YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF NO JUSTICE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18082606

The above link is a report about a man deemed 'insane' who committed murder.

Because he's deemed insane, it's reckoned that he's not responsible for the murder.

Then, forgive me for asking - who is? Because someone is, and as sure as apples - it's him.

So, let's think about this, shall we? The guy flies into a rage, hatches a plan to commit murder, finds himself a knife, commits the crime - and because he's deemed mad, he's not responsible (I think he might just know something about this).

Strange.

Isn't every murderer mad? I mean, don't you have to have a particular problem with your mind to commit murder anyway?

If it was up to me he'd be under the ground where all murderers belong.

Mad or not.

'...THE MURDERER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.' (Numbers 35: 16).

ANOTHER SHOCKING EXAMPLE OF NO JUSTICE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-18070507

Above is a link to a news story about the murder of a little boy by a truly evil and deranged man.

We are regularly disgusted by certain crimes we read about in the news. This one easily ranks amongst the worst of them, but it is only one of two crimes committed here. The other one is the so-called sentence of 'life' given to the murderer.

Every right-minded person knows that murderers ought to be put to death.

WHOSO SHEDDETH MAN'S BLOOD, BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED: FOR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN. (Genesis 9: 6).

It's not 'life' they should get but 'death'.

WE MIGHT AS WELL DRESS UP LIKE THIS GUY

'FOR CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL: NOT WITH WISDOM OF WORDS, LEST THE CROSS OF CHRIST SHOULD BE MADE OF NONE EFFECT.'

(1 Corinthians 1: 17).

Long ago, during the time of the apostles, when the Christian church was being established, there was no such thing as 'academic requirements' in the Church. In those days it was all about the power of the Holy Ghost. The words, 'wisdom of words' in our text can be put as: 'clever talking'.

So going by what we read here, if we depend on clever talking in our preaching instead of the power of the Spirit we will make the cross of Christ of none effect.

What does this mean?

It means that the word of God which you are attempting to preach will not benefit your hearers because it will not be accompanied by the power of God.

That's bad.

This has a demoralizing effect - some of you might know what I'm talking about. It happens in many many churches up and down the land - especially the large established ones. So-called ministers preaching week-in week-out, year-in year-out and doing nothing but demoralizing their hearers.

In my view, it also encourages legalism, because people use it like the Roman Catholics use self flagellation - the more unpleasant or even painful the experience, the more points they think they score with God. So if they have spent their whole life coming and going to church in that manner then they imagine they must be onto a good thing (no pain, no gain).

Friends, this ought not to be.

The root cause of the problem is in the ordination of ministers. There is a myth which has been in existence for centuries - that ministers must be 'educated' this is utterly unscriptural. The reason it is so readily accepted is because it makes sense in the natural world. And yes, it does - in the natural world. But when we are talking about the preaching of the gospel we no longer occupy the natural plain. We have entered God's domain - where our rules do not apply.

This problem of requiring academic attainment for ministers proves that the people making the demands are depending on the abilities of mere men to bring people to God instead of God himself.

This is nothing new and it can never work.

We might as well dress up like the geezer in the picture for all the good it'll do.

...TO OBEY IS BETTER THAN SACRIFICE, AND TO HEARKEN THAN THE FAT OF RAMS.

(1 Samuel 15: 22).

HAVE YOU EVER ARRIVED AT YOUR CAR TO FIND ALL FOUR OF YOUR TYRES SLASHED?

No? well I did.

We've passed midnight now, so it was yesterday morning I discovered it.

I know who did it. The same guy who recently deliberately broke the windscreen of my Transit Luton. Oh, he's denying it - asking me if I've got any proof.

This has been going on for a number of weeks now. It all started with me being woken out of my sleep at about 3 o'clock in the morning by angry banging on the front door. I felt sure it must have been a case of mistaken identity - some drunk had obviously come to the wrong house.

Well, not exactly...

I stuck my head out of the window and shouted, 'What's the problem?' The reply was, 'You've got 20 seconds to get your a**e down here before I pan your windows in!'

I could hardly believe my ears. I said, 'Slow down. Don't do anything, I'm coming down.'

When I got down, he started to rant at me about parking my car deliberately in the way of his van so that he couldn't get it out. Actually, it isn't even his van, it's his stepfather's van.

