Stephen Green admits he was wrong

In an exclusive interview with Mediawatchwatch this morning charity-blackmailing director of Christian Voice, Stephen Green, revealed that he intended to drop his private prosecution against the BBC and admitted that his grounds for complaint were “not founded in reality”.

I’ve had a lot of mail from people opposing my stance. I thought I must be doing something right because I was “rattling Satan’s cage”. But I now realise that was self-deluding nonsense. True, a lot of the letters I received were a bit rude – but many were from intelligent, caring people who were just trying to help me to see sense. I’m happy to say that they have finally succeeded.

Speaking from his smallholding in Carmarthen, Green outlined the thought processes that led to his change of heart.

It finally dawned on me that there was absolutely no rational justification for believing those stories in the Bible. Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, the Virgin Birth, all those miracles – they are all so obviously made-up. I used to tell myself that it must be true because it was all “God’s Word”, but my reasoning was totally circular. When I thought about it properly, it made my head spin!

Pressed as to how he came to believe such things in the first place, Stephen replied,

I suppose I was looking for certainty in an uncertain world. When you accept Jesus as your saviour, and the Bible as the infallible Word of God, you get that – the certainty. All your questions are answered, and you know they are the right answers. Reason takes second place to faith. It’s a bit pathetic I admit – but I’ve grown up a lot in the past few days.

Green went on to express his remorse about blackmailing Maggie’s Centres cancer charity (“What was I thinking?”), and pledged to run the London Marathon next year in an effort to raise some cash to make amends.

When we asked him about his attitude to homosexuality, Stephen actually blushed.

Ah.. yes, well. That’s all a bit embarrassing. I really did believe that the Creator of the Universe was as obsessed as I was with what consenting adults do with their genitalia in the privacy of their own homes. I suppose you could say I was “projecting”.

But he stopped short of completely coming out of the closet:

I’m not gay… Well, maybe I am a bit gay.


33 Responses to “Stephen Green admits he was wrong”

  1. Tim Ireland says:

    To think that all it took was the movement of one letter: god swill

    PS – Jolly good jape. I laughed.

  2. Christopher Shell says:

    I opened the curtains this morning just in time to catch sight of the first flying pigs of spring.

  3. Tania says:

    Happy April Fools Day!

  4. darren says:

    Ha HA HA nice one

  5. Christopher Shell says:

    Assuming the words you put in his mouth are your own view, surely you are falling into the same naivete by lumping every single ‘miraculous’ Bible event into the same category? Why not treat each case on its own merits?

  6. Monitor says:

    I have.

    As a matter of interest, which miraculous Bible events do you consider not to be historical facts?

  7. Christopher Shell says:

    The book of Genesis is packed with ‘aetiologies’ – ie stories whose function is to explain why a certain puzzling feature of the world, or of Israelite geography, is as it is – or what circumstance gave rise to a certain old song etc etc.

    These stories have a sufficient explanation which is other than historical. On the other hand, many other stories don’t. The genre of the gospels and Acts (ie historiography / biography) is very different from the genre of Genesis. That is not to say that there are no unhistorical healings in the gospels, since occasionally one finds another explanation, namely Old Testament typology (the raising of the widow of Nain’s son, the ten lepers).

    The Exodus events seem sometimes to be aetiologies and other times not. Where they are not, they are probably legends, ie stories with a basis in fact handed down from generation to generation.

    I do feel that too often the Old and New Testaments are lumped together in this respect. They are quite different in terms of narrative genre.

  8. Monitor says:

    These stories have a sufficient explanation which is other than historical.
    Such as the stories of Adam and Eve, and the global flood?

  9. Christopher Shell says:

    Adam and Eve: Yes, sin/suffering and the origin of man both need an explanation. So to that extent the story is an aetiology. Though obviously it goes without saying that if humanity has not always existed (which it hasnt), then at some point or other there existed the first man and woman.

