Committed Christians and a TV Soap.

Eastenders is one of those TV soaps aired on the BBC four evenings a week. It's one of those programmes I can't imagine being watched regularly by committed, middle-class churchgoers. It portrays a way of life that is far too coarse and as unbiblical as it gets while trying to put across how typical East London working classes live and interact with each other on a day-to-day basis.

The scene is an outdoor setting that bears the name Albert Square in a fictional district of Walford, which is set at Elstree Studios in Borehamwood, Hertfordshire. The Albert Square setting is based on an actual square of the same design, Fassett Square in Dalston, in the East London borough of Hackney.

Toby Smith plays Gray Atkins in Eastenders.

But as I see it, the characters do not quite portray the real life of the working classes, at least, not so much among the male characters. The incredible absence of swear words, curses, smut, and other strong language and insulting speech have robbed the soap of real, true-to-life drama. You know, the sort of stuff I had to endure as a naive teenager entering the adult world of an all-male factory workshop from the kindergarten of school life. As author Charles Dickens once explained, when he wrote his books, the language spoken between the villains and criminals had to be unrealistically modified so as not to startle and upset his puritan readers.

No doubt, the classic TV soap Eastenders has followed Dicken's path of language modification. And that includes the complete omission of toilet jokes - indeed, often common at a working men's club or at a pub - the sort of jokes which I tend, at times, find hilarious but can be offensive to many other Christians. Indeed, I have wondered whether an odd joke thrown in occasionally would add a bit of cheer to the otherwise melancholic script and even raise its viewing figures. Or would such a joke aired on TV open the door for a plethora of complaints flooding the BBC centre? And eventually, leading to the danger of taking the soap off the air?

I have once read that Hollywood loves to portray the villain as a smartly-dressed English businessman. This is also true in Eastenders. Here, the producers at Elstree Studios wrote a script that led to the introduction of one character, Gray Atkins, played by Toby-Alexander Smith. In the soap, he plays the character of a failed solicitor cursed with a quick temper. On the outside, he looks swell to the women around him, as he goes about in a business suit and tie, thus, he stands out as a middle-class gentleman, a beacon of enlightenment and higher education living in a working-class estate. But behind closed doors, his wife, who was also the mother of his two children, was terrified of him, as his quick temper eventually led to a violent scene where she was stabbed. By covering up the murder by using a smashed bottle of milk, he was able to persuade the police to pass the incident off as a tragic accident.

Afterwards, he kills two more people. One of them was Tina Carter. After an argument and questioning him whether he really killed his wife rather than having been in an accident, he strangles her, then hides her body in a bin wrapper and places it into the boot of his car whilst there was no one else around. He then drives off to bury her in some remote, unknown location. Finally, after an altercation at an underground station, this time he pushes a man, Kush Kazemi, off the platform in front of an approaching train. Afterwards, he leaves the scene to look as if it was a suicide incident.

But despite being who he is, as a widower, he still has that appeal to draw in other women, as the series continues, we now learn that he proposed to the beautiful Chelsea Fox. At his first proposal, she hesitated and turns him down. But shortly afterwards, she changes her mind and accepts his marriage proposal. How I cringed! He may be a serial killer, but his profession as a solicitor with his suit-and-tie attire doesn't fail to allure her, as if she's walking into a deadly trap.

How true to life all this is a matter of opinion. For example, real-life John Reginald Christie, to name just one, murdered at least eight women, including his own wife Ethel, and then buried their bodies under the floorboards, also in the tiny back garden, and even walled up others in the kitchen. He was active in the decade between 1943 until he was executed by hanging in July 1953, then aged 54 years, by then, I was already ten months old.

John Reginald Christie.

The two criminals, one fictional and the other real share some common themes - as children, they were both ill-treated by their unemotional and unloving fathers. Both suffered bullying at school, yet, both achieved a high level of education. Both found women to be a threat to their egos. Both concealed their crime or their victim's bodies to avoid discovery. It's these similarities that have made me ponder whether the fictional character of Gray Atkins was borrowed from the historic John Reginald Christie.  

It's my opinion that most committed Christians would shun watching the soap, branding it as too worldly, unspiritual and glorifying sin. And it's quite true that, throughout the series, evil was allowed to flourish for a very long time before the perpetrator was brought to justice, much to my own sense of injustice. But one lesson does stand out quite clearly - that is, if you sleep around, you will face grave consequences. Throughout the soap, where adultery and unfaithfulness happen, it's always followed by the shock of its discovery, anger, strife, tears, divorce, mental illness, an unwanted pregnancy, even violence, and long-term ruin for the guilty. Perhaps that was why God instructed Israel not to commit adultery. God had already known of its dreadful consequence and wishes nobody would suffer from such sin.

The same applies to lending and borrowing. There are multiple stories in Eastenders connected with large sums of money lent out, and the borrower is unable to pay back the debt. The results often end in fear, frustration, hate and gang violence, a very sad set of consequences for not taking the advice Jesus gave, which is if you lend, don't ask for the money back, if they ask for your shirt, then give him your coat as well, and if they tell you to walk a mile, then walk two miles - advice which seems at first to be incredibly unrealistic, even imbecilic and impractical, along with the fear of becoming a doormat, but at the end turns out to result in peace of the soul, greater happiness, less stress and anxiety, far less hostility, a recipient of greater respect, maybe even honour, and just as important, "piling hot coals on the enemy's head" - a poetic way of piercing his conscience. Indeed, Watching Eastenders could give us all a lesson in not behaving in a way that discredits the truth of the Bible.

As Christians, both Alex and I have discussed the consequence of sin after watching Eastenders. Rather than tut-tutting for wasting our time on "unwholesome hedonistic pleasures", such storylines does bring us to the Bible and if anything, conclude that the soap verifies the truthfulness of the Bible rather than denying or ridiculing it.

And now? We're waiting for Gray Atkins' comeuppance for his murders. It will come eventually. How? We just have to wait and see. It all hangs on how long the contract will be between the actor Toby Smith and the makers of the soap. If the producers of the soap stick with Biblical principles, then the thick of reaping what you sow will eventually bear fruit for Gray Atkins. And I believe that is what the viewers want, and patiently waiting for.

And if there's an irony here. We both also enjoy nature programmes, especially those presented by David Attenborough and physicist Brian Cox. Lately, we've been watching the Universe and how it began, a presentation by Brian Cox. Throughout the two one-hour-long documentaries, there was no mention of God or any hint of divine or intelligent creation. Rather, our Universe, including our Sun and Solar System, were all formed purely by chance over multiple billions of years. And we as a species, are nothing more than a coincidence, an offshoot from the Universe out of pure luck, an unnecessary side-issue, the Universe owing us nothing. Although all that is diametrically opposed to how the Bible evaluates us - as the pinnacle of Creation and made just a little lower than God himself and perceived by our Maker as worthy enough for redemption.

And so, such science-based programmes appeal to the middle-classes, including Christian graduates who fill our church pews. Such documentaries appear far more wholesome than the horrid goings-on within the soaps. Yet although very interesting to watch, such philosophies presented by the likes of Brian Cox can be soul-destroying, making us feel worthless and psychological damaging - far more so than Eastenders. At least with the soap, it's all fiction and the world knows that. But what Cox (and also Attenborough) presents is meant to be taken as historical fact while at the same time the Bible is relegated to mere legend, well within the realm of mythology.

