Ideology Defined

When I first read this it seemed like an excellent definition of Ideology. It still is, here it is below for your consideration. The quote is from: Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World by David F. Wells. page 25.


‘What the Enlightenment ideology did was to provide an interpretive grid, an all-encompassing understanding, that was laid over the whole of life. This understanding was not much a worldview as an ideology. Ideologies, we might say, are worldviews with an attitude. The intent of every ideology is to control. With the passage of time and the desire to be triumphant, ideologies tend to become simplistic. They find acceptance because they tap into our need, the Canadian writer John Saul says, “to believe in single-stroke, cure all solutions” often presenting us with stark alternatives: “Accept the ideology or perish. Pay the debt or go bankrupt. Nationalize or starve. Privatize or go moribund. Kill inflation or lose all your money.”

Because they leave only one way out, they become coercive. At the same time, ideologies create a sense of inevitability about themselves. They produce passivity in people because what is inevitable cannot be resisted. And they breed intolerance of those who might be opposed to their understanding of life or might raise questions about it. It is these characteristics which help explain why it is so difficult to challenge an ideology once it has been socially ensconced. And yet this is exactly what has been happening with the Enlightenment ideology since the 1960’s.’


 

A Bad Day for Free Speech

My off the cuff comments:

It’s funny thing to carry on as if nothing is happening, or has happened. Most will though, and simply carry on as if nothing has happened. But while we all (rightly) go about our daily business Free Speech & The Freedom of Religion has taken another battering. The ruling over Asher’s Bakery means the end of conscience. It’s clear from todays ruling that conscience, that most precious gift from God, must be aligned with another’s subjective view of how conscience is to be informed. As Christians we believe our conscience is to be informed primarily by a right application of the Word of God – The Bible. There can only be one, ultimately, objective source of ‘right & wrong’ of morality. In our day we are seeing the last vestiges of a ‘right’ means to inform the conscience being dismantled. While the Word of God and the Christian faith continues to be sidelined we ask what is the standard to be applied. It does appear to be the case, that where a conflict occurs between ‘rights’ it will in most cases automatically defer to the Anti-Christian position. But the reality is this; without an objective view of morality supplied by the Word of God the West collectively will slowly but surely itself be sidelined in favour of other civilisations. There is no ‘God-given’ ‘right’ to the West. It will eventually implode on itself. That doesn’t mean the West will disappear, or cease to be a strong economy or the place where many people will seek to find refuge. But it does mean morality will be defined ‘on the hoof’. The situation, or money, or power, or personality, or sexual orientation will decide on all moral cases. This is what must happen when the Bible is abandoned.

The Terrifying Theresa Targets (In)Tolerance

This mornings interview (BBC ‘Today’ programme) with Theresa May was truly terrifying. Amazingly John Humphreys actually asked her if someone were to have a different view about Same-Sex Marriage or Homosexuality: would they fall under the cudgel of her totalitarian proposal. She manged to side-step the great JH but he asked her again, and again but eventually gave up as Ms May gave him the old one two and slipped past him until the topic changed to a more convenient one.

I have no idea what she means by ‘British Values’ or just ‘Values’ but she just kept repeating it like a mantra instead of telling us what it is. ‘British Values’ is one of the clubs Ms May will be beating us with. I suppose we are all supposed to just roll over and go back to sleep and let the Government machine bump its way over our freedoms. Freedoms, I might add, that were fought for by our Fathers. They NEVER fought for this. The other two words used were ‘Extremism’ and ‘Tolerance’. No explanation was forthcoming.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”

Best get Humpty Dumpty to define them for all the good it will do to get a definition out of Ms May. We’ll find out what they mean soon enough when more Christians (and probably others, including Atheists) are hauled before the courts for daring to buck the secularist / ‘tolerant’ ideology.

The following excerpts are from a BBC News article: New laws to target radicalisation

David Cameron is to set out a string of new powers to tackle radicalisation, saying the UK has been a “passively tolerant society” for too long.
The PM will tell the National Security Council a counter-extremism bill will be in the Queen’s Speech on 27 May.
The bill will include new immigration rules, powers to close down premises used by extremists and “extremism disruption orders”.
Mr Cameron will say a “poisonous” extremist ideology must be confronted.