    Flood: This one is an aetiology as far as the rainbow (and the survival of land animal species) goes. Otherwise it is much more likely to be a legend passed down by word of mouth. Hence the stories of Atrahasis, Utnapishtim etc.. There is of course always the possibility that different middle-eastern cultures developed versions of an essentially aetiological tale – but the Ur excavations etc did uncover evidence of an unusually large flood. Besides, in a world where a flood is the greatest conceivable disaster, there are bound to be tales of ‘the greatest flood ever’. And factually, at some point, the ‘greatest flood in recorded memory’ will actually have happened.

  10. Monitor says:

    es, sin/suffering and the origin of man both need an explanation. So to that extent the story is an aetiology.
    And to what extent, in your opinion, is it history?
    And factually, at some point, the ‘greatest flood in recorded memory’ will actually have happened.
    Do you regard the global flood decribed in Genesis, when “all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered”, as a historical fact? And do you believe that Noah was 600 years old when it happened?

  11. Though obviously it goes without saying that if humanity has not always existed (which it hasnt), then at some point or other there existed the first man and woman.

    So, you refute the theories of Charles Darwin, and all the palaeontologist and anthropologists that have built on his work?

  12. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Monitor

    As my comments say: the first man & the first woman historically existed. Also, the first occasion of consciousness of sin (guilt) historically occurred. If the Bible wants to make the two events simultaneous, it may not be wrong. Consciousness of sin may be one of the things that differentiates human beings from lower animals.

    I refute Darwin? I havent remotely the training to do so. No doubt his theories were lacking as any 150-year-old theories will be.
    But at some point (say, 2 million BC) there were no humans. Now, by contrast, there are humans. Therefore it follows that somewhere in between, there existed the first humans.

  13. Christopher Shell says:

    As for the flood….!
    The flood, to be in so many relatively independent legends, must probably have been fact. Global? They didnt even know we were living on a globe, let alone how big it was.

    600 years old – No. Inflated ages may sit well with heroic status, the golden age etc., or it may be a device allowing the writer to cover longer periods in fewer generations.

  14. Monitor says:

    So would this be a fair summary of your position?
    Q: To what extent, in your opinion, is [the Adam and Eve story] history?
    A: To a great extent.
    Q: Do you regard the global flood decribed in Genesis, when “all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered”, as a historical fact?
    A: Yes.
    Q: And do you believe that Noah was 600 years old when it happened?
    A: No.

  15. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    Quite recently, in a house we used to live in, and sold to a young couple ten years ago, their first child, six year old Jonty, last month suddently got meningitis, and died. This child was utterly innocent, and his parents were wonderful, and noble people. Whatever did they do, to deserve this ? What sort of rotton stinking mean violent God, would inflict this sort of thing on a six year old ? If there is a god, which I doubt, we are about as important to Him as bacteria in a culture dish. Even if He did exist it doesn’t “explain” anything. It simply begs the question about where He came from.

    God. Pah!

    I think He would have a lot to answer for. Our sins whatever they may be, pale into insignificance compared to His own.

  16. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Monitor-
    As I said, I dont think we can call the flood ‘global’. Not that such a thing is impossible, but there is no evidence for it.
    Nor can one say that Adam and Eve is history ‘to a great extent’. The only things that are history about it are the things one could have deduced anyway. Note my earlier cautions on genre. The best way of reading a text is to work out before we start what sort of literature it is.

  17. Christopher Shell says:

    Shaun-

    Who would not sympathise? In fact (thank goodness) the last 100 years have been far better in this respect – far less child mortality.

    Christians are always firm that it’s less how long one lives than how one lives. The deaths of some young people are not tragic, becasue their lives were a thing of beauty, a masterpiece. Whereas the deaths of many old people are tragic, because they die with bitterness and unforgiveness.

    But I agree with you that the death of someone that young is always tragic.

  18. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    Tragic ?

