For those of you who aren’t aware IRC is an acronym for Internet Relay Chat, a text based chat protocol that started in the 1980′s and is still pretty much used to the present day on networks such as Quakenet. The program that I have written, joins a channel on the IRC server, and updates via a MYSQL database who is currently online. I’ve also written a very basic PHP frontend so that people can see on a web page who is online and who is offline. It’s a very basic application, but it is one that I am going to develop further on a fuller basis.

The program consists of 4 files:

ircbot.cs - Main class of the program.

mysqldatabase.cs - MYSQL connection class.

ircstats.php – PHP frontend

config.cfg - Configuration file with key settings

IRC Bot main class code:

MYSQL interaction class

PHP frontend:

Configuration file:

This code was written using MonoDevelop on Ubuntu, but it should be cross platform on Windows and Mac OS X when compiled.

“Faith Schools Menace” was an interesting take on the faith schools issue. As I suspected it took the “one size fits all” approach to faith schooling. I.E – That all schools should be secular, and that parents shouldn’t be at liberty to decide how best to educate their child, which also would include teaching on morality and religion. There were a number of surprises throughout however. The documentary did leave much to tweet, and did generate much discussion on Twitter.

Lack of secular alternatives – In one section of the documentary, Richard Dawkins looks at a map of Oxford, and looks at the number of faith schools that exist in and around the city. He notes that non-believers would have to take miles to find a secular school. This is a fair criticism and one that I sympathise with, but I don’t think it is an argument against faith schools themselves. It is an argument against the Governments provision of schools according to the demographics. If one was to scrap faith schools entirely, one would leave parents who wish for their child to learn about their faith in exactly the same situation. This is an argument more for the equality of choice for non-believers, rather than limiting the choice of believers when it comes to finding a faith school.

Northern Ireland - He then takes a trip up to Northern Ireland, both interviewing the Grand Chaplain of the Orange Order, and a principal at a Roman Catholic faith school. His argument being that denominational splits in education exacerbated the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Of course, this is true. I don’t think anyone would disagree with this. However, on the same note, he neglects to note that the conflict was much more based on politics and culture than it ever was on whether or not people believed in Transubstantiation, or whether one took a Reformed view of theology. He also fails to note that faith schools in other areas of the world can operate without creating such entrenched views. Indeed, in the vast majority of situations they operate in such a context.

Islam and Young Earth Creationism – This was one part of the documentary where one found it hard to disagree with Dawkins. He goes into an Islamic faith school, and it is evident that the science teacher is teaching Creationism (YEC) alongside biological evolution in the classroom, and encouraging students to be skeptical in relation to such science. The problem with such an approach is that the science teacher clearly demonstrated a misunderstanding in terms of the relationship between primates and human beings. When Dawkins asked the head teacher of his opinions, he used the “evolution is just a theory” line and is more a subject of belief rather than science. By this point you can see the frustration in Dawkins’ face. He informs him that fighting against evolution is a losing battle, and they should take up the approach of the Christians (obviously forgetting his dialogue with Ted Haggard in the US in his last series of documentaries) and interpret the Qur’anic scriptures to be compatible with modern science.

Again, as I said earlier this is a point where I agree with Dawkins, but again it is an argument only that certain practices in faith schools aren’t acceptable, rather that faith schools themselves should be scrapped. For example, when I was at secondary school during senior cycle studying RE when the teacher (also the chaplain of the school) was referring to Christian views on Creationism, he listed out the main three. Namely Young Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, and effective uncertainty in respect to how all came to be. Curriculum in the RE course, and curriculum in the science course was effectively separate. My point being that it is very possible to 1) believe in evolution and retain ones faith, and 2) teach all perspectives about Creationism (Broad sense, referring to the creation, rather than Young Earth Creationism).

Appreciation of the Bible as a key part of British culture- In another area of the documentary he looks over Britain, and describes Britain’s Christian heritage, and reads passages from the King James Bible. Indeed this bit did surprise me, and indeed it surprised many people who were tweeting as the documentary was on.
Blogger The Church Mouse tweeted the following:

Did Dawkins just say he loves reading the Bible!?

And indeed, it was a notable thing to say that even from his current perspective on faith that he would be happy to teach about Christianity and other faiths in the classroom. Albeit teaching them as relics of past culture, rather than texts which are indeed alive through their adherents.

