Interview with Stephen Green

Stephen Green of Christian Voice has endeavoured to answer via email a few questions which have been troubling us here at Mediawatchwatch for some time.

I promised to print his answers in full, unedited and without sarcastic interpolation. That was harder than you can imagine, but here you go:

MWW: The cancer charity Maggie’s Centres turned down the offer of a potential £3000 after a phone call from you. You have said that you “were pleased to play a part in alerting Maggie’s Centres to the potential public relations disaster.” Some have commented that as the public relations disaster would have occurred as a result of your actions, this is a bit like a mugger being pleased to play a part in alerting his victim to the danger of a severe beating should she refuse to hand over her purse. How do you respond to this?

SG: Maggies have now made many times over the £3000 they were due to get from Jerry Springer the Opera. It’s a funny sort of mugger who gives money to people. I always said Almighty God is a better provider than Satan. However, although Maggies Centres admit they have made money out of the publicity over their turning down Jerry Springer, they go all coy and embarrassed when you actually ask them exactly how much, and frankly, they must know by now. Perhaps you will have better success than I have had in getting a figure out of them.

MWW: Ofcom has stated that the characters portrayed in Jerry Springer: The Opera were not conveyed as accurate representation of religious figures, but were “characterisations of the shows participants”. Furthermore, they were the product of a fictional Springer’s hallucinations. Isn’t therefore your complaint that Jesus is portrayed blasphemously simply false, if Jesus is not actually portrayed at all?

SG: It is patently absurd to say that Jesus is not portrayed in Jerry Springer the Opera. The character is addressed throughout Act 2 as “Jesus”. We don’t set too much store by the opinions of the establishment timeservers who comprise ‘Ofcom’. However, Ofcom said specifically it was not their job to adjudicate on whether Jerry Springer the Opera was blasphemous. That, they said, is a matter for the criminal courts.

MWW: Fundamental to your outlook is the belief that the Bible is the ulimate source of authority as the infallible Word of God. By what process of reasoning did you arrive at this conclusion about the Bible?

SG: When I looked at the world around me, I realised that for me to believe in evolution required more of a suspension of credulity than I could muster. Why does the peacock have such a magnificent tail? ‘So he can attract a mate’, the evolutionist replies. So how does the hedge-sparrow do it? Whales were pigs who took an early-morning dip and, hey-presto, their spines swivelled round and they developed fins and tails and blow-holes before they drowned. And loads of them did it so they could reproduce as different kinds of whale. All by chance. Please!
Once I realised that there was intelligent design around me, there had to be a super-intelligent designer. It seems reasonable to me to ascribe to such a being the character of God. There being a God, it seems reasonable that He would communicate with mankind in some way, and that He could inspire human beings to make writings to convey His message to all generations. And being God, it also seems reasonable that He would be infallible, all-knowing and eternal. His message will also be intellectually coherent, as the Bible demonstrates.

MWW: You have on a number of occasions stated that you feel moved by the Lord to act. Does God speak to you directly? If so, how do you know it is God?

SG: Good of you to acknowledge the Lord and God with a capital L and G. Maybe you aren’t as far from Him as you think, David. Anyway, when your whole life is dedicated to doing His will, you soon get to know when God is speaking and when He is not. It’s going to be as hard for me to get you to understand how God speaks as it would be for me to explain how to fly around the world to someone who believes it’s flat.

MWW: The world is full of people of various religions, many of whom are equally convinced as you are of their own rectitude. Being utterly convinced of the truth of something which is not true – especially regarding the holiness of a particular book, or the existence of a particular deity – is a commonly observable phenomenon, as I’m sure you will agree. What is it that makes your judgement on these matters superior to the rest of humanity who believe in different sacred books and deities from your own?

