An atheist, lesbian and playboy are just some of the non-Christians who agreed to participate in Bible studies and Christian mentoring as part of a new television series airing in the United Kingdom this month.
"Make Me a Christian" follows the three-week journey of 13 non-Christians who also include a witch, a Christian-turned-Muslim, an unmarried couple with a child on the way, and a family of six, who volunteered to give up their normal lives and attempt to live like Christians. Throughout the program, they will get to grips with Christianity through a number of Bible studies and mentoring from an ecumenical team of church leaders.
The Rev. George Hargreaves, leader of the Christian Party, and his team of mentors think Britain is in a state of moral decline and aim to show that a return to a more Christian way of life would stop the rot, according to Channel Four.
Other mentors on the show include Church of England Curate the Rev. Joanna Jepson, Catholic Fr. John Flynn, and Kensington Temple's Pastor Wale Babatunde.
The series documents the changes that occur within each of the participants as their perspective of Christianity and the meaning of life are challenged by the lessons that emerge from the Bible studies. By the series’ end, some participants even make a commitment to pursue Christianity further.
“Viewers will be deeply moved by the participants’ personal journeys. I believe that a major nationwide evangelism initiative could be launched on the back of this series," Hargreaves commented.
"Make Me A Christian" series will be broadcast on Channel Four over the next three Sundays this month, starting Aug. 10.
RSS
agent, as I looked at this article and saw your posts I realized there was no need to go back to the Mohler post where we last posted each other. One of my favorite albums is Aqualung by Jethro Tull, the reason I like it is because the album challenges church people to really consider their relationship with God. The songs appear to suggest that many are doing the same thing with God that in a way you are doing. You make God appear to be a creation of man and that He is responsible to man as opposed to man being His creation and we are responsible to God. My role as a follower or child of God is to simply trust and obey Him. I don't and can't explain God because if I could then I would be God. Now you will probably once again equate this belief to that of believing in leprechauns and such but there is no similarity whatsoever for one reason alone. God sent His one and only Son Jesus Christ to this earth to pay a price that only the perfect Son of God could pay for the sins of the world and He did when He died on the Cross and shed every drop of His blood for the forgiveness of all sins past, present, and future. As a result anyone who will repent of their sins and turn to God by putting their complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ alone can become a child of God. And that act of God to allow His Son to pay that price and the fact the Christ voluntarily died for our sins and was bodily raised from the dead is the very reason we can totally trust and obey God when we become a child of God.
* and to cause doubt and confusion.*
Naa, I just think there are better explanations for natural things than simply positing an intellectual shrug of the shoulders like *god did it that way*. I wanted to point out that evolution is not simply about *only the strong survive* as you put it. This is a gross misunderstanding of the processes and attempts to oversimplify it by defining it in terms that most would object to outright. By you doing so you can convince others that will ignore or reject it, but as I noted it is not so simplified. In fact as one reads more about collaboration between species it turns out many survive simply b/c they are moral and act in an altruistic nature. Now why might that be, why would animals, who allegedly have no souls bother to be moral at all? I will cite examples of studies with animals in which they act morally in experiments, but again why should animals be moral or ethical? They are moral for the same reasons we are moral, for the good of the community. Even Darwin pointed this out and still to this day people act as if it is all about only the strong.
*I guess the acronym thing bothered me too.*
Sorry, sheesh. Same Stuff Different Day, it does not have to be profane, its meaning is the same. My point was the same barbaric things that occurred in the past of other cultures, regardless if they believed in god(s) or not, they still occurred. The only difference was that the other such cultures never penned it in their holly books that such barbarous acts were some how legit.
* did you ever look them up?*
Sure did, it is interesting, but I am not convinced by a single study,(and that goes both ways) something of this nature really needs to be more thoroughly tested and analyzed, I mean I could equally cite another study that showed no efficacy for prayer, so I think it is rational to have more studies, analyze them and then try to determine the validity. Simply pointing at one and ignoring all others is not logical.
mathetes,
You must realize that orange is so logically and carnally minded, that the things of the Spirit are beyone his comprehension. I would liken him to a Vulcan from Star Trek. To him, the Bible is to viewed logically and analytically. But he doesn't realize that it is a spiritual book. It's not a manual, such as one that you'd find on how to effectively run a production line or something. But that is the way he treats it. And that's all he'll get from it.
agent,
I apologize, but I'm getting tired of your games. You do not come here for the truth, or to learn more about God. It seems to only come here to argue, to rile Christians, and to cause doubt and confusion.