The purpose of faith schooling - In another part of the documentary Dawkins interviews the Church of England Education Secretary and asks her what she thinks of education. And in paraphrase she says something along the lines of “If there is anything we do indoctrinate, it is that faith is important”. She continues to say that one cannot make an informed choice about faith if one hasn’t experienced what it is like first. People in their school years, get a chance to experience Christianity should their parents bring them to a faith school, and ultimately in their later years they will make a decision for themselves whether or not they wish to keep that faith, or abandon it. This is a reasonable point, and it is perhaps the purpose of faith schools for believing parents. They offer an opportunity to share the values they find so important with their children. Indeed, not even Dawkins is immune to this, given that he shared his values of skepticism and enquiry through a letter he wrote to his daughter on her tenth birthday.

Children are more inclined to purpose based answers – I found this part of the documentary interesting, but ultimately that I believe that the reasoning is flawed. Dawkins interviews a child psychologist, who then says that children are more inclined to look for purpose based answers to naturally occurring phenomena, such as why rocks are pointy. Dawkins then uses this to explain why children might be especially vulnerable to religion at a young age. Indeed, at a first glance this reasoning does seem quite sound. However, it makes two assumptions:
1. That children will keep this faith forever – surely if children grow out of such purpose based explanations they should be more inclined to reject the faith of their childhood.
2. All purpose based explanations are wrong – This is a logical leap. Just because some purpose based explanations such as that pointy rocks exist for animals to scratch themselves on when they are itchy are clearly inaccurate, doesn’t mean that all purpose based explanations are wrong. Indeed, it ignores that the argument for why people believe in God is also based on a necessity for a first cause (cosmological) rather than that everything that exists must of necessity have a purpose (or that it all has a telos).

Over all though, I found it to be quite an interesting take. If you wish to leave a comment please do, and if you are following this from Facebook, my blog is at www.gpeopl.es

1. Why is the Resurrection important to Christians?
In 1st Corinthians, Paul writes the following about the Resurrection of Christ:

“If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” -1 Corinthians 15:13-14

The Resurrection of Jesus is essential, it is the hinging point on which the early church began it’s mission. After all, how could one in all earnest call the Gospel the good news, unless it actually was good news. Part of the importance of the Resurrection, not only is that Jesus conquered death by the Resurrection, but also that through Him we can conquer death also. We as Christians are an intrinsic part of the Resurrection in Christian belief.

In Romans the following is written:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized in Christ Jesus was baptised into His death? We are therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life – Romans 6:1-4

It is through the belief that Jesus died for our sins, that we believe that we cannot live in attachment to our sin, because we have died to our old former lives, and have risen to new life in Him. This is a key reason why Christians use the clichéd term “born again” (used in John 3:7) because we have been raise to new life in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17, 1 Peter 1:3).

By knowing that Jesus has died for our sins, and that He has risen again, we must come to the realisation that we are called to live new lives independent from our former lives that were lived in sin.

2. How is it reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

Now that I’ve gone through the reasoning as to why Christians believe the Resurrection is crucially important to their faith, we should discuss why we would be led to think that the Resurrection happened in reality:

A. Church history does not make sense without a critical event following the death of Jesus.
Think about the series of events that occurred both before Jesus was crucified, and the immediate future afterwards:

1. You’ve been with a charismatic preacher for three years in Israel.
2. You have come to know this man, you have listened to what he has preached, you have seen him endure trials from those around him, and have come to know much about who he is.
3. You see this man die in a brutal fashion.
X.
4. You amongst a dozen others who had some form of contact with this preacher go out into the Gentile world preaching that he risen from the dead, and that we can become a new Creation in Him (2 Corinthians 5:17, 1 Peter 1:13) at the risk of death by the civil authorities.
5. You and others are indeed killed for preaching the good news that had come out of this.

It seems very difficult to make sense of the progression between point 3 and point 4 without considering an interim event X.

What merit would there be in risking your life for a lie? - The lives that these people would live, weren’t lives of privilege but lives of poverty in the name of spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. The authorities regarded this faith as a cult, and would put anyone to death who was preaching it in the nearby region. Not only do the stakes seem a little bit high for preaching a lie, but there are no benefits in it, and indeed you would have to convince 12 other people that this was indeed what one should do. Indeed, more than 12 people if one thinks about how the Christian movement would spread further around the Gentile world. What reasoning would be behind this?

What is the probability that all the disciples plus the women at the tomb were deceived? – Again this seems limited if we are both to consider that there were a lot more than 1 person involved even if we only consider the followers that Jesus had with Him. (1 Corinthians 15:6 mentions that over 500 people witnessed the risen Jesus), and if we are to consider that the other disciples, and the other followers that Jesus had had been following Him for roughly three years of His life, the chance of confusion based on either appearance or character seems unlikely.