It was then that I realized what I'd done. When all the parking spaces were used up I would often just park my car in front of my van and partially in front of whatever vehicle happened to be parked beside it. I can truthfully say that my intention was never to show annoyance at the parkers. I was simply parking conveniently. Whenever anyone wanted out, they knew where I lived and simply knocked on the door and I moved my car and let them out - no problem. Normally, I would always park further away before I went to bed if all the spaces were used up. This time, I forgot.

For him, it was a red rag to a bull.

I should really point out, this fellow seems to be OK when he's sober. But when he's drunk he's a complete...och, words fail me - you know what I mean.

He's in his early to mid twenties and has a respectable (and quite senior) job in town. To see him at his work dealing with customers you'd think butter wouldn't melt in his mouth, but he's a real Jeckyll and Hyde character. Once he gets at all drunk - look out.

He'd been on the booze that night. I had no idea who he was. He stood there yapping incessantly at me about me having parked my car in front of 'his' van so that he couldn't get it out because I was annoyed about not getting my space. I told him that I knew what it looked like, but I assured him that it was not actually the case - I had simply forgotten to park my car properly before going to bed.

He wouldn't listen to a word. He just continued to yap at me.

I could feel my temper which I had managed to keep in check up to this point, beginning to rise. I said, 'Look mate, you want to switch your brain on, because if you go around speaking to people like that, you'll only make them angry.'

I jumped into the car and parked it. When I arrived back after parking, he said, 'I really must apologize, I overreacted.' I was delighted to hear this, and said, Och, that's OK, we all get angry and do stupid things at times', and went back into the house relieved that that was the end of it.

Ha, dream on!

Well, I'm getting tired now, and it's getting late (or early), so I'm off to bed.

THE SAGA OF THE TYRE SLASHING NEIGHBOUR - CONTINUED.

So, after hearing his apology, I naturally thought that would be the end of it. Well, a couple of weeks or so later at about 11.30 at night I popped out to post a letter. As I reached my car which was parked in the same area as the above picture, I noticed a hooded figure walking past. He was obviously drunk. I wondered if it was our friend. He looked at me and I saw that it was him. I quickly looked away and got into the car. The fact that he noticed me looking at him was enough to light the touchpaper. He turned back, approaching the car as I reversed, glaring menacingly at me through the window. He was clearly looking for trouble. The temptation from the old man within was to get out and grab him by the scruff of the neck and deck him if need be. But these desires must be resisted. I ignored him and drove off to post my letter hoping that he would be gone by the time I returned. When I arrived back, he was gone. I breathed a sigh of relief, had a quick check inside the house to make sure he wasn't lurking anywhere there and went to bed.

A couple of days later one of the kids came into the house saying, "Dad, someone's broken the window of the van." I didn't need three guesses - I knew immediately who had done it.

I was fuming. I went to his house to speak to him (he lives very close by) and was told by his younger brother that he was at work. So I went to his place of work.

When I accused him he made no denial but said that he could not remember doing it. After I gave him a good row he said that he would pay for the windscreen. I was content with that, and wasn't going to call the cops. That was on the 17th March.

The next thing that happened was the tyres being slashed.

Now, it's important that I point out one or two things at this juncture. The first thing is that it was not only my tyres that were slashed. No. Lots of other cars in the area were also done on the same night. At the last count to reach my ears the total number was put at as many as 12. Now, at this point you may well be saying, 'Maybe it wasn't him then?'

Now, this is where you can don your Columbo coat and test your detective abilities.

All of the other cars which had their tyres slashed that night, only had one of their tyres done - all four of mine were slashed.

OK, what does that tell you?

Don't know?

It tells you that I was the target. My car was singled out for special attention. The rest of the cars which were done between the Cearns and Grant Square were only done as a distraction - a smoke screen to confuse the issue - to throw the scent.

He wasn't too drunk to realize that the first plonker I would suspect would be him - so he took measures - what a genius! No wonder they made him a prefect in the Nici.

Anyway, in the morning, when I made my discovery, I got that sinking feeling in my stomach, and thought, 'Aw no, here we go again.' At just before 12 noon I knocked his door again. His mother answered the door in her dressing gown. When I asked if he was in, I was told that he was in his bed. I asked if he had been on the booze the night before. She answered 'yes'. As soon as I said, 'I think he's slashed all four of my tyres', she burst into floods of tears and started wailing and sobbing, saying I just don't know what to do with him, he's such a problem...I'm so sorry, I'll pay for your tyres, I'm so sorry, and so on.