Then, if we as a species is nothing more than an accidental spinoff from the gasses that swirled in universal space, then what's the point of good or bad? Indeed, Gray Atkins, and for that matter, John Christie, can snuff out the lives of as many people as they want. Why then, is that bad? We're just swirling gasses, after all, nothing more. And the NHS. Why do we all here in the UK love the National Health Service so much if all we are is a mass of random molecules gotten here by a stroke of luck?

Earlier in the week, my good friend and PhD holder Dr Andrew Milnthorpe posted a video of a Remembrance ceremony that was held at the Royal Albert Hall in 2016. He posted it on 11/11/2021, the day we remember Armistice Day, which was signed to end the Great War on that very day in 1918. After the hymn, I vow to thee my country, was sung by the choir filling the auditorium, a colonial publicly addressed the Queen with such adoration, had I arrived from another planet, I would have sworn that she was a saviour-goddess. Such praise and adoration for the Head of State do not come from a chance offshoot from swirling gasses. Rather, it arose from the Biblical record of Divine Creation.

Brian Cox.

I write this blog on the eve of Remembrance Sunday. Biblically based, it's an important day for us to remember all those who gave their lives for our freedom. Indeed, I see myself as more of a European than an Englishman. In 2016, I voted to remain in the EU at the Referendum and I was very disappointed when the result showed a national favour to leave the EU, especially by a very narrow margin. As a full-blood Italian (both my parents arrived in the UK before I was born) I still feel for my roots stemming from Italy, although by law, I'm a British citizen. Therefore, it's right to remember those who gave their lives so we can enjoy our freedom here in the United Kingdom.

Christian Love or Atheist's Brilliance?

October 16th 1555. The one day marked in British history as "victorious" for two Anglican clergymen who were burnt alive at the stake outside Balliol College of Oxford University. The two referred to cannot be any other than Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer.

But why this waste of life? Could it be their conviction that the Catholic Church who ordered their execution believed in the Transubstantiation while these two didn't? To make things a little simpler, this long word simply means a change of a substance from a loaf of bread to the body of Christ and red wine into the blood of Christ. The Catholic Church taught - and still teaches - that at every altar around the world, at the Eucharist or Holy Communion, a miracle takes place when a piece of bread changes into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, and the eating of this assures the partaker of entry into Heaven after death on condition that no mortal sin is committed without penance whilst still alive.

Ridley and Latimer denied the reality of the miracle - and they had a point. The host, which is not bread but a thin round wafer, remains the same after the blessing. Latimer and Ridley insist that these two substances are only symbols representing the body and blood of Jesus Christ crucified, and with this, they paid with their lives, with one of them crying out that may the light of truth will never be extinguished here in England as the flames started to lick.

Then came the publication of Charles Dickens' writings some 283 years after Ridley's demise, giving quite a detailed description of the Anglican Church in his day, and it wasn't pleasant! He likened it to riding the high horse of morality whilst heavily judgemental towards sinners, right to the point of hating them and condemning them all to Hell - and yet still remaining mutually exclusive from such sinners. And such was English society during the 1838 Dickensian era when theft and prostitution thrived in the city streets amidst dirt and squalor. And each Sunday, these well-to-do people, dressed in the most expensive height of smart fashion would be seen filing into a nearby church where no thief or prostitute dare venture.

Moving forward into the present and with the advance of the Internet, I see something very sinister happening right before me. Sinister? In Italian, the word is sinistre, meaning left, such as my left hand or left foot. Maybe "weird" instead? Perhaps that's more appropriate. But it's not good. I'm referring to the closure of our church at Ascot, along with most if not all other churches, and the advance of popularity towards atheists on YouTube. This coronavirus pandemic had our Government order the shutdown of all public gatherings including churches, creating instead, "virtual meetings" on the computer screen, followed by "virtual coffee" on Zoom. And so each of us appears in a small individual frame, set in a structure which is not unlike a pigeonhole. 

Although our elders are excited that "more people tuning into our services than before" - in referral to outsiders, whether Christians or unbelievers - nevertheless such virtual meetings cannot hold a candle to the real thing, the proper church meeting where strong bonds, body contact and hugging have all proven to be very beneficial to all three, spiritual, physical and mental health alike.

Lack of physical contact brought in by fear of this pandemic has already proven detrimental to me personally, but I'll come back to that. Instead, I have become rather intrigued by up to nine celebrities which I'll divide by three groups of three. Three authors: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens, all self-confessed atheists. Then I'm already familiar with three BBC reporters: Andrew Marr, Simon Reeve and Brian Cox, of whom only Andrew Marr is the atheist, the other two are more likely agnostics, although both might have had bad experiences with organised religion, at least Simon Reeve admit this. Then the three YouTubers, all self-confessed atheists: Cosmic Skeptic whose real name is Alex O'Connor, Genetically Modified Skeptic, whose real name is Drew McCoy, and SciManDan, whose only clue to his name being Dan or Daniel. Of the three YouTubers, I have met and spoken to Alex O'Connor face-to-face at Oxford.

Concentrating on the three YouTubers, their popularity is reflected by some stats I did in preparation of this blog. Between them, at midday on 8/8/2020, they have 133,794,891 views. This is divided as follows: SciManDan: 76,238,071 views and 371k subscribers. Drew McCoy has 26,546,736 views with 296k subscribers, and Alex O'Connor has 31,010,084 views with 360k subscribers. Boy! I wish that many would read my blogs!

Of the three, SciManDan I found to be more intriguing. Married with children, he has several channels, one of the rebuking the Flat Earth theory. Another is a tutorial on physics, where I learn that energy is always transferred from one source to another without petering out, a concept I should have learned at school.

His rebuke against Flat Earth and his knowledge of physics bring out his high level of education. And for a Christian such as I am, this poses a level of embarrassment. This is due to the awkward fact that Flat-Earthers are generally Christians who believe that our planet is a divinely-created flat disc covered with a solid glass-like dome which is referred to as the firmament, according to Genesis 1:6-8.

Among Christians, Flat-Earthers are a tiny minority. Although here in the UK, committed Christians makes up about 2% of the population, a great number of them believe in Theistic Evolution, thus accepting that the Earth is a sphere billions of years old and organic evolution went through its process under God's guidance and supervision. Over the years I have associated with Christian graduates who were committed to Theistic Evolution, on a regular basis. Then there is a class of Christian believers who are Biblical Creationists and I'm in that class. Therefore what do I believe in?

I believe that the heavens, that is, the entire Universe, and the Earth were created supernaturally in 6x24-hour days as narrated in Holy Scripture. The Earth is a sphere wrapped by an atmosphere, and it has always been that, a sphere. As for the firmament, this was not a glass-like dome covering a flat disc. Instead, the Hebrew indicates an expanse, a layer of water vapour in the upper atmosphere surrounding the planet. Whether it was in the stratosphere or the troposphere, I cannot be sure, but as any meteorologist would agree, the firmament or expanse is not there now. Therefore, what has happened to it?

Could the collapse of the expanse, along with tremendous tectonic movements within the Earth's crust be the cause of the Noachian Deluge which wiped out all antediluvian life? And that which is endorsed as historic by Jesus Christ himself? However, that's a topic for another day.

Thus I could be classed as one of a small minority who stands by my conviction. The likes of SciManDan could laugh aloud if he were to read this. But this along with the embarrassment is the presence of what I would call Hyper-Creationists who believe in a flat earth and also partakes in the Christian faith. Such people make me ashamed to be a Christian, especially under the scrutiny of well-educated atheists.