I've been attempting to give you the reasons why I believe, to help you break through the barriers to belief that you have erected around you. I have pointed you to scientific studies on prayer that show its efficacy; did you ever look them up? If so, you never mentioned it.
I guess the acronym thing bothered me too. CP does not allow such language, so you abbreviate it. Why? I was always told profanity was proof of a limited mind.
So I'm through for now. God will never fit into your understanding of logic, and He does not have to. When you are ready to accept Him on His terms, He will be there. He desires a relationship with you, but He will not force Himself on you. God demonstrated His love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I hope you will understand that and turn to Him.
* Do you have any evidence slaves were abused by the Jews? *
Look in the OT at the laws regarding beating your slaves, and how if they die within 3 days of after being beaten it’s not a crime, but within 3 days it is. You do not have such rules written in such a book unless such acts were ongoing all the time, this is obvious. Also, in the end of the Deut. I think, you will find prices for slaves based on their age and sex, something you also do not have written in a book unless it was something which was ongoing.
I don not need evidence, for you are overlooking the obvious. Being a slave is by its very definition, inhumane, indigent, and repugnant and an abuse of human ethics! It is abusive in its very principle! This is why, although not all slaves were abused by their masters in the south of the US (your area), it was mutually understood that the principal of slavery itself was an abuse of human rights and dignity and something that AUGHT to be abolished for the betterment of humanity. Somehow the jews and their omnipotent being could not see this, but it is something liberal democracies have in the past 200 years.
My original point was that both the bible, and origins of species and surely many other texts could be wrongly read, interpolated and perverted to suit the needs of corrupt people. This I am sure you can agree with. If one ignores altruism and other factors or cooperation among species, then sure they could infer it to be *only the strong survive*. The key difference though, the bible and other such religious books are supposed to be, by their very nature, objects of ethical teaching and higher morality, whereas darwin’s origins is not, it is a science book and therefore should not be used to tell us was aught to be from what is in all instances.
* In the Bible it says God is does not show partiality, so by what logic should He warn me?*
I guess according to the bible god did not help the Jews with overcoming the midianites then? I could have sworn he helped out in vanquishing them, and others? Well, if god cannot help you in avoiding such an obvious dilemma, exactly what good is it to rely on him in the after math? That would be like having a father who is never around and negligent to his kids and then when one of them is hit by a car b/c he was negligently not watching them, then the father comes later to say *ooops* If the father of the kid was really doing his job he would have taken measures to ensure to AVOID the accident in the first place, but nooo, that would be asking too much here! By your logic the father is not at fault at all for the kids death. Horrid.
*what is SSDD?*
Google it.
* it contains instructions on how one's servants must be treated *
So what, that just proves my point. It is not emphatically objecting to having slaves, that is BIG distinction and something of principle. It only refers to how to treat them when you have one, and not that having one is unethical or inhumane. This would be like the US having slaves in the past and saying it is ok to have them, so long as you treat them according to X,Y and Z laws. I think when we review some of the rules for how to treat a slave according to the OT they do not help it much either as it infers abuse of a slave is ok, so long as they do not die within the 3 day period of said abuse. Cool, laws for beating your slave!
* Not trying to rationalize it, *
Sure you are, in fact you attempt at doing it again by somehow inferring the principle act of slavery is (somehow?) not a form of abuse in itself, or that it is not inhuman at all. Either the act of slavery is wrong, or it isnâ??t, you are attempting to just rationalize it away like how you rationalize the blood thirsty acts of barbarism, but their barbaric acts are no different then any other ancient peoples who sacked other lands.
* Logically? Why?*
b/c according to the bible and on numerous occasions, believers in Yahweh, were saved or avoided near danger or destruction, so why should things only work in the past and not now in the present or in the future? Logically they should, but they don’t appear to, evident by the fact that not a single person was given any real advanced noticed from the guy upstairs in regards to leaving NO by a certain date. So god can help the jews out of Egypt with their issues with the king, but can not give a warning for a major hurricane? And if he can’t offer such a lifeboat, what the heck good is it? Giving thanks for not helping to avoid a disaster is illogical and this is exactly what you are doing. Oh but you will give thanks you are alive, but really the guy upstairs should have done a better job in warning people to begin with. But you wont or can not fault him for that, no, no, no.