SG: Mankind is capable of rejecting God, and when we do that, we worship some aspect of His creation which we regard as divine, or ‘just there’ So in pagan religions such as pre-dated Christianity in these islands, they worship the sun, the rain, fertility and all the things which are important to their economy. In doing that, they diminish man himself and they soon end up with human sacrifice. Well, every pagan culture has, and it’s usually their children they sacrifice. (Deut 12:31) But atheism (or ‘secular humanism’) itself is a form of paganism, in which man worships mankind and mankind’s powers of reason, such as they are. Secular humanism is the dominant culture in Britain today, and we too, kill our own children, before they are born, in special clinics. Not much of an advance from the civilisation of ancient Canaan, is it, really?
So what makes Christianity true and the pagan religions and Islam untrue? The incontrovertible fact that Jesus Christ not only existed but kept and taught the law, healed the sick, fed the hungry and raised the dead. Other writings (such as we find in pagan societies) are unashamed myth. The pagan gods were made in man’s image with all our frailties. Jesus lived a life without sin and His miracles were witnessed with a far better standard of proof than you find in our criminal courts. Mohammed is dead and buried, the pagan gods never existed. Jesus lived, died, rose again and ascended into heaven, all in front of witnesses. That is why He can say “I am the way, the truth and the life. No-one cometh unto the father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

MWW: The deity which you worship appears to have deliberately created a universe in which He knew His crown of creation would upset Him in such a way as to necessitate His sacrificing Himself to Himself in order for a proportion of humanity to reconcile themselves with Him while the remainder suffer in His absence for eternity. How would you go about convincing people who find this scenario unlikely to be true?

SG: How, indeed could anyone believe that God would so love the world, and so want sinful men and women to be reconciled to Him that He would become human Himself at a certain point in history and suffer an excruciating death by crucifixion, so that all anyone has to do to have their sins forgiven is simply to believe in Him? How could anyone have that much love? Thank God Jesus did, and in His own words told us: “For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) If He did that for me, then the least I can do is share that good news with others, and speak out for Him against the injustice and wickedness of our age, praying that our nation will repent before it is too late.

So thanks for your questions and the opportunity to share God’s truth with you. I pray you too will put your trust in Him. I hope that’s not too big a prayer: after all, God works miracles, doesn’t he?

47 Responses to “Interview with Stephen Green”

  1. Andy L says:

    Gotta admit, that’s pretty spectacular, and I admire your restraint while conducting the interview.

    Points to note – If I get all of my friends to call me Jesus for an hour, does that mean I am also “clearly” Jesus?

    It’s pretty easy to explain to someone who believes the Earth is flat how you fly around it – you dig two holes a mile apart and use geometry to demonstrate they are wrong. This is just an attempt to excuse what could be described as borderline scitzophrenia.

    Every Pagan culture has involved human sacrifice? That’s the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard. His comments about aethism aren’t even worthy of a response.

    I just burst out laughing everytime I read the part that pagan myths are just myths, but Jesus raising the dead is an “incontrovertable fact” (heck, even Jesus’ existance, or that all the people refered to as Jesus in the Bible could be different people. That’s hilarious, and incredibly circular logic. Why do you believe in the Bible? Because Jesus rose from the dead. Why do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? It says so in the Bible. Priceless, touched with a tint of darkness that any human can be that deluded.

    Lastly, Steven Green’s ignorance of evolution is, frankly, outstanding. That’s not how it works at all…

  2. Andrew Nixon says:

    Doesn’t come across as being the sharpest tool in the drawer does he? His spiel on evolution is just plain bollocks. I bet he couldn’t show one biologist who says that evolution is down to chance.

    Also, I knew a guy at university who was called Jesus. Everybody always addressed him as Jesus, so he must have been Jesus!

  3. Tania says:

    This interview is great, it shows how ignorant Stephen Green really is. Bravo for restraining yourself on the sarcastic comments.

    “Maybe you aren’t as far from Him as you think, David.”

    That made me laugh out loud 🙂 Look behind you!

  4. Cheeks says:

    “Why does the peacock have such a magnificent tail?” – The simple answer is: because it does. Because for whatever reason, a small mutation in it’s tail made it more attractive to the peahen, and natural selection has entered into an ‘arms race’ – the more magnificent the tail, the more demanding the peahen, and the peacock with the best tail has more chance of passing it’s genes on. “So how does the hedge-sparrow do it?” Differently. If every species had the same set of selection criteria, we’d all look exactly the same.

