Debate ABC Style

If there ever was a reason to immediately halt taxpayer funding of “our” ABC, it was last night’s edition of Q&A. Of course just about every episode of this show for the past five years has been reason enough to privatise the national broadcaster.

But what we saw last night really did take the cake. It was absolutely atrocious: the most biased, bigoted, one-sided joke I may have ever seen on the ABC. Of course I predicted a week ago that this would be bad:

But even I was surprised at how horrendously bad it really was. There we had the usual sole conservative/Christian voice (Fred Nile) pitted against a hostile panel and moderator, and at least 90 per cent of the audience. So what did we have there? 150 to 1, or something like that? In other words, a fair debate, in the eyes of the uber-secular left ABC.

The ABC Charter must state somewhere that its sole mission in life is to attack, oppose and assault all traces of conservatism and Christianity. This show really was just diabolical in every aspect. So the question is, why bother? I have done many, many such “debates” over the years, and they are not a nice experience, I can assure you.

You are always the lone voice pitted against a whole host of hostile opponents. But truth needs to get out into the public arena, so I have done these things countless times. Hopefully a trickle of truth gets out, and hopefully a little light will break through in some darkened minds and hearts.

Thus you do it, even though it is such a nasty experience. So well done to Fred for having the courage and the commitment to subject himself to this official, deliberate witchhunt by the ABC. He handled himself gracefully and respectfully, even though the entire hour was about one thing only: throwing as much mud, dirt, abuse and vilification as possible at the man.

He also boldly proclaimed the gospel message more than once. Given how everything was set against him, this was perhaps the best he could do. He was never allowed to respond properly to any of the attacks. He was constantly cut off by the “moderator” Tony Jones and the other belligerents on the panel. And the audience hurled its fair share of abuse at him as well.

Some folks complained that perhaps Fred did not do as well as he might have. Of course it is easy for armchair critics to make such complaints – they are not there on the frontlines in the heat of battle. Under the circumstances he handled himself very well.

Of course he is not a philosopher or a trained apologist. He is an MP and a Minister. So taking on reprobate Bishops, world-class atheists, and other mentally and morally mushy panellists was never going to be easy or fair. A real and proper debate would feature, say, one philosopher against another, or one scientist against another. It would not feature one man against 150 abusive haters.

A debater must be very well read, quick on his feet, able to do instant lateral thinking, and cool under pressure. Few can do that. Sure, I would have answered a few things differently, but that is easier to do from the comfort of your living room. Not only was Fred hopelessly outnumbered, he would have been up against a spiritually dark environment as well.

The entire night was a set-up job, designed to do one thing only: to mercilessly attack Fred. That was all it was about. The very first question demonstrated that. It was a complete set up: Q&A got a homosexual to throw out one of their typical questions: “You say sexuality is all choice, so when did you choose to be heterosexual?”

This is such a tired and lame objection, but the activists actually think it is some sort of knock-down winner. Yeah right. Fred rightly said he was born heterosexual. We all are of course. In a very tiny minority of cases, such as the Intersex condition, there are chromosomal abnormalities, as in Turners Syndrome, etc. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the homosexuality debate.

As counsellors who work with homosexuals who want to go straight will tell you, nearly 100 per cent of them grew up in a home with a weak or absent father, or with abuse. Overwhelmingly it is environment, not biology, which determines this. I document this fully in my book Strained Relations.


The foolish atheist Lawrence Krauss – who I thought was weak as water all night – threw out the old canard about homosexuality being found amongst animals. Oh puh-leese, spare us. We also find animals killing their own, and eating their own, to be quite common as well. So should we do that as well? Is that morally acceptable too?

The apostate “Bishop” Gene Robinson went on about some utter baloney that sexuality is fully determined by age three. Oh give me a break. Had Fred known about his background (I am not sure if he did) he simply could have replied, “Oh, so your sexuality was all set by age three – so why were you happily married to a woman, and with children, for most of your life, before dumping them for your male lover?”