And of great concern is this little gem:

She said: “What we are proposing is a bill which will have certain measures within it, measures such as introducing banning orders for groups and disruption orders for individuals, for those who are out there actively trying to promote this hatred and intolerance which can lead to division in our society and undermines our British values.
“But it will be part of a bigger picture , a strategy which will also have as a key part of it actually promoting our British values, our values of democracy, rule of law, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths.”
The measures, she added, will focus on “extremism of all sorts… that is seeking to promote hatred, that is seeking to divide our society, that is seeking to undermine the very values that make us a great country to live in”.

Nowhere are any terms defined. But don’t worry, I’m sure Humpty Dumpty will be on hand to provide one as required. It’s completely bonkers and terrifying. Ironically The Queen is ‘Defender of the Faith’ but will be approving measures designed to destroy it on 27th May.

Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
They collapse and fall, but we rise and stand upright.
O LORD, save the king! May he answer us when we call.
Psalm 20: 7-9

James White 3-part Video / Audio response to David Gushee

Dr White of Alpha & Omega Ministries has concluded his response to Dr David Gushee. I recommend you all watch / listen to these. With Churches collapsing and falling over themselves to affirm Same Sex Marriage and the LGBTQ totalitarian ideology Christians need to be prepared. I watched part of a BBC Q & A session last evening (05/05/2015) with Northern Ireland leaders as part of the election coverage over here in the UK. They just were floundering to affirm LGBTQ rights. There was a Christian in the audience that spoke out and despite assurances to the contrary it was obvious his fears will probably be confirmed. Among words used and forcefully expressed by members of the audience were Bigot & Homophobe. As Dr White says ‘it isn’t a slippery slope it’s a cliff’ and we are teetering on the edge looking over. O Lord our God in wrath remember mercy (Habakkuk 3:2). Videos below. (Go to the bottom of this page for Audio Links) I don’t know Dr White but I take him to be a sane level-headed man not given to scare-mongering. He’s far more aware of what’s going on than I am so I take his warnings seriously.

Video 1 – Responding to Dr. David Gushee’s “Reformation Project” Presentation
‘I began a multi-part, full response to Dr. David Gushee’s presentation at the Reformation Project conference back in 2014 on today’s 90 minute long program.  Gushee has taken the position of “lead ally” and scholar in support of the “gay Christian” movement, asserting that the church is guilty of hurting her “sexual minorities.”  It is important to understand the arguments Gushee is putting forth, for we will all be hearing them repeated in the months and years to come.  I managed to get 22 minutes into the hour long presentation today, and will continue the response on Thursday’s program.’

Video 2 – Continued Response to Dr. David Gushee (Part 2)
‘Here is another 90 minutes of response to Dr. David Gushee in response to his presentation at the Reformation Project back in 2014.  I only got through about 12 minutes today as I took more time to expand upon particular points. If you are enjoying this response and finding it useful and edifying, please, share it with others!’

Video 3 – Finishing Up Review/Rebuttal of David Gushee “Reformation Project” Presentation
‘Finished up a five hour response to David Gushee on his presentation identifying the biblical view of homosexuality as a message of “contempt.” We hope to put the entire five hours into a single audio file available for download.  Given the recent events at the Supreme Court, this is a vital discussion.’


Audio Links Below
(I’ll try to change this to a single file when I can)

Response 1

Response 2

Response 3

Does Scripture forbid same-sex relationships? Robert Gagnon vs Jayne Ozanne

The latest (25/04/2015) ‘Unbelievable’ program hosted by Justin Brierly tackled the question Does Scripture forbid same-sex relationships? [The short answer is yes BTW]

‘Prof Robert Gagnon has become a well-known voice advocating the traditional biblical view on sexuality. In a highly charged show he debates the scriptural issues on sexuality with Jayne Ozanne, the director of Accepting Evangelicals who came out as gay earlier this year.’