    As for his comments on whales, they just prove him to be ignorant. There’s no “hey-presto” about it – unless you believe the world is only 1,000s of years old. Look at the hippo – obviously built for land, and yet it’s nostrils have evolved raised above it’s snout to give it an advantage at breathing in the water. Imagine the nostrils becoming one and moving further back up the head over millions of years, and hey-presto – doesn’t look so hard anymore, does it?

  5. […] Jun 2005
    Fundamentalists scare me
    Posted by cheeks under General , political 

    MediawatchWatch have an interview with Stephen Green, leader of Christian pressure-group Christian Voice […]

  6. […] vie geek.

    How does someone this stupid gain so much attention? Media Watch Watch inteviews Stephen Green – chief fundamentalist at Christian Voice. The interviewer pro […]

  7. Paul says:

    “Anyway, when your whole life is dedicated to doing His will, you soon get to know when God is speaking and when He is not.”

    Didn’t Peter Sutcliffe say something similar?

  8. Austin says:

    Atheism is not the same as secular humanism. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods; secular humanism is a philosophy that usually incorporates atheism. Neither atheism nor secular humanism are forms of paganism. Neither of them are religions.

    I’m afraid that Stephen Green simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.

  9. Tony Youens says:

    It really takes the breath away when you come across such a heady mixture of pig ignorance and blind faith. Green must have both qualities in abundance to think that he has actually made any serious points. He represents the perfect example of why religion has no place in society.

    He obviously has no concept of what evolution actually is and his only reposte is that god did it (hey look Stephen no capitals). As god and jesus are supposedly one and the same (along with spooky) how exactly could god have sacrificed his only son?

    Getting through the quagmire of bigotry that’s hard wired into Green’s brain would be an exercise in futility. All we can hope is that he is ultimately revealed as the theocratic thug that he plainly is.

  10. G. Tingey says:

    Fruitcakes are nicer!

    The Id-iot spouting about creation is really the very last straw.
    Why does anyone listen to these loonies?

    Can somoeone please pass this question to the Americans, whilst we are at it?

  11. Christopher Shell says:

    In terms of the march of civilisation (which is not always a smooth path), SG points out that abortion is a backward step towards barbarism. It certainly seems to share more in common with the ancient Canaanites than the Christian way does?

    In terms of the march of civilisation, Jesus’s forgiving and loving-enemies route was an advance on the standards of his own time, and is also an advance on the standards of our time. If anyone wanted to convince others that secular humanism was the most advanced or civilised route, there would be 2 things that currently stood in the way of that: the ‘tabloidisation’ tendency and the tendency to cynicism. Let’s all just admit that cynicism (and the concomitant lack of any appropriate awe) is not characteristic of the highest forms of civilisation.

  12. Andy L says:

    Well, I would admit it, but I’d be lying. The highest forms of civilisation have the highest forms of understanding. Understanding comes from believing nothing without proof.

  13. Andy A says:

    All those bloody capital Hs are a pain in the understanding. I hope our dear Monitor was using them ironically. Not even the Book of Common Prayer and AV of the Bible do that. It stops you in your tracks, as you look back a milimetre to try to find the full point that isn’t there, because you’re still in the middle of the sentence. I don’t allow it in copy I edit. I have no problem, though, with caps for ‘God’ and ‘the Lord’, given that we can accept these as proper nouns (the Lord is perhaps more moot), and the same with ‘Christian’, because the word is based on a name (or what has become a name – no lectures on semantics and etymology, Christopher: we know what we mean) and we do it in the same way we’d say Hegelian, Faustian or Shavian. God exists in mythology, the way Zeus or Odin does, and we wouldn’t drop the cap for either of them. Good interview, though. There would be a number of supplementals I’d like to take him up on, but email interviews aren’t the same as face to face, and I admire Monitor’s fortitude in being able to read though SG’s oleaginous ramblings and get them onto the website before falling on the floor and laughing himself into a coma. Bet he needed a stiff drink after that.