This rank heretic (who was actually brought out from America by false shepherds here in Australia), even went on to suggest that Jesus was unusual, lived an alternative lifestyle, leaving the option open that he may have been homosexual. Why am I surprised that the ABC was so happy to have him on board?

All up, the homosexuality debate ran for the entire first half of the show, with every single person on the panel against Fred. What an appalling excuse for a fair debate. The other half of the show was just as reprehensible. Everyone there, for example, except Fred, ran the idiotic line that Islam and Christianity are basically just the same, and both have their bad egg extremists.

And Krauss actually started whining about how bad it is for people to label others and have an “us v them” mentality. And what exactly was he doing all night, except labelling religious folks and saying it was all about science vs faith etc? The very thing he said we should not do he was involved with the entire time. What a fool, as scripture says of atheists.

All up there was only one voice of sanity, reason and moral clarity the entire evening. If these other leaders and eggheads were supposed to represent the best of Australian and overseas thinking and leadership, then we are all toast. It was simply shocking how bad these others were.

Every one of them was completely steeped in moral relativism, secular humanism, and postmodern moonbattery. And the ABC pats itself on the back, pretending it is offering informed and intelligent debate. They are doing nothing of the sort.

They are just pushing their secular left agenda at every turn. And why are we not surprised here? As I wrote in my article mentioned above, a survey found that 41.2% of the ABC journalists who declared their voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor, and 14.7% for the Coalition. That says it all.

Oh, and next week we will see this played out all over again, this time with Senator Cory Bernardi the sole conservative/Christian voice. Once again we need to support him and pray for him, but once again it will simply be a case of being thrown to the lions – all at taxpayers’ expense.

If you would like to complain to the ABC about their suffocating and insufferable bias in general, and for last night’s ludicrous show in particular – and you should – you can contact them here:

[1312 words]

46 Replies to “Debate ABC Style”

  1. Hi Bill.

    Thank you for your denunciation of last night’s Q&A program’s abominable treatment of the Rev. Fred Nile MP.

    You rightly say that “the entire hour was about one thing only: throwing as much mud, dirt, abuse and vilification as possible at the man”.

    It has dawned on me recently that the ABC’s Q&A program, with its token conservative “guest” held up to ridicule before a baying mob, is in fact a modern-day counterpart to the medieval method of public humiliation with stocks and pillory.

    In those bad old days, victims would be exposed in a public place, such as a market, with their limbs immobilised. Passers-by would gather to jeer at them and pelt them with rotten eggs, mouldy vegetables and excrement.

    The ABC should be ashamed itself for improvising on this medieval method of torment.

    John Ballantyne, Melbourne.

  2. I complained twice to the ABC for their reprehensible naming of Fred Nile as “conservative morals campaigner” instead of giving him courtesy of a title such as “bishop(?)”, former cabinet minister, etc, as others must have done, but they did not reply

    I think Fred did very well considering the setting. He came across as a gracious Christian and for those with ears to hear and eyes to see there might be a bit of soul-searching as a result of his attitude.

    Isn’t Amanda Vanstone a complete… Sorry, I must mind my manners.

    David Morrison

  3. Hi Bill,

    I also think Fred Nile did an admirable job in the circumstances. The fact that he did not present as a skilled debater actually counted to his credit. Clearly he was the most genuine and I suspect that everyone (including the haters) realised that. And like you hinted at, it takes a truly remarkable person to respond with poise and clarity when subjected to that level of hostility.

    And Krauss might have thought his quick tongue was impressive, but he just demonstrated how truly limited atheists are when it comes to responding to the tremendous moral and ethical void left when God is disregarded.

    And as for “Gay Gene” Robinson: Gene, just pack up your bags, take off the purple and give it away, man! So Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality but their bad treatment of the poor? Ok, then, just bear with me while I go and black-out Jude 1:7!