But going back to the Coronavirus pandemic, I miss the church service and fellowship resulting from being physically present. However, one friend of mine runs an outdoor Bible class at South Hill Park, not far from my home. Eight people, I think, were present including two couples, three single men and myself. Then I was involved in an incident there where, I'm sure, would convince any learned atheist that Christianity is nothing more than man-made religious opium.

Months of lockdown was beginning to take its toll. Unable for us to travel, repeated hospital appointments along with repeated calls for an ambulance, watching my beloved suffering intense pain, her immobility, this wretched compulsion to wear facemasks when having a covering over my face affects my throat, causing irritation and coughing, watching a Democracy turn into a Police State where anyone not wearing a mask in public is likely to get nicked...

This fear. This universal hysteria! This universal and hysterical fear of a virus which seems to be proving that it's far, far less fatal than that which is spewed out by the Government, its allied scientists, and the Media, both TV and newspapers. Figures of death statistics are shown to be inflated, including the death statistics of those who were tested positive but had died from a different cause, even after recovery from the initial pathogenic infection. And so far, although the rate of infection is rising again, forcing quarantine for everyone returning from certain countries overseas, the rate of hospital admissions and death numbers remains static.

One afternoon this week, I return from a shopping trip to see my wife lying on the floor with the phone in her hand, trying to call for an ambulance as she lay gripped in agonising back pain. Quickly I took out the bottle of Morphine oral solution from the cupboard and gave her seven millilitres, which is below the maximum ten, and spoke to the person at Ambulance Control at the other end of the phone saying that everything is in hand and an ambulance is not required. I then watched Alex recover as I laid her on the sofa. One sidekick of morphine is sleepiness, and so she slept as I made my way to the Bible study group.

Seeing my beloved lying on the floor when returning home is not a new thing at all. The first time was when she was pregnant with our second daughter and she was rushed by ambulance to hospital where she was kept in overnight. Fortunately, both she and the baby were okay. But there were other times, later in life, when I find her unconscious and not breathing, as her throat muscles had involuntary tightened around her airway, and I had to carry out a resuscitation procedure on her.

Therefore, my spirit was very low when I made off to the Bible study group. Only seven other people were there but the circle was very wide in relation to the few who were present. When looking for a place to settle - straightforward, really - a panic began to ensue as if I was the disease itself and people began to fuss, lest I pass the (non-existent) virus to them.

And that was when I tipped over the edge. My anger and frustration, up to the present contained, suddenly exploded. And out came language so strong that any thick iron bar would buckle under its force. Six of the people took my onslaught in silence, most likely realising that such a release of tension was necessary for my future wellbeing.

But not Steve, the unmarried moralist who had to mount his high horse to shout back at me not to swear like that. Oh, I could have knocked his lights out! Nothing - indeed nothing - could have added insult to the wound in a way this moralist had just done! This episode gave me a very bad worldview of the Christian faith.

It's not the first time my view of the Christian church had dipped so low! As I might have said before: If it wasn't for God's grace and familiarity with the Bible, this experience would have cemented my atheism forever! I actually believe that the likes of Steve would have sent many to Hell rather than to Heaven. Therefore, by making a comparison, had the likes of Alex O'Connor, Drew McCoy, SciManDan, or even Andrew Marr or Sam Harris had been present, I believe that one of them would disregard any virus threat to lay both hands on my shoulders and quietly instruct me to breathe deeply and smoothly. 

"You are right in everything you have said. Now gently... Breathe in, breathe out, be calm and let your emotion gently settle."

And guess what, during my lifetime I have calmed a few angry men by using that very method. And it works.

Brian Cox - more approachable than many a religious moralist?

All this makes me ask: Do other Christians ever get angry? If not, then indeed they are truly regenerated in Christ - whilst I'm still in my sins. But if they do, how do they deal with it? Especially the likes of Steve. An interesting point here.

This Dickensian attitude among Christians could become a thing of the past if Christians show true agape love for each other. And that, I feel, is what the Church desperately needs in order to outshine the most clever of atheists. And according to what I have seen and heard, Christians just don't have such agape love. Plenty of education, yes, plenty of wealth, yes, holding down good jobs, yes. But having the same love God has for us? - Er, no. We all fall short in this area, including me. Until we change, atheists will always run rings around us in mocking ridicule.

Simon Reeve's Longing for God...

I guess that most of us - Christian or non-Christian - have a celebrity to admire, to hold in awe, whether it would be a professional footballer or any other sportsman, a singer, an actor, or even a politician. Or a journalist or more appropriately, a presenter of a popular documentary, especially one who has TV fame. For example, I know at least two regular church-going Christians who admire Conservative politician Jacob Rees-Mogg, and there could be others, churchgoers or not, who keep their adoration for such a posh, Eton-educated politician secretly in their closets. As for TV presenters, I believe BBC naturalist David Attenborough is loved universally by the nation, while news anchor and Antiques Roadshow presenter Fiona Bruce may be admired more by men.

It's more about TV journalists that I wish to focus on here. Three immediately come to mind - the first two having university degrees: News Correspondent Andrew Marr and Professor Brian Cox. The third is Travel Presenter Simon Reeve. As for Andrew Marr, to watch him shed his business suit and tie and then see him walk through a tropical rainforest wearing an open-neck shirt - I then realise he must be human after all - yet I can't help but shake my head at his lifetime devotion and awe for Charles Darwin as the greatest Briton who ever lived.

Both photos - Andrew Marr in Darwin's Dangerous Theory.

According to his own admission, Andrew Marr is an atheist. To him, God does not exist, and he remains determined to stay that way. But Professor Brian Cox is more of an agnostic. He acknowledges the possibility that God might exist. Both Andrew Marr and Brian Cox have university alumni, the former with an honourable degree from Trinity Hall, Cambridge, while the other achieved a doctorate at the University of Manchester. I'm aware that Marr attended church as a boy, and whether Cox had attended church during his boyhood is not known, although he most likely has been taught the rudimentary issues of the Christian faith while attending Hulme Grammar School.

But it is Simon Reeve who I wish to focus on here. Although both Marr and Cox have aroused a level of admiration within me, their road to broadcasting fame was the traditional route through either Grammar or Public School eg, Eton or Harrow, followed by Uni. And normally, that is the route taken by nearly all TV journalists and presenters. But not Simon Reeve.

If there was a celebrity who has won my all-time admiration, it has to be Simon Reeve. Looking through Google images of Reeve, it's rather difficult to come across a snapshot of him wearing a tie or even a bow-tie, as was the case with both Marr and Cox. And that is reflected in his travel documentaries. Sporting a permanent stubble, his casual dress would have earned the description of "scruffy" by more posh or well-to-do gentlemen. He normally wears open-neck shirt and at times, a crew-neck tee-shirt, as he delivers his expert political and economic issues of the country he's visiting, as well as its natural and environmental beauty, together with having intimate communication with the indigenous residents of a shanty town or a forest hut and accepting a bed there for the night.

This, along with his experienced diving skills which allow him to film magnificent coral reefs and other marine and aquatic life, thus enhancing his programmes. His style of presentation has made some, including myself, to dub him as "just another ex-public schoolboy". It is also reputed that Simon Reeve was mistaken for Professor Brian Cox. But his style of presentation had bid me check up on his background, and I was surprised with what came up.

Both pics: Simon Reeve out on his travels.