  14. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Andy L-
    Yes, spot on. DOnt you think that the highest civilisations also (besides critical discernment) have love, compassion, forgiveness, and above all a sense of awe & a distaste for cynicism?

  15. Andy L says:

    No, I feel cynicism and the rejection of anything that’s unproven is in fact the basis of good society. “A sense of awe” merely seems be a symptom of a limited society that still has far to go as far as I can see.

  16. Christopher Shell says:

    Hopefully then this society will never become ‘good’ by your definition. The quality and character of the cynical ppl I know could not clean the boots of the reverent ones.

  17. Stuart says:

    ‘What I claim is to live to the full the contradiction of my time, which may well make sarcasm the condition of truth’ – Roland Barthes in the 1957 preface to ‘Mythologies’.

  18. Christopher Shell says:

    Gulp! I thought you guys didnt approve of proof-texting. The fact that Barthes (or anyone else) says something doesnt make it true or even coherent.

    Sarcasm is the condition of truth. So let politicians deal only in snide remarks, likewise husbands and wives. The world will undoubtedly be a better place.

    But I know at least 10000 better things than sarcasm. Love, compassion and forgiveness, for example.

    It’s a bit like Plato’s cave in the ‘Republic’. The person who knows nothing better than shadow realities may think that nothing better actually exists, whereas there in fact exist realities that put those shadows quite in the shade.

  19. Bloggerheads says:

    Jerry Springer – legal bid rejected

    BBC – Springer Opera legal bid rejected: A bid to bring judicial review proceedings against the BBC for its broadcast of Jerry Springer – The Opera has been rejected. The Christian Institute said the BBC discriminated against Christians and breached…

  20. Andy L says:

    #16 – Oops! Seem to have fallen fowl of “Judge not, lest ye be judged” there haven’t we Christopher?

  21. Christopher Shell says:

    It’s a fact that cynicism is a negative quality, just as pride and fear are negative things, and reverence and love are positive. Whoever wants a regime where one cannot state facts is too totalitarian for my liking.

  22. […]

    18 June, 2005

    1:18 am | links for 2005-06-18 # » Interview with Stephen Green Not just an idiot – a creationist idiot. Dembski […]

  23. Andy L says:

    It’s a “fact” is it? No, indeed it isn’t a fact at all. Fear can be highly positive – it is fear that stops us diving off cliffs to find out what it is like. Fear of hurting people stops us doing irresponsible things. Pride can be a powerful motivator in important achievements. Both are certainly double edged swords, but to say that they are always negative is farcical.

    Reverance is behind some of the most vile acts in history – The German people’s reverance for Hitler allowed the Holocaust to happen, and look at how many disasters love has caused over the years.

    Emotions cannot be factually either positive or negative – real life isn’t Star Wars. It is dependent on situations and context.

    By rejecting cynicism, you are creating a society where one cannot state facts. By defintion, Cynics are the ones who bely that the supposedly unexplainable can in fact be explained with facts.

  24. Christopher Shell says:

    That’s where I disagree. There are some things that are always positive, others that are always negative. Everyone agrees that context is one crucial factor. But some people try to claim that it is the only factor (‘context is everything’). in other words, nothing is intrinsic: all is context. This is obviously not the case. Both intrinsic and contextual factors play a part.

    I was certainly speaking much too inexactly. All I mean is that a proud spirit, or a cynical spirit, or a fearful spirit are always bad things. The thing I don’t get is why one can’t state facts without having a cynical spirit.

  25. Nick says:

    There’s not reason at all why the Bible as a text should be taken any more seriously as a literal representation of How Things Are any more than the Norse mythic system, which mixes references to real people (the sagas of King Hrolf or King Hraki are both good examples) with a coherent set of creation myths, and supernatural themes such as the apperance of the gods to mortals, and the transmogrification of man into animal and vice versa. Why not treat these literally?

    On another point, fair enough, cynicism can be another word for sneering, but don’t lose sight of the benefits of a sceptical mindset. To act on the basis of belief alone is to act irrationally, as belief is the denial of rationality in that it requires, at a base level, putting faith in something with no body of evidence behind it. If you don’t question facts, you can’t assert that they are true, as you haven’t investigated them properly.