    Tell that to the lad’s parents..
    Religion is full of pityful delusion…

    If there is a God, he is looking down at us and cares about as much about us as a scientist cares about the welfare of the bacteria in a culture dish. Anyway any presence of “God” doesn’t “explain” anything. Who after all, was His creator ? If He didn’t need one, then neither do we. Simple logic ? I don’t need a PHD to arrive at such a conclusion…

  19. Christopher Shell says:

    However, the existence of anything at all still needs to be explained. Otherwise one has explained almost nothing, which means that one cannot be said to have a worldview at all.

  20. tom p says:

    And I say to you that the existence of your so-called god needs to proved, otherwise you have proved nothing. Who created god? Eh? Eh?

  21. Christopher Shell says:

    (1) There must be something that can bring to an end the endless chain of cause-and-effect. Nothing in our observable universe is of that nature: it all participates in the cause-effect thing. It therefore makes sense to look beyond.

    (2) Nothing in our observable universe has the power to create. We are the crown of the known universe, and we can’t even create a microparticle. But no scientist believes in the eternity of all known matter. If therefore it had a beginning, how is this possible without its being caused by someone or something of a different nature to the things and beings in our known universe? Nothing that we know of is either eternal or creative by nature; something that we do not know of therefore must be, for anything to exist at all.
    No scientist would attempt to explain how anything could have existed in the first place. It’s beyond the ability of science to explain that – yet it is a real question; in fact, it is such a fundamental question that it contains within itself all other questions concerning this universe.

  22. We are the crown of the known universe, and we can’t even create a microparticle.

    “Crown of the known universe”? What hateful arrogance. Humanity is a blip on a pimple on a mote compared to the wonder and diversity of even the known universe.

  23. No scientist would attempt to explain how anything could have existed in the first place. It’s beyond the ability of science to explain that – yet it is a real question

    That arrogance again. It is beyong the current ability of science to explain it. To suggest it will never be explained is arrogant and ignorant.

  24. tom p says:

    And you have still demonstrably failed to show how your claim (god created the universe) answers the question of how everything came into being. this is because you have failed to answer the ‘who created god?’ question. ‘God created it’ is simply sticking another link at the beginning of the chain without explaining how that link got there.
    Everything used to be explained by god. Science has thus far disproved almost all of it. You’re reduced to one (albeit very big) question as your clam to god, and even then you can’t provide a satisfactory answer thus.

  25. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Richard-

    The only reason science will never explain it is that ‘science’ as currently defined has imposed strict limits on itself. There are some questions that it will not ask, since they are held not to be within the remit of science or the scientific guild.

    For some time I have argued that this is mistaken. Science should be concerned with observation pure and simple, and with hypotheses drawn from that observation. And it is not as though we live in a world where physics and metaphysics are really in two separate compartments. So why should they be two separate branches of study? Science should, in my view, remove its self-imposed limits and become more wholistic. There are plenty of signs, within postmodernism, that this is already happening.

    So, just like you, I look forward to the day when we discover how it could have come about that anything existed (even prior to the Big Bang)in the first place. But it will not be ‘science’ (as currently defined) that reveals this. Maybe (hopefully) it will be a larger and more wholistic version of science that reveals it.

    On your first comment, I wonder. What are your views on the Anthropic Principle? (Or for that matter the complexity of the structure of DNA?) We are dealing in odds of many millions to one against here, perhaps more. I also wonder what wonders you have found in the universe that outstrip the wonder of a human being. There may be greater wonders yet – but of the ‘known universe’ human beings are in many respects the crown.

    Tom-
    It is not one (albeit very big) question. It is in a sense the only question, since without answering this question our answers to all other questions are incomplete, partial, and provisional.
    My point is not the point you think I am making. My point is that we need a suitable candidate for the first cause, and the world as we see it is not a suitable candidate, since it has none of the necessary qualities (e.g. creativity, eternity, necessity).