As a boy, like Andrew Marr, he also attended church, but in Reeve's case, he grew up in a Methodist environment. Also as a youth, there were times when he clashed with his father, so I read, and he was known for being mischievous, including shoplifting, I assume, stealing confectionary and running out of the shop without paying. He attended a comprehensive school and left with minimal qualifications. He didn't go to university. Instead, after leaving school, he took on several jobs until he landed one as a poster boy with a newspaper. During his time there, he studied Arab history and wrote a book on the subject which was published but failed to sell well - that is, until the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Center. After this, various companies contacted him about his book which eventually opened a door at the BBC as a travel presenter.

His knowledge of world current affairs along with his geography has always astonished me, I think, his stubble and casual dress enhancing my sense of awe. It is easy for me to feel a level of envy. Although in all appearances he comes over as a casual, free-going backpacker who can just knock on a door and immediately offered food and a bed for the night, it's easy to forget that he has a TV crew with him, and the hospitality shown must have been after weeks of planning. In other words, on TV, his travels look just like my own travel habits - walking to a hotel from the street and asking for a bed for the night or several nights and offered a room. But that was done on my own. No TV crews accompanying me.

And the way Simon drives his car during a shoot. Whilst doing so, he turns to talk into the camera which is set up behind him. Surely, this kind of distraction is illegal here in the UK. But I have noticed that we never have a glance at the passenger seat, which gives the impression that he is alone in the vehicle and has full control of it. But it has crossed my mind whether the car he drives is a dual-drive, as in cars used in driving schools. The camera is always placed at an angle so never to see the guy sitting next to him.

And then at one point, he makes a three-part documentary about pilgrimage, going back to the Middle Ages as well as talking to modern day pilgrims. His journey began at Lindisfarne here in Britain's northeastern coast, all the way to Jerusalem, stopping at Spain's Santiago as well as crossing the Alps to reach Rome. It was while he was still in the UK, on the Watling Street route east of London and on the way to Dover, where Simon's true character was revealed.

One of Reeve's strengths is that he shuns the stiff upper lip and is prepared to show his emotions. That is another reason why I hold him in awe. He's not afraid to be emotional. At this ancient Roman road, he met up with this pilgrim who was carrying a cross of Christ, and with it on his shoulders, walked great distances both here in the UK and abroad. During the interview, I could see his emotions rise, and Simon was close to tears. Then he uttered these words to the camera which inspired the writing of this blog. They were:

Oh, how I envy his faith!

It was as if through this simple statement the veil fell. He was close to tears. Suddenly I understood.

He has a longing for faith in God, but not for his perception of God he grew up with. I can actually say that all three of us share a common childhood factor. Andrew Marr attended a church in Scotland, the land of his birth. Referring to himself as an "irreligious Calvinist", he gives me the impression that the church he attended as a boy was Scottish Presbyterian. But whatever impression he ever had of God, I'm pretty sure that he perceived him as punitive and judgemental rather than a loving Saviour. And if I understand Simon Reeve's Methodism correctly, a repentant sinner is saved straight away, but this forfeitable salvation is conditioned on human choice and is seen as probational for continual faithfulness and holy living rather than a free gift of grace bestowed on the wicked. Being aware of areas in his life which does not meet such godly criteria, it would not be surprising that he eventually became disillusioned with the whole religious thing.

And that's why I can identify with them. I grew up as a Roman Catholic, which catechism is about a works-based soteriology. That is, salvation can only be attained after a life of confession of sin to a priest, doing penance, attend Mass every Sunday and holy days, partaking in the Eucharist, and staying faithful throughout life. If I was unfortunate to die with unconfessed mortal sin in my soul, then it's Hell for all eternity, even after decades of holy and faithful living! Little wonder that in my teenage years I hated God! And I know of other former Catholics who lived lives in hatred of anything religious.

Tying it all together, I can understand Simon Reeve's envy of the cross-carrying pilgrim. As he sees him, his constant faithfulness and actually enjoying his work to secure his salvation, and the pilgrim's ability to prove his love for God and to remain spotless from the world, Reeve is convinced that the holy man has earned the love of God and is destined for eternal heavenly bliss.

Simon Reeve perceives a God who keeps looking at his sin, his failures and his weakness instead of wallowing in God's love whose Son died and was resurrected so God can justify the wicked freely, simply by believing in the heart that God has raised Christ from the dead, without the need for works. That was how I once perceived God to be, as Simon does, as Andrew Marr does, as Brian Cox does - the need to work for salvation and knowing I'll never make it. With that kind of worldview so prevalent, it does look as if we as a church is not getting the message of God's love across adequately enough.

Also, I might add: All three presenters believe in Evolution. Because this theory concocted by Charles Darwin literally destroys the credibility of the Gospel, then why believe in a punitive and ever watching God? To them, science has proved that life is far better without him.

Brian Cox at the Grand Canyon. Simon Reeve lookalike?

There is something about being on a pilgrimage. The belief that going on long journeys on foot, encountering dangers, a risk to life, weariness, pain, all this cleaning the soul from sin and opens the path to Heaven. The trouble with that is, it's salvation by works, the work being on this long journey, a journey which only a few can accomplish, and the likes of Simon Reeve, such a journey is beyond his means and therefore, holding on to a false idea that Heaven too, is beyond his reach.

Poor Simon! He stands there looking into the TV camera, his face screws as if about to cry. Very close to tears, he looks with envy at the pilgrim as he walks on towards Dover, the Cross of Christ on his shoulders, pacing his way to Heaven, and admitting his jealousy at the man's faith as he compares with his own need for God his childhood experience was unable to fulfil.

What Lies Behind My Convictions?

Every Saturday morning I can be seen sitting at a corner table at Starbucks. Corner table because that's the one next to a large, double-glazed window, therefore maximising the illumination. And that can be quite helpful when considering that spread out in front of me is the latest edition of the Daily Mail national newspaper. Not that I am able to get to that particular table all the time. From time to time I'm beaten by a regular elderly gentleman with a laptop. Perhaps whenever he beats me to it or not depends on whether he has remembered to set his alarm clock the night before. Who knows? After all, I usually arrive at or just before nine o'clock, when the queuing up for the counter service is at its minimal.

But this morning, not only that the table was vacant, but the whole restaurant was just about deserted. Therefore I was served at the point of entry, a very unusual feat! But it was afterwards when families began to queue up at the counter that the environment began to bustle with life. And that includes very young children, including a newborn directly in front of me. And I could not help but feel for this baby girl, the way she was dressed, or at least, her headwear. For her white woollen cap was decorated with two rather large fluffy pom-poms, giving the poor child a ridiculous appearance of Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse. Oh dear. The choices some parents make!

Then another family sat just two tables from where I was sitting. Dark skinned, this baby boy in a pram, I estimate to be up to a year old, kept on looking at me as I turned and smiled, bringing laughter to both of his parents. By then the restaurant became rather crowded, with the queue snaking into the Sainsburys superstore, to which Starbucks is annexed.

But rather than continually reading the paper, I looked upon these children. And this led me to reason within myself: Why do I believe the way I do? And why do I push my opinions at an intensity which one can consider as forceful? My anti-Darwin views and emphasis in Creation, for example?