I would recommend listening to the program, if for no other reason than to see the vacuity of the LGBTQ case. The case that Jayne Ozanne put forward anyway. I would summarise each position like this:

Robert Gagnon: The Bible clearly forbids Same-Sex marital relationships as I have demonstrated.

Jayne Ozanne: I don’t care what the Bible text says, It’s what I feel God is doing in my life and is about love.

That just about sums it up. And if you don’t believe me….

Go to the program page HERE.

Just remember as the catechism states, The Scriptures are our only rule for faith and practice. If the Bible is usurped in the way Jayne Ozanne has demonstrated; what now is our rule for faith and practice? Authority is the heart of the issue. It always has been so.

Responding to Dr. David Gushee’s “Reformation Project” Presentation – Part 1

From Dr Whites Blog page:

I began a multi-part, full response to Dr. David Gushee’s presentation at the Reformation Project conference back in 2014 on today’s 90 minute long program.  Gushee has taken the position of “lead ally” and scholar in support of the “gay Christian” movement, asserting that the church is guilty of hurting her “sexual minorities.”  It is important to understand the arguments Gushee is putting forth, for we will all be hearing them repeated in the months and years to come.  I managed to get 22 minutes into the hour long presentation today, and will continue the response on Thursday’s program.

Link to the page with links to the Audio.

Marriage in the Manifestos

From The Coalition for Marriage
MARRIAGE IN THE MANIFESTOS
Dear marriage supporter,As the election approaches I thought you might like to know what the political parties are saying about marriage.David Cameron highlights same-sex marriage in his manifesto, saying it“helped drive forward equality and strengthened the institution of marriage”. This is despite the fact that most of his backbenchers voted against it.The Labour Party correctly say that it was their votes which got gay marriage onto the statute book.At the time, both Conservative and Labour Party leaderships brought huge pressure to bear on their MPs to back gay marriage. By contrast the Liberal Democrats seem to have had a genuinely free vote. But all three parties now talk about same-sex marriage as official policy and pledge to go further.

Same-sex marriage is not mentioned in the UKIP, SNP or Plaid Cymru manifestos.

Both the Conservatives and UKIP back the married couples’ allowance, which also applies to same-sex couples in a legal marriage or civil partnership. Labour, the Lib Dems, and the SNP pledge to scrap the married couples’ allowance.

Extracts from the manifestos are given below.

Over four out of five MPs from the last Parliament are seeking re-election. You should have received an email from us last month telling you how your MP voted on redefining marriage.

Ask all your candidates whether people should be punished for believing in traditional marriage. Our 30 Cases leaflet highlights some examples of concern.

We must keep on raising the issue of marriage because we know it really matters to the future of our country. The people elected on 7 May will make crucial decisions in the future, such as whether to reduce or increase legal protection for freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

Yours sincerely,

Colin HartColin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage

Extracts from the manifestos

Conservative Manifesto 2015

  • “We will back the institution of marriage in our society, enabling married couples to transfer £1,060 of their tax-free income to their husband or wife, where the highest earner is a basic rate taxpayer. This applies to civil partnerships too”. (page 27)
  • “Our historic introduction of gay marriage has helped drive forward equality and strengthened the institution of marriage. But there is still more to do, and we will continue to champion equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people.” (page 46)

Labour Manifesto 2015

  • “We will create a fairer tax system, helping those on middle and lower incomes by introducing a lower 10p starting rate of tax, paid for by ending the Conservatives’ Marriage Tax Allowance.” (page 18)

Labour Party LGBT Manifesto 2015

  • “Since Harold Wilson’s Government finally decriminalised homosexuality in 1967, Labour has continued to lead the fight for LGBT equality. We abolished the hateful section 28, equalised the age of consent, gave statutory rights for NHS fertility treatment for lesbians, created civil partnerships and delivered the votes that put equal marriage on the statute book.” (page 3)

Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2015

  • Under ‘A Record of Delivery’: “Introduced equal marriage for gay and lesbian couples”. (page 105)
  • “A fair society should treat its citizens equally and with dignity. In this Parliament, thanks to Liberal Democrats in government, there have been key advances in the fight for equality – like introducing same-sex marriage and banning age discrimination.” (page 105)
  • The Liberal Democrats say they will: Promote international recognition of same sex marriages and civil partnerships as part of a comprehensive International LGBT Rights Strategy that supports the cause of decriminalising homosexuality in other countries.” (page 107)
  • They will also: “Give legal rights and obligations to cohabiting couples in the event of relationship breakdown or one partner dying without a will.” (page 107)

UKIP Manifesto 2015

  • In the next Parliament, UKIP pledge to “increase the transferable personal tax allowance for married couples and civil partners”. (page 5) Again, UKIP will: “Increase the transferable tax allowance for married couples and civil partners to £1,500.” (page 7)

SNP Manifesto 2015

  • “We will also look to release additional resources by backing a series of revenue raising measures…reversal of the married couples’ tax allowance. (page 8)

Plaid Cymru Manifesto 2015 – no mention of same-sex marriage or marriage tax breaks

Green Party Manifesto 2015

  • The Green Party manifesto pledges to: “Legislate to remedy inequality in pension inheritance for same-sex marriage partners and same-sex civil partners.” (page 26)

April 20th – Last Evening with Mr Spurgeon

[Reading this last night we couldn’t help wonder what Spurgeon might have thought about what’s going on in our land in this our day. The answer to the assaults upon the Church and upon the Word of God are the same as were for Spurgeon. We pray The Lord Jesus will lift His sword – not to fall upon the necks of the unbeliever as we have seen from some Muslims – but the Sword of His Word that people might be brought to repentance and faith and to bow the knee to King Jesus and to have the joy of sins forgiven and peace with God. How we should pray for the Gospel of Christ, the Gospel of a Crucified and Risen Saviour, to have free course in our land and to not be silenced by those who ‘will not have this man to reign over them’. The emphases below are mine]

April 20th Evening

“Fight the Lord’s battles.”
1 Samuel 18:17

The sacramental host of God’s elect is warring still on earth, Jesus Christ being the Captain of their salvation. He has said, “Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Hark to the shouts of war! Now let the people of God stand fast in their ranks, and let no man’s heart fail him. It is true that just now in England the battle is turned against us, and unless the Lord Jesus shall lift his sword, we know not what may become of the church of God in this land; but let us be of good courage, and play the man. There never was a day when Protestantism seemed to tremble more in the scales than now that a fierce effort is making to restore the Romish antichrist to his ancient seat. We greatly want a bold voice and a strong hand to preach and publish the old gospel for which martyrs bled and confessors died. The Saviour is, by his Spirit, still on earth; let this cheer us. He is ever in the midst of the fight, and therefore the battle is not doubtful. And as the conflict rages, what a sweet satisfaction it is to know that the Lord Jesus, in his office as our great Intercessor, is prevalently pleading for his people! O anxious gazer, look not so much at the battle below, for there thou shalt be enshrouded in smoke, and amazed with garments rolled in blood; but lift thine eyes yonder where the Saviour lives and pleads, for while he intercedes, the cause of God is safe. Let us fight as if it all depended upon us, but let us look up and know that all depends upon him.

Now, by the lilies of Christian purity, and by the roses of the Saviour’s atonement, by the roes and by the hinds of the field, we charge you who are lovers of Jesus, to do valiantly in the Holy War, for truth and righteousness, for the kingdom and crown jewels of your Master. Onward! “for the battle is not yours but God’s.”

Bats are worth more than Babies

When demolishing an existing building to make way for a shiny new one, local councils will refer to a Bat Report. There are very strict guidelines when it comes to Bats.

There’s a very helpful article on the RSPB website titled ‘Bats and the law‘. I looked this up partly out of curiosity and partly because I needed to know as part of my job. On reading through the article if was difficult to contain my laughter at the ridiculousness of the regulations. For your education and amusement I will quote from part of the article below – before drawing out my conclusion.

Just in case you think I’m kidding here is the relevant legal detail:

“The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) protects bats and their roosts in England, Scotland and Wales. Some parts have been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) which applies only in England and Wales.

The Conservation (Natural Habitats,&c.) Regulations 1994, better known as the Habitats Regulations, implements the Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora – better known as the Habitats Directive. All bats are listed as ‘European protected species of animals’.