  26. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    Believing that all complex things have to have a designer, leads to a paradox. If all complicated things had to be designed, and could not evolve spontaneously, then how did God appear ? Who designed him ? If God did not need to be designed, then neither does anything else either.

    Beleif in a relgion DOES NOT confer the right to tell other FREEBORN people how to live. Restriction can only be based on secular reasoning.

  27. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Shaun-
    Exactly: in a previous comment I noted that the (possible) complexity of God is the main argument against theism. Some of the main arguments in favour tend to relate to the physical world’s lack of suitability for the job of first source: namely, its lack of eternal qualities, lack of logical necessity, and lack of creativity.

    People were already seeing simplicity as one of the divine qualities long before the modern scientific age. But it’s deuced difficult to see how this works out scientifically – we are in way beyond our depth here.

  28. tom p says:

    A universe doesn’t need to have a logical necessity, it can just be. How it came into being is a different matter altogether and one that cannot be answered at present, but the why is a side issue.

  29. Christopher Shell says:

    I totally agree. People always speak of the ‘why’ as though there needs to be a ‘why’. There doesn’t (although there may be one). But there needs to be a ‘how’, and that’s why I invoked the topic of necessity.

    How do you know that a universe can just be? That automatically leaves a lot of very big questions unanswered.

  30. tom p says:

    I was using the ‘just can’ with reference to the why, not the how. That was what I was attempting to clarify in my second sentence

  31. Christopher Shell says:

    Oh, I see. I agree with that, but one needs to clarify:
    The universe cannot ‘just come into existence’ just like that (as Tommy Cooper might have said). – The HOW question.
    On the other hand, it can ‘just be existing’ now, without any end, culmination or purpose in view. – The WHY question.

  32. tom p says:

    So are you saying that Tommy Cooper is god?
    He died on stage at the palladium for our sins, that we may all wear fezzes in heaven.

  33. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    Dr Shell,

    Why should it be questionable how the universe could just “be” but not at all questionable how God could just “be” ?

    That God could just “be” would also leave a lot of “big questions unanswered”

    If the explanation for the existence of the universe is “God” created it, then what is the explanation for God ?

    Oh, Gods own God perhaps ? (let’s call him “DGod” for “DaddyGod”)

    Ok, God created the Universe. DGod created God. So who created DGod then ?
    and so on……

    The possible presence of a deity “explains” nothing whatsoever.

    On the other hand, if a single God, without beginning or end can just “be” then so can the universe, especially in more than 3 dimensions, time just being one of them…
    If there is a God, like the fabric of the universe (including time), I would expect Him to reside in the higher dimensions..
    But He “explains” nothing whatsoever.

    BTW I am agnostic rather than downright aethiest… That is not because I am a fence sitter. It is because even if God did exist, He “explains” nothing about the ultimate origins of creation, because he logically has to be included in that as well.

    On this world, to say you “know the truth” and are therefore justified in trying to dictate to others how to live, is arrogant and repressive. Even if you are deeply religious, the truth is, that you don’t really know, and if you think you do, it is self delusion. On the otherhand, to dismiss the existence of a higher authority out of hand, and tell people they are stupid for believing in one, is also arrogance too.
    I do not say a higher authority cannot exist. I simply maintain His prescence, cannot “explain” the origin of the universe.

  34. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    On the origin of the universe:

    Surely you folks realise that time itself is not constant ? People travelling near the speed of light relative to other people not doing so, will age much more slowly than other people, because THEIR time has slowed down. At the origin of the universe, time itself was meaningless, because matter was so condensed, and so vastly hot, that the highly compressed molecules moved so fast, it slowed time itself down… perhaps even to a stop. You could say that time itself (our time at least) came into existence at the point of the Bing Bang, along with all the matter etc. To ask what was “before” that is currently meaningless according to modern physics…

    If time is a dimension, (which we humans can only travel one way) then the implicatin really is that the universe can just “be”

    To argue that something is created, is to imply that it happened at a certain time in the past. But physics show that time itself, is only relative, and creation at a point in the past, as we might imagine it, is probably much too simple, to explain the universe, and why and how it is here.