    Nick Davies

  4. Bill, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. It was disgusting they way they treated Fred Nile! The same will probably happen to Cory Bernardi next week!!

    Jeanette Nellor

  5. Nick, I guess Gene must have been referring to the passage in Ezekiel talking about the sin of Sodom. Homosexuality was not the root sin, but it was the inevitable fruit of Sodom’s sin. Indeed it can be reasonably inferred when studying it in the light of other scripture (Genesis, Romans etc.) that when the book of Ezekiel refers to the abominations Sodom committed this includes its rampant homosexuality.

    When a society becomes self-centred, where everything is sacrificed for one’s own pleasure, where laziness abounds, and society turns it back on God (as we read in Romans) sins such as homosexuality are the inevitable result. A society cannot long maintain moral standards after turning its back on God.

    The men of Sodom ignored all the moral standards of their day seeking the temporary pleasure of their lust, and they did it openly.

    When God came to see if what he had heard about Sodom was true, he found that it was (and maybe things had even got worse).

    Sodom is a reminder of where self-centredness, pride and a lack of care for the poor and needy inevitably leads if left unchecked.

    Matt Vinay

  6. Thank you Bill, I heartily agree. I had a very bad virtually sleepless night over it and decided I won’t watch that show any more. The moment those people say anything about the Bible or the Christian faith or any religion they demonstrate their appaling ignorance and make fools of themselves to those who are a bit more informed about these matters. As you say, Fred did well considering the circumstances. However, it was to be expected that they were out to roast him especially about homosexuality, I wish he had had his Bible at the ready and simply quoted the relevant Scriptures and left it at that.

    Joost Gemeren

  7. Thanks Bill. You are another hero in this fight and the least we can do is to support those of you who go into those cesspools to expose themselves to the stench of utter decay and wickedness. For those of us who just can’t stand to watch, imagine how much worse it is for those who are out in the fray. Our prayers and support all contribute to their encouragement in the faith as they battle for the sake of righteousness in OUR nation. The more evil rises in this nation, the more we will all be facing the viciousness of this world just for the privilege of calling ourselves Christians. Might as well get into the fight right now, boots and all.

    Dee Graf

  8. Thank you Bill ,for making it very clear that this was a set up.
    What a tower of strength Fred was. Thanks also for the handy ABC link at the bottom of your post. I have given them an ear full of what I thought of their biased Christianity bashing.
    As you predict so well, next week will be a repeat of more of the same. I will look at it, knowing that it will only upset me, like so many voices in the comments. Sticking our head in the sand we can’t do either.
    Bill Heggers, Perth

  9. Bill, I guess I should read your book sometime. I don’t believe that homosexuality was the root sin. I believe it is a sin that was the inevitable result of her persisting in other sins. Nevertheless it is obvious that the rampant homosexuality was a clear sign that she was ripe for judgment and she was punished for it.

    Or take another example. David committed adultery and murder, but what really was the cause of it all? He stayed home when he should have been at war and needlessly exposed himself to temptation. Having done what some might call “little” sins he moved onto “bigger” ones.

    Matt Vinay

  10. The ABC has been taken over by the left. A great Satanic strategy, control a national TV, radio and internet media organisation funded entirely by taxpayers and use it to push your secular agenda and portray Christians and social conservatives as lunatics to be derided and mocked by society.
    Thank you for the link I have sent my complaint, not that I expect a reply. I have also complained to my federal member. We need to keep the pressure on the Coalition to overhaul the ABC.
    Des Morris

  11. I was a little bit encouraged that when the discussion turned to euthanasia, Fred carried himself well and the following responses (at least to my ear) were more supportive than antagonistic – that life is valuable and that inadvertently legalising INvoluntary euthanasia would be a grave problem even to our individualistic society.