Bats may also be protected by site safeguard measures, for example if their roost site or feeding grounds are notified as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC)or a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).”

Bat protection – snippets

It is an offence for any person to:

  • intentionally kill, injure or take a bat. Under the Habitats Regulations it is an offence to deliberately capture or kill a bat.
  • intentionally or recklessly* damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that a bat uses for shelter or protection …
  • intentionally or recklessly* disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection …

It is not illegal:

  • to take a disabled bat, for the sole purpose of tending it and releasing it when no longer disabled, as long as that person can show that it was not disabled unlawfully by them.
  • to kill a bat, as long as that person can show that the bat was so seriously disabled, other than by their own unlawful act, that there was no reasonable chance of it recovering.

It is laughable for a while, until one realises this is serious. Forgive me for thinking that Bats are obviously worth far more than babies. A Bat is safer than a baby in the Womb. It should be disturbing how our society mainly thinks of babies with any serious defect that they are so ‘seriously disabled, other than by their own unlawful act, that there was no reasonable chance of it recovering.’ One of my own grandchildren under this rubric would be in the trash.

Pictures & videos: unborn babies
The images show that a 24 week old baby is a fully developed human being, yet abortion is still legal up to this point in England.

A baby spends its first nine moths in the womb – the ‘habitat’ if you will. Is it safe there? No it isn’t! the reality is a Bat is safer and better protected than a Baby.

You can invade its habitat, you can chop it into tiny pieces, liquefy it and then extract it by means of suction. You can’t do that with a bat, but you can do it to a baby in the womb. Isn’t there something wrong?

In our crazy God rejecting world Bats are worth more, maybe worth far more than a baby, than human life.

Using Film as an Evangelistic Tool

I wrote a piece a few years ago for my own interest on the ‘evangelistic’ video ‘Who is this Jesus?’. I am in the process of listening to a series of podcasts by Dr Scott Clark on The Ten Commandments – the latest one I listened to is on Worshipping the Right God in the Right Way. Some of the discussion was on the ‘image’ of Jesus and it made me think of evangelistic films and this film in particular.

So here my scattered thoughts on the video. Hope you find it thought-provoking and helpful.

I sat and watched this video with a member of a church, where the church was intent on using it as a tool for evangelism. While watching I made a few notes, and typed the following scattered thoughts.

The principle behind the use of this video is this, ‘if it works it must be right’. It is my belief that this thinking is to say the least, unhelpful, particularly as you just cannot argue that because something works (i.e., people are converted) it is good or right. We are back again to the regulative principle, a principle that sections of the church would like to hold, but is unable to practice it in a media controlled world. We have to use only those means that God has given to the Church, regardless of – as far as we can tell – whether they ‘work’ or not. If they do not seem to work, then we should call upon the Lord to honour the means of His own appointing.

Some general comments on Video Use

1. Non-objective. It is a subjective use of images and editing.

2. Centred on man. What happens if the subject (the ‘celebrity’ star) i.e. the central character backslides or falls into serious sin? The charge then becomes the opposite of the original premise. That is, ‘look it works’ becomes ‘look it doesn’t work’. Man first, God second. Because of the way it is presented.

3. Relativism. It works for you, or the subject of the film. (See ‘Truth Decay’ p.163 The Hidden Dangers of Relevance) Subjective truth & Absolute truth.

4. Competing images. It tries to play the world at its own game. It will lose.

5. Manipulation. The (any) presentation will be highly scripted, not only this, but lighting, location, clothing, items in the room or ‘set’ etc. The whole presentation will be designed to manipulate the viewer. This is not the view of the apostle Paul and it shouldn’t be ours either.

6. Preaching is the presentation of objective truth. As Paul Cook recently (when I originally made the notes) said at a history lecture ‘we need to get back to preaching, and to believe in preaching’.

7. Many (not all) Media writers, I feel, would urge caution in the use of media where images are edited, scripted, and manipulated.

8. Theology. What is the theology (if any) of the Director and the Producer? This will influence the presentation.

9. Some Christians will argue for it because of the ‘well he uses it at school’ argument. So what has that to do with it?