  35. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Shaun-

    (1) Re time, I agree that it came into existence, as far as our own universe is concerned, at the Big Bang. But surely you’re arguing backwards? The nature of time can’t make the universe’s existence explicable, since the nature of time is a property of that universe in the first place. What we’re asking is how come the universe is there at all – this is a different question.

    (2) I always think agnosticism is a much more tenable position than atheism. Though even agnostics favour some theories above others.

    (3) The infinite regress point (DGod) is the one people usually make. Ive addressed it several times on this weblog: The universe we see doesnt seem to be the sort of thing that could be either necessary or creative – or indeed eternal, though perhaps in view of the nature of time we should waive that point. (I doubt it personally, since whether or not anything could ‘just exist’, our universe doesnt seem to be the sort of thing that could ‘just exist’.) Therefore we posit someone or something that does have these qualities, which we call God.

  36. tom p says:

    but that doesn’t address the problem of who created god. it’s not an acceptable answer, because it doesn’t say how or why god came into being. at all.

  37. Christopher Shell says:

    The idea is that whatever is the first source must be necessary and uncreated. The universe doesnt seem to be that sort of thing, so we posit a God who is that sort of thing.

  38. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    Dr Shell,

    You still haven’t answered the point that if we can have a “God” who was not created, we can also have a universe [1] which was also not created as well. Though it appears to us, as it it had an origin, some 15 billion years ago, we are using the universes own time clock to measure that. That time progression is not constant for ALL observers. Disregarding such time, (which is the manisfestation, to us of an extra dimension) and looking at things from a multidimensinal point of view, the universe might well simply exist, as suggested by Stephen Hawking. You have to consider that the time frames we use to consider “when” the universe was created, are properties of that universe, and are inextricably bound to it.

    [1] Indeed, by definition, the universe means “all that exists” [2] , and by that definition, the universe would have to have created God, rather than the other way around. A situation I find significantly more likely, in the event of the existence of a Diety.

    [2] Modern science does however consider the possibility of parallel universes. These would be seperate planes of existence, which we have no access to.

  39. Christopher Shell says:

    Interesting. I think the multiple universes (which would have to be extremely multiple under some theories) tend to be posited when ppl consider that our own universe is just too perfectly balanced to be true (for the emergence of intelligent life), and therefore to make this probable one has to break Occam’s razor and posit lots of other universes so that the whole ‘perfection’ thing seems less remarkable.

    One can’t base any argument on word-definitions. For all we know, the word ‘universe’ may have been coined by a theist. Words only come into being to express/describe realities many of which were already there long before anyone ever uttered any word.

    Saying that anything ‘just exists’ is not an explanation but an anti-explanation. There are 2 possibilities: (a) it is a cop-out; (b) it is an admission of how limited our present knowledge is concerning the universe’s ultimate origins, and an admission that there is much more (of a very fundamental nature) to be discovered in the future.

  40. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    I certainly don’t doubt that there’s much to be discovered… Neither do the scientists, either.

    But none of this counters the points I have made, that if God can simply exist, then so can the universe, and I am pleased that you tacitly admit that there are many things we simply don’t know. Which is a step away from the entrenched dogma, held on both sides, the deeply religious, and the confirmed athiest.

  41. island says:

    There is evidence that every one of the growing list of the near-“perfect balances” is actually an “eco-balance” just like
    every other ecosystematic balance that exists in nature.

    It turns out that an ecosystematic configuration distributes energy more evenly and efficiently than any other system, so the near-perfectly balanced flatness of the universe defines an effort by the big bang toward perfect symmetry that is further supported by the ongoing effort of the universe toward absolute thermal equilibrum.

    So the Anthropic Cosmological Principle is actually a thermodynamic principle that defines the mechanism that constrains the forces of the universe to an almost perfect balance between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies, which produces a grand-scale ecosystematic structure that enables it to evolve with the greatest possible efficiency, in one-direction-only.