    Alison Keen

  12. I think the part that took the cake was of ‘the bishop’ inferring not so subtly that Jesus was homosexual!! Truly a sick and reprobate mind.
    The disgusting treatment of Fred was reprehensible and I have sent off my email to Q&A saying so. It will be interesting to see if I get a reply. I shan’t hold my breath!
    I lead a bi-monthly prayer meeting to pray for the government and last night six of us prayed for Fred that he would carry wisdom and integrity. This was certainly answered. We also pray an obvious exposure of the deception vs the reception of truth. In this day where ‘evil is called good and good evil’ it is so obvious that truth is the first casualty.
    BTW I think it’s interesting about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah being obvious as homosexuality, as this community appears to be only interested in their own narcissistic world to reach out to the poor and needy (as the church has been doing for centuries). It would appear that those other issues inevitably follow. I have yet to hear about one GLBT organisation actually helping others. By their fruits you shall know them!

    Sandy Anderson

  13. If anyone wants inspiration or ideas this is the email I sent to the ABC.

    I believe you pride yourself in being balanced. I don’t believe that is the case judging by last night’s effort, but you can change my mind by doing one simple thing and that is to have a Q & A where four of the panel are Christians and please note Christians, not religious, and one atheist or homosexual.

    For example , if you have the courage, include Bill Muehlenberg of Culture Watch, a seasoned debater and highly respected in the church. Another would be Margaret Court, Australia’s greatest tennis player and in leadership at the Victory Centre in Perth. Another would be Peter Jensen and of course Fred Nile to give him a decent go instead of the onslaught he faced last night. You have had Kraus twice in quick succession so having Fred on again will be no problem to you.

    If you are prepared to do this, I know that you’re viewing public will skyrocket because they will not want to miss a programme that is balanced in favour of Christianity.

    Roger Marks

  14. Yes, thanks for the link Bill and I’ve sent my complaint. The programme is a disgrace!

    Dr Ian Ridgway

  15. Hi Bill

    I would like to try for a debate. The first question for me would be easy. “When my mom caught me wearing dresses and told me that she didn’t want me to die”.

    I was abused sexually as a child, I started wearing dresses because I didn’t think what happened to me would be as bad. My mom caught me and asked me if I was gay. I said no not quite understanding. She said if your are wear a condom cause I don’t want you to die. I fought any homosexual thought and was able to beat it.

    I studied electronic engineering and I understand information systems. DNA represents an information system which makes a designer necessary.

    The big argument that should be fundamental hammered through is that I don’t want homosexuals to die. I know the risks and I know the way out.

    Truth be told I would have to get ready for the debate I’m not naturally good on my feet. I’m shy by nature and I would need a lot of prayer before going in. Five against one though with the right preparation it can be won.

    I am grateful that there are brave souls still fighting the good fight. Thank God for Fred and for you.

    John Mcallister

  16. Have emailed the ABC as well. Fred did so well considering. At times on Wendy Harmer’s site “The Hoopla” I have seen about 50 rabid atheists all pitted against one Christian and the amount of hatred and abuse on some posts is incredible.
    Jo Deller

  17. And on their website, they have the hide to have this header “adventures in democracy”.
    God bless you, good warrior of the TRUTH, Fred Nile. You have been one of my Aussie heros of the Faith for years, and my respect for you just deepened. This “debate” shows me more and more how we need to be prepared to “give an answer” to people for the faith within us. Once you have had the breakdown of reasoning and truth explained to you in all the various areas, you will never again be caught flat-footed by their bluffs – which is all they are, no matter how learned the people are who deliver them, or how well-spoken, or charismatic and likeable they may be. Creation Ministries International are champions in this.
    Ian Brearley

  18. A propos Des Morris’ apt comment above re Satanic strategy, it’s important to remember Eph 2:2. Satan is indeed the ruler of the kingdom of the air – for now. In December 1975 I had unforgettable first-hand evidence of this In Nagpur, India which is worth telling. (I hope it’s not too long, Bill..)