Perhaps I need to go back to the Gospel. When Adam and Eve disobeyed a simple commandment God has given to them in the garden, their sin meant that I was born with a serious problem. Just as on that day they both died spiritually, followed by a physical death, so I too, was born with this inherited sin, already dead spiritually, and I still am destined for the grave. But in his love for us, God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, also known as the Second Adam, to suffer a horrible death on the cross to atone for my transgressions, he was buried, and on the third day, he rose physically from the dead. His Resurrection proved not only that He is the Son of God, but able to give eternal life to all who believe.

When I first believed, I was not only forgiven but was actually acquitted, or justified, and the righteousness of Christ was imputed or credited, to my account. Therefore, God the righteous Judge not only sees me as one merely forgiven but also sees me in the way he sees his only Son, Jesus Christ - absolutely righteous and fit for Heaven! That is the truth - I am now a son of God. But because while I'm still at this side of the grave and therefore remaining subject to sin, as a son I'm also a recipient of God's discipline, as forewarned in the 12th chapter of Hebrews. 

Oh, the wonders of Salvation! After God foreknew, he predestined, then called me to conform to his Son, to receive glory at some future date, known only by God himself. Furthermore, because of the dreadful suffering Jesus had to go through whilst on the cross, I am a gift, or reward from the Father to the Son, as specified in John chapter 17. Therefore, because I don't believe that the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God is capable of erring, I can be assured that once saved, I will always be saved. Eternal Security is one of the bulwarks to withstand any of life's trials.

All this is due to the fact that, unlike the first Adam, the second Adam spent more than thirty years on this planet as a man - without committing a single sin. Therefore, if the Son of God went through life without a single sin committed, and God sees me as he sees his Son, then it stands to reason that he sees me as without sin either. Very hard to believe? Indeed, especially when I look upon day-to-day life, riddled with imperfection. Such as not showing enough love or charity to those who may be in need of it, or to do good things but with the wrong motives. Or to get my own way to the cost of another person. Waiting in the queue for what seems to be such an unnecessarily long time has tested my patience many times before now. Maybe I can thank God that I don't drive a car or any other motorised vehicle. What I have seen, the driver's seat can be a hotbed for foul tempers!

Yes, of course, God wants me to live a holy life on a day-to-day basis. How I live as a Christian believer is very important to God. It is the only way that he can be glorified. And the glory of God is other people repenting, changing their minds, and turning to Christ for salvation. Jesus instructed to let our light shine before men, so that they may see what we do and glorify the Father (Matthew 5:16). As Paul later wrote, we are to shine like stars in heaven for the benefit of other men (Philippians 2:12-16). By living to please God, unbelievers are more likely to take note and change their minds about Jesus Christ.

However, the fact stands that I am a son of God, adopted into his family. What a wonderful state to be in. But for this to be real, a belief in six literal days of Creation, along with the reality of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as history is absolutely essential to my faith in Jesus. The accepting as history our first parents, their supernatural creation from the soil of the ground, their disobedience and Fall, the Flood of Noah some 1,656 years after Creation, are all as important and historic as the call of Abraham, the nation of Israel, and King David, who was the ancestor of Jesus Christ himself.

There was a time that I was a devout evolutionist. I certainly was one during my teenage years. Then at age twenty, it was as if God himself was standing in front of me during one stormy night at my parent's house. He gave me a choice. Keeping my belief in evolution? Or change my mind and accept his revelation of his divine Creation? After reading the first three chapters of Genesis for the first time ever, I knew whose side I was on.

Creationism has ever since been the bedrock on which my faith in Christ rested upon. Creationism is a rock, evolution is sand. And it is a crying shame that all unbelievers had built their faith on the sand, and not only unbelievers but Christian graduates had also based their faith on the sand, that is to say, Theistic Evolution, the "halfway house" with which God gave me no option for me to indulge in. It was one or the other. There was no third way.

A bedrock of my faith - Grand Canyon Hike, taken 1995

Therefore going back to Starbucks. As I sat at that corner table, watching young children with their parents, I was thinking on what will they learn as they grow up. Too bad, evolution will be presented to them as a scientific fact. If Creationism is mentioned in the classroom, then it will be relegated as one of many mythologies that makes up classic literature. But it would not be taught as historic.

This would have dire repercussions. Because, when I see children, I don't ponder on their potential level of education. Nor do I wonder which career they will want to pursue. Instead, I ponder on whether they will know Jesus Christ personally and spend eternity in God's Kingdom. I don't want to think of the alternative - a lost eternity. But that is what Darwin's theory does. It puts a wedge between the person and knowing God. Evolution does lead to atheism. It would not bring such a person to Christ. Unless, as it was the case with me, the light of God's grace had pierced the veil, and illuminated my heart enough for the need to repudiate evolution.

My late father was an evolutionist, and he was also a self-confessed agnostic. After rebuking me to come to my senses (ie to return to Darwinism) and failed, I think he had a sense of embarrassment while he was with his friends. There were times when I prayed for this nominal Catholic, but with no avail. The day I attended his funeral was a day without much hope and a temporal loss of a belief in the power of prayer. Now my mother, who is approaching ninety, has severe dementia and in need of daily care. After spending years in prayer and "attempting to convert her" I watched as she remained steadfastly loyal to her Catholic religion, after making a promise to her mother in Italy never to change religion, immediately before emigrating to London around 1950. 

Sure enough, during her later years, and especially during her earlier widowhood, she always made an effort to pray each night before lights out. But her prayers has always been ritualistic: set prayers such as Our Father (Padre Nostro) and Hail Mary (Ave Maria) - as she always prayed in Italian. Her prayers have always been within the Catholic tradition - that is, with a hope that such efforts will cleanse her soul from sin - when the reality is that prayer should be the result of an already acquitted soul. As such, I have to conclude that only God knows her spiritual state, and who knows, I may even be in for a pleasant surprise when it's my time. However, Mum was not committed to evolution in the same way Dad was, but as I believe, she still leaned in favour of it.

Although I have been a Creationist since 1973, and I have studied historical geology, evolution itself and its effects on history after my conversion, the big move did not arrive until 2016, when Dan, my financial advisor and longstanding Creationist friend, hinted that I should attend the initial Creation Ministries International Conference, held in London. After booking a place for both Alex and myself, together with the hotel reservation, I contacted another good friend of mine, Dr Andrew Milnthorpe, and told him about the conference and its date, covering two days. He too made reservations for both conference and hotel alike, and off we set, the three of us, to the conference.

Although the initial conference was a blessing to attend, where my eyes were opened on several issues, it was at the second conference two years later where I found myself really shaken and stirred. Held at the same venue - Emmanual Centre near the Houses of Parliament - it was the opening discourse delivered which had a soul-shaking impact on my life. As with the first meeting, again it was Dr Andrew Milnthorpe, Alex my wife and I who attended, this time requiring two nights at the hotel, as the first day began as early as nine in the morning.

Creation Ministries International Conference, London, 2018.

I could have easily gone home soon after the opening talk. I was shaken and stirred by that sermon alone. What was it about? Simply this: The theory of evolution has destroyed the authority of Holy Scripture. And when the Bible is no longer taken seriously, then the people perish. It is an awful thought, a dreadful reality. That's why the sight of young children hits me. It hurts. I suppose I do feel for those around me who do not know the love of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet there are academics or simply better-educated people who have won the hearts of both believers and unbelievers alike. That is, of course, a believer such as myself who has an admiration for both David Attenborough and Brian Cox, both evolutionists yet both a good source of genuine scientific knowledge. After all, it was through Brian Cox from where I got a better understanding of the science of entropy.