*Life is more than possessions + avoidance of pain*
I think you make a valid point, though the question still remains why no one was given advanced warning ahead of time that this major hurricane was coming. Heck, even meteorologists will give some indication of coming storm, so it is not like we are asking for a lot, and considering this god is supposed to be omnipresent, he could have logically given a 2-3 warning at least ahead of time. Such a revelation of an exact date, time, and size and other details of a hurricane would be quite impressive, and yet we do not find this at all, and I think we both know why!
* Evidence shows people do hear from God, so both alternatives are false. I could give you examples as could many believers on this forum. *
Fine provide examples of people supposedly hearing from him for something that they can not directly influence and it is well ahead of time, say 3 years or so. People who are delusional also hear voices in their heads, but it does not make them real either. If the voice they hear really is god, it should have some actual value and ability to verify itself in our world, it can not be ambiguous, it must be detailed so it can be analyzed and critiqued and possibly refuted. IE a discussion with him and all the details related to Katrina would suffice, yet we do not hear of such things. Gee, I wonder why?
agent,
Re: prayer + how God answers, please read Bily Graham's reply at http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080811/does-prayer-really-change-things.htm. I pray his explanation helps you understand.
agent, Re: OT -
"according to the OT they will be slaves (oh yea for them, and imagine how fun for the female slaves and what they would likely be used for!). This is not very holly, it is pathetic and gross for it to be in a holly book."
Again, you really should read the OT before you criticize it: it contains instructions on how one's servants must be treated. Do you have any evidence slaves were abused by the Jews? If so, I'd like to see it.
"SSDD here folks, except that with this one instance, they excuse it, for it is righteous simply b/c it is written in a book."
Not just any book - the Word of God. I think I (+ others) have explained what sets it apart from all others. And what is SSDD?
"Exactly my point, barbaric and you are trying to rationalize it, as if it makes logical sense then or now. Horrid."
Not trying to rationalize it, just explain it, hoping you can grasp it. Re: your logic - see below.
agent,
You said: "This seems to imply a preferential treatment of certain believers, ergo those who espouse said faith then should be logically spared from such disasters or at the very least warned ahead of time"
Logically? Why? Your answer shows what you think the best outcome would be: avoidance of suffering by a warning. But notice several of the reasons for suffering are good outcomes in + of themselves. Life is more than possessions + avoidance of pain.
"now why might this be unless they can not actually listen to him in the first place? Or better yet, the whole thing is illusionary."
Evidence shows people do hear from God, so both alternatives are false. I could give you examples as could many believers on this forum.
Why did you say "better yet"? Woud that fit your view better?
"Perhaps god did not send you a message in time to warn you to move from the coming hurricane, (and why would he not?), after all you are one his followers, so should he not have preferential treatment of you above others? Logically we would expect so, but this again did not appear so."
In the Bible it says God is does not show partiality, so by what logic should He warn me? God said through Isaiah, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways." Do you expect to completely comprehend an omnipotent omniscient Supreme Being? Or that He should do what an unbeliever thinks is right?
*three outcomes of a holy war were possible. If the besieged city surrendered, the occupants' lives were spared,*
Right, if they submit (like Islam) they will not be killed, but according to the OT they will be slaves (oh yea for them, and imagine how fun for the female slaves and what they would likely be used for!). This is not very holly, it is pathetic and gross for it to be in a holly book.
*Then all occupants and their possessions were utterly destroyed. Known as the ban, this custom was intended to keep Israel free of any heathen influence *
Yes, after all, the whole first commandment would not make too much sense to allow for others to have *other* gods know would it? So, enslave them, and or destroy their god(s). This is about par for the course in such barbaric times though. How are these actions any different then the Gauls, Franks, Visogoths, Vandals, Mongols, Vikings, etc. which also put towns to the end of the sword and utterly destroyed them? SSDD here folks, except that with this one instance, they excuse it, for it is righteous simply b/c it is written in a book.
*God said that those living in Canaan could worship Him alone, leave, or face extermination. *
Again, how is this any different from fundamentalist Muslims, or even the laws as written in the OT? The OT clearly states nonbelievers and other believers of other gods should be put to death, especially if they tempt another person with their god(s). Again, this is par for the course for such barbaric times. Thought the entire OT is quite blood thirsty and chalked full of reasons for putting people to death and for things so trivial, so again, this rule/law is simply a reflection of ignorant, barbaric people who could not.