    It was my privilege to be asked to help lead the singing at a conference with the renowned Dr John Stott at a significant gathering of some 600 young Christian University student leaders. Dr Stott was giving for the first time his now-celebrated series of studies on Ephesians which was later published as “God’s New Society” and I was impressed as I sat behind him that he was speaking from his Greek NT only! As he began to exegete Chapter 2 he paused suddenly before leaning forward to urge us all never to underestimate the reality of the battle for Satan’s kingdom of the air rulership.

    Immediately, the sound system went haywire! The many loudspeakers, both inside and outside the huge meeting tent suddenly erupted with loud shrieks, whistles and mocking laughter. It was chaotic, but Dr Stott calmly stepped back from the lectern and stood, praying. Bewildered, we all joined him.

    The racket went on unchecked for perhaps 20 to 30 seconds, then, as suddenly as it had begun, it imploded and there was a blessed silence. Still feeling slightly stunned by this demonic display I watched Dr Stott as he smiled, moved to the lectern, tapped the mike (which was working normally again) and said gently, “And NOW do you see what I mean?”

    We did!

    Geoff Richards

  19. I now know why Amanda Vanstone gets to host the one supposedly conservative programme called “counterpoint” on RN. She certainly isn’t a conservative so fits the requirements for being a mole very well.
    I wonder if they have the courage to invite Ken Ham or Jonathan Sarfati from CMI onto the panel
    Will consider my complaint to Q&A very carefully. Thanks for the link.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  20. Elijah was a man with the same kind of feelings we have… He stood alone against Jezebel’s hundreds of prophets on Mt Carmel.

    A stacked TV show is precisely the place for faithful followers of the Crucified Author of life to be. A first-century-AD understanding of witnessing for Jesus of Nazareth plainly involved being on trial in a literal court as a literal defendant. At least now, the masks and gloves are off … the real opponents of God and His Christ have come out of their closets once more!

    John Wigg

  21. A couple of years ago my brother and I went to see a comedian during the Melbourne Comedy Festival. Half of his show was an extended rant against Christians, and most of the audience was on his side, cheering and clapping. We won’t be going to see him again, but perhaps he’s mallowed since then, because he lost his house on Black Saturday. I pray that there would be some Christians in the comedy scene to reach people like him. Just like on Q&A, there was no constructive critique of Christianity or religion in general, just caricaturing, mockery, and misrepresentation of Christians. If the ABC costs us taxpayers eight cents a day, on Monday I paid for the privilege of being mocked and ridiculed.

    Ross McPhee

  22. emailing ABC now… I must say, the scriptures say if they persecuted Jesus, they will persecute us. He is standing up for righteousness and it makes sense that they hate him. When a Pastor or leader is being admired by our society and the Godless I wonder about that person.

    Liz Gee

  23. thank you Bill for exposing the disastrous hatred against Bible truth and holy marital oneness.
    I have a suggestion. Call for those who will volunteer for prayer for Cory Bernardi for 5 minutes during the session.
    He will fight for truth as Joshua did, with Moses, Aaron and Hur wrestling with the Lord in prayer. Combined, we can demonstrate the illimitable power of our God against the forces of evil. Let our God reveal their shallowness and inability.
    Harrold Steward MB BS Exodus 17 infuses faith.

  24. Q & A debate
    It appears that this debate asked for a stereotyped representation of Fred Nile which he maturely was not prepared to give. In inviting Mr Nile the ABC was also inviting a type of arguement. As previously remarked, Mr Nile was the only Christian representative on a bench of 5 other individuals who supported the argued concepts. It was not gay-bashing but Christian-bashing and inequality by the ABC. Christian representation, or gay, it is fair foe an equal representation of the minority groups represented. This was not here…
    I know many who finjd Q&A a witch-hunt or excuse for Christian and church bashings. This is again unequal and uncalled for. Try holding Q&A when the power balances are reversed….
    Joanne Harries

  25. Actually I thought Fred handled them with dignity.
    I would have said Jesus said love each other, he didn’t say fornicate with each other..
    We have to pray for these poor misguided people.
    If we really knew what hell was like, we wouldn’t want our worst enemy to go there.
    Lorraine Twentyman

  26. I’ve sent a complaint to the ABC – I switched channels early in the programme before I forgot I was a committed Christian and used inappropriate language towards all the panelist who treated Fred Nile so badly – don’t get me started on the faux Bishop!!!