She knew very well this was typical - immediately believing what I said.

I was content that the tyres were going to be paid for and also felt sorry for her. So I said, 'I was going to call the cops, but now I think that might be just adding insult to injury.' Before leaving I told her that I would have to talk to her son.

Not long afterwards, I was standing at the car telling a neighbour about it when the man himself came striding arrogantly towards me from the house saying, 'What basis of proof do you have to support this?'

That annoyed me.

I said, 'Listen mate, between you and me - I'm sure you slashed my tyres.' He asked me to come into the house to hear what his mother had to say. When I arrived in their kitchen the mother had completely changed her tune.

He had manipulated her mind. She was now singing from his hymn sheet.

I knew that he had been very drunk the night before because my mother had been speaking to a relative of his on the phone and had been told all about the problems they'd been having with him that night. When I reminded him that he himself had told me that he doesn't remember things after being drunk - so how did he know?, he said, 'But I only had a couple of pints last night.' His mother also backed up his story.

They were both lying through their teeth. I no longer felt sorry for her.

This is significant because it is well known that this man has a big problem with drink - every time he gets even a little drunk he goes off his head and does something insane. He and his mother know very well that if it gets out that he was drunk that night people only have to put two and two together.

He even had the brass neck to be quite cheeky about it. I said to him, 'You know, you've got a bad attitude.'

He replied, 'Your own attitude isn't exactly sterling either', and started to go on about me parking my car in a way that was supposed to be malicious. To him, this thing which only exists in his own warped mind is tantamount to the cardinal sin.

Boy, did I feel like laying him out at that point.

OK then, I said, 'Seeing that you're denying it, I have no option but to call the cops,' and left.

The thing that really annoys me about this is the way he went around slashing the tyres of other people he didn't even know in an attempt to cover his tracks just so that he could slash my tyres in his private little fit of insane drink-fuelled hatred.

As I write this, the police investigation is ongoing.

I'll keep you posted.

THE KIND OF SCHOOL I WOULD LIKE TO SEE...

Once upon a time, accidentally, I became a student at the Faith Mission Bible College Edinburgh. I didn't agree with them on everything. Especially on the idea that it's OK for women to be ministers, as the Bible plainly forbids it:

"BUT I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH, NOR TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN, BUT TO BE IN SILENCE." (1Timothy 2:12).

I can never understand it when people claim to believe the whole Bible and then proceed nonchalantly to ignore the parts which don't agree with their pet notions. It's precisely this attitude which causes all the problems in the church. What hope can there be if even basic honesty is lacking?

Anyway.

There were things though, that I did agree with. The clip which I have attached above, was taken during an element of the course which was called Communication Skills. I found this to be the best part of the course. The reason I found it to be the best part is because it was absolutely practical. Practical in that all that it consisted of was training, and then each of us in turn getting up in front of the others and preaching. We would then be assessed by the lecturer and our peers. We would be scored on all the various elements of the exercise, like voice projection, clarity, emphasis, pronunciation, body language and so on.

The method which the established churches ordinarily use for appointing ministers, in my opinion, is deeply flawed. Whatever else they do, the lion's share of the emphasis is squarely placed upon academic qualification - instead of practical ability. If you don't have this magic wand of education, all else is null and void. Never mind that the Bible tells us plainly:

"...NOT MANY WISE MEN AFTER THE FLESH, NOT MANY MIGHTY, NOT MANY NOBLE, ARE CALLED: BUT GOD HATH CHOSEN THE FOOLISH THINGS OF THE WORLD TO CONFOUND THE WISE; AND GOD HATH CHOSEN THE WEAK THINGS OF THE WORLD TO CONFOUND THE THINGS WHICH ARE MIGHTY; AND BASE THINGS OF THE WORLD, AND THINGS WHICH ARE DESPISED, HATH GOD CHOSEN, YEA, AND THINGS WHICH ARE NOT, TO BRING TO NOUGHT THINGS THAT ARE: THAT NO FLESH SHOULD GLORY IN HIS PRESENCE." (1 Corinthians 1: 26 - 29).