*God did not allow a double standard, when later His own people, the Jews, began to worship other gods: they were killed or removed from the land and sent into exile.*
Exactly my point, barbaric and you are trying to rationalize it, as if it makes logical sense then or now. Horrid. This is like muslims now trying to rationlize their archaic laws to us in the west.
Mathetes,
*Suffering happens for many different reasons*
Ahhh, indeed it does, but according to the bible certain people of certain faiths were chosen over others in preference to god. Heck, people today still follow this as they declare only people of X faith will have their prayers answered and can directly listen or speak with god, while others of other faiths can not. So the question is, if this is true, if they can really listen to him, why were so many people, especially god fearing people in Orleans, not warned many years ahead of time of such a disaster?
This seems to imply a preferential treatment of certain believers, ergo those who espouse said faith then should be logically spared from such disasters or at the very least warned ahead of time, but strangely we never heard of anything like this from any believers saying that on a particular date a major hurricane would strike and destroy Orleans, now why might this be unless they can not actually listen to him in the first place? Or better yet, the whole thing is illusionary.
Perhaps god did not send you a message in time to warn you to move from the coming hurricane, (and why would he not?), after all you are one his followers, so should he not have preferential treatment of you above others? Logically we would expect so, but this again did not appear so.
*I cannot begin to praise God enough for how He brought good out of bad.*
Strange that you mention this, as logically he should have contacted you or other believers to warn you ahead of time that a hurricane is coming, say in a few years ahead of time, that would at least make sense that he was trying to help you and not simply look the other way. Instead, only after the flooding and your survival does thank come, (again not logical at all) though really it would be more logical to apply this thanks if he had warned you and others to avoid the area by moving by an exact date/time. Besides, if the help does not come in time to prevent or avoid the disaster for you and you still get hit, what good is help in the abstract? Should we not expect an omnipotent being to warn you ahead of time to preserve a believer and not put him in harms way to being with? But again, this we do not see. I mean, what good is the supposed help AFTER the fact, it would be more impressive if say he warned you and others to leave the area years ago and noted the exact details of the hurricane, but again this we do not see, and I think we both know why.
Mathetes,
I apologize for unruly comment, just trying to play a joke, but really I am trying to point out that either texts (the bible, or origins of species, and perhaps many other texts really) when not really understood can be wrongly read, abused, and perverted to suit the needs for terrible things. Also important is science tells us what IS, not is what AUGHT to be, that is generally left up to philosophy and religion to make amends for.
*their Creator.*
This is true, however the creator described I the DOI is not one of biblical reference. Nothing about Jesus, Jehovah, Moses etc. they left it quite ambiguous and therefore made it apparent it was not tied to any biblical rules at all. Like I said, if it really is biblical and not Koranic, Jewish, etc. in origins, try to find the passages about inalienable rights in the bible. You wont find such a thing. And when it does refer to god, it does so only in terms a deist would do calling him - *natures god*.
I cannot establish any policy merely on whether or not it will save the human race from a period of suffering or from extinction. - Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a letter to Philip Toynbee ("The worst you could do would be to usher people sooner and in their millions into a higher form of life to which they're destined anyway.")
So they've turned Christianity into a game show. Interesting. I wonder how they'll do when it comes to the "Final Jeopardy" as they stand before Christ in judgment?
Jeremiah 23:5 The LORD says, "The time is coming when I will choose as king a righteous descendant of David. That king will rule wisely and do what is right and just throughout the land.
Jeremiah 23:6 When he is king, the people of Judah will be safe, and the people of Israel will live in peace. He will be called 'The LORD Our Salvation.'
dont like it. They will belittle Christ on tv. Enough of that now, FOX channels do that alot. And people still watch it.
This is a very bad idea. I believe this show will be more RELIGION then RELATIONSHIP with Christ.
agent, RE: conquest of Canaan -
According to the rules of war laid out in Deut. 20:10-20, three outcomes of a holy war were possible. If the besieged city surrendered, the occupants' lives were spared, but all were enslaved. If the city refused to agree to peace terms and had to be taken by force, all males were killed by the sword. An exception to both these policies occurred when the captured city lay within Israel's boundaries. Then all occupants and their possessions were utterly destroyed. Known as the ban, this custom was intended to keep Israel free of any heathen influence (e.g., Josh. 6:17; 1 Sam. 15:3).