    Patti Smith

  27. Dear Bill,
    I thought Fred did well in the circumstances. I particularly liked his $1000 challenge to the young man to prove his case. That kind of initiative and challenge is what we need to see much more of today in the Christian world. I also admire him for going it alone (with Jesus).
    It takes a lot of self-control, insight and split-second choices to handle these kind of one-sided situations.
    It was noticeable, from what I saw (I didn’t see all of the programme), that Fred was the only one who spoke as if he actually knew Jesus as a real Person. There was a lot of talk about “goodness” and being “good”, and having those things apart from the Personality and essential goodness that one can only possess through Christ. Being “good” seemed to be a desirable thing, obtainable by reason, but being Christlike wasn’t even on the radar.
    It was at this point that that every person doing what was right in their own eyes suddenly became quite obvious. Their world has no place for Jesus the Person, or what flows from Him.
    Then there were the words, “having faith”, which are apparently what “religious” people have, in contradistinction to non religious people, who have and exercise the superior (implied) faculty of reason. As faith must have and has an object, it needs to be pointed out forcefully that, “having faith” is not a non rational or anti-reason state or process, but a growth in trust in a Person Who has tendered evidence for His existence, character and purpose, and that this evidence is apprehended by one’s spirit and processed with the use of reason.
    Just saying, “having faith” or “people of faith” and leaving out the object of that faith makes Christians look like self-deluded dingbats, so why would one associate with them or give them credence?
    Amanda Vanstone’s final remarks to Fred I thought were quite vicious, but they did serve to highlight the realisation that it is not possible on a show of this nature, to examine any subject (particularly faith in God) in depth, and to arrive at a conclusion where facts have counted more than opinions. There are simply too many on the panel, and too many questions from inside and outside the studio.
    So if there is really no debate, it is probably just for entertainment at “best”, or propaganda at worst.
    We need to pray for Cory Bernardi and personally encourage him, as he has already been introduced for next week as a “renegade”.

    Robert Greggery.

  28. This is the online email I have just sent to the ABC:

    When will the ABC give equality to people presenting their views on Q&A? When USA Episcopalian homosexual bishop, Gene Robinson, is on the program supporting homosexuality, why didn’t Q&A pit him against somebody of his equal, say, Dr. Peter Jensen,Anglican Archbishop of Sydney or a bishop from the Sydney diocese of the Anglican Church? That would give Robinson (and the other pro-homosexual panelists) a run for their money in understanding biblical Christianity and what the Scriptures state about the cause and consequences of homosexuality.

    The deck was stacked against Fed Nile – 5 against him, including the moderator, Tony Jones. This was bigotry supremo by the ABC.

    Tony Jones was so rude as to cut Nile off in mid sentences on a number of occasions, not allowing him to complete what he was saying. This was not allowing a person to express his point of view, but it was Tony Jones cutting off what he objected to.

    The ABC uses my tax-payer funded money. I object to the overt discrimination against Fred Nile that was evident on this week’s Q@A. By the choice of the panelists, it evident to this viewer that this was a set-up designed to tear into Rev Mr Nile.

    Please advise me what the ABC will do to quit this kind of discriminatory presentation? It was crystal clear what the ABC was up to with the people chosen to be on the panel. When will Bible-believing Christianity be fairly presented on Q&A? From start to finish it was not designed to be a balanced presentation. I do not always agree with what Mr Nile says on moral issues, but this public ‘beating’ of Fred Nile by 5-1 panelists (plus quite a lot of hostility in the audience) was a disgraceful presentation by the ABC.