    These balances, precarious or otherwise, are common to all of the known anthropic coincidences and are actually defining the subtly-tipped balance that’s common to all ecosystems, so that the universally applicable principle is actually biocentric in nature, extending across the universe and bringing the forces to bear on a specific plane of life… so that a very fine layer of sentience arises within observed biotopes of inhomogeneity that are observed to exist in the large scale structure of our universe.

  42. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    Island – Very interesting.. I’ll have to think about those points..

  43. Marc says:

    Has anyone else noticed how Christopher Shell’s god seems to get bigger the encompass the knowlege we gain each and every time we gain more; not the other way around.

    His bible claims in several passages that the earth is flat (Mat. 4:8 is one) yet very few Christians would believe that; even the Creationists have a hard time explaining that one. Yet the very same young-Earth creationists are content to believe the the Earth was created 10,000-odd years back; just because the bible says so!

    The bible was written by simple people with little knowlege of the workings of anything – even the hydrologic cycle was a mystery to them (Ecc 1:7); yet we take it for granted.

    They knew about the moon because they could see it, but it’s doubtful they knew what caused eclipses. They knew about stars, yet had no idea that the Earth orbits a star; one star among billions.

    So one day, in the middle of some ancient settlement some guy starts claiming to be the son of god (the only one according to him). Stories of the virgin birth, wise men and other clap-trap are more likely elaborations than actual facts. History has show that even scientists have a convenient habit of applying a theory that best seems to fit the facts until it’s proven wrong.

    But this guy, the incarnation of god or the son of god or whatever they chose to call him has absolutely no clue about the workings of the thing his old man created! You’d think there’d be some mention of the Earth orbitting the sun or at very least the fact that the Earth is a big ball. But no, not a bloody jot.

    Maybe that was too much for them to take in? No more than any miracle attributed to him would be. Hey look, if I saw some dude raise a bloke from certain death I’d belive him if he told me the sun was at the centre of the solar system. But did he mention these things? It’s not recorded.

    Why would their god put his son where he did? Seems like an odd choice to me. It’s as if these were the only people on the planet back then – yet we know that humans were all over the place. Point is, that these people (Jesus included) didn’t know that; seems like a pretty basic point for the son of and omnipotent creator god.

    Christianity is currently the biggest religion on the planet (dropping slowly at about 1% per year.) How can that be? Someone has to be the biggest:

    * the Christians have gotten that way by maintaining a very strict dogma about breeding en-masse.
    * they teach (their idea) to anyone receptive enough to listen – like kids and simple people.
    * they believe (with no real supporting evidence) they’re right and everyone else (even other theologies) are wrong.
    * they have historically wiped out other beliefs that got in the way; murderous bastards. America is a recent example and 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, even though they invaded and virtually anhiliated the primitive people who were already there.
    * they have historically silenced critics, particularly scientists, who didn’t agree with their world ideas and they continue that tradition today by trying to quash free speech.
    * they evolve, adapt and expand their theology to encompass practically every scientific theory that survives peer review and when that doesn’t work, they use pseudo-science or bad science to discredit it.

    Darwin’s theory of evolution provides an answer to why Christianity is so widespread: the fittest, most powerful and adaptable survive. That’s why humans are so widespread and it’s ironic really, when we consider the very thing Christians seem most opposed to, the very thing that is their greatest threat, is the same thing that has ensured their survival.

    In future, if we do find life on other planets in other solar systems, they’ll doubtless counter by saying that their god made it all. There will always be a market for simple answers, even where those answers are wrong.

  44. […] states that he runs “Christian Voice” in Brixton, leading to speculation of links with Stephen Green, but I suspect this is a mistake. Christian Victory runs a school in […]

  45. […] fail me at this point, so let me direct you to this excellent interview over at Media Watch Watch and the accompanying reader comments, both of which […]

  46. […] did a brief google for info on him and stumbled upon this little nugget of wisdom from on the MediaWatchWatch website: ‘When I looked at the world around me, I realised that for me to believe in […]

  47. […] another triumph for Stephen Green, the […]