  26. Or for that matter the complexity of the structure of DNA?

    But every living creature has DNA, not just human beings. And the DNA of a human being differs by only a few percent from that of a chimpanzee. Why are those few variations enough to make US the crowns of an entire Universe, but chimpanzees mere animals?

  27. Christopher Shell says:

    (1) Chimps should be well treated. It’s always the wise people through the ages that have advocated love of animals.
    (2) 2% I believe is the figure. Even that 2% represents something vast, given that the DNA code itself is so vast.
    (3) This vast 2% is shown in the incomparable difference between chimps’ and humnas’ creative potential in innumerable differernt fields.

  28. (3) This vast 2% is shown in the incomparable difference between chimps’ and humnas’ creative potential in innumerable differernt fields.

    The quoted figure varies between 3% and just 1.5%. Yes, the differences between humans and apes are evident, but so are the similarities. Don’t neglect 98% that is the shared because 2% isn’t.

    I also wonder what wonders you have found in the universe that outstrip the wonder of a human being.

    Hmm, let me see. Why don’t I pick one from our own Solar System? How about something like, say, the Sun? A huge, atom smashing machine, into which a million earths could fit; a gigantic nuclear furnace, where hydrogen is turned into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees(i). Only a medium sized star, one of billions throughout the universe, that has poured out the heat and light that power our tiny planet, and without which we would not and could not exist, for eons. And which will hopefully continue to do so for eons to come. The complexity of the nuclear reactions within the sun are still not fully understood. Compared to the lifetime of the sun, and the energy it produces, humanity as a whole would not even register.

    Seems pretty wondrous to me. Only an arrogant human being would rate himself as more significant than the power that enables him to exist.

  29. Whoops, forgot the credit They Might Be Giants. I paraphrased the lyrics to their song Why Does The Sun Shine? (The Sun Is A Mass Of Incandescent Gas).

  30. Christopher Shell says:

    Didn’t know there was a group called ‘There might be giants’. I saw a film called ‘They might be Giants’ in 1975 – about someone who thinks he’s Sherlock Holmes or something?

    Yes: 98% is 49 times more significant than 2%.

    It depends what is your criterion. Size and power are one thing – yet the sun has no mind. If someone said the human mind is more remarkable (as it is certainly more highly evolved) than a ball of burning gas, I wouldnt beg to differ.

    But as you imply, even to say that the sun is nothing but a gasball is a huge piece of fallacious ‘nothing-buttery’. None the less, there is nothing in the awesome majesty and complexity of the sun that compares to the human mind.

  31. tom p says:

    Shell, you made a claim earlier that “We are dealing in odds of many millions to one against here, perhaps more” regarding DNA forming with it’s complex structure.
    What you fail to appreciate is that it’s not just a single shot that there has been at it.
    Each individual thing can be viewed out of its historical or evolutionary context, and it seems that for it to have occurred is no more likely than me winning the lottery if i buy one ticket.
    However, because of the various inbetween steps and the size of the univers (let alone the earth), it’s not just one lottery ticket that’s been bought, but many many millions.
    Yet again your logic fails you

  32. tom p says:

    Indeed, following on from what you said

    “Non-specialists can say whether or not they might WANT such a theiry to be true. But unless they have the background knowledge, their opinion would not be worth much.”

    in the comments here: , comments 9 & 11, surely you should leave evolutionary biology or indeed science in general to those of us sufficinetly educated to discuss it or indeed sufficiently intelligent to understand it

  33. Christopher Shell says:

    Precisely. I will only venture onto evolutionary ground where logical (not biological) issues are being discussed. Amazing how often one finds non-trained biologists giving their point of view about the strictly biological side of things.

    Re DNA I dont have figures to hand. Apparently there is an issue currently under discussion re the fact that it ‘ought’ by rights have taken millions times more years to produce such complexity, given that fruitful mutations are so rare (most mutations being harmful or unfruitful). Anyone know more about this?