Nowhere in holy scripture is it even implied that ministers ought to be educated. On the contrary we have the above. And before anyone mentions the apostle Paul, I would point out that he was the exception, not the rule. And let us not forget this:

"NOW WHEN THEY SAW THE BOLDNESS OF PETER AND JOHN, AND PERCEIVED THAT THEY WERE UNLEARNED AND IGNORANT MEN, THEY MARVELLED; AND THEY TOOK KNOWLEDGE OF THEM, THAT THEY HAD BEEN WITH JESUS." (Acts 4: 13).

John Bunyan is a case in point. The following is reportedly true:

John Owen, probably the most prominent and respected academic leader of Bunyan's own era, once went to hear Bunyan preach. Charles II, hearing of it, asked the learned doctor of divinity why someone as thoroughly educated as he would want to hear a mere tinker preach. Owen replied, "May it please your majesty, if I could possess the tinker's abilities to grip men's hearts, I would gladly give in exchange all my learning."

Way back, in the dim and distant past, close to 2 thousand years ago, a small Christian community was set up on the remote Scottish island of Iona. Before the Pope through his usual guile and cunning managed to enslave them, it was a spiritually prosperous and self-sufficient college/school of the Bible which sent many missionaries to all parts of the known world. We can be confident that they were greatly used of God. And there was no such thing as "academic qualification".

Though, I stress, I am not saying we shouldn't have it, I am merely saying a high attainment of it must not be a requirement.

The established churches in our day have long since been holed below the waterline and are, like the band on the Titanic, continuing to play; but the Lord is not blessing it.

Why?

Because they are ignoring scripture.

What I would like to see is a truly independent (independent of denominations), practically-based school of preaching, open to any man, which doesn't force opinions on anyone, but simply exalts the Bible, has no exams, but simply assesses each man on practical merit alone.

All it would require would be a few like-minded Christians to come together.

Interested?

Then get in touch.

There is much outward show in established religion.

People will attend their preferred church, and on the whole, wish for no changes.

Why do they want no change? Is it because they are simply not thinking about what they are doing and enjoy the lack of responsibility? By nature, we all seek an easy life, but generally, if something costs nothing, it's usually worth nothing.

In true religion this is also the case. But if you take this same principal too far, you end up in legalism: which is earning your way into heaven - and that's impossible.

A man once said: 'Going to church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car.'

Very true.

But there are regiments of people doing just that. Even genuine Christians, I believe, are guilty of this. Oh yes indeed - walking in darkness (Isaiah 50: 10).

Every denomination, congregation even, has its own way of doing things. Its own peculiarities, it's own wee traditions and habits, and these same habits, have, over the years become much loved and much entrenched. We are, after all, when all is said and done, creatures of habit. We form our various habits and we enjoy them. Sadly, we carry this baggage into our religion and into our churches.

Churches are perfect cultures for this form of self-deceit and the devil knows it well.

So we have congregations of people up and down the land, coming and going to and from church, imagining they do well. Yes, and often imagining that they are the only ones right.

But they do not do well.

This, is Christianity's biggest problem. This, is what Christ preached against most. This, he warned us, will bring us down to hell.

If we are guilty of this, we are not worshipping God, but a system. Our own chosen little system of so-called worship. Is that what we hold dear - our particular little set of habits and peculiarities which define our little (or large) group? Because if it is, it is not the worship of God, but just another form of idolatry.

Dead outward religion.

Smoke in his nostrils.

While we are in this condition we are only capable of hypocrisy.

We must look beyond these things.

Christ said: 'And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, ENTER INTO THY CLOSET, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them...' (Matthew 6: 5-8). My capitalization.

Here, Christ makes it clear what is important. And it is not time spent in church.

Rather, what is important is drawing near to God in the secret place. Then, and only then, will we be prepared and therefore able, to discern the good from the bad, wisdom from folly and to 'take forth the precious from the vile.' (Jeremiah 15: 19).

GO STARK RAVING BONKERS, SAYS ALLAH

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17123464

The above link is the latest example of Muslims cracking up with rage. Their 'holy book', their 'god' tells them to go completely off their heads, to attack, kill, destroy.

My holy book, the Bible, tells me to be calm and trust in God.

Which?