Without a doubt, David Attenborough is admired by just about everyone who had ever watched his programmes, which is mainly about natural history. He has been known to come up with statements which humbleness had made them unforgettable. During one of his undersea filmings and describing a shark or other marine organism which has come dangerously close to the cameraman, Attenborough quipped, It's not that the sharks have invaded our territory, rather it's us humans who have invaded theirs. Of all BBC natural history presentations, none had ever eclipsed this particular classic. But his constant use of the words, Evolved, Evolution, Evolutionary have always caused a slight cringe within us as we listen. If only Attenborough listens to what God is saying and acknowledges Divine Creation. But instead, he prefers Darwin's worldview, and so to speak, allows himself to go with the current.

And that's a shame. Because as I have already demonstrated here, in addition to the testimony of supernatural Creation, God's salvation and regeneration of the spirit is within easy reach of every one of us, including both David Attenborough and Brian Cox. It is the mercy of God made available to every one of us. It is so wonderful. And God is patient, not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:8-10) and that God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

Salvation is open to everyone. Anyone can come to Christ and be saved. What a shame, though, that too much respectability is given to the academic instead of to the Bible. And that is the cause of the sorrow which drives my opinions even, at times, to the point of literacy aggression.

Outsmarted by a Vending Machine?

Alex my wife felt rather hungry, not having eaten for five or six hours. She asked me whether there is a vending machine in the vicinity. I answered that there is one at that particular corner, but when I arrived at the spot on the far side of the 'L' shaped room, the old machine had gone. Searching elsewhere, I found what appears to be a new installation at a nearby corridor, just out of my wife's view.

Just the sight of this high-tech snack dispenser has made my skin crawl a little. A reflection of our increasingly sophisticated society? Maybe so, maybe not, however, what I did notice for the first time ever, was that there is a debit card terminal built into the machine, along with coin slots and an array of push-buttons, or a typewriter-style keyboard, whatever it's referred as. Thinking that inserting my bank card into the slot and keying in the code number of the item chosen from the wide display behind the glass window, I would first type in the code, then the machine debits my card at the appropriate price. And so I thought.

Nothing happened, except that there was an electronic display of the price at a slot directly under the keypad. I managed to lift the lid located below the display window, but none of those coils, on which each item is suspended, made any effort to turn. Was my card debited? I don't know, but I decided to insert some coins instead - after removing the card from the terminal - and keyed in the code. 

Again some obscure message was displayed. I think it was reading, Continue Shopping. I was confused. All I wanted was one item, which was for Alex. I ended up gazing rather forlornly at the whole machine until another message appeared on the slot: Abandon Shopping? When I pressed the right button, some coins fell into the reject tray, which brought some relief, but nevertheless, I felt defeated by modern technology, but fortunately for me, with no-one near me to watch the whole episode, I was spared the embarrassment. I then apologised to Alex and with her kind response, answered, Don't worry about it.

Vending machines, of course, are nothing new to me. But my familiarity with them had always consisted of inserting the right coin(s) and out dropped the item. And that was it. And that applied to both food and drinks. And going back to the late sixties, how could I ever forget this particular vending outlet at college, where I had to attend on a weekly day-release scheme set by the Government at the time? It was a hot drinks dispenser, which I believe sold only tea. First thing in the morning, after nearly an hour's train travel into London, coupled with being squeezed into a packed Underground train, I made straight for that machine after entering the building.

On one occasion the plastic cup fell onto its side as it was automatically dropped from its holder. I felt a complete pillock as I watched the tea pouring over its side and into the drip-drain underneath it. On another occasion, I carefully drew the hot tea out of the dispenser, only to see a bluebottle floating dead on the surface. I had to chuck the whole thing out. But those were the days when vending machines were straightforward to use, even if a bug in the tea came, on one occasion, with the price.

Then again, there were other times when technology seems to run ahead of my capabilities. Topping up my mobile is one of them, at least occasionally. It is very fortunate that my regular cashpoint, at our local Sainsbury's superstore, has enough patience for me to hesitantly type in the eleven-digit number correctly, then to repeat the sequence for verification. No problem. Elsewhere I have been given a warning that my time is about to run out, then cuts short my transaction attempt when, out of panic, I tend to dither further.

I suppose these electronic dispensers and cashpoints are designed with the assumption that every individual who makes use of these machines must be rapid keyboard typists or graduates who know by heart how to decode the extreme complexity involved in buying a sandwich, a Mars bar or a packet of crisps. It is as if the food is some kind of reward one gets for solving a challenging problem, very like that of a dolphin receiving its food after performing an astounding act before an audience of onlookers, or that of a mouse finding its food after navigating a complex maze of transparent plastic tunnels. Indeed, so it looks to me, modern society is centred around the graduate.

Is life fair? Really, it looks to me that life is very unfair! For example, let's go back to that vending machine incident. Where about did this happen? Indeed, it was at the waiting room of Royal Berkshire Hospital A&E. But we were not waiting to be seen by the medic. Rather, we were waiting for a taxi to take us back home after my wife had suffered another episode of severe back pain and the resulting overdose of Oramorph. We called the ambulance, not so much for a backache as with the overdose, which requires her to be seen straight away. For her backache, we have medicine in place to meet the situation without the need for A&E. But an overdose is something quite different.

All this is quite contrary from my original perception of retirement. After working manually for nearly half a century after leaving school in 1968, I had hopes for full-time leisure - swimming, gym, sauna, day trips, holidays abroad, as well as, of course, church. Indeed, since my retirement commenced in 2015, all these were fulfilled, including two Eurostar trips to Paris. But at present, with my beloved confined to a wheelchair whenever she is outdoors, living on a knife-edge is certainly nerve-wracking. Like the time when we were extremely unfortunate enough for the elevator to break down in London at that moment when my wife just happens to be in it. The sudden jolt had jarred her back, the severe pain meant A&E instead of boarding the train home. After, the staff at nearby St. Thomas Hospital decided to keep her in overnight, resulting in further payment for an extra, unscheduled night spent alone at a hotel. 

And I wonder where God is in all this. How is it that of all married couples around us, we are one of a small minority to whom a wheelchair is needed? The worst thing about all this is Alex is considerably younger than I am. To see her like this is heartbreaking.

But I would never ever leave her! My love for her is strong, robust, and she loves me equally. I'm not exaggerating when she says that I am the best man she could have for a husband. And I always think of her whilst out on my own, whether it's on a quick trip to the shops, at the gym, sauna, or on a train trip to Reading or to London to visit a longstanding friend. And here is another setback. Her disability has put limits to her travel to the extent that she is restricted in using the London Underground, and I fear to take her back on Eurostar lest an episode overseas means treatment at a foreign hospital followed by a massive bill.

Damn! Damn! Damn! Why did we vote to leave the EU? Even if we as a couple voted to remain in the EU, we still lost the Referendum. Surely, that will put a real stickler on international travel, wouldn't it, especially to European countries, unless our Government can knock together a deal in time with the EU which would give us ease of access. 

But whether remaining in the EU or leaving, my wife's disability will always restrict travel, maybe for the rest of our lives. Nevertheless, I will, as I always have, acknowledge God in all things, especially the good. As in last week's blog which was about hiking the Grand Canyon, I can say with conviction that I wouldn't have been able to make such a trip without God's sovereign help. The same applies to all travel, whether it was to France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain, Israel, Singapore, Australia, Canada and the USA. All these I have recognised as being a rich blessing from God. And now, I see our marriage as a wonderful blessing from God, and I am and will be, always thankful to him.

Our 16th Wedding Anniversary, Bournemouth 2015.

It is too easy, too tempting to moan about my fate under such a burden of my wife's disability. The anxiety on when she would have another attack is always at the forefront of my mind. Yet by going through such an experience, there is something worth learning. And that is having a responsibility - a very special sense of responsibility. And I believe that this responsibility itself comes from God. That is why I so fervently believe in daily Bible reading, usually in the morning before getting up, this being the powerhouse upon which our marriage not only survives despite illness but thrives.

True enough, to read the Bible on a daily basis is a learnt habit. It did not come naturally at first after conversion. One of the reasons being, that I might have found something in Holy Scripture which contradicts my cherished beliefs. For example, believing in Once Saved Always Saved and then reading Hebrews 6:4-6. Rather than putting the Bible down and walking away in discouragement, instead I kept it open in my hands with the determination that somehow I would solve the apparent contradiction. And eventually, this has paid off. A thorough reading of the Bible over time has led me to discover that Hebrews 6:4-6 isn't about a Christian falling into apostasy. As this is a letter written for Jews at the time of the Temple offerings still being made, therefore the author is warning them not to reject the offer of salvation from the risen Lord Jesus in favour of maintaining Temple sacrifices.

I suppose the confusion comes from the phrase made partakers of the Holy Ghost found in verse 4. Does this indicate a fully committed, regenerated Christian falling into apostasy? Or, as I believe through means of studying the rest of the Bible, that it indicates a curious unbeliever who spends some time fellowshipping with true believers and enjoying all its benefits, but at the end of the day, decides that this Jesus of Nazareth is just an insignificant imposter, and being a Jew, returns to the Temple? 

After all, the letter is addressed to the Hebrews (indicating all Jews rather than just Jewish believers). The theme of the letter is about how the Temple and all the ordinances connected with it was to lead to Christ, his death, burial and resurrection, and having fulfilled the Law of Moses, therefore making the Temple obsolete. If someone rejects Jesus as Saviour, then there are no more sacrifices that can be made to atone for him short of the need for Jesus Christ to be crucified all over again.

I have a book by Philip Bell, an ardent Creationist, which is titled Evolution and the Christian Faith. In it, he gives the sad testimony of Charles Templeton, a one-time fervent American evangelist who was known to win many to Christ among massive revival audiences. Eventually, he himself had departed from the faith. In 1996 he wrote Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith, just five years before his death in 2001.

As one who believes in Once Saved Always Saved, this presents a dilemma. Any Arminian Christian would hold Templeton as a classic example that salvation can be lost by the believer. But reading other portions of the Bible, during the Judgement, we read of Jesus saying, I never knew you, depart from me ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7:23). If the Holy Spirit has actually used Charles Templeton to bring others to Christ for salvation, then how can I be sure that Jesus would actually say, I never knew you when actually, he did? Didn't Jesus himself say that the Holy Spirit will abide with and in you forever? (John 14:16-17).

I guess that such what looks to be a contradiction can boil down to our natural inability to accept that God can, and does, admit someone such as Templeton into Heaven. Many who share my Eternal Security truth would say that Templeton was never saved in the first place. I think that is nonsense! Rather, for such a former evangelist to enter Heaven would be a shock to his system and will demonstrate the very glory of God in showing mercy to such a one swallowed by intellectual deception.

But what I find interesting is what was the cause of Templeton's apostasy? It was his belief in Theistic Evolution! If ever there was such a force that turn Christian people into atheists and shut the minds of everyone else from the truth of the Gospel, it is Darwinism, whether theistic or not. And lately, I have read about a terrible shocker. So shocking this was and such a tearjerker, that it has an ongoing effect on my emotions.

It's about atheist Richard Dawkins' intention to write a children's book with the purpose of putting young children from any belief in God and direct their innocent young minds on Evolution, ensuring that any religious account of Supernatural Creationism is to be confined to myth and fairy tales.

God help me! Heaven help them! The very thought of a toddler being fed such intellectual poison is a heart-rending proposition. Yet we tend to forget that something very similar has been happening in Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and animistic countries for centuries. Newborn babies grow up in an environment where they never hear the Gospel of Christ, the only way to Heaven. Personally, I find all this heart-rending yet I feel totally powerless to do anything about it.

Meanwhile, popular presenters such as David Attenborough, Brian Cox, and Andrew Marr, all committed Evolutionists, continue to push their beliefs through television, especially the BBC. And the average man in the street absorbs all that is presented, perhaps without realising that all this stuff in the name of Science has stripped the Bible of any historicity, authority and credibility. However, such a denial of Holy Scripture is settled in his subconscious, a barrier between himself and the Gospel.

Evolutionist Prof. Brian Cox visiting the Grand Canyon.

I may not get to grips with the up-to-date vending machine. I may find a dead housefly floating in my tea or coffee. I could dither in panic while trying to key in my mobile phone number at a cashpoint. But neither of these indicates a deprivation of wisdom. Because the firm foundation of wisdom is to know God through faith in Jesus Christ and to be thoroughly stuck into the Word of God, the Holy Bible. There is nothing to lose by making a daily reading of the Bible as natural as eating and sleeping.

"How" - Yes; But No "Why".

One of our church Elders sat across the table at a Starbucks coffee bar adjoining our nearest superstore to my home. As I sipped through a Cappuccino Grande, we enjoyed a hearty conversation over various church issues, perhaps also wondering whether to thank the Americans for allowing us to sample their culture here in the UK, or to rebuke our cousins across the Atlantic for stealing an Italian recipe and making it their own. It was probably midway through the conversation when he came up with a statement which made me consider whether on this blog page I demonstrate a dislike for educated men, or of education itself. On the contrary I have a strong respect for educated people, or else I would never visit my GP, or that matter, submit myself to the knowledge and experience of the cardiac surgeon and his team that morning last year I had open heart surgery.

But much has to do with the the academic's attitude, especially towards us "commoners" or "plebs" which makes up a large percentage of the population. Here, in this part of the world, traditional manufacturing industry has been replaced over the years by high-tech offices, where production is centred around computer programming, various services, and administration. The grease stained boiler suit has become as rare as an oasis in the desert, replaced by the business suit - although ironical, the tie looks to be heading the same way as the boiler suit. Living within a geographical strip roughly located between the A3 and the A4 motorways, the British equivalent of the Silicon Valley, I can't help noticing a high proportion of well educated people, particularly in the churches. For someone who has struggled at school back in the sixties, living in such a modern environment can test one's self-esteem. One of the benefits of being in a local church is to experience a society free from any social, academic, and ethnic barriers, and for everyone to be seen as equals in God's eyes and the eyes of the fellowship.

One of the men I have come to admire is Professor Brian Cox, at present on a series of weekly BBC programmes Forces of Nature. I think it's the way he presents himself that has drawn out my attraction towards him. Always appearing casually dressed in front of the camera. So far I have not seen him wearing a shirt-and-tie throughout any of his scientific presentations. Rather he tends to be drawn towards wearing a crew-neck tee shirt. To me that says something. In fact, I believe it says a lot. That is, he prefers to identify himself as one of us rather than way up there in a cliquey "them-and-us" sphere of attitude. This along with how he explains his theories. Easy to understand without any patronising.

Brian Cox at the Grand Canyon.