God said that those living in Canaan could worship Him alone, leave, or face extermination. God did not allow a double standard, when later His own people, the Jews, began to worship other gods: they were killed or removed from the land and sent into exile.
agent, yeah, good to see you again too.
"Huh, are you thick?"
HEY! If you won't talk about my waistline, I won't talk about your ________ (fill in most embarassing feature).
"How did the good book factor into the (DOI) Declaration of Independence at all? Last I recalled the DOI refers to all people having certain inaliable rights, nowhere in the good book is this ever stated. Look hard in vain, but you wont find it."
C'mon, if you read about inalienable rights, then you saw who gave those to everyone: their Creator. Perhaps you misread my post: the Bible influenced the DoI.
"Not trying to poke holes in you, but why has god forsaken you to allow for your house to be flooded? Should not your deity prefer your treatment and your ilk and spite others, as most Christians would say?"
I take no offense to your comment; it just shows in spite of your hanging around Christians, you still do not understand what God has revealed in His Word, especially in regards to suffering. Did we not have this discussion not long ago? Suffering happens for many different reasons: direct moral sin (assault/murder); world affected by sin (deforestation leading to famine); refining/training; as a warning; Satan trying to get people to turn away from God. God allows all these things, yet for those who love Him, He works them together to bring about good in their lives. That's what He has done for me. Katrina was awful, and I pray there's no repeat this year, but my wife and I are better off now than we were before Katrina (house rebuilt, out of debt, better job, stronger faith, etc). I cannot begin to praise God enough for how He brought good out of bad.
I truly doubt that they will succeede. It would wonderful if they were saved.
Hebrews 11:6 But without Faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God Must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Remember there are none that are justified by the law. The law was of works. Works a lone cannot save you or make you a true Christian.
*Do you think the punishment should fit the crime? That was not the case until God told Moses, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.*
Speaking of genocide and eugenics and all, perhaps the oldest recorded accounts are directly from the OT in which there are direct commandments in Deut. referring to the ordered destruction of those peoples and places not only in the lands of Canaan, but also all those along the way to there. Of course, as one might expect for this era and how utterly barbaric it was, there was an escape clause within this commandment which ordered no destruction of virgin women. How convenient, what might they be used for?
It will be interesting to see if they will be learning Christianity or religion.
mathetes,
*they were only acting out the teachings of Darwin: we are all simply animals, and only the strongest should survive.*
You stated earlier that those who used their religion, Christianity (crusades) or even Muslim and pervert it as a means to subdue and conquer others, but this same goes for evolutionary theory when it too is misunderstood and consequently perversely used in a corrupt manner as described earlier.
When one reads and understands the science behind it, they will find it has less to with simply *only the strongest will survive*, rather when review nature we find most species simply survive only b/c they are altruistic and operate in a reciprocal manner in which cooperation is critically required for survival of the fittest. The theory itself is not predicated on *only the strong*, it is more aptly predicated on *only those which are most adaptable to change and dynamic will survive*. In fact, Darwin knowing some will misinterpret the processes in his wisdom therefore defined it in saying:
*It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.* - Darwin
Only by a gross misinterpretation and understanding of the science leads one to such results as seen in Stalin. and others Era. Equally, only a perversion of scripture leads one to justify the massacre of millions (crusades). The key distinction though is that we are often told religious people have some intrinsically enhanced morality, but this is not the case, for it were such instances like the Crusades would not have occurred.
If religion, by defacto, allows for some enhanced morality, then such instances of religious persecution simply would not exist, the history record is chalked full of one religion oppressing another over and over no matter which religion nor which era.
mathetes
*Guess what book provided the foundation for our Declaration of Independence, our laws, and our three branches of government?*
Huh, are you thick? How did the good book factor into the (DOI) Declaration of Independence at all? Last I recalled the DOI refers to all people having certain inaliable rights, nowhere in the good book is this ever stated. Look hard in vain, but you wont find it.
Now you are trying to say our laws are based on the 10 commandments…. ok, perhaps the 2 regarding theft and murder are upheld, but the other 8 absolutely are not enforced, so it is not really logical to define our laws as *biblical* in any sense.
Does the *Treaty of Tripoli* ring a bell?