10. Who is the intended audience? Again, this will greatly influence the production.

11. Is it really glorifying to God and his salvation.

12. ‘Documentary’ tends to give an authority that is probably not warranted.

13. Even if the video is very good, this is still no reason to use this type of method in evangelism.

14. The presenter is alive and likely to change. The presenter has been chosen, not for his spirituality, not for his gifts in exposition or preaching, but for his media personality, that he has a well-known face. In other words, media marketing is the name of the game.

The Video itself

Is it a documentary? Strictly speaking it is a ‘Docu-Drama’ as it utilises actors in playing a role, including playing the role of Jesus. It is a documentary in so much as it is attempting to communicate a series of propositions.

It may be worth noting that if this video presented the case for evolution, I suspect there would be stringent criticism of it.

The Use of Testimony.

You will notice that there is a housewife (a homemaker in these liberating days), a musician, a Rugby player, a care worker and a former gang member. Many differing faiths give the ‘convert’ a testimony. The whole use of testimony, to me is fraught with difficulty. It seems to be the opposite of ‘let me declare unto you this Jesus’. Instead we have ‘let me tell you what happened to me’. It very subtly shifts the centre of attention, from God to man.

Images and music used in the video.

Emotive use of music combined with images, or when talking of the cross.
If this were a ‘Billy Graham’ crusade, many churches would have nothing to do with it, as using emotive techniques to create a response. This video does exactly the same thing. This is particularly striking when Jesus is in the Garden of Gethsemane with use of emotive music and images. As Neil Postman states that the music is there to inform the viewer what emotions they should be feeling at the time.

Content of the video.

As far as I know, the geographical information is correct. However, it is worth mentioning that the Romans flattened Jerusalem in AD 70 putting the exact location of many places in doubt. I would however be more concerned about the message or should I say the lack of message. The gospel as far as I could tell was absent. The question then, is, what is the gospel? Some might say this video is nothing but a tool, a way to open people up, to make them willing to talk about spiritual truths. I commend the desire, but is this video really necessary in that case? Surely as we get to know people, opportunities will come, a word here, a word there, maybe an extended conversation that gives you a real God-given opportunity to ‘preach’ the gospel to them. Maybe they asked the question, what made you become a Christian? Then you can tell them. They will listen. Although the presenter talks of sin, we are never (as far as I could tell) told in necessary detail what it is. Nowhere is sin explained, or judgement (so as not to put people off presumably) or the nature of man. More seriously, the cross is only ever explained in terms of physical suffering and never in its spiritual sense. The physicality of it is far more emotive (making for good TV) than the spiritual aspect. This is quite deliberate. This is the serious point of the video. Any aspect of a filmed production has within it only those items that are meant to be there. It will be highly scripted, which I suppose explains the deliberate need for a professional actor (and actors).
The costumes were pretty poor, it has to be said, the hessian headgear looked brand new which to my mind made it pretty laughable.

We are told that many millions round the world believe. Is this really a valid argument, millions around the world are Catholics or Muslims, or Hindu’s, or Sikhs, or atheists for that matter! We have to stick to a propositional truth because it is truth, not because millions of others think it is true.

I can see what they are attempting in the video, and they are to be commended for their desire, but it is debatable as to what it is that they actually achieve. As for me, I think it is just another way of side-lining or denigrating preaching and further making us less likely to speak of The Lord Jesus Christ without the aid of a prop.

What says the scripture?

2 Corinthians 4:2-5

2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.

2 Corinthians 2:17 (also 2:14-17)

14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

The following quotations are from ‘Amusing ourselves to death’ by Neil Postman.

P90 ‘…all television programmes are embedded in music, which helps to tell the audience what emotions are to be called forth’

P119 ‘…not all forms of discourse can be converted from one medium to another. It is naïve to suppose that something that has been expressed in one form can be expressed in another without significantly changing its meaning,…’

P124 ‘I believe I am not mistaken in saying that Christianity is a demanding and serious religion. When it is delivered as easy and amusing, it is another kind of religion altogether.’