B. The New Testament documents indicate honesty in respect to the Resurrection account.All of the Gospels, mention that women were the first to have seen the risen Jesus at the tomb:

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb – Matthew 28:1

When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had driven seven demons. – Mark 16:9

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. – Luke 24:1

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. – John 20:1

Why is this important you ask? - In Middle Eastern cultures at the time of Jesus, and some even to this day, the testimony of a woman was only worth half that of a man. If one were conjuring up a myth to pass on to people, one definitely wouldn’t begin at the conclusion that the first main witnesses were women. This would have been seen as humiliating, and simply wouldn’t have been done if one wished to make the Christian message look good, rather than profess the mere blunt truth.

What case is there that the Gospel accounts were merely contrived? – Leaving aside the previous point that I made concerning why it would be unlikely that the Gospel accounts were merely contrived based on the fact that women were the first to the tomb. The timing of constructing a consistent narrative, also seems improbable given the time space that was involved.

If one considers firstly that Jesus was crucified in the year 33AD under Pontius Pilate and Emperor Caesar Tiberius, and if one considers that 1 Corinthians, the letter that Paul wrote to Corinth in 54AD preaches about the Resurrection, the Last Supper, and the Crucifixion of Jesus. If one does the math on this difference, one will see that there is 21 years between the crucifixion and the writing of this letter. This is also taking into account that there must have been some means of transmission between the Apostles and Paul as to the teaching of Christianity. Paul did not meet any of the other Apostles until he was in his ministry according to his letter to the Galatians:

nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles – only James, the Lord’s brother. – Galatians 1:17-19

So not only are we talking about a short period of time for direct communication between the Apostles, and Paul, but we are talking about a short time between the communication that Paul received indirectly from them. (Acts 9:1-19)

Most estimates based on the dates that Paul provide in the letter to the Galatians, and the dates provided in the book of Acts put Paul’s conversion itself between 33 and 37AD.

Given how widely the Apostles had dispersed in the general region, and taking into account the length of time involved in transportation, it seems highly unlikely that all the Apostles would have contrived a consistent account of the events that took place in Jesus’ life.

From my current position, I can believe in the Resurrection, because the evidence that we have seems to rule in its favour in terms of the Gospel accounts, in terms of the historical dating of the documents, and in terms of how this fits into the overall history of the early church. I would encourage you to think about this seriously for yourselves and if you see any difficulties involved in my thinking on this please comment on this. If you are reading on Facebook, please read my blog at www.gpeopl.es.

This subject has been debated to and fro over the last few days in the Irish Times, which noted that the vast majority of women TD’s opposed it on the basis that it was patronising. In response Labour Senator Ivana Bacik has responded in the Irish Times suggesting that quotas are indeed a positive thing.

Admittedly, I’m a little bit torn myself on the issue, as I can see merits on both sides. It is incredibly patronising to women to suggest that they cannot be elected on their own merit, but at the same time, are more women going to really take an interest in politics if they continue to see that it is as male-dominated as it is?

As I’m seeing it, political parties are going to have to take a greater interest in putting across women candidates in constituencies as a whole in order to give women a bigger role in politics on their own accord, or the State will have to place an arbitrary limit on the gender of candidates, or that the situation will remain as it is.

Quotas have already occurred in a number of European countries for elections, one of the most notable being Denmark which only had a temporary gender quota in politics until the situation became more balanced, after this point it was removed. This is an option for the Irish context.

Ivana Bacik’s article does bring up an interesting point, for further thought:

First, without more women TDs, our democracy is not truly representative. This means that voter choice in Ireland is severely restricted. In the 2007 general election, women constituted only 17 per cent of candidates overall. At least 60 per cent of constituencies had no women candidates from either of the two largest political parties; Fianna Fáil fielded no women candidates in 28 constituencies and Fine Gael had no women standing in 30 constituencies. In five constituencies out of 43, no women candidates stood, even as Independents.

She claims that since women candidates are not being selected by parliamentary parties, that our choice of candidate to vote for is limited, and that we are in a sense almost forced to vote for a male. Thus it is stifling democratic choice in the market place. However, on the other hand, if such a quota was imposed on a party level, would it mean that the choice mightn’t be based on merit any more but on the compulsion for female candidates to be drawn.

This of course also leads into a “slippery slope” argument, that if we are to make quotas for women in politics, that we should also make similar quotas for demographic minorities such as travellers, LGBT, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and so on.

The main question really lies in should we engineer our political system, or not. As for my verdict, I remain undecided.

Today’s post is going to be more technical, rather than to do with philosophy, politics, or religion. Many of you will no doubt see this blog via my Facebook page. This blog is about how can get the most out of what Facebook offers while not using a web browser. Personally, I’ve found that Facebook chat can get quite annoying when it is tucked over to one side of the screen, and I always wondered if there was a way of chatting via Facebook without including it on your browser.