On one of his previous presentations, he explained the meaning of entropy. In one visual demonstration, he was at a semi-desert environment near an abandoned mining town, with derelict buildings slowly filling with sand blown in through shattered windows. He crouched down and started to sift the dry sand making up a sand mound. He explained that the natural mound was high in entropy, since despite his rough handling, it retains its natural shape. Then he picked up a sandcastle mould and slapped it on the ground. When lifted, a castle consisting of damp sand remains standing, like on any sandy beach. This has low entropy, because, as he explains, this ordered structure can only become disordered through time. Even if he does not touch the castle and spoil it, the wind will blow away the sand grains until the castle disappears altogether. 

This is school-level education which unfortunately, the staff at my school considered the whole class too slow-learning to understand. Or to put it bluntly, too stupid. So it was never taught. Only the brightest students had the privilege to learn the meaning of entropy and its mathematical relation with the second law of thermodynamics. An easy explanation delivered without the need to wear uniform - no school jacket, no school badge, and no school tie. Just good knowledge delivered over the airwaves in a way the uninitiated would understand.

Like the explanation of why a snowflake always have six sides yet each looks different from each other, and why a larger heavenly body is always spherical. The first is to do with the structure of the water molecule, and the flake's unique journey to the ground from the clouds, and the second from the forces of gravitation at work within the formation of the star, planet or moon respectively. Thanks, Brian.

The scientist is intrigued with the vast complexity of the Universe as well as with natural wonders here on Earth. But with an apparent obsession with entropy, he gives a large segment of his presentation to the end of the world, the end of the Solar System, and the end of the Universe as a whole. Since everything starts off in an orderly state, then gradually decline toward disorder, he was apologetic for delivering a dire prophecy that trillions upon trillions of years into the future, not only our own Sun will be long gone, having burned all its hydrogen fuel into helium and then exploding into space as a Nebula, but the time will come when every single star will cease to exist, leaving the entire Universe as a dark, cold empty void, with all atoms gone forever. A very dire prophecy indeed, which he delivers with absolute certainty.

Which to me, leaves me to ask: If everything in the Universe was orderly, then how did it all begin? Cox advocates the Big Bang theory. But the energy needed to start off the explosion, along with all the gases, clouds, and other substances that will eventually form stars, planets, and smaller pieces of rock - how was this energy activated in the first place? I don't think the physicist has an answer, for practically nothing was said about what was already in place prior to the explosion. But to give him credit, he along with other scientists when confronted with a problem of such nature, he will admit that Science cannot explain everything without further research, and they are happy to wait until such appropriate evidence emerges. As an atheist's point of view, Science remains open to research and debate, while they see the theist having everything explained cut-and-dried, and therefore evidence supporting their theories must, sooner or later, emerge.

Then on September 28th 1969, a meteorite fell to Earth near the Australian town of Murchison, Victoria. Examination of the surviving fragment has revealed the presence of amino acid within the rock structure. This came at a time when the theory of evolution was under scrutiny by various academics, including geneticists, along with individuals such as Michael Behe and Fred Hoyle. It was Hoyle, atheist, astronomer and mathematician, who calculated the mathematical impossibility of just the enzymes to have evolved by chance. The enzymes is just part of the protein chain found in the nucleus of every cell in the body. Yet the probability of just the enzymes evolving naturally stands at one chance out of a number consisting of one, followed by forty thousand zeroes, which is considerably more than all the electrons existing in the entire Universe!

Fragment of Murchison Meteorite.

The Murchison Meteorite must have been a vital lifeline thrown to Darwin's theory of evolution just in time, otherwise before suffering its final throes which would have led to it's impending death. At present, the idea of some form of basis of life embedded in a meteorite as it fell into the primeval ocean is now the accepted possibility. I have seen a bizarre cartoon appearing in a national newspaper promoting the idea that we are originally from outer space, a theory I understand to be embraced by Brian Cox.

I enjoy watching Brian Cox and his scientific presentations. I love his informal casual dress and appearance. I love the way he identifies with one of us rather than one of the aloof elite. There are lots of things I could learn and understand without struggling to comprehend. Entropy is one of them. So is the unique structure of the snowflake. And gravity, with its effects on why our planet is spherical. But he always remains within the sphere on how all these things come about. He stays clear of the inter-relating sphere on why. This, I think, is because why will involve religion. And Cox, along with Hoyle, is an atheist. They both reject the Scriptural record of Divine Creation by an intelligence greater than themselves.

Cox's delusion with religion most likely originated in his teenage years as he attended Hulme Grammar School in Oldham, Greater Manchester. Most likely at morning assembly, where worship was conducted under Church of England liturgy. This was something I remember quite clearly at my own school back in the sixties. Church of England liturgy. And on the staff platform stood the deputy head. He did not lead the assembly himself, but this man was the most feared by all the pupils. Nearly every day he dispatched a hapless boy to wait for him at his office. When he arrived, the student received a caning. Just for talking briefly when he should have been listening. This caused my own perception of God to be very bad, and I ended up hating him, and my only source of consolation was to deny his existence, and stay well away from any church building. I even recall my first day at college. At the front of the main hall stood what looked like a pulpit. I felt my spine shiver at the thought of the possibility of another morning assembly. Furthermore, I wasn't alone at school. I recall a number of boys who went down the same road towards atheism as well.

I can't say whether Brian Cox had a similar experience at school or not. But I wouldn't rule it out.

A popular Atheist's Poster

At present, how I would love to sit at table with Brian Cox. But not to discuss the origins of the Universe or the origins of life. Brian would run rings around me in an instant! But instead to ask him:
What is your thoughts on the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

I would keep the conversation solely on Jesus Christ. His death by crucifixion, his burial, and on his resurrection. His Resurrection. That one event in the whole of cosmic and human history which is defiant of all scientific reasoning (together with his miraculous conception, that is, to have conceived without fertilization from a male sperm.) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ sets this faith apart from all other religions. If Cox were to ask me to prove his existence and his resurrection as factual, which would be the likeliest direction he would take, then I would ask him to check and verify his knowledge of human history. For example, in 1555 Bishops Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer were burnt alive at the stake outside Balliol College in Oxford, with their strong conviction that Jesus Christ was crucified, buried, and rose again physically from the dead. These two preferred to give their lives than deny the truth.

But if Cox was to push the idea that the disciples, or even the Pharisees, had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb, such reasoning would not stand the light of day. The Pharisees would have quenched the growing movement instantly by producing the body for all to see. But as with the disciples, of the twelve, eleven had willingly given themselves to martyrdom, along with the apostle Paul, and many others, including Stephen, who allowed himself to be stoned to death by the Sanhedrin, for testifying that this Jesus of Nazareth had indeed risen from the dead. If, on the other hand, Jesus did not die at all whilst on the cross, but merely passed out, then assuming he recovered on the third day and disappeared to some unknown location - a theory once advocated by The Sun newspaper around 1980 - then the martyrdom of so many would be based on a lie, as with the other two theories. Surely nobody would ever give his life to something he knew to be untrue.

Multiple thousands have given their lives to the truth of Christ's Resurrection throughout history. Churches grew, even divisions occurred, and the Reformation happened. Churches exist to this day - all advocating the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as a historical fact.

This is very important to someone such as Brian Cox. He needs to believe in the truthfulness of Jesus Christ - his supernatural birth, his existence, his death, burial and resurrection, and to trust him for his wonderful gift of eternal life. Only then will his brilliant knowledge of scientific origins of the Universe will fall into its proper place.