Jesus' tomb discovered?

Brace yourself for a titanic struggle between film director James Cameron and 2,000 years of Church tradition.

The famous film director has set a course to sail some stormy waters which he thinks could sink the Christian faith once and for all and he's striking below the waterline by attacking the central belief of Christians: The resurrection.

Its been the staple diet of the Church since it began. The belief that three days after death, Jesus came back to life in order to prove that his message was true and that God could offer eternal life to mankind and its this account of resurrection which has proved to be surprisingly robust against 2,000 years worth of criticism.

We've had the 'swoon theory', the 'substitution theory' the 'theft theory' and even the 'alien abduction' theory but according to Cameron, these are all wrong, Jesus and his family were buried in a tomb before their bones were placed in a stone box, waiting for the Terminator (Cameron) to find them. Waiting for their judgement day.

Well it would appear that time is now as Cameron has made these claims (conveniently) just before his new documentary gets shown around the world.

I will watch with interest but incredibly I find the resurrection claim more credible than this inconclusive and massively presumptive claim, and even more incredibly, I'm not alone either.

Billie McCurrie Radio Interview

A few people have requested this interview so I will post it on my blog once again.

I first met Billy at a YL (young life) meeting in Southport. I found his story to be incredibly moving so I decided to arrange for Billy to be given an opportunity to talk about his experiences on a radio programme that I was producing at the time.

Religion is often a motivating factor for violence and terrorism in today's society, but Billy's story shows that this doesn't always have to be the end of the matter, The Bible's message is still bringing people to repentance, a place where they seek forgiveness and a place where they turn their lives around.

Click here to listen to the interview

Biased afterall?

The Daily Mail reported yesterday that the BBC is institutionally biased, by their own admission.

This type of thing is often reported and commented on but on this occasion, some of the BBC's top brass and journos seem to agree.

In this article, the Daily Mail quotes Andrew Marr (Political journalist) as saying

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly-funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.

"It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

Ok, so its not exactly earth shattering. Surely even the BBC should change with the times? But should this be counted as liberalism?

I tackled this whole topic of bias myself a few months ago here but for those who need to cut to the chase, I feel that true impartiality is impossible. How can we report crimes involving vulnerable individuals or mass murder without overtly stressing the opinions of the victims?

In essence, impartiality has little to do with fact however it may effect how journalists go about looking for them.

But what about comment and analysis? The BBC dedicates some of its news and current affairs output on individuals expressing personal comments on the big issues of the day, and you can take it from me that most have their own agenda in doing so. Here the BBC relies on balance. We can't expect politicians to comment with impartiality but by giving equal measure to different parties etc, they hope to strike some degree of 'fairness'

The Daily Mail's article also looks wider than the just the news remit though. In the article, they also claimed:

Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment.

They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities.

It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.

During the meeting, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away - but would not do the same for the Koran.

Now that's a whole new ballgame. The BBC's idea of impartiality only really centers around news reporting, some of these issues would probably be considered under 'Taste and Decency' And that's a whole new topic completely...

Do you think the BBC is biased or do you feel they do a good job?

Should newsreaders wear religious jewelry?

The debate of religion within societies continues to run and run here in the UK, but in a bizarre twist, the media storm has momentarily turned inward.

Readers may be aware that the Muslim veil is never away from the front pages at the moment, but the issue seems to have reached the desk of the news studio itself.

BBC newsreader Fiona Bruce wore a cross on her necklace and a BBC Blogger asked the wider question of what would we do if a Muslim presenter chose to wear the full veil?

Its worth noting, The BBC has not spoken on this matter so lets not throw any BBC PC comments round at the moment, rather I think the blog raises valid questions.

Does something like this affect impartiality? Or does this insult the professionalism of the journalists involved? And should we even be looking at issues like this? Do they not add the the sense of separation that is already far too wide in the UK's religious communities?