The good news was that yes you can do this. Facebook have allowed access to the chat via the Jabber protocol (XML based chat) outside of web browsers and in regular applications, and Jabber clients. For the purposes of this demonstration I will be showing you how to set up Facebook Chat on Psi a Jabber chat client that works cross platform on Windows, OSX and Linux.

Instructions: (Step by step diagrams soon!)

1. First of all download Psi and install for which ever operating system you happen to have.

2. After installation, run Psi for the first time. Click General -> Account Setup, then click Add.

3. Name the account “Facebook Chat” and leave “Register New Account” unticked.

4. While logged in on Facebook, click here and then click Other (Windows / Mac / Linux) and copy the details into notepad.

5. On the Psi window that popped up (on the account tab) where it says Jabber ID, copy and paste the Jabber ID from notepad.

6. In password, enter your Facebook password.

7. Under settings tick all of the boxes.

8. Click the Connection tab, and click Manually Specify Server Host / Port. Leave port 5222 as is, but add chat.facebook.com.

9. Click Save on the bottom. Right click on Facebook Chat, and tick Status -> Online in the main Psi window. Your Facebook chat list should be brought up within no time, and you should be able to chat direct from Psi rather than your browser.

If you are reading from Facebook, please click www.gpeopl.es to check out my blog!

As the blog went on, I began to notice that the assumption behind his reading of Revelation was that it should be taken literally. There can be no middle ground, either you read it this way, or you don’t read it at all, effectively being the reasoning that is being used. The book itself however, is written in a cryptic fashion in a way that the early Christian communities would have understood, but in a way that others outside these communities wouldn’t have been able to understand easily. This is what can make the book complex to a modern reader, and indeed Revelation is arguably the most complicated book in the entire Bible.

One example seemed to be familiar, and indeed, I had a back and forth with him on Twitter about this (Hopefully this will open up a broader discussion). That is the reference concerning Jezebel (quoted below) in Jesus’ description of the 7 churches at the beginning of John’s vision:

He told the angel of oAne church that a woman called Jezebel had seduced his servants to fornicate, so he was going to kill her children with death.

This is referring to Revelations chapter 2, particularly the quoted section below:

‘I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.
Revelation 2:19-23 (ESV)

He had brought up the concept of the two Jesus’ at the debate that occurred at NUI Maynooth at the end of March concerning God’s role in moral action, and it is clear that this is something that he has been researching for the last while. He quotes this passage, as if it is referring to a literal woman Jezebel, whose children are about to be killed for their mothers actions.

I pointed out on Twitter that Jezebel was in reference to the Biblical figure described in 1 Kings of the Hebrew Scriptures, to which I received a response that indeed this was in reference to Jezebel, but that this was also a literal person, and that no Christian commentaries he had come across offered an alternative interpretation. My interpretation being that the reference is referring to those who had lived lives in a similar fashion to Jezebel the woman referred to in 1 Kings.

Indeed, verse 23 which refers to the children, Jesus refers to Himself as the one who “searches mind and heart”. If these children were merely the innocent who were punished due to the actions of their mother, why would it be important that Jesus searches mind and heart. If their consciences were clean, then surely Jesus would know whether or not these people were deserving of such judgement. It makes little or no sense that the emphasis on Jesus as the knower of conscience would even be emphasised if we are to accept the reading that Jezebel is referring to a literal person within the church of Thyatira. Not only this Jesus goes on before the verse ends “I will give to all according to their works”. If the “children” being referred to were innocent, and that Jesus was going to give to all “according to their works” surely there would be nothing to give?

In the Matthew Henry Bible Commentary from verses 19  – 23 of chapter 2 in Revelation says the following concerning the Jezebel reference. What was lacking was:

A faithful reproof for what was amiss. This is not so directly charged upon the church itself as upon some wicked seducers who were among them; the church’s fault was that she connived too much at them.
Henry, M. (1996). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Re 2:18–29). Peabody: Hendrickson.

These seducers were plural if anything. The commentary goes on to describe these “wicked seducers” who were in the church of Thyatria:

These wicked seducers were compared to Jezebel, and called by her name. Jezebel was a persecutor of the prophets of the Lord, and a great patroness of idolaters and false prophets. The sin of these seducers was that they attempted to draw the servants of God into fornication, and to offer sacrifices to idols; they called themselves prophets, and so would claim a superior authority and regard to the ministers of the church.
Henry, M. (1996). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Re 2:18–29). Peabody: Hendrickson.

There was a comparison involved, between these evil seducers and the Biblical Jezebel of 1 Kings in the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is also true, that other commentaries including the Adam Clarke commentary do refer to the Jezebel figure, as an allusion to a particular woman in the Thyatria Christian community, but if this is the case, this does make verse 23 where Jesus makes clear that he will punish those based on their own actions, and their own hearts more questionable. This part of 23 is not referred to at all in Adam Clarke’s commentary.

