 34:53), i.e. ‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’, but audaciously goes on to contradict what is clearly taught in Scripture. He is ashamed, fearful and untruthful, speaking with a forked tongue. His conscience certainly is not bound to the Word of God, but to the spirit of the age.

Bird is for the birds and Wright is wrong

 

Watching these two men discussing the resurrection (see c. 7:04) makes Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s attempt to synthesise opposing truths look positively dumb. Bird and Wright seem more muddled than Marcus Borg and Rudolf Bultmann combined! The two latter ones were not at all muddled but explicitly, if not wilfully, opposed to clear biblical teaching! And ignorance cannot be pleaded, either!

But is it ‘both-and’ or ‘either-or’?! Can it be ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ at the same time? Either Jesus did rise or He did not. Who is deluded? The issue is not just the empty tomb, but also the authority of Scripture which is being questioned if not attacked, or viewed as non-essential, not pertaining to the substance of faith, though I have no idea what that might be according to Bird or Wright.

To put it differently, how can one harmonise biblical Christianity with theological liberalism? Belief in the physical resurrection – if I may be permitted to be tautological – is not a peripheral matter, but lies at the very epicentre of the Gospel (see 1 Corinthians 15:1ff.). No one can be saved without believing it according to Romans 10:9! It really is kindergarten theology already enshrined in the earliest creeds. Yet 1 Corinthians 15:14 has been ignored. There can be not Gospel without the cross and the empty tomb!

R. Bultmann, like all liberal theologians, who owes more to Kant than to Christ, rejects a supernatural Christianity, which of course leaves us with Feuerbach’s god, an idol of our own making that fits in with the creed of anythingism. No divine revelation, no creation ex nihilo, no space-time fall, no devil, no incarnation, no miracles, no resurrection, no ascension, no parousia, no heaven, no hell. All rejected as unhistorical! What the mind cannot grasp can not, must not, be allowed to exist! ‘Causa finita est’! And we have not even looked at the atonement which cannot be understood without the resurrection!

It seems to me that Bible-believing Christians are now the true heretics that need to be ejected from the Church of England; it was so in 1662! One must be nice, respectable, appealing and not frighten people with the Gospel!

Bird is for the birds and Wright is wrong; in the name of God I must protest! Who will rid us of these troublesome priests who are paid to destroy the “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints ” (Jude 3)?

Deader than dead!

 

Time to apologise to all the Llamas!

Lee Anderson's recent 'contribution' to a non-sensical debate raises lots of other questions:

1. Should human llamas be fed animal food and be locked up in a zoo? 

2. How does one get rid of insane politicians? Should they be allowed to stand for parliament in the first place?

3. Is common sense really all that common?

4. How does one define or recognise insanity? 

5. Are we insane for rejecting insanity? 

FINAL QUESTION - WHERE ARE MY PILLS?!