*Trying to finish rebuild of our flooded house.*
Not trying to poke holes in you, but why has god forsaken you to allow for your house to be flooded? Should not your deity prefer your treatment and your ilk and spite others, as most Christians would say?
mathetes - I left you a message in response to yours.
After you finish your house are you going to live in it or are you going to sell or keep it as a 'get away' place for vacations?
Star2,
Just got it posted; I fell asleep with the phone in my hand! Glad I'm on an unlimited data plan.
Yes, it can be educational and also bring soul-searching which is good.
We lived in New Orleans 1985-Katrina; our raised shotgun house got 4.5 feet of water in it. Hopefully we are 3 weeks from completion.
mathetes - The dialog between the Christians is very long. A portion of it is educational. I think it is worth reading. I am a little biased though.
mathetes
Flooded house? Where do you live?
Star2,
Sure, tho it will be short; lots of driving tomorrow. Trying to finish rebuild of our flooded house.
I wonder if, in the interests of impartiality, there will also be a series where atheists and agnostics are permitted to attempt to persuade a group of Christians to give up their faith.
I highly doubt that'll happen though.
mathetes - Haven't seen you in awhile. Hope all is well with you.
If you haven't been to the article, "Christian Band Asks Atheist Guitarist to Step Down", I would like to encourage you to visit it and weigh in on it. Had different views from Christians ranging from conservative to liberal as to whether Christian rock is of God or not.
"The Rev. George Hargreaves, leader of the Christian Party, and his team of mentors think Britain is in a state of moral decline and aim to show that a return to a more Christian way of life would stop the rot..."
When a person becomes born-again by the spirit of God they are given a new nature created after righteousness and true holiness. If the believer makes Jesus the Lord of his/her life he/she will live the Christian life. Doesn't Rev. George Hargreaves understand that?
People need to be born-again not taught how to live by Christian principles.
humanape,
So you live in the US? Guess what book provided the foundation for our Declaration of Independence, our laws, and our three branches of government? In the center of all the famous law-makers on the Supreme Court building stands Moses with the 10 Commandments. Do you think the punishment should fit the crime? That was not the case until God told Moses, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
You said, "A return to a more Christian way of life would make things worse. Nobody is more immoral than Christians."
I guess you forgot about all the regimes that killed more people in the 20th century than Christians did in all the centuries from 1st-20th: regimes in the USSR, Cambodia, Romania, etc. When Christians have used violence to achieve a goal (Crusades), they were acting against the teachings of Christ. When the atheist leaders of those regimes killed millions (!), they were only acting out the teachings of Darwin: we are all simply animals, and only the strongest should survive.
Further, you said, "It's no wonder Christians, with their long history of genocide, slavery, and mental child abuse (you're going to hell), are the most immoral people in history." What Christian-led genocide? Slavery is wrong, and those Christians who supported it intentionally mis-represented a few passages to feign support for it. As I said, they did not follow the teachings of Christ.
Christians are called to go out and make disciples of all men. While this situation is contrived and silly, it could be a positive step to shed false stereotypes of Christianity and lead people to Christ.
TEACH THE CHRISTIANS .TO LEAD A CHRISTIAN LIFE
I believe its the holy spirit of our Lord who works inside of our soul and make us understand the Holy Bible and follow Jesus of Nazareth, not TV producers, advertising and ratings.
Don't get to excited. ITV (UK telivisual channel) had a programme like this a few years ago on a Sunday night following a group of people taking the Alpha coures (big in the UK) it was introduced by David Frost, nothing ever came out of it. Its quite ironic really, Channel 4 show this on a Sunday night, then on Monday night on 4 you can watch Richard Dawkins and his programme, I'm certain the programme controllers are having a laugh....
not sure about the first recipes, but so long as they can make quiche fit for a wedding banquet I am sure they will be accepted.
really though, it will be interesting getting them to acknowledge they are sinners in need of saving....
While I like the idea, this has the potential to be either really good or really bad. Unfortunately the average Christian is woefully ignorant on many basic tenants of the faith and are untrained to deal with non-believers. I hope the hosts and educators are well equipped, balanced, loving but firm in their orthodoxy. It would be really nice to see this replayed on US TV.
This series sounds good.
Besides for a series on bringing non-Christians to the Lord, there should also be one on keeping Christians in the Lord.
Perhaps that same series for both.