Touching on the broader view of the blog post. When Jesus was on earth, in the Gospel text Jesus Himself made clear that He Himself had received all authority from the Father (Matthew 28:18). The Jewish prophet Isaiah had written concerning the Messiah that:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 (ESV)

Jesus had always made clear that for this time that God has bestowed mercy upon those who were looking to be forgiven their sins. He had said to the woman in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more” (John 8:10). Concerning his purposes while He was serving on this earth, Jesus says:

If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.
John 12:47-48 (ESV)

Jesus didn’t come to condemn, but on His return He will. This is the reason why I can believe that the Jesus of the Gospels, is the same Jesus of the Revelation. Jesus came to offer us a chance of forgiveness so that we can be restored to God the Father, and at the end of all time, Jesus will return to bring all in the world back to the Father. This is what Revelations is describing. His judgement is expected.

Paul writes concerning it:

For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
2 Corinthians 5:10 (ESV)

If you are reading this from Facebook, my blog is at http://www.gpeoples.net, and I would welcome any criticism or comment on the Jezebel reference in Revelations chapter 2.

One of these incidents is the Gaza flotilla incidents which occurred recently, in which 9 Turkish nationals regrettably lost their lives. As the news began to circulate based on Twitter, and Facebook, I noted that most of the posts seemed to condemn Israel very strongly. Indeed, I would agree to a certain degree that Israel is responsible for the unfortunate loss of life on board, as they had not planned for such an incident adequately. However, what I found was increasingly neglected was that there were certain activities on the Mavi Marmara the largest vessel which could have hindered a peaceful resolution to the Israeli boarding.

The issue became one of two polarised positions. One in which Israel was entirely correct in what it did, and another in which the passengers of the Mavi Marmara were entirely justified in exercising resistance against the Israeli commandos that happened to come down. One of the main arguers on the side of the Israeli’s was FOX News, which asserted that Israel’s right to defend itself and search the ships was unquestionable, and that there was more the mere aid on-board. Indeed, many Youtubers took up the cause also, with Lee Doren whose channel is called How The World Works arguing for this position (Commentary on the Gaza flotilla starts 2 minutes into the video):

Similar claims that those onboard were terrorist sympathisers were soon circulated, and claims that Gaza doesn’t even require aid were similarly circulated. This claim fails to take into consideration that goods in Gaza cost beyond what many people can afford, and that a lot of people still rely on UN food aid. Similarly concrete is one of the goods banned by the IDF to enter Gaza an area that still needs to reconstruct following Operation Cast Lead in late 2008.

Similarly, the details were not as forthcoming on the pro-Palestinian side as they should have been. People presented this as an unprovoked attack by the Israeli government on the flotilla, when this couldn’t have been further from the reality of the situation. Prior to the interception of 6 of the ships on the flotilla, the IDF had warned them, and even offered them to dock in Ashdod, witness their goods come across the border crossing with Gaza, and return on their own vessels. There is video coverage of this warning:

So the events seem to be from what we know as follows:

In international waters (an issue of contention in terms of legality of the IDF action) about 30km from the Sea of Gaza exclusion zone the Israelis warned the ships that they are about to enter a blockaded area, and that there would be alternative docking arrangements in Ashdod (as in the video above).

Having said this those on the flotilla chose to ignore these orders, and IDF commandos were dropped onto all 6 of the ships while still being in international waters.

On arriving on 5 of the 6 ships they were met with peaceful resistance, and those who were on board at most received minor injuries. On the Mavi Marmara, the IDF troops were met with attack from passengers onboard who in some cases wielded iron bars, and knives. Binyamin Netanyahu also noted that guns were used on IDF troops, while claiming that “this wasn’t a love boat, it was a hate boat” (video below):

The IDF only dropped 8 commandos on the Mavi Marmara, where in similar operations (according to BBC Newsnight – 1st of June) in the US military up to 40 people would be dropped at once. The high resistance on board coupled with the small amount of commandos on board may have resulted in panic and in turn the deaths of those who were killed.

As far as I am concerned, there are two parties involved in this and had the ships heeded the IDF orders, no lives would have been lost. Indeed, if there wasn’t violent resistance on board there would have been no need for the IDF to react as they did, as we have seen if we compare this incident with that of the Rachel Corrie which arrived in Ashdod on Saturday after IDF interception. It was highly unreasonable that those on board would genuinely suspect while Israel has an at-war status with Hamas that they would not search the ships so as to adequately make sure that there weren’t materials to construct rockets.

On the other hand, I believe that the Israelis need to review what goods can and cannot enter Gaza through the border crossings. Indeed, it is not good enough to determine this on a case-by-case basis, but there should be clear standards as to what is permissible. Likewise, the interception was poorly thought out, particularly in respect to how many IDF troops were dropped down, and in respect to where this interception occurred (despite its legality or illegality as that isn’t all that clear). The seizure of video equipment from the other side is also problematic in determining an outcome. Israel does have the right to inspect all goods entering Gaza, but how it does so is perhaps the most difficult question of all.

This, followed by an Iranian offer to escort any aid flotilla coming into Gaza is something that should concern us. Israel has the right to ensure that its citizens will not be attacked by the Hamas government, but at the same time it needs to ensure that humanitarian aid passes in more freely.

As always in the Israel – Palestine conflict, the truth always falls in the middle. If anyone has any comment, I’d love to hear it, and for those reading from Facebook, this blog is at http://www.gpeoples.net (to see the videos you need to click this link).

In response both to Eric Conway (Letters, April 22) and Sean Conroy (Letters, April 21) may I suggest a middle ground?

People, in general, have a capability of doing terrible things on the basis of beliefs or lack thereof.

Our history has been, and continues to be, a testament to that.

I believe Mr Conroy is correct to suggest that atheism in and of itself is not an ideology, but rather a lack of belief.

I also believe that Mr Conway is correct to say that under communist regimes during the 20th century (Stalin, Hoxha, Pol Pot to name a few), Christianity, Judaism and Islam, among other forms of religious thought, were suppressed and many severely persecuted using atheism as its justification.

Its legacy continues in the treatment of religion in North Korea and China. As a Christian, however, I cringe while reading accounts of the Crusades, to think that people could represent our gospel in such a manner.

People, in general, have a great ability to twist beliefs, or even lack of belief to suit their own agenda.

This is true both in the case of religious warfare, and in the state atheism that occurred under communist regimes.

Note – If you have not watched the debate, there are spoilers in this blog post, if you do not wish to have this spoiled for you, please watch the debate first and then read my blog post on it.

I had just got around to watching the first televised debate between Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats), David Cameron (Conservatives) and Gordon Brown (Labour) this morning, and I found it interesting how each candidate came around to discuss different subjects. I will only briefly summarise them here. If you haven’t seen the debate already, if you are reading this from www.gpeoples.net you will notice that I have provided the Youtube video above.

Before starting off into what I thought of the different candidates as they dealt with different points, perhaps it would be best to deal with the question of whether or not such a debate should have been held as it was a UK first. I personally think it is a victory of democracy and of freedom to be able to have each side presented in a clear fashion where the electorate can see exactly what is happening, and see what exactly each candidate and party are putting forward for the election. It is also particularly positive that the debate was put up on youtube as well as on television, so that bloggers and youtubers could easily have their comment on each leader. It also means that each party can have a fair exposure coming up to an election allowing for voters to have a more informed choice. Overall, a great idea, and perhaps taking a good leaf from the US process of presidential elections.

Following the debate numerous polls have made clear that Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats) was the clear winner of the debate. I personally have to agree. The main reason for this, not only was that he had clear backed up examples of how things operate, and work in other countries, and how these could be viable solutions for Britain to work with in the future, but that most of the contention actually remained between Cameron and Brown allowing for Clegg to often get his opinion across relatively unchallenged. So easily in fact that Brown was trying to claim that Clegg an he had agreements on electoral reform to boost his own opinion. Let me deal with a few issues that came up:

Immigration - This was perhaps the strongest point for Gordon Brown over David Cameron. David Cameron claimed that immigration was a huge problem for the UK, and that it was essentially out of control. Brown refuted this claim, showing clearly from the figures that immigration has actually declined in Britain over the past three years, and that Labour’s proposals on security were actually working. He also said that Labour had brought in a points system to ensure that all immigrants from outside the European Union now had to fulfil a points system before they would be allowed to live and work in Britain, and this was the reason why the decline had taken place. Cameron insisted that there had to be a blanket limit on immigration from outside of Europe, and that new members of the European Union should agree to a throttled immigration arrangement to entering Britain. To this both Brown and Clegg disagreed. Nick Clegg argued that a blanket ban on immigration is unreasonable, and perhaps that Britain should learn from how Canada, and Australia have dealt with immigration, taking in workers as there is need as opposed to taking in people for the sake of taking them in. There should be assurances that people from outside of the EU have a job, and have a sponsor before they can enter the country to work. This is favourable as it allows a reasonable and fair immigration platform, but it doesn’t allow for excess migration.

Crime - A question in the audience raised the point that burglary was a huge problem in a number of towns in the UK, and asked how each respective party would deal with it. David Cameron said harsher sentencing was needed, and that this was a key failure of the Labour government. Nick Clegg then went to argue that we have to do more than just sentencing, and that it isn’t a solution. The young offenders of today, in his opinion become the hardened criminals tomorrow, and it is our responsibility as a society. Brown attacks the Conservatives on their funding of police officers, and that if Labour continue in government they will maintain the funding to police officers, and that this won’t be at risk. Nick Clegg attacks Labour on wasting money on ID cards to limit crime. He argues that if the Liberal Democrats are in power that this money will be used to bring 3,000 more police officers to the streets of Britain, this being a much more effective solution to the crime situation on Britain’s streets.

Defence – David Cameron criticised Gordon Brown on his failure to provide correct equipment and helicopters to the people on the ground in Afghanistan, and this actually had cost lives on the ground. He also mentioned that Labour had attempted to cut the cost of funding training the Territorial Army, this Cameron deemed to be unacceptable to not fund the most crucial defence forces during a conflict in Afghanistan. To this Gordon Brown responded that this was a reaction to increased tension on the ground and that all the NATO allied nations who were on the ground had to readjust their strategies on the ground. To this Cameron accuses Brown of being disingenuous with the facts. It was in the defence section where Nick Clegg perhaps came off the weakest, particularly to a British public which supports Britain being and remaining a key player in world diplomacy. Clegg argued that the £100bn nuclear weapons deterrent was too much for Britain to feasibly maintain in an economic crisis. Both Cameron and Brown argued that this was unrealistic due to real threats posed to Britain in the event that terrorists acquire nuclear weapons, and from rogue states such as Iran, and North Korea. To leave Britain unequipped would be a terrible mistake.

Education – Education was another point which Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg drove home, that the Government curriculum involved too much bureaucracy and that this needed to change. Drawing on the example of Sweden, he noted that the British curriculum didn’t allow for a lot of freedom for teachers to actually do their job more independently and to encourage their students to work to the best of their ability. He noted that the UK curriculum was 600 pages long, and that via e-mail teachers were given 4,000 pages of extra instruction. Such bureaucracy makes it difficult for teachers to actually do their jobs he argued. The Swedish curriculum is 16 pages long.  Class sizes under the Labour Government according to Clegg were simply far too big and that realistically these could be brought down to 20 for primary school, and 16 for secondary school. Much of the other discussion involved Gordon Brown criticising Cameron for the Conservative cuts in education that they were considering. Likewise, the Conservatives argued that Labour in Government have spent £300mn on educational quangos that would be better used elsewhere.

Electoral Reform – The question of electoral reform was brought up eventually. Cameron accused Labour of trying to pass electoral reform legislation too soon before a General Election to improve Labour’s chances, and that the number of MP’s should be cut by 10% to save taxpayers money. Gordon Brown argues that this isn’t necessary if the amount of peers in the House of Lords was halved, and if it was made a democratic chamber. Brown also argued that the UK should change to a Proportional Representation List system. In this section he tried to suggest that Nick Clegg agreed with him, to which he responded that he did, but that it was coming far too late. He questioned why Labour hadn’t considered to do this in the last 13 years that they were in power.

To me it seemed as if Brown and Cameron were more interested on arguing between each other that Nick Clegg got a real opportunity to show that the Liberal Democrats offered something different. Indeed, he also clearly proved that he had done his homework, and had a real plan to show that this was financially possible, and that it was really possible. This debate, perhaps made it easier for the Liberal Democrats, effectively a third wheel party in a First Past the Post electoral system to get their position across. In a polar political system, such as that which is generated by a First Past the Post system, it was simply deemed more crucial for much of the criticism to be shared between the Conservatives and Labour, which in a sense allowed for Clegg to gain an advantage, but in other respects was simply disappointing to watch. The win was well deserved by the Liberal Democrats, as their case was simply better presented, and stronger. The idea was communicated, that the Conservatives, and Labour will be arguing forever, but there is a real alternative that shouldn’t be ignored by the British public.

I’m looking forward to watching the Northern Ireland debate, and the successive UK leaders debates prior to the May 6th election.

Good evening all, I’m Gareth Peoples, and I’m the current Christian Union president on campus. I’d like to thank you all for being with us this evening, especially Dr. John Murray and Michael Nugent, and I would like to thank the Literary and Debating Society for being so open to the Christian Union proposal to debate this subject. Before I begin, I’d like to remind everyone this is the first event of our Christianity Week. Tomorrow (March 31st) at 7pm in the Student Common Room behind the Arts Block, Dr. Bryan Follis minister of All Saints Church Belfast will be speaking on “What is truth and where can I find it?” and on Thursday at 7pm, in Hall F in the Arts Block, James Crookes chaplain at Queens University Belfast will be speaking on “Life in the Emergency Room – Finding Hope in the Midst of Suffering”.

What is morality? - Morality is a framework based on empathy by which we understand, behave and operate in relation to ourselves and to one another so that we might better fulfil our purpose as human beings.

What is true morality? – True morality involves a framework as I’ve just described that reflects the reality and fullness of relationships in this world.

When the question of whether or not one can be truly moral without God is posed, many assume that one is saying that people who do not believe in God cannot be moral. However I recognize that it would be highly inaccurate to say this considering many non-believers put the lives of many Christians to shame.

What am I going to argue tonight then? – I will be arguing that God and God alone can provide the true empathy and true understanding that we use in every day moral dilemmas. The case I’ll be making is that God underpins all moral action and how we do morality, and that no act can be truly considered moral in His absence. Therefore no person can be considered truly moral in His absence.

This view of morality is referred to by Paul in Romans chapter 2 when he writes:

For when Gentiles who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the word of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on the day when according to my Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Romans 2:14-16 (ESV)

I.E – God created all irrespective of beliefs with a conscience, by which we can better understand His moral standard, and if used correctly can facilitate moral behaviour. But how is this view justifiable?

Why can’t morality be relative? - C.S Lewis in his Mere Christianity develops and understanding of morality that demonstrates that although people may claim that morality is constructed or relative, people from the smallest of all disputes to the biggest behave as if there is a Moral Law between them and others. Lewis notes that when we quarrel we rebuke one another for wronging us saying “You should know better”.

We say these things but why do we say them? -  Lewis goes on to argue that one says one should know better because there is a common Law or standard between them. Otherwise what sense would it make that one would expect better of them? If this standard could not exist, how could we hold another to account? If we are basing it on our own subjective standard, how can we expect others to share it, and how can we expect others to understand when they do wrong by us? If we genuinely believed that moral standards were equally acceptable why would we do this?

This becomes even more apparent in international issues. In conflicts were recognize that certain acts are unacceptable. We condemn mass murder in Darfur in the same way we condemned Soviet Russia, Rwanda, Cambodia and other nightmare scenes of the 20th century. Here in Ireland, we condemn the clerical child abuse that took place. We condemn these things because they aren’t to be tolerated. They violate our common standard as human beings, and the Moral Law we use to hold people to account. Deep down we know these things are universally wrong because of the moral law that runs through our conscience. We can either ignore the Moral Law and its Law Giver or we can affirm them.

However in all reality we certainly do not regard morality as relative, and as such this is inconsistent with true morality. If morals aren’t external to us they are our mere construction and they are at our whim. Either morality is invented, or it is a standard independent from your or I. The US Declaration of Independence has on its second line:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among  these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

US Declaration of Independence

In addition we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both of these demonstrate that the reason these rights are unalienable is firstly because they are not subject to human opinion; if they were they would hardly be unalienable or undeniable. The second reason that rights and morals aren’t ours to give or define in the first place. The US Declaration of Independence ultimately rests on the conclusion that we are under a loving God who cares for our welfare.

If morals are universal, and if a moral law exists, why do people still do bad things? – Let me first make clear that in my case and in Lewis’ case the Moral Law isn’t deterministic like the Laws of Physics. Indeed all humans by their very nature fail to act coherently by the Moral Law, yet expect it of others. This is the reason why we rebuke one another in the first place. This puts us into a strange paradox. We in a sense can’t live with it (the Moral Law) due to the weight of the Moral Law in guilt, and we can’t live without it due to its necessity in moral judgement. We seek to justify ourselves, yet we also fall guilty of the Moral Law.

This closely follows the Biblical narrative. We were all created in God’s image (our true empathy) and called to reflect His will in this world. We fell short of His standard by disobedience and sin which separates us from God. We cannot ever hope to be justified by our standard because we rejected His.

What is the solution? – The solution is that someone who is blameless takes this burden away, and allows us to grow gradually as moral beings re-finding our connection with God. That person is Jesus Christ, who took our sin away allowing us to be justified on His behalf by free grace rather than our own so that we might gain a relationship with the Father, and live more closely each day by His path, allowing us to reflect His will (our true purpose) and to expect this of others.

In conclusion, there is a universal Moral Law and by extension a Moral Law giver. This is clear in our personal disputes. Human rights operate so that they depend on a loving God who cares for our welfare. Finally our inability to follow the Moral Law yet expecting it of others closely matches the Biblical standard of salvation. If this is indeed the case and it seems to be any moral consideration which rejects God isn’t coherent with reality.

Thank you.