Lost the Plot!

How the culture warriors have lost the plot by Julia Baird (Sydney Morning Herald

This fortnight, one powerful bloke insulted the religion of more than two billion people on the planet, effectively calling the Virgin Mary a lying slut. And one small teenager sat in front of a crowd in New York, wrought with grief and anger, and called for immediate, expansive action on climate change to protect the earth for her, and future, generations.

So guess which one was mercilessly trolled, denigrated and abused by our most prominent commentators?

The whole article can be found here:

[Caution – the statement from the “powerful bloke”, is quoted in the article and is offensive.]

The article writer points out that some of those responsible for the “denigration” of Greta Thunberg identify as Christian.

One of the names listed is Lyle Shelton who was managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby from 2013 to 2018.

Considering their clear willingness to condemn a young girl whose message they find offensive – where has been their condemnation of someone who basically described the mother of Jesus as “a lying slut”? [The actual statement is quoted in the article].

Why is it that professing believers in Jesus seem more interested in opposing climate change, and attacking those who recognise it’s validity, than in defending one of the most foundational truths of their claimed religion – namely the virgin conception of Jesus, the Son of God?

I’d also like to know what drives so many professing Christians to antagonism against the evidence showing the reality of climate change.

It’s not as if a changing climate, and mankind’s role in it, is somehow contradicting the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that God gave dominion over the earth to man – and that man’s sin resulted in the perfection of creation being marred, and suffering “the bondage of corruption”. However the reality of that bondage should not lead to an abrogation of Christian concern for God’s creation.

Opposing the clear signs, the science and the observable experience of obvious change to the climate is at best foolishness, and at worst inspires further contempt from the world upon believers – putting followers of Jesus into the same category as flat earth proponents (who, sadly, are also often professing Christians).

Those driving the climate change denial message are those with the most to lose from the changes needed to address the climate problem: namely those profiting from the industries that have caused it: fossil fuel billionaires, and the politicians whose careers those billionaires have financed.

So what is the motivation for Christians to align with climate change denial, if not the misguided marriage between those Christians and political opportunism, if not that unholy hybrid that has become the “religious right”: a blend of conservatism and the prosperity “gospel”?

There has been a political yoking of “Christians” to the pursuit of wealth as a sign of God’s blessing, in which the wealthy are lauded and the needy are trampled – a complete contrast to the attitude of the early church described in Acts 2:

All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Apart from the different attitude to caring for those in need, that last sentence should also scream out to us – that “the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” The added number being referred to clearly wasn’t a number of dollars and the saving wasn’t something associated with bank accounts.

So I’ll ask again, if its not about money, if its not about political ideology, if it’s not about theological truth – what is the reason for climate change denial among Christians?

Danny Nalliah, False Prophet and Political Agitator

I mentioned Danny Nalliah in a previous post:

Over the weekend Danny Nalliah attended and gave his vocal support at a meeting celebrating the 10th anniversary of the infamous, very violent Cronulla race riots.

“Nalliah addressed the crowd before an Australian flag, leading them in a chant of “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie”. He then denounced multiculturalism, the media, the United Nations (“United Nonsense”) and the politically correct left.”


Ironically, the Sri Lankan born, dark-skinned Nalliah would have been a victim of the violence if he'd be in Cronulla ten years ago since those targeted in the attacks were anyone considered to have a "Moslem" or middle eastern appearance.

Nalliah is the proven, and unrepentant, false prophet who leading up to the 2007 Federal election prophesied that his party of choice, the Liberal-National coalition would be re-elected to Government, and that the victorious PM John Howard would hand over the reins he'd held for a decade to his Deputy, Peter Costello.

Nalliah had previously taken it upon himself to "anoint" Costello as God's chosen leader of Australia, in the manner of the prophet Samuel anointing David as King of Israel.

The election came, the Government changed, and John Howard not only lost the Prime Ministership, he lost his seat in parliament. Peter Costello subsequently resigned from politics.

Rather than confess to his error, Nalliah chose to blame the Australian church for not voting according to God's revealed will. Revealed of course through Nalliah's prophecy.

Therefore, to Nalliah, it was Australian Christians who failed – not the prophecy.

His response to the failure of his attempt to manipulate an election result was to establish his own political party: “Rise Up Australia”.


see Nalliah’s unrepentant response about his own false prophecy on his ministries website:


And his report of his involvement in the riot commemoration WAS here:
http://catchthefire.com.au/2015/12/cronulla-assignment-carried-out-by-the-the-grace-of-god/ but now seems to have been deleted from his site.

the man who owns Zondervan

The man who controls a significant amount of the world’s media, (including “Christian” publisher Zondervan) revealed more of his character than he perhaps intended.

“AUST gets wake-call with Sydney terror. Only Daily Telegraph caught the bloody outcome at 2.00 am. Congrats,” Murdoch tweeted.

See here:



Burqa Ban?

The subject of burqas has been in the news again. In particular the possible security problems they would cause because they prevent identification of the wearer.

For a short time it was decided that burqa wearers would have their access to Parliament House restricted, but that idea seems to have been overturned after objections were voiced.

Now that the Parliament House issue has been resolved, I’m wondering whether I could visit there myself over the weekend. I have just the thing to wear…

parliament house attire

Disturbing? (What do you do part 2)

Is it only my impression or is there something disturbingly creepy about these statements from a commenter on the Revivalschool blog?

 “For me personally I go by what Jesus told me before He went back to heaven…” (He then quotes Acts 1)

“If He wants me to know any more than the basic things which He has already shared with me in Matthew 24…”

“Anything else the Lord wants to tell me I’m open for it – but I’m not focusing on it – It wasn’t the last instruction He gave me before He left planet earth…”


This commenter is the same person referred to here: https://onesimusfiles.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/what-do-you-do/

It’s My Blog and I’ll Rant If I Want To (1)

Subtitled: Tolerance seems to be a one way street.

Last week Australia had a visit from Geerts Wilders, a Dutch politician who came to speak about his fears related to Islam.

The first news report I saw of him showed Wilders braving a gauntlet of vocal (apparently non-moslem) protestors. These people were clearly taking advantage of the “freedom of speech” they were trying to deny to Wilders. My thought on seeing this crowd was “try exercising that right in Saudi Arabia”. Maybe if they also made a visit to an Islamic state to protest against the persecution of Christians I could take their anti-Wilders protest more seriously.

Then on Sunday, Wilder’s was interviewed by Andrew O’Keefe on Weekend Sunrise. O’Keefe tried his best to talk over his guest insisting Wilders was wrong about Islam – not an easy thing to get across considering Wilders has lived under close guard for around a decade because of death threats from “extremist” moslems.

O’Keefe also tried to quote the bible to show that the “Judeo-Christian tradition” was no less violent than that of Islam. Considering Wilders isn’t a Christian or a Jew I didn’t see the relevance. Neither do I see the point of quoting out of context sentences from the Bible (or the Koran) to prove the violent nature of a religion. Wouldn’t it be far more relevant to observe the nature of the present day societies that are allegedly founded on the religions in question (the nations that are governed by religious law) and see what they are like in practice?

This post is not intended as an endorsement of Wilders or his views.

Tired of the violence or ignoring accountability?

In today’s Daily Telegraph (Sydney Australia) Randa Abdel-Fattah described as a Muslim lawyer and commentator notes the irony of Muslims violently protesting against a film that depicts Muslims as being violent. She says:

 “Some Muslims, apparently seeking to repudiate a certain film’s claim that Muslims are violent, took to the streets and engaged in violent protests. It would be the stuff of a comedy skit if it weren’t so depressing.”

But in her article she also asks why moderate Muslims in general should always be required to speak out against what is described as a Muslim minority who have resorted to violence, whether in the recent protests or in the extreme events of September 11 2001.

She asks:

“When Anders Breivik massacred 77 people in Norway we did not expect Christians the world over to explain why his actions were a clear abomination of Christian teachings…”

I’m sure I can answer that accusation of double standards with two clear and obvious statements:

1) Breivik was not a Christian and few would describe him as one.

2) He was an individual acting as an individual – the recent violent protests by Muslims are going on across the world and are strongly supported by huge numbers. What actually happened in Sydney was mild in comparison to what is happening in nations with Muslim majority populations.

The reality is, people see what is happening around the world and even on our own doorstep and are made afraid by what they see. If Islam is genuinely the moderate religion that the writer of the Telegraph article implies, then THAT is why the moderate Muslim community ought to be keen to distance themselves from the violent displays that cause fear and suspicion.

The Telegraph article is here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/tired-of-the-violence-and-stupidity/story-e6frezz0-1226476804604