    You wouldn’t dare do this to a Muslim cleric if he were on the panel and was opposed by 5-1 panelists.

    Spencer Gear

  29. Hello Bill,

    The opening sentence for the Wikipedia entry on Gene Robinson is “Vicky Gene Robinson (born May 29, 1947 in Fayette County, Kentucky) is an American retired bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.”

    He was given the name “Vicky’ because his parents were hoping for a girl; instead their child was very frail little boy who was not expected to live. His father apparently expected the child’s death at any time for years. I wouldn’t be surprised if his having been given a girl’s name and his subsequent upbringing are the true origin of his homosexual condition.

    I also believe that Rev. Fred Nile would have been aware of the details of Robinson’s life, and as a true Christian and gentleman he didn’t point out these details.

    Fred aquitted himself very well, and I hope he continues to be able to do so for many years to come.

    Donald Battaglini

  30. I have great respect for Fred Nile, and what he was prepared to do. We all should be ready to witness for our faith. But I wonder whether we should be more advised by Jesus’ advice in Matthew 7:6, when it comes to a situation like Q. & A. on the ABC.

    “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

    Bruce Battye.

  31. Thank you Bill. Brilliantly written as usual.
    I have sent my complaint to the ABC. It would be good if people were also encouraged to send a letter or email of encouragement to the Rev Fred Nile, who under the circumstances, did a very good job.

    Sue King

  32. I agree Bill. The ABC lefties and Q & A stack the deck every time. They first put up the statistics on the ‘balanced’ nature of the audience, and then stack to panel deck with lefties. Pitting leading atheist scientists against non-scientists and token Christians who are neither apologists nor informed. Along with a diminished view of Biblical revelation, and fully into evolution. As all subsequent discussion is dominate by the panel the audience has minimal input.

    I was also rather intrigued by the comments of leading atheist and theoretical astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss on ‘homosexuality’ among animals. We have a friend who has a dog that repeatedly tries to mate with a rag doll. Does this mean that the dog has a rag doll mating gene.

    John Heininger

  33. Hello Bill,
    I have been sent this article by my son in W.A.,but since living in Aotearoa NZ have not seen this ABC program. But reading your article leaves nothing to the imagination; and I have to say that we encounter the same denigrating attitude towards Christianity here.
    I am a relatively new Christian after having been a Buddhist for decades. During that time I also looked at Christianity at something of lesser value than Buddhism since it required Faith and not analysis of the mind and mind control. But I also studied science and evolution, and came to the startling discovery that science was still at the guessing stage but demonstrated steadfast faith in it. So what was the difference!
    The difference is that all evolutionists and scientists have the ear of the media and can thus control the minds of the lesser beings who rely on others for their thinking.
    Through the grace of God His son revealed Himself to me and pulled me into the circle of the family of God. That was nothing short of a miracle in my case.
    But now is what I really want to say to all Christians who happen to read my little passage: “Where were you when I was searching?” I never met a Christian, I didn’nt know what kind of people you were, what jobs you had, etc. I would have liked to know to make my options greater at an earlier stage in my life. As it was I only knew my son and daughter were Christians, but somehow I wanted to be confronted by outsiders.
    And again my point is: “Are you identifying yourself amongst your colleagues so that you give people an opportunity to observe you, to approach you privately, to gauge that you are thoughtful people with intellect, etc”.
    As it now looks, it is is only Fred Nile who dares to stand for Jesus. “Are you clambering to get into the ABC studios as guests to be a vocal back-up for the lone crier in the desert? Are you writing letters to the editor with complaints and signed with your full name? Are you willing to be ridiculed yourselves. Remember Jesus might say at the pearly gates: ‘I never knew you!’ In Yeshua’s name we are ONE!
    Danuta Glendenning, NZ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: