Comments by brother john

Comment #162661 by brother john on April 17, 2008 at 7:44 am

epeeist.
The wrangling does bother me. There is something dispiritingly unproductive about it.

Comment #162642 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 6:59 am

Brother John-

I would say that love is ONE OF the greatest powers of the human race. The others would be empathy (which is not quite the same as love), and our capacity for reason. I think the difficulty lies in finding a balance between the three. What do you think?

Quetzalcoatl.
I don't agree with your first sentence. Empathy - the desire to understand, to get inside the skin of, to feel as the other feels, to see from their point of view and experience - I think the driving force of that desire is, actually, the thing we call love. It is a respect, a care for the other. Theree is no empathy without what I believe amounts to love.
But maybe i'm exaggerating. There obviously can be empathy without love. There can be empathy without love of that person, but there can't be love without empathy.
Having said that, though, I still tend to think of love and empathy as two aspects of the same reality
Love is great. Empathy is great. And as you say - balance is essential. Without balance we go down wrong roads.

What about dear Reason? I see reason as a tool. But it's a "tool" of absolute first rank. Abandon reason and we lurch into chaos.
Of course it is more than a tool. It is constituent of our very being. But it has some value to talk about it as a tool. It's an essential tool we use for living's many needs and challenges.

On the other hand if we live life SOLELY according to reason, what are we? A cerebral human being, an incomplete being, lacking those other qualities that are integral to what we would call "a really human human being"

Sorry. Here I must leave. A meal to prepare.

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162637 by brother john on April 17, 2008 at 6:54 am

I am sitting here quite bamboozled. Just read a selection of the above posts. And my stomach is jumping with nervousness - or something - caused by the interminable wrangling... Interminable wrangling...

Is love the greatest power found in the human race? Or is it not?

If it is,IF it is, is it not suprememly according to reason, that humans should search for it above all else?

If it is, IF... should it not be the uppermost concern of all of us?

What's the relevance of the questions above to the "Lying for Jesus" debate - or the "Lying for Anything or Anyone Else" debate for that matter?
(Every subject, -ism or -ity under the sun has its "liars" -inverted commas because the "liars" sometimes don't realise they are lying, even don't intend to sometimes.)

I think the relevance is obvious, given a bit of thought.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #156608 by brother john on April 8, 2008 at 3:23 am

Double bass atheist
Hi! Where have I been? Life. Lot's of things that have to be done - as opposed to the things one would love to do - if one had the time!!

When Eva Lootion invented time, she made not enough!

As for seeing lot of depravity and idiocy in the confessional, in fact, I haven't. Usually it's just ordnary human weakness or lack of sufficient information (and - even more crucially - formation).

It's newspapers and other media that provide most of it: a clear look at the world around.
Plus books like Humphrys:In God We Doubt, chapter 17 on - which stars with a horrendous example.
Or Humphrys new series: heard this morning's, radio 4 9am entitled "On the Ropes" - interview with Shy (?) Keenan: an absolutely horrendous story of protracted child abuse - but she's fighting back with Sarah Payne - has been fighting back since the abuse started (from her stepfather, Stanley) at age 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dear Stanley used to invite his friends round to join in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shy eventually got him put away..Interesting too what she says about her mother.

What do I do about it. In the confessional: listened, tried to understand, probed to see if the person was sincere about changing for the better, re-assured if it was a case of being unnecessarily worried over something that was not such a problem, encouragement to break away (if necessary)plus need to take appropriate steps, questions of possible or necessary restitution if anyone had been harmed.

What do I do about depravity and idiocy around? My own occasional idiocy - I try to deal with it appropriately.

I don't do depravity, thank G** ...Whoops! Nearly!
(Perhaps you know that one of the basic commandments is "Thou shalt not unnecessarioy raise the bloodpressure or eyebrows of your enemies," acommandment which dropped out of the Decalogue, but is safely preserved in my Bank vault, having been passed on to me by a long line of hairy or not so hairy ancestors, the furthest away of whom was one of the Jews hanging around the base of Mt Sinai when Moses came down carrying his two tablets (which, as you know, is nothing to do with the NHS).

But I digress. Have been reading too much undiluted Woody Allen. To get back to what to do about - not joking now - serious stuff to put it mildly - the horrendous state of the world around us.

My answer is in one of Martin Luther King's great sermons: "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution".

If I may just give my opinion of the man. He's bloody absolutely first rate as a man and as a speaker for universal human rights and brotherhood - which is why he collected an all too well-aimed bullet.

I read it last night in "A Knock at Midnight, The great sermons..." ed Carson & Holloran; Abacus 2000.

Keep well.

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #154932 by brother john on April 4, 2008 at 2:14 am

Gordon Bennett!!!
With "friends" like Matthis & Co - who needs enemies?

I was going to sign off as "Amazed Christian" - but having observed humanity - Christian or otherwise (which includes atheist I have to add)for some seven decades ( I presume I was observing and observant even in my first year of life - though I didn't say much)
- nothing amazes me.

It just leaves me with a question: How on earth does a decent human being cope with with the depravity or idiocy humans are capable of?"

5. The New Theology

Comment #115890 by brother john on January 25, 2008 at 1:57 am

1....(You "agree with all the criteria/tests" I gave, but yet you don't know what one of them means . . . seems kind of suspicious.)
...point taken. Careless wording on my part. Should have said I agree with most, excepting the following points.

2..."These few are more than ample for most situations"

...I think "most" is a bit exaggerated. Every area of study e.g. science, history, psychology, economics, mysticism, literary criticism... has its own set of tests/criteria for validity/relevance/whatever. Some of those areas will have subdivisions:eg/ science – I'm no expert in that area but I presume we will find that evolutionary biology will have some tests/criteria specific to itself different from, say, those applicable in chemistry or nuclear physics. Agreed?

I realise you would dismiss mysticism as an area for legitimate study. But, then, you have to. Your atheism will not allow you to consider it valid. That is the crucial weakness of atheism: it is forced to exclude anything that is a possible legitimate challenge to its dogmas.

I know too you atheists don't like the
word "dogmas" applied to your beliefs – but the application of the word is legitimate..One of its basic definitions is a deeply held belief which is basic to a particular mindset or position.
3... [NOTE: the intercessory prayer experiments have all failed to prove that intercessory prayer was effective.)

"The" intercessory prayer experiments? Which? You need to specify. What criteria were they set up under? Who were the participants? There are lots of questions you would need to answer before your bald assertion has any useful relevance. But, again, I know that you atheists do not like to provide evidence for your assertions. You prefer to play the gambit of asking others to do this.

The funniest gambit you play – a sign either of poor thinking or plain naive deviousness is the assertion that a negative statement does not need proof. You must really think people like me are gullible to swallow that bit of nonsense. And the fact that someone as eminent in the field of evolutionary biology as Dawkins asserts that doesn't make it any less nonsensical. Quite a few of the things he says in areas which are not his expertise are nonsense.

4...I wonder if you agree with this criterion regarding "tests" or "criteria"?
General criterion: Tests which are so worded as to bolster up a pre-accepted position are simply statements of that basic position in disguise. The validity of such tests depends on the validity of the basic position that underlies them.
Another way of saying the same thing is this: If a test is based on a particular assumption – its validity depends on the validity of that assumption.

Agree or not? If you don't, then you show that your thinking is not based on reason and logic but prejudice. Sorry friend. I realise that that is difficult to accept for those who think that they are the champions of those two indispensable functions.

5...I have spelt out the (indisputable) general criterion above because I have done some more thinking over my acceptance of your "Personal revelation is not evidence" test.

That test, as I understand it is OK - as a starting point to further investigation. Eg If I say that a particular person has had a personal revelation from Christ about something or other, say his death on the cross or his resurrection – I cannot say that that is evidence that Jesus either existed or was crucified or rose again. It is only evidence that that person had this "revelation" (whether genuine or otherwise – I do know that according to the atheist creed such experiences must always be dismissible for some reason or other – your privilege to assert this).

I would want to examine the claim, if I had the time, using the relevant criteria/tests to establish whether the revelation could have any validity.

Please don't ask me to elaborate on those criteria. That would be taking me or you for fools. We both know 1) that it would take far too long and 2) that on the evidence of the mindset of this website's atheist contributors – it would simply be dismissed as bollocks or something more courteous. It would be a great waste of my (and your) valuable time. So let me move to the next point.

That test - as you understand it - is simply your assertion that all religion or religious phenomena are bollocks. Consequently it is not a test at all. It is a disguised statemnt of belief. It is a disguised form of your belief re that area of religion which believers would use the term "revelation" for.
So as you understand it, I do not agree with it...

6...Final point. I agree with your "hearsay" test. My only concern with regard to it is, again, how you may interpret the word "hearsay". Again, going on the evidence of many other website contributions, I think that under the word "hearsay" you may actually be referring to "eyewitness accounts". Which is a totally different kettle of fish - with its own tests for reliability.

Dear Baeoz: My point 5 2) is the answer to your condescending and self-congratulatory prediction (post n 139). The evidence has been presented many times and in many forms, here and elsewhere. But it comes up against your atheist creed doesn't it, that all religion and all evidence for it is bollocks.
To end on a light note.
Atheist he say all religion is bollocks, big bollocks.
Believer he say:all religion is not bollocks, not big bollocks.
End of discussion.But as members, all of us, of the human race, Best wishes to you all.

6. The New Theology

Comment #115492 by brother john on January 24, 2008 at 8:42 am

gr8hands....Does my evidence pass all the tests you give? I do agree with all the criteria/tests you give. (I presume you realise that it is not an exhaustive list.)

I don't quite understand the meaning of n. 20 (information that cannot be falsified is not evidence.) Don't understand what you mean under the words "that cannot be falsified")

A few of them would require discussion to understand what we both think the words mean. For example, the tests regarding " experiments". This requires first the question: Can experiments be set up in the field of religions, belief in God, faith etc? And, if one thinks so, what criteria would one use to judge their value by?

On experiments with inconclusive results – I would just add that the results they do give can have value, provide clues, suggest other lines of enquiry etc. Ie they can have some value.

Necromancer. You still haven't got what I was driving at in my first post.

And you go a bit over the top. I'm not stewing or boiling – as you seem to be. I've obviously upset you. Which is good. I've heard it said that people may start thinking when they are angry.

Apologies that I don't come up to your standards of crafting. Your style does have some flaws too. Are you aware of this?

What Charlie says is relevant. Charlie says: There ain't no evidence. I can't see any. Which, turned round is: I can't see any evidence. Therefore there ain't none! Coz I know everything.

7. The New Theology

Comment #114011 by brother john on January 21, 2008 at 8:03 am

Tyler D and Steve Z. My points still stand.

What's with the caps? Just emphasis. Don't know a better way. Apologies if it bugs!

Tyler: Sagan is expressing an opinion. Teilhard de Chardin, for example, has researched and looked at evidence and expresses the opposite position.

What I'm saying is that one intelligent and honest person believes one thing after considering all that he knows and another, after the same process holds another diametrically opposed position. So what? Interesting, but ultimately I and you as an individual have to look at the evidence and research for ourselves and come to our own conclusion. Or else rely on the argument from authority.

I used the word "worship" because atheist quoting from other prominent atheists is a very big feature of your style of arguing/discussing. And there is a bit of hero worship in your attitude, go on, admit it. I'm quite happy to admit that I have my "qualified" heroes ("qualified" because age, based on research and experience and evidence, have taught me that all heroes have
clay feet)

It is my impression that you atheists are as big on quoting other atheists as Christians are on quoting from the Bible - and with the same sort of respect.

Steve Zara. Glad to see that you, like me, believe in values to be found in "centuries of experience".

There might actually be a possibility of genuine discussion between us.

And your concept of "dependable evidence" which is basic for me too. It's all there. What is dependable? What is not?

You and I it seems, give different answers.

What does that say about you and me? That I'm wrong? That you're wrong? That we are both wrong?
The "insult" is an objective one, Steve. It seems not to be intentional. Nonetheless, it is insulting because the over-riding message which comes out again and again is that believers are, if not rabid, then well—intentioned but seriously deluded. Or else so lacking in perception or the ability to self-examine - that they cannot see that they are brain-washed. Or that thy are so poorly educated that they have not had the opportunity of studying at, say, university level, so that they are \aware of historical criteria and the rules of evidence or logic or rational discourse.

Can you see why "you atheists" are "a bit insulting" to us non-atheists?

How about some quiet self-examination or examination of conscience (dreadful word: tool for suppression and oppression!) on your part? Only a suggestion mind.
Affectionately, Bro John
Will have to leave it there.

8. The New Theology

Comment #113975 by brother john on January 21, 2008 at 5:52 am

Cartomancer n 69
I don't do trite ( what is trite, I feel, is your response to my points). I don't do "mewling" Nor do I do wishful thinking – life is too important to me for that.

My view on reality is not based on wishful thinking. I happen to care for Truth.

As for your last comment: it says more about you than about what I said. Did you ever hear about the man who wore pink glasses? He found that everything was a pinkish colour. What a surprise!

Steve Zara.n 70 "It just isn't true" [that there is or may be a God]. What you mean is:"I don't BELIEVE it's true" because, contrary to what you BELIEVE, there is enormous evidence to back up belief.

The problem (for you) is that you CHOOSE to consider it invalid. You believe it IS invalid because you atheists say it is invalid. Which is not a very good argument. Which is the argument from authority.

I thought it was only believers who were supposed to use that kind of argument. Naughty!

You atheists ( may I use that general phrase?) like to use the WANT argument against us benighted believers. We believe in God, afterlife, ultimate justice and creative fulfilment etc– because WE WANT to believe it -according to you. (You obviously have access into the psyches of all of us. Not allowed!)

Well, dear friend, have you noticed one interesting fact? You and most of your mates in atheism WANT to believe there is no evidence for God because you WANT to carry on believing there is no God.

Carry on WANTING and BELIEVING as you wish. It's your choice, your privilege. But don't kid yourself you're doing something else that is intellectually more worthy of respect.

Double bass atheist. By all means continue worshipping at the shrine of Carl Sagan and anyone else -who's a big name - and who, crucially, believes the same as you do

....But have you ever given any SERIOUS thought to this? That there are many people, some living, many more dead, every bit as intelligent and honest ( I assume that CS was being honest; he sounds it) as Sagan who would say, "I know of plenty that suggests that such beliefs are not wishful thinking."

Personally I prefer to classify assertions not by whether they agree with what I believe, but by the relevance and cogency of the evidence they offer for those assertions.

I find that far more productive and interesting. Also it does not insult the human beings who hold views different from mine.

9. The New Theology

Comment #113343 by brother john on January 19, 2008 at 10:31 am

"Love persuades, it doesn't force," Haught says. "God doesn't compel the world to be a certain way, and that's because of how love works. God lets things be, and lets the weeds grow up with the wheat."
..he lets the parsites who kill infant children thrive as well as the butterfly...

Robotaholic. If there is no God, as you believe presumably – then there is no problem. There is no one there to let the parasites get away with it. Let's hope the Law catches up with them and deals with them.

Though that's not a lot of joy to the dead innocents or their parents and families and friends, is it?
We just have to face the fact that among the planet's population, at any one time, there are large numbers of psychopaths, vicious creatures who somehow evolved along the same evolutionary line as you and me.

Whatever you believe about bibles and religions and god or gods and moderate sensible believers and extremists and atheists and agnostics and Hindus or Muslims or Rastafarians or Moonies or witchraft and all that jazz –

on the theoretical level

there is only one possibility for complete, fair, satisfying justice – justice that will wipe away all tears, anger, impotent frustration and bring joy and life back to the victims and their families and friends –

and that possibility is -

that there actually DOES exist a God who knows everyone's full life story in all its detail
and will judge totally fairly
and has so arranged things that there is a life after this that
will more than compensate us for anything that we have undergone on this amazing inspiring/ depressing shithole that we call Planet Earth and the human race;

a life where we will again meet all those whom we have loved and have inspired us
(personally I would quite lack a long chat with Madame Curie and Einstein, not to mention Confucius and Sidhartha Gautama)
a life where those who died young are in no way disadvantaged vis a vis those who lived a full quota of years;

the kind of God to whom religious allegiance or lack of it means nothing in comparison with how we treat other human beings -

the kind of God who who will therefore see to it that those who genuinely do not deserve to live among normal human beings (among whom I would classify for example Herod, Mao, Stalin,Hitler, Saddam Hussein – and – who was that doctor who killed off so many of his patients... ? his name escapes me right now...just remembered: Shipman) will not be forced on the rest of us (reasonably decent/basically OK) folk.

The third possibility: that we all fade into nothingness - still leaves those of us who reflect on the "still sad music of humanity" with the bitter taste of injustice in the mouth and the prospect, for humanity as a whole, of the ever-increasing horrendous mound of festering injustice the future will generate, and continue to generate as long as humans will exist.

Agree or disagree?

10. The New Theology

Comment #113313 by brother john on January 19, 2008 at 9:17 am

What a breath of fresh air!

A reposted article that treats its readers as if they actually are fairly evolved intelligent thinking beings capable of thoughtfully considering and valuing ideas different from their own.

That doesn't diminish and dismiss, usually with the self-righteous zeal of a bigot, those of a different mindset and experience.

Thank Go- Whoops!

Thank you, Site Admin.

11. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #109387 by brother john on January 9, 2008 at 12:59 am

As a member for many years of the Order that John of the Cross belonged to, I despair of clerics like the Archbishop of Canterbury –( but for different reasons from those voiced by the reflective balanced contributors to this website). Well meaning, but so often way off course.

Actually I don't "despair", but you know what I mean.

A well-meaning comparison between RD and John of the Cross, but hardly enlightening.

12. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #84236 by brother john on November 1, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Dear BaronOchs.
I'm afraid I am going to have to quite posting here – with much regret. There is one thing I must do before I leave – to thank you (THANK YOU) for cdiscussing with me. It has proved very useful.
It is SO necessary to expose ourselves to others – especially those who are diametrically opposed to us. The only way
-"we" can get to know "them"
- the only way that "we" can refine, hone, correct our own thinking with the experience of life" they" have.

I hope you will believe that you (whoever you are, whatever you look like etc)are in my heart – and will be till I drop dead and we meet again – for we will here – or there.
Bye for now.

And dear Irate atheist.
Thank you too. What would it take for me not to believe.
It's as real a question as asking me, What would it take for me to stop believing that my wife is real. I have met her. She is here. I live with her daily. I love her. I will, I hope, prove that I will lay down my life for her.
Go in peace dear friend led by all that is good and true and honest and caring in you.

Your brother, both of you, John (and anyone else with whom I have had the privilege to dialogue).

13. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #84235 by brother john on November 1, 2007 at 1:17 pm

14. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83777 by brother john on October 31, 2007 at 8:20 am

Goldy.
Second addition. Missed your last para because I rote so late.
Agree too with your advice not to leave genes aside. Absolutely agree on the homosexual example.

Adieu!

15. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83776 by brother john on October 31, 2007 at 8:17 am

brother john it was the secrets in particular not the messages in general I reffered to as arcane and macabre. In any case lets forget about Medjugorje since you raise more interesting matters in your post.

i.e.
The what seems to me deepening materialistic emptiness of the West, spreading eastwards.
BaronOchs.
OK. Let's leave Medjugorje.
I agree that the "closeness and connection with the natural world has been lost by very many – the majority? But there is also a growing awareness of the dangers i that loss, don't you think?
I understand what you say about the "hardship and suffering attached " to a world in which that closeness was a felt thing. Of course our generation has its own kinds of hardships and sufferings: some small, some very heavy, not to say tragic.
Some time last week I had a sudden perception of a rush in many people to fill their lives with the latest gadgets or commodities – all those things on sale in "the High Street" –all because they have nothing more satisfying to the deep inner self to feed its hunger.

This rush to buy, changing and throwing away each time for the latest version– creates an enormous drain on the Planet's resources, which has brought it to its kneesl And behind the scenes the multinationals and other industries goading this mad acquisitiveness on – because it makes mega bucks – for the fat cats and the shareholders – not for the often very poorly paid workers, if not slavery paid workers on the production line.

This applies even to food....The unnecessarily large huge portions of food, the plunder of the seas to feed our ravenous maws. How tragically thoughtless. Lemmings running towards the precipice edge as fast as they can – with their mobile phones glued to their ears!

It was a sobering vision, to say the least.
You finish with, " I suggest however the residual desire to maintain the beliefs of the past intact is also an obstacle we have to overcome. It has been shown to be a dead end."
I presume with this you are saying: bring in atheism. Do. What does it offer?
My dear friend, follow your path. To its end. When we have both finished our journey of life,the very minute after the second of us has dropped dead by what ever means or in whatever circumstance. Probably that will be you. I think I'm a fair bit older so, by the law of averages I should go first - let's meet up and exchange experiences on what our journey brought us. Only then (let's presume there is at least a day or two of continued existence for us to have our audit together)t hen, and then only will we be able to judge the relative merits of our life views.
Whether you are right – or me.
Or whether we are both wrong.
Or both partly right, partly wrong.
In the meantime, even though we do not know one another except through a few cyberspace conversations – I suggest that we care about each other's welfare and hope the best for each other.* Agreed?

It is not a matter of wanting "to maintain the beliefs of the past" Atheism goes back as far as religious belief. So if you suggest we abandon belief in a God BECAUSE you think IT'S OF THE PAST – be a consistent rational logical atheist and abandon atheism too – for that is every bit as much OF THE PAST.
Your belief and mine are of the PRESENT. The question is which of us is right? Because, in fact, inspite of what I said above, we CANNOT both be wrong.
Am I right in saying that only evidence and experience (and the evidence and experience of others ) can answer which of us is right?
I hope the intelligence, the rationality, the sanity of taking the life experience of others into account is self-evident to you as it is to me. Otherwise we are only left with saying "Only I know the truth..Only I can assess evidence correctly. The whole of reality is as I alone see it."...I don't ascribe to that sad sick egomania. I presume you don't either.
Perhap you would prefer to substitute the "I" with "my group"? OK – if that is your preference. It may not be. Whatever. Then instead of solipsist mania, we have group mania. "My group alone knows the truth. Only our group can assess the evidence correctly. The whole of reality is only as we see it."
"It" has been shown to be a dead end. Sorry. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, but I'm not sure what "it" is. If it is the "residual desire to etc" again I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. I will simply assume that your two sentences:
" I suggest however the residual desire to maintain the beliefs of the past intact is also an obstacle we have to overcome. It has been shown to be a dead end."
are a brief summary of the atheist agenda as portrayed, for example, by Richard D.

If I am wrong, please forgive me.
May I make an observation. That as atheism has continued to exist since the appearance of this weird creature homo allegedly sapiens to the present day, so has religious belief. Each, if you and I are anything to go by, as strong and vigorous as ever.
So the question pops up: What is it, or what combination of factors is it, that explains this power of endurance to the satisfaction of two reasonably intelligent, rational, evidence and experienced based individuals like you and me?
My suggestion is that we both keep this question inside us and mull over it till enlightenment comes.
Finally, will you allow me, as a follower of the Man from Nazareth, to say one more thing. (I know you can't stop me. It's just a roundabout way of saying I want to say this.)
Do you know the difference between Richard Dawkins and God? It's fairly simple.There is a place in God's heart for Richard. There is no place for God in Richard's heart.
A sincere blessing (humanist of course) on your life's journey.
Your brother, John

16. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83726 by brother john on October 31, 2007 at 4:08 am

Goldy,
forgot one point to finish 6. If we are searching, I said, I see us as being on the one right road: whether atheist, buddhist, hindu, rastafarian, Christian,agnostic - whatever.
We respect the other's right to their view, their belief.

What I want to add is this.
If the occasion arises - and if we agree, then we can share our different viewpoints, share what we consider are our strong points, share too our questions, reservations, disagreements or ignorance of the other's viewpoint.

Throwing accusations or charges of being wrong at the other is not very productive!
There may of course be times in our sharing of views when we have to admit openly that we consider x or y in the other's belief to be harmful, wrong, unbased or whatever. Being open and honest (and fair to the other person) may demand this.

A real discussion on important matters where views differ are bound to be sometimes uncomfortable for one or both parties. That's life. But even these uncomfortable explosions can be springboards for progress in one's thinking, I have found.

17. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83719 by brother john on October 31, 2007 at 3:33 am

Goldy,
apol on "deluded" gratefully accepted.
2.I agree with all the examples you give of character changing events. But I still maintain that the Davey event (big bruiser) is in a different category.I don't think you read it. Do if you want to see what I was thinking of when I said "character changing" ( http:/www.theheartofgod.co.uk/?m=200707 ) It is the chapter, letter, entitled "Gangster Face to Face with God" dated July 16th.

3. Re the ant. I agree. Sorry. Thanks for the useful point. I will try to remember ot to make that mistake again.

4. You are right too about "the tone" of posts. Sometimes it is how we read them. I noticed that in myself especially when I first came on the website.
5. Moralising tone? you may well be right. Morality, right action, actinaccording to principle is so much a part of my thinking (not always consistent with it myself like any other human being), it is so much a part of normal living (isn't it? for a principled person?) that it is simply part of my life, part of how I am. So it is bound to appear. Is that wrong? I think it is normal. But not pontificatinga at others, telling them how they should behave, what they should do. One can advise if one thinks that will be helpful or beneficial. We all do that when we think it is important for the other person.

After all, the underlying message of the vast majority of atheist posters on this site is the well intentioned advice:"I hope you will one day see the emptiness of your theism.It will be the best thing you have ever done. Discover the freedom of thinking for yourself with no god or gods hanging round your mind."

just as the subtext of Christian posters is:"I hope you will one day see th emptiness of your atheism. It will be the best thing you have ever done. Discover the freedom of thinking for yourself having got rid of the fear that God cramps your style."

6. Do I imply that all the other creation stories and religions are wrong? No. They are part of THE SEARCH. The most important thing is that we SEARCH for the truth. It is being on the right road. A determined, sincere search in solidarity with all other struggling human beings human beings and with our Planet IS being on the right road?

Does the last para sound "moralistic". I hope not. It's simply what I believe.

I'll have to say Cheerio with this post.

Thank you for our conversations. Useful. We NEED to expose ourselves to the other side, both for the insights they give us and for the way it forces us to examine our own way of thinking and speaking. Don't you agree?
If believers only speak with believers, they will not move on. They will reinforce both their good points and their bad ones.

And exactly the same applies to the atheist.

We must not live in mental ghettos. Agreed? I suspect you do.
Kind wishes,
Your brother in the human race, john.

18. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83633 by brother john on October 30, 2007 at 6:12 pm

30. Comment #83600 by BaronOchs on October 30, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Thanks for reply.

"As for Medjugorje the fact is I have been presented with rosaries that are turning to gold and claims of spinning suns etc. Has anyone ever tried to verify scientifically that at least one of these rosaries are actually turning to gold?"
I know of the spinning sun and "MIR" ( in the sky, but never heard of rosaries turning into gold. Contact with M has been minimal in recent years. But – if there are gold turning rosaries, then they will have been – or will be – scientifically investigated. The ecclesiastical authorities are hard-nosed bods often quite sceptical.
===
"Anyhow allow me to adopt a christian perspective here to ask you a few questions. You suggest what I attacked as repetetiveness and banality is in fact underlining the simple yet demanding nature of christian life."

" suppose I can see the point but in that case what of "the ten secrets"? "
Caught again. Sorry either I don't know what the 10 secrets are/were or I've forgotten!

"Christians are supposed to believe (correct me if wrong) everything of necessity to their salvation was revealed in first century galilee and recorded in the gospels."[ Right! But add the letters as well – as very important for they were written by the men specially chosen and tutored by Christ. His chosen witnesses for they lived with him.]

" And that this revelation was remarkable for its simplicity and openness." [Right. It's the intellectuals who get into trouble.]

" In which case isn't it somewhat low to think 2000 years hence the mother of the saviour is sharing arcane and macabre secrets with a select circle of Bosnians"
[I see your angle. Valid from your perspective. But "arcane and "macabre" don't do th messages justice. There's (understandably) a very critical spin to those two adjectives. 1) Secrets are a problem. The revelations at Fatima had the same problems. There were 3 things that the visionaries had to keep hidden for some time.
It does cause problems. I'v e just bought a little book on Fatima and haven't quite seen the point of the secrets. They are to do with a terrible punishment if believers(not non-believers) don't pull their socks up (Our Lady does not use that rather trivial phrase) and pray and pray hard for peace. There was also the theme that Russia, if not converted (and only prayer would convert her) would spread her errors throughout the world.

I don't get too hot under the collar about this, because it is difficult to make full sense of what is being said. And as you so rightly say – It's all in the Gospels! We shouldn't need (us Xns) extra input from whoever.

But – and here is the very personal bit of the Roman Catholic tradition – Mary, like the good, the very best mother that she is to us, IS concerned and wants to urge us to PRAYER. I put that word in capitals because it is absolutely CRUCIAL
Prayer is totally of the essence of our following of Christ. Groups of Christians should be 2 things 1) They should be faith-filled praying communities 2) They should be active in showing care for those around them, of whatever belief or non-belief, of whatever colour or social group – in particular the poor and the outcast, the despised, the abused.

And it is prayer that Our beloved and lovely Mother of Jesus always bangs on about. Precisely because it is so fundamental. Because prayer is no more than our daily, loving companionship and dependence and love and worship and trust etc of God

"Surely it is a distraction and the spirit of we've got a big secret and you don't know it is antithetical to the gospel."

[Dead right. Will have to make you an honorary theologian. Mind you – that might upset you. It will certainly upset Richard D who believes Theology is not a science. Confession. It was only yesterday that I began to wonder if he had not got a point in objecting to the word "science". I have always said that it is – though obviously not in the identical sense that biology is a science. It is more of an art – but that may not mean much to you. I've got some thinking and praying to do on that subject....
To get back to your points. Revelations can be a distraction. Religious humans are great at going for the sensational and missing the hard serious kernels. Those who have gone the distance always warn against hankering after signs and wonders. Not a healthy hanker, that!

And they are problematic. There has been a lot of accumulated experience in the Church over the inherent problems of visions. That's why visonaries get such a hard time.
Are they genuine? Are they self-produced. Are they the result of our own thoughts? Creativity?..And over the centuries criteria have been developed. Primarily: how do they square with the teaching of our Saviour and the understandings of that teaching that have gained acceptance within the body of believers.

So, I've said a lot about their being problems and problematic. But, for balance I must add, the genuine ones can be helpful to many sincere people. They can illuminate or illustrate the Gospel from different angles with different personalities and circumstances involved. It has been my own personal experience that the ones I have followed with interest have been often quite helpful in increasing my commitment to Christ and to people (ALL people, not just Xn believers).

And I'm going to put the next bit in caps because of how crucial I feel it is. THE PEACE OF OUR WORLD IS IN JEOPARDY, isn't it? HOW MUCH VIOLENCE. Darfur, Northern Ireland as was. Burma. Israel and the surrounding nations. Iraq. Afghanistan. Iran. America' attitude. The ever active threat of Islamism. The harm done by Christian fundamentalism, North Korea. China- especially re Tibet. The heavy hand of capitalism which is a monster that grinds the poor and the weak into every greater poverty or slavery when it is divorced from morality, from just wages and fair living conditions, when God Mammon rules the shit strewn roost.
The problem of migration or immigration. Huge poverty and inequalities. (Did you see the Channel 4 documentary last night on corruption in Africa.?) The enormous threat of Global Warming. The growing violence of our young people. How uncared for they are. (Yes, there is good all around. It doesn't hit the headlines. There are good groups of people in the Christian Churches, God is not dead yet – nor will He ever be.)

The what seems to me deepening materialistic emptiness of the West, spreading eastwards. For me as a believer, the worst weakness, the most dangerous one, is the weakness of the Church – especially what I call the Big Two – RC and Anglican. The barrenness of so much so-called Christian faith – much of it like salt that has lost its taste. "What is it good for?" asked Jesus – and he had a pretty trenchant, frightening answer! The Gospel is life-affirming, liberating,rebuilding of shattered lives and extinguished hope, generous spirited – and demanding of self-sacrifice.

If you want a good read, find a copy of "Run Baby Run", by Nicky Cruz. There's a life-textbook on what Christ can do and is doing in our day. More profitable, riveting, than books on Medjugorje - though I would be the last one to do down my dear Mother and what she does in her own way for world peace.

No gain without pain – especially not in the area of the Gospel of the man on whom the religious authorities of his day took out the equivalent of a contract.

Have I missed anything BaronOchs? sure I have.

We are going to have to learn – all of us – a new way of living that will allow our Planet to continue living and thriving - or go under. And personally, BaronOchs, I believe we can only do it with the help of the One whose name is not flavour of the month in Richard's website. Tho in truth its not HIS non-belief that is the big problem. It's the non-belief in practice of large swathes of the Christian Church, beginning at the top people, - the ones called to be shepherds of the flock after the image of Jesus Christ, who literally laid down his life for his sheep, as opposed to living off them and feeding them pap or half cooked food.
Someone said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has not been tried." Not for a long long time I think it was G K Chesterton.
People in opposition always focus on papal infallibility to criticise. Just as important, in fact more important, is the "sense of faith" generated in the faithful body of believers by God's Holy Spirit. He guides the whole Church (not just the hierarchy or the pope) to see what is in and involved inn all the things Christ said and did and his apostles passed on under his tutorship. "The Spirit will lead you into all truth," said Jesus. And that was not just for his day. It is a process that will go on as long as evolution keeps ticking away.
Any one who has the "we've got a big secret and you don't know it" spirit certainly doesn't know Christ very well as you suggest.

your brother, john

19. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83619 by brother john on October 30, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Goldy May I answer inbetween your sentences?

It's going to be a long one!! But it is important ins't it to try to understand one another?

25. Comment #83430 by Goldy on October 30, 2007 at 2:47 am

Bro J, I think you're sticking labels where they are not applicable.
[Labels are useful, surely? They show where we come from. Rough signposts to the world view, possible assumptions etc.]

Religionists and non religionist, athiests and theists, they are all people.
[Absolutely agree.]
Some are shits, some are the delights that make life worth living. [Ditto] Whatever a theist can bring up, an athiest will match. [Probably ditto]
Why? Because they are all people. Whether or not they believe in a god is immaterial,....

[Here B I G disagreement! Living the teaching of Christ genuinely, not playing at it, is character changing. The biggest change is in the change to loving as Christ loved – See my blog www.theheartofgod.co.uk the chapter on transformation. I quote the example of a big bruiser, whose name escapes me just now. That says what I mean about God being a changer. I Hasten to add: it's nothing to do with saying, I'm better than you are – that's the opposite of Christ's teaching. He like you, tho with differences, says "Remember You are all people" Not his actual words, but the sentiment is part of his whole approach.]

it does not impinge on their character and is not part of what they are. [[as previous.]

[Can I tell you one of the central points of what the carpenter from Nazareth brought to the attention of those who find him totally persuasive? A few lines from the section in John's Gospel, the section which gives what Jesus said at what's called the Last Supper, a couple of hours before he was arrested.. I think i prefer to let you look it up for yourself. If you want to follow this up you'll find one somehow. John chapter 17 verses 18 -23. The Last Supper conversation starts at chapter 13.

I certainly recommend you read it if you want to get to the heart of Christianity or – better – to see what is at its heart. If it seems like gobbledegook, drop it. It's not for you. If it strikes chords though, read on. ]

A shit is a shit, a mate is a mate. T'will ever be thus.[Agree and disagree]
Don't waste time trying to fit people into a label,[I don't. Do I give that impression? If so: sorry. I once read that there are as many variants on Christianity as there are Christians. We all have our own "take" on it, tho, if we are genuine followers of the teaching of Jesus, the central areas will be largely the same.The one similarity there will be is total allegiance to the Messiah]

wasting breath and words on seeing a "tribe" as shitty because they don't believe in a god.[I have never done that and never will do it. I've re-read my post. Where on earth did you get this horrible stupid judgmentalism]

You will get uppity athiests just as you get uppity theists. As it is, the uppity theists appear to have some advantage in their belief of a concept I can't see as possible. [It is not a concept, Goldy. Christianity is totally about persons]

You may know by now of George Bush Snr's views of athiests (not even worthy of the citizenship they possess) and the views of theists of athiests in the media editorials.[Unfortunately I do. I have a friend down south (of England) who has written to the Archbishop of Canterbury to suggest that it is high time we stopped demonizing atheists and started supporting them in their fight for equal acceptance in society. It is scandalous the attitude of people who are supposed to be Christians especially in America!
He has had no reply yet. Surprise surprise. The letter probably didn't even get to him, but got stuck on some secretaries desk. He can't read everything. He's a decent man but...
Richard is right, it seems to me, in what he says about the US in TGD.. In fact maybe I ought to print that letter on my blog some time. Not right now because I don't want to interrupt the flow of points.]

We are smug and arrogant? How so? [Goldy. So many posts seem to carry a superior tone...but I said it all in my post. The chief way that this superiority comes across is in the accusation that we are not rational, that we have no evidence, that we are suffering from indoctrination at an early age. The straight answer to that – is that it is a rubbish generalisation. There! Straight speaking! It is arrogant and stupid for anyone who does not know me to tell me that i am this that or the other – when all my life I have fougtht to keep my independence of thought..under God.

Under God, yes.It's the most rational and logical thing under the sun to be dependent on God once you have come to believe his existence. Cripes! The Creator of this universe that we are privileged in our day to see far more clearly. What a stupendous more-than-miracle it is. It is a miracle times infinity of a miracle!

What an idiot a man would be who believed in the Creator and at the same time believed that he knew some things better than God! Worse than an ant telling Einstein he's got a few things wrong!]]

]Especially when told because we don't believe in a supernatural thing]? [No. Not from me! You have every right to believe as you do. We MUST, ALL of us, follow what our conscience tells us. Anything else spells disaster for the health of our personality.l]

For this we are arrogant? [I repeat, the arrogance of many posters is in their attitude to us, in what they imply about us. Not because of what you believe. Have I made myself clear? I would never want to offend you because of the nature of your belief. I uphold your right to follow your belief – as long as – it is a THOUGHT OUT, reasoned position based on your experience, reading discussion etc

[ I believe yours is just such a position. Your sincerity comes out in what you write, in the feeling that comes from it for me. In my post I was trying to say:" Give those of us who are sincere in our faith the same acknowledgement that I give you. Say, "I don't believe as you do, but I admit you are sincere and have what you think are valid reasons for your faith. I canrespect that." Many of your co-nonbelievers do not seem to say that. That's the problem. That's the arrogance and intolerance and smugness.]

You can see our point (well, mine at least...I have been called arrogant and deluded and damned and immoral - all points I reject [and you were right to reject them – and I reject them for you and with you]

because the accuser needed a..a...what can I call it? A non-existant security blanket? A belief in a good god that kills and maims, that throws a petulant temper at its creation and destroys it all, even the innocent and does this with our thanks? How stupid!).

[You may be right in seeing here the need for some security blanket. I tend to believe that you are dealing with what I call "the hardness of so many peoples' hearts" NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING to do with God who is the opposite. He has a place in his heart for EVERYONE. NO FAVOURITES WITH GOD – THAT IS IN THE Bible, in the book of Malachi. A text too many Christians take no note of obviously.]

So, less judging athiest for their views and more judging the individual for their own unique views.
[Dear friend: that is EXACTLY my viewpoint. If I have given the wrong impression, then forgive my words that did not express my meaning clearly.]

I am an athiest - I am not a shit.[Absolutely!] I am an athiest - I judge the person I see on an individual basis, not by their deluded beliefs. [Don't you mean "by what I consider to be...their deluded beliefs". You see; you are saying that my beliefs ARE deluded. You are claiming to know the truth. I don't talk about "YOUR deluded belief" do I? That is an example of arrogance on your part – the ONLY example. And I suspect that your apparent arrogance is NOT intentional, but an accident of the words you used.]

they can believe what they like, call it a maker of god or spiritual advisor - if they are nice, I'll like them, if they are shits, they'll get the short thrift from me.[You and I are one in spirit. We have he same approach to life and people. Perhaps there is a difference, I will sometimes be patient with the shits in case they are victims of their upbringing etc. To hope and pray that they may change. But they do need to be opposed on some occasions with firmness.I always think: What would I be if I had been born in their family and had the experiences of life that they have had?]

And yes, I do enough shtting. I tiled that room myself and I enjoy sitting there, away from wife and daughter, surveing my creation and thinking where I could improve. I do try and move before the legs go dead, mind ;-

[I too have found that the toilet is a place where my own spirit can come up to consciousness. Other people – even the ones we love, do get in the way of this. This is a revelation of the importance of the freedom of the self to be itself, think its own thoughts, contemplate its own focal points. This inner eye is the road to wisdom. You and I obviously seek the same thing from life, tho yours is in an atheist context and mine in a theist context. I am not sure that "theism" is the right word.

Bishop John Robinson, who wrote Honest to God believes than ""panENtheism" is more accurate – not "pantheism" – all things ARE God – but "panentheism" – God is IN everything, everything in God.I must check what he says. I am reading his book: Exploration into God. He is a thinking Christian man. I love his mind and spirit.]

Man makes himself, he is a product of his genes. God isn't there - he didn't make anything. If he did, millions of others are wrong. Who's to say that for certainty? No gods, ergo ALL believers are wrong :-) Much fairer than just some being worng, eh?

My version of your last paragraph: your words are in capitals.

MAN MAKES HIMSELF.....A human being, as they mature, shape her/his personality by their choices
HE IS A PRODUCT OF HIS GENES................genes are crucial determinants in the physical realm of ones being, perhaps even in the psychological and spiritual traits.

GOD ISN'T THERE......................God is here: "in God we live and move and have our being". By our choices, by our life style, we determine whether we want also to be shaped by his influence. God relates to each individual in a completely individual way so that in his love for them and understanding of their circumstances and personality a persona need not come to a belief in God during their time on earth. But in the "face"-to-"face" meeting with God at death each person makes a choice whether to accept the God they now see as He is and his offer of eternal loving companionship with Him and the companionship of all those who have chosen to stay with Him.

Those whose lives have been intentionally and stubbornly evil, and with full inner knowledge of what they were doing definitively rejecting their ability to change, will experience two things.

1) Their own inner being moving away with the most radical revulsion from a Being whose whole nature(Love for all) is the opposite of theirs (hatred of others)

and 2)the irrevocable command coming to them from God to go away from Him to a dimension of existence where their kind of evil is "at home", where they will not have to put up with the God whose being and sight they cannot and will not tolerate.

(All I have said in this section, Goldy, is just your comment about how you treat shits and the short shrift you give them transposed onto a cosmic plane. Your reaction is very simple analogy to the reaction of God to evil people who refuse to change even after they have seen exactly how He is in himself.

Or put it the other way: what the shits in your life feel about you as they meet you is a simple analogy of what evil people will feel about God on meeting Him. Water and oil cannot mix.....Where do I get all this? From lifelong prayerfilled reflection.)

HE DIDN'T MAKE ANYTHING.........all things were made by God for us as the universe within which we "make ourselves" as you might say.

I don't quite understand what you say in the sentence beginning,IF HE DID THEN MILLIONS OF OTHERS ARE WRONG.........All I can say is this. What counts with God is not whether we were right or wrong but whether we lived following the light we found within ourselves. Call it "conscience" call it "inner light" call it "moral sense" - call it what you like. Call it "our moral compass".

your brother, john

20. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83589 by brother john on October 30, 2007 at 1:48 pm

BaronOchs.
You don't know what a breath of sensible fresh air you are! Great to meet someone who can see two sides of a coin!
On Medjugorje. First about the same old pious mush of the Mother of Jesus. Can I give you my experience and feelings. 1) You are right. She does hit the same old topics: prayer, closeness to God, repentance (change of life), the importance of Scripture to mention some.
2) I have listened to/ read many of them. They are spot on. I presume you are not a believer, so that is not your reaction. For a Xn believer who means business in his/her faith, they are a real encouragement to walk the tough road. No " Christianity on the cheap"(Bonhoeffer) here.
(Excuse that short defence from one who loves this wonderful woman. Good women are quite something: Maya Angelou puts it brilliantly in one of her poems.)
3) Her main point is her desire as a mother i to point us, sorry! I'll rephrase that...point those of us who believe as she does, to the way to peace.
As for critical analysis, I can't really help. I have got up in the attic (I think), two or three books which though not classifiable as "critical analysis" may be helpful. I'll see if I can dig them out and send you the references – tho whether they are still in print... I remember one section deals with the gruelling number of psychological tests that the then young people were put through , and came through, as perfectly normal.
Good luck.
Let me know if you find something

21. The Price of Freedom

Comment #83584 by brother john on October 30, 2007 at 1:25 pm

My first reaction on quickly reading the Hitch article on this great woman was to post and say, "Absolutely first rate"..But before posting I read the comments of Aragon, CJ22 and Nightripper. They toned down my reaction. I'm a bit of a sucker for issues which involve awful injustices or abuse of human rights. Thanks to the above "posters" for their inputs. Thoughtful. Nightripper: especially impressed with your contributions about factbending.

So I change my reaction to the Hitch article to,"Extremely worthwhile but, Hitch, please take note of the observations made in posts like Aragon's, CJ22 and Nightripper."

22. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83422 by brother john on October 30, 2007 at 2:17 am

Goldy
I've read Sean Cordell's letter. Understandable reaction from him – but not knowledge based.
"Bro J, try some of the religious sites for rationality too ;-) Then come back and see how we compare..."
Goldy. I'm quite ready to admit that you may find religious sites that don't come up to my or your standards of rationality.
I'd love to have the time to carry out such comparisons. But I haven't.
My simple appeal to you good atheists is that you don't rush to accept any old rubbish to denigrate a provenly good person. (Luzzato's book is money- making trash.) If a believer behaves irrationally, it doesn't make it OK for an atheist to do so.
===
You DO make a great show of being superior to believers in all sorts of ways. This is a general drift of the vast majority of the posts and quoted articles/speeches/lectures I've read.
I'm simply saying to you – and your co-nonreligionists: how about moderation, care on facts and less obvious delight in smearing other humans?
You expect others to be bound by evidence and integrity. How about showing some yourselves? (A general question. Not directed at you personally.)
====
Never mind about papal infallibility. What about atheist impeccability?
You DO give the impression that you are the sinless ones. That's the impression you give me – a man who takes great care not to slur others. But who will hit them hard once he is certain that he has understood the situation accurately and fairly.
Are there no psychotics among atheists? Are there no child abusers, no wife beaters, no slanderers, no lazy sods, no libellers, no greedy money-grabbers, no exploiters of employees, no unprincipled politicians, policemen or women etc among you atheists? Of course there are.
You may even have your percentage share of serial killers.
===
Goldy.You are a part of humanity and you have your share of its failings, weaknesses and evil. Let's have less of the implied holier than thou of much atheist talk on the forums. There are 3 kinds of shit:
1) the natural sort – good necessary though usually smelly stuff, that aids growth of plant life (and hence animal life)put in the right places.
2) The religious sort: holy shit
3) Atheist shit.

1) Is OK 2) and 3) are NOT OK.
I produce my fair share of number one. You hopefully do too. I sincerely hope that both of us produce as little as we can of two and three.
That's a thought. Two honest people (ie those who can see their own failings as well as those of others)people ought to carry out two audits. A good atheist ought to carry out AN ATHEIST SHIT AUDITand a good Christian ought to carry out A CHRISTIAN SHIT AUDIT.
Then – for fairness – they should change roles. Theatheist doing the Xn one and the Xn doing the atheist one. Compare the results. There shoud be substantial similarity.

Any takers?
Your god go with you. (Yes. I know who used to say that. We used to watch him before he went to see his Maker - who, please note, in solid Xn theology, gave him his sense of humour - and therefore must have a sense of humour himself - and equally must and does enjoy a good joke- tho not many preachers seem to reflect on this.).
Want proof? Well, if He didn't have a sense of humour, He'd have gone mad a long long time ago. That's a joke - not theology- which - I know, Richard does not believe in - peace to the good man.)

23. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #83350 by brother john on October 29, 2007 at 6:51 pm

dearfathom

Thanks for your calm non-sarcastic reply to my post.
(I explain below why I have added words to your text in []s.)
"[We believe]There is no god - any god - so no matter how you describe your own [beliefs about your]particular god or your holy scriptures, teachings tenets or dogma it's all just unsupported ramblings [as far as we are concerned]. For this reason we don't take what believers say as valid when [ie because we believe] it is based on the centuries old [and therefore unacceptable/invalid]opinions of unknown authors of [whose motives we, as atheists, assume to be] questionable motives. Quote from your holy book and our response will always be the same; we don't accept that as an authority any more than we would the teachings of Sherlock Holmes.[We realise that the parallel works to our advange and prejudges the issue by clearly implying that your holy book was written by fictional characters.]"

it's all just unsupported ramblings. Fathom? Who told you this? Come on, you believe in rational discussion, what is your evidence for saying its "unsupported" and, further, that it's "ramblings"?

.You're proud of your rationality and logicality. As I am proud of mine. Well. If my beliefs and opinions are "ramblings" or "unsupported" just because they are contrary to your beliefs and opinions - then, it follows reasonably and rationally and logically - that your opinions and beliefs are unsupported and ramblings because they are contrary to mine.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

"centuries old opinions of unknown authors of questionable motives."

centuries old opinions - this forum quotes Seneca for example, with approval. But your comment implies that centuries old opinions are equivalent to "of no value for a rational man" - which you and I are - unless you happen to be a woman!

My "authors" you refer to, they are not all unknown - and the chief one is very well known.

And as for "questionable motives".
While I admit that there are, I'm sure, a fair number of Christians living or well dead whose motives are or were questionable - by the law of averages this must be true - nonetheless

first I ask you why you assume/believe that these authors' motives were "questionable"? This needs proof.
If you have no proof other than the fact of their believing x y or z - then YOUR motives are questionable because you believe a b or c.

It may surprise you to know that even Christians (I don't speak for other religions) value reason and logic and rationality.

I have added words to your text in []s to bring out what you are ACTUALLY asserting. Tell me if my additions falsify our meaning.

24. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83333 by brother john on October 29, 2007 at 5:46 pm

leeobee,
What do you mean? Sorry, I don't get exactly what you're saying.
Spell it out for a simple man.

bro john

25. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83329 by brother john on October 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Jim Gallagher was a free lance journalist and author who wrote for both religious and secular press in Britain and abroad. He was based in London. I don't know if he is still alive. He was visiting lecturer to the Robert Schuman Institute of Journalism/European Media Studies, specializing in postgraduate training of journalists all over Europe. He also worked in video production and has had films translated into French a, Russian and Polish. He had a particular interest in the development of twentieth-century spiritualities, which is why he took on the biography of PP.

Sergio Luzzato's book is the sort of oddball book that appears now and main purpose is to make money and cheap notoriety for the author.

Jim Gallagher is a different kettle of fish. If any of you want to read a detailed biographically sound account of this unusual man, Jim Gallagher is your man. I've had my copy for yonks.

baronOchs. Well done for your dating. Right it was 1918. (Gallagher's book p 83 and on). As for the letter: I can see why you call it what you do. Pretty pewky to our ears – even mine but - if you knew the culture of Italy and Italian Catholicism at the time(and PP's character) you would understand that PP was not cocksucking. He was no sycophant – which you'll see if you read a decent biography of the gent.

Kaiserkriss: no "whack job", no" nutter" no "warped little mind". A sometimes stern man when he had to be man. Very caring. A man for people. The project closest to his heart was a great hospital. He did not want it to be a hospital with clinical corridors and the dingy rooms he had experienced during his military service, but a home-from-home, bright, airy for sick people.

No one was to be turned away. It would be free for those who could not afford to pay. The finest doctors were to be employed , paid a just wage. And he got it built. I haven't read about it recently. I hope it still has the kindly caring spirit he wanted for it and that it had at its inception.

Corylus – at least you did some research. But acid would not do the job. Apart from anything PP was subjected to frequent medical examination. The Vatican gave him a really hard time. It was full of hard-nosed ecclesiastical bureaucrats. They would have been glad to get shot of this troublesome priest.

Michael p. You're quite right about noxious old nuns. There were quite a few. Fortunately most of them have died out by now. And gone to their Maker. What a roasting they will have got for treating children the way Sis treated you. (I use the word "roasting"metaphorically.)
I'm a man with a sense of justice. Which is why I find the idea of God's judgement rationally soberingly satisfying. No one will get away with anything!
I've just watched the sickening Channel 4 programme on corruption in Africa. Does it satisfy you to think that the bloodsuckers like those portrayed in that documentary - especially the rich ones - will most likely get away with it on Planet Earth? It doesn't satisfy me.

I'm putting together an Atheist Creed. I may even call it the Atheist's Twenty Nine Articles. I'm not making the Articles up. I put into words the beliefs that clearly underlie comments made in the quiet, balanced, rational corridors of these forums. Just found another article of that creed in reactions here to PP. (It was a breath of fresh air to read Crazymalc's sane quietly rational comment.)

Article 5"Where believers are concerned, the flimsiest tawdriest piece of evidence can be used to pour scorn on them. Where they are concerned the good atheist will not even bother to check out the evidence. He /she will consider this beneath him/her. This will both save energy and time and increase the Good Atheist's well-earned feeling of euphoria at A-Good-Hatchet-Job-Done-for-the-Cause."

Ah. Your brother John

PS. This may interest some of you. A bit of ammunition for you against priests who are no priests at all. Who are the antithesis of what they should be, with no real respect for either God or people. Charlatans.

Many years ago, when still a student, I read a selection of Padre Pio's letters. He used a phrase for these kinds of priests which I have never forgotten.

To understand why he uses this particular imagery, you need to remember the Catholic belief about the Host and the Wine in Mass. It becomes the very presence of Christ. So – they handle Christ as it were.

"These butchers" he called them. "These butchers" - men who mangle Christians and Christianity by their life-styles.

Do you recognise your scorn for such "mummery" in his angry phrase? "Mummery" is too kind a word for what such empty men, such charlatans, indulge in.
They tarnish, and debase to almost meaningless mumbojumbo, what should be a religious re-enactment of the Last Supper, an event full of pathos and the deepest significance. A symbolic event that is meant to encapsulate all that Jesus Christ was and stood for.

kaiserkriss. Just look again, a little more closely, with a more open mind at the look of this guy in the picture that accompanies that unfortunate letter. Look at the eyes. Not a lunatic look. In the little wafer that he holds he "sees" a man crucified. His look is focused on that man - and on the love that man showed for all he came into contact with and were not up their own *rses or indifferent to the aches and sufferings and fears and hopes of others. To me those eyes seem to have a gentle light in them.Am I wrong?

26. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #82665 by brother john on October 27, 2007 at 7:02 am

I have been looking for the full text of
Sir Richard Dannatt's Swanwick Conference address that caused Grayling to be so upset. Have not been able to find it.
But I did find another address of his
that may interest some of you, if you are interested in the Armed Forces both as a whole and as a large grouping of individual people who are brother sister father mother or relative of someone or other; and in the politico-military scene that our threatened Planet finds itself in.

The man is pretty smart. His analysis makes interesting reading...but becomes heavy going for a non-military person in the "Physical Component" section. complex language and technical military jargon.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/CgsSpeaksOntomorrowsArmyTodaysChallenges.htm

27. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #82268 by brother john on October 26, 2007 at 1:19 am

Dear Baeoz –
"Prove it. Prove it." You say, and the emphasis in your repetition seems to show that it IS a matter of grave concern.
I say one thing. THINK FOR YOURSELF WITH ALL THE COURAGE AND HONESTY/ INTEGRITY YOU CAN MUSTER. That is the only way to prove God exists.
I have repeatedly said, Gods existence cannot be proved by one individual to another. There are plenty of powerful INDICATORS, but no such thing as a proof you can write down. That is too simple. Equivalent to religion on the cheap.
Second key point. Coming to a belief in the God is like falling in love. It is something YOU do. You don't ask someone else to do it. "YOU tell me who I should fall in love with. YOU go out and find the person I should share my life with for me." Ridiculous isn't it to ask that. Well, dear Baeoz. You are saying just that when you ask me to prove that God exists.
If you want to prove whether God exists – SEARCH WITH ALL YOUR HEART. Don't follow the herd.
I repeat that; DON'T FOLLOW THE HERD. You dear atheists are as capable as the rest of humanity, believers included, of FOLLOWING THE HERD And YOU DO. And every herd has leaders. Richard is the chief herd leader in atheism at present.
I listen to every person. Because I have learnt by personal experience that everyone can teach me something.
I am married to an atheist. Which has been a great blessing. Because she is a great woman. So i know a bit about two committed people of opposing viewpoints on belief getting on in LOVE.
I repeat: if you want to get on that search – the most significant question for any human being.
=============

Dear Irate atheist..
"Aha!" my trump card as you call it. You have got it wrong. It may seem like that. But so much of life is NOT what it seems. The mature person gets underneath all the "seeming" or , at least, does his best to.
No. Christianity is not up for grabs for anyone to interpret as they will. It is down in black and white in the pages of the New Testament, supremely in those of the four gospels. And in those parts of the Old Testament that are in agreement with all that Christ taught – in both words and actions.
We Christians are called to discuss IN LOVE (joke, that, isn't it so often?) how we understand and live the Gospel of Christ. And to give a good reasons for our different understanding.
Please don't ponttifficate at me about what I believe and why. That IS arrogance.
I say again, If you are sincere in searching for the truth, reading my blog will be useful to you.
Somewhere along its course I will write about the problem of evil which you mention. One which deserves respect, I hasten to add – for we are talking about enormous suffering. A problem I hold first of all in my HEART, secondly in my head. You may understand the import of that statement – or not.

Let me, in ending give you what I have garnered of the atheist credo from the pages of this forum. Not all of it. Just two of your basic dogmas.
1st. Where religion is concerned thou shalt see all things in terms of black or whit. Preferably all black – for that is the truth. Greys are non-existent.
2nd Thou shalt not take what they (the believers) say as valid for they are all either fools, or
irrem ediably conditioned,self-deluded or downright evil, certainly incapable of rational thought.
As the Irish comedian used to say, "Go with your god"
You remain in my heart. Your brother John.

28. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #81685 by brother john on October 25, 2007 at 3:18 am

dear baeoz,
May I say one thing: my experience with this forum is that most of you dear folk (and I mean the "dear" sincerely) for some reason are not open to reasonablediscussion.
That may be because I have not yet understood you properly - or maybe because I have not yet understood the FULL EXTENT OF THE enormous harm that fraudulent, insincere Christianity - of which there has been much since Christ "took off".

Which leads me to reply to you Irate Atheist: thank you for your list of reasons why you are sick to the back teeth with religion.

I am too with much of the "Christianity" I see around.

To both of you I say this: give me a chance to show you both that(1) I hate (probably most of) the things you hate and, secondly, what true Christianity should be.
The criticisms I make along the way of Christianity in my responses to Richard's book (www.theheartofgod)should indicate the main lines of this "true face".

It will take time - but you will not find a more sympathetic approach.

29. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #81060 by brother john on October 24, 2007 at 1:52 am

A nasty piece of work is AC Grayling - as far as his manner of talking about believers.

The main point escapes him - as usual with such diatribes of vitriolic personal unfounded opinion. The main point is that Richard Dannart has been the only one to speak up with courage and force on behalf of the military personnel under his command - and care.
His has been the strong condemnation of the Government's betrayal of their duty to care for them. Men and women who lay down their lives for country and its policies.

For your interest the Gospel is not synonyumous with pacifism.
Inconsistency and hypoocriusy are not the bulwarks of faith.
What is asserted without evidence can be disregarded.

Atheists like him give atheists a bad name. Even atheists are bound by reason and honesty to portray the beliefs of those they despise fairly. Setting up straw men is the gambit of the devious and those unconcerned for truth.

I disagree with him - therefore I can say anything I like about him - that is one of the statements of the atheist creed - as amply proved over and over again in this forum.

He has the self-serving cheek to write about "indictable offence before the court of reason propriety and honesty". Grayling breaks all those three criteria.
I usually take a more conciliatory line, looking for the points of agreement. In this flagrant case of rampant rabid prejudice, I believe that reason demands |I speak out clearly.

Before the court of reason propriety and honesty Grayling is an utter fraud. Or incapable of consistent, accurate, honest evidence based thinking. As is anyone who agres with all he says.

He is the first atheist ranter who has made me feel really angry. Some achievement on his part.

I won't even bother with him to check again whether there is anything in his piece that deserves agreement. The BS is far too smelly for considerate approaches.

30. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79653 by brother john on October 18, 2007 at 4:51 am

Dear nOrris
Forgot to add. The first creation story/myth is one of the key Conservation/Green/Rights of animals manifesto texts in the Bible for any thinking Christian (and probably Jew as the O is their Holy Book)
The other is the first three verses of the magnificent opening of John's Gospel.
Regards.
Steve 99
Just noticed your comment. May I reply? Briefly?
You write:" This in no way implies that religion inevitably leads to evil deeds. It is just that the kind of thinking that is required to be religions allows justification of such deeds."
May I say with respect that you are both right. Right in the first sentence. Right and wrong in the second part.
Right for manipulative religions – eg the so called "religion of the Taleban". Follow the party line or else. Frankly I think it should be obvious that this sort of religion is NOT GENUINE RELIGION. It's a travesty of religion. Just something used by politically, hate , ignorance motivated individuals. I only wish you could see that (and that Richard could.) But let that pass.
You also say:
"I think it is more subtle than that. The problem is that religion can bypass rational analysis. Instead of thinking things through, a believer just takes thing on faith."

I speak for the Christian religion only. Let others speak for themselves.
There is NO WAY that Christian faith can allow itself to bypass rational analysis. Rational analysis is basic. Christ added to the OT command (Deuteronomy 6,4 and following) two little words that make all the difference. I print them in caps. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength AND MIND." Mind means rational analysis, intelligence, discussion, investigation, testing, hypothesis – the whole shebang.
A believer JUST takes things on faith. That "just" is not right.
Certainly if we think that something comes to us from God – as for example, the teachings of Jesus Christ – then we take it on board, on faith, because we trust Him - even though we may not yet understand it. Eg It took me ages to see what on earth Jesus meant by saying – if he clouts you on one cheek, offer the other one.
But we move on from this faith because He has said so. We go on to think and pray and rely on Him to eventually help us to understand what He is driving at. That's why I say "not yet".
Simple parallel. Do you know as much as Richard about evolutionary biology? I presume not. I certainly don't. I hardly know anything except the general idea. If he tells me something as certain, I would take it – on his authority. That's sensible/rational isn't it?
Well it's the same with God – only a lot more so.(I know you don't believe there's evidence – I'm just explaining how I see it- just put yourself for a moment in my shoes to follow my line of argument) It makes RATIONAL sense for me to believe Richard who is an authority on Evol Biol. It makes likewise RATIONAL SENSE , given the evidence I I have for believing in God, that I believe what God tells me.

IN SUM. If you are a Christian, it is THE RATIONAL OUTCOME that you must use MIND to its full extent.
------------------ ----------------- ------------------------
One of my great sorrows is that the Christian Churches have not expressed their admiration for Science and the amazing progress made by technologies in ANY WAY NEAR AN adequate way. I am not talking of its horrors – eg e A bomb, nervegas warfare etc That's the evil use by humans of mind.
If they are blind to, or only half see, the astounding wonders of Technology and Science and ITS revelations- then they are blind to, or half asleep to, the astounding wonder of the creative God they say they believe in. There aren't capitals big enough to print and emphasise what I've just said.
(I know you see a clash between that and belief in love of God. I can't talk you out of that problem.)
Kind regards.
With you in hammering on for the truth - for truth sets people free.

Your brother john

31. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79641 by brother john on October 18, 2007 at 3:20 am

Dear nOrr1s
Thanks for your kind reply.

Re the following."By the way, as a vegan myself, it's good to hear you express concern for the plight of animals in your post 164. From what I remember of the bible, it seems to suggest that animals are here for humans to do with as they please. I guess, then, that given what you wrote on other threads, you would consider that a relic of a bygone age rather than a statement from God."
Whether the bible tells us we ca do as we please with animals depends on the meaning of the phrases " conquer it. Be masters of.." in Genesis chapter 1 verse 29 (towards the end of the first creation story – the 7 day one)
Some read it in that do what you like way.
Others, like me, take a more sensitive approach, more in keeping with the obvious pride that God shows in his creation by the inspired repetition of the sentence "God saw that it was good." After all 7 "days" are over the sentence changes to "God saw all that he had made and indeed it was very good. Thus I understand "be masters" of in the sense of "Be careful, thoughtful stewards of my gift of creation to you. I have given you all the gifts of intelligence, empathy, compassion, ability to plan long-term that you will need to run the earth in a way that does justice to you and me."
28 God blessed them, saying to them (man and woman) 'Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth.' 29 God said, ' See I give you all the seed-bearing plants that are upon the earth and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this shall be your food. 30 To all wild beasts, all birds of heaven and all living reptiles on the earth I give all the foliage of plants for food.' 31 And so it was. God saw all that he had made, and indeed it was very good. Evening came and morning came, the sixth day.
In fact verse 29 seems to indicate that the whoever was responsible for this poem/myth/creation story was of a vegan mindset. But I don't want to suggest that the lesson of the Bible as a whole is that we should be vegan. That is not a tenable position because, for example, in Acts Chapter 10 God persuades Peter that even Romans can be baptised into God's family with a very interesting vision. No time to type that out for you. See if you can find a bible to check it out. The vision section is verse 9-16. Peter had to spend some time thinking what it meant for him.
I am not a vegetarian/vegan. We limit our meat eating because both of us hate the cruelty that is involved in modern mass farming methods. An insult to God and humans. And we, now and then pay the price; unfortunately so do the poor "beasts". But that's the way it is. The underlings, whether citizens or animals pay the price for the political/ethical decisions of their "betters"! If ever I come to feel that God's mind is not with meat-eating, I will go your way. At the moment my conscience – informed by my religious beliefs and all the findings of the modern day on compassionate and humane animal husbandry leaves me free in conscience. to choose.

kind regards

32. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79337 by brother john on October 17, 2007 at 1:36 am

nOrr1s...Hi! Nice to chat...I did say last night's post would be my last, but I've een wondering whether I ought to add something I'd forgotten.

I do not like to write purely from a critical point of view. I should have started by saying that Richard's post really made me think. He was obviously on to something.

Though I think he expressed it badly. Over-simplified. (The phrase came to mind this morning:"the sometimes/often murky waters of human motivation").

On to something - as Weinberg was.

What they are both onto is the inbuilt inescapable potential for harm that any religion has religion has, ie that it can be abused by unscrupulous unprincipled people as a means of controlling/conditioning vulnerable people. (By "vulnerable " here I mean people who are rather simple in outlook, not aware of complexity or of the deviousness of those whom they trust - or simply not sufficiently educated in the need to think hard and critically about everything - in so far as that is humanly possible.)

Religion can go to the depths of people and thus expose them to manipulation.

Like democracy, religion too needs continual vigilance.
There is a second inbuilt problem with religions, more of a problem the older, more ancient their points of origin. It is precisely their age. Their beliefs and sacred writings willnecessarily show the marks of their times. Ie the problem, the challenge of updating. The challenge of sorting out what is of lasting value or still valid today or - even - of eternal value - from what was valid only for its time. (This is where I and revcourt do not yet see eye to eye. I hope some day we will!) That's why I said we are not cherry-picking. That would be playing fast and loose with God - a dangerous pastime for a believer.

You end with,"In summary, if you start from incorrect facts, your logical deductions will be wrong. That's all that's being said here." ..."facts"? Do you mean "facts and premisses"? If you are including premisses as well, I can agree with you.
If that's all Richard is saying - fine. But I'm not not at all sure that "that's all that's being said here". It seems to me that the drive of Richard's piece is that faith is inherently going to result in evil deeds. The fact that he would use the adverb "logically" and i have used "inherently" makes no substantial difference. A generalisation that no-one could substantiate.

33. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79220 by brother john on October 16, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Dear Philip 1978
What is interesting is how everything that anyone says of whatever belief or non-belief causes such problems to others of understanding.
You're obviously a young man in a hurry. I'm afraid God is not a magician who waves his stick and uses his almighty power to straighten things out.

I can't answer all your points – and if I did, chances are that would only spark off more problems.

So I will say this. A question: "Are you passionate to discover the truth about life?" Now "passionate" means that when you discover it you will follow it, cost what that may. Cost what that may.
Are you that sort of person? I can say truthfully that I am.

If you are – you will find it. One day. We all have our road to follow.

That action of Jesus Christ of walking on water. Whether you believe it or not is not the point here. For many years I have been convinced that ANY PERSON who gets to the end of life - AND IS STILL A DECENT CARING HUMAN BEING – has walked on water!

Your God or no-god go with you.
I really will have to stop posting. (I think I've said this before!!) I must get on with my Tuesday blogging of my response to TGD.

CHEERIO to all posters who have had the patience (or frustration) to dialogue with me. You are in my heart - for what it's worth.

As for Rowan Williams. I have met the man. He's a decent chap indeed but... (I hope you'll follow my blog. Worth it if you want some serious and critical thinking. www.theheartofgod.co.uk) Severely critical of much that goes under the name of Christianity as well as atheism preached by Richard.)
pS Did you get Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Zondervan? ( cf www.zondervan.com. Worth it for anyone who SERIOUSLY wants to know about the evidence for Christianity.
SRWB. With respect. It may seem like cherry picking to you. But I assure you it is not. You get on with the challenge of being a de cent caring human being and Ill do the same. And it seems to me that revcourt is facing the same challenge. How we cuscceed on that challenge is how all three of us will be judged by history – if history notices us.

34. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79201 by brother john on October 16, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Richard says:"It is easy for religious faith, even if it is irrational in itself, to lead a sane and decent person, by rational, logical steps, to do terrible things. There is a logical path from religious faith to evil deeds."
It is by no means easy. And it is not a logical path when it occurs.
A number of factors have to come in – which are not logical ones: they are emotional, political, social, psychological.
The bombers were angry at what they perceived as injustice against their people. Anger. They were frustrated that they could not think of other means (eg the democratic process or slow political evolution and improvement) that would be effective. Frustration. Even despair. They may well have been educated. But as Richard himself implies, they were worked on by their mullahs. Indoctrination. Manipulation.What of the responsibility of the usually older more seasoned campaigners– would "more cunning" not be more accurate?

If you don't believe in this analysis, then read Ed Husain's, The Islamist, Penguin Books 2007. you couldn' find a "nicer" boy than Ed, more religious. What a frightening picture of "wolves in sheeps' clothing" the pages of that book reveal. (Am I being cynical in thinking that Richard can spin this book too to suit his own ends? Or just being realistic?)

Is there not the factor too of cultural backwardness and ignorance? And the centuries-old weight of clash or misunderstanding/ misrepresentation between east and west.
As for their saneness and balance – that is disputable. Richard asserts it, I suspect , because it suits his argument, logical man that he considers himself to be.
No Richard. It is not at all logical. It isa tortuous path of emotion, injustice real or presumed, of devious manipulation by others for their POLITICAL purposes. Conscience-less men who do not scruple to corrupt religion, or co-opt the name of God, to achieve their ends.
Is Richard so cerebrally oriented that he cannot see or discounts these very real human psychological emotional political social and cultural serpents that inject their poisons in all along the way from some sort of religious adherence to actions of sheer mindless ignorance brutality and inhumanity.
Not a logical path. That is a puerile analysis.
Call it National Front thuggery. Call it Nazism. Cal it Maoist or the now-defunct Russian Communism. Call it Taliban ideology – even religion if you like. Call it plurisecular-domination of women by men – WHAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH IS NOT THE LOGICAL PATH FROM ANYTHING TO ANYTHING ELSE. You are dealing with the indescribably potential of humans – so far especially the male of the species to wreak havoc in the lives and happiness of their fellow creatures. (And when they do it to humans, they will do it even more brutally, more thoughtlessly to animals – for those of you who, I hope are animal lovers)

Why can you not see all this? I suspect it is because it does not suit the main thesis that underlies all your talk or writing about religions or God. A more complex - and more accurate analysis - would not do the job for you.

Richard. You also write:"The following quotation from the Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg has become well known, but it is so devastatingly true that it is worth quoting again and again: "With or without [religion] you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
Again the spin that suits the ideology of the writer/speaker, Weiberg in this case.

I would agree with Weinberg if he had added: "it takes religion, or politics or the lust to domination."
And I have some doubt over the nature or integrity of the "goodness" of the people involved. Accuracy would be better served by a phrase like "apparently normal ordinary people".

Logic is a very limited tool Richard. It gets you PRECISELY NOWHERE IN ANALYSING THE HUMAN CONDITION. Neatness and clarity are not the two main marks of the human animal. This animal is capable, at one end, of above gigantic goodness and self-sacrifice for others and, at the other, of unimaginable (we would tend to say sub-human) depravity. I added the "we would tend to say sub-human" because unfortunately it is NOT sub-human: it is what some humans clearly and demonstrably delight in.

35. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79111 by brother john on October 16, 2007 at 7:02 am

Dear everybody who finds revcourt's kind of Christianity difficult to swallow.

I find it extremely painful to read.
(I will read your reply to my last post to you, revcourt. an't do that now.)

I hate to say this, dear brother, but it's necessary.
1) You paint a revolting, inhuman, unhistorical, simplistic picture of God – which our atheist friends are right to repudiate with all that is in them.

2) It is a typical product of a mindset that insist on taking every sentence of the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament as literally God's Word and Thinking.
It is your insisting on literalism which is the problem.
But you are not even consistent. I'm pretty sure that if you examine your own thinking closely you will find that you DO leave some of the injunctions of Scripture aside because they are obviously old hat. Choose: Are you being inconsistent? Or hypocritical? Or plain naive? Or just unable to follow the MIND that Christ told us to use to its conclusions – the chief of which is that their is cultural development in Scripture. That there is a growth in the understanding of God by the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. That God's revelation in the OT, wonderful though it is, is INCOMPLETE and is only completed in Christ.
3) And there is a strong element of PRIDE there too. Do you evangelicals think that the Holy Spirit has been sitting on his backside (He will forgive me for the vulgarity of the phrase used of Him/Her ) for hundreds of years just waiting for the evangelicals to come along and reveal his Truth to a waiting generation? Do you really think He has not been active in believers over the centuries that separate us from Christ's time on earth?
How about a bit of HUMILITY?
4) It is your refusal to take seriously what Christ did when he added the key word "mind" to the shema. He COMMANDS us, rev, to use our MINDS. You do not obey. You just use the ability we have to PARROT.
Our atheist friends are absolutely right to refuse to entertain the nonsense that is liberally sown in among your good points.
I repeat: YOUR BRAND OF CHRISTIANITY DOES MORE HARM TO GOD'S CAUSE AND THE GENUINE GOOD OF NON-BELIEVERS THAN RICHARD DAWKINS AND ALL THOSE WHO THINK AND WRITE LIKE HIM WILL EVER DO IN A CENTURY OF SPEAKING AND WRITING.
Take that on board revcourt – because it is true. The world does not want the god you paint.
It is YOUR picture, not Christ's.
THE WORLD DOES NOT WANT THE GOD YOU PAINT. Have you heard that? Shouldn't the fact that this comes from a man who is as committed to Christ as you are, make you pause? Or will you plough on, TURNING PEOPLE OFF MORE AND MORE by your false image?
THE WORLD DOES NOT WANT THE GOD YOU PAINT.
The world does not NEED the God you describe. The world wants
Goodness, Beauty, Justice, Justice, Justice, Justice, Justice.... Hope, Praise for achievement and effort, Encouragement under difficulty, Light in darkness (not more darkness – which is the end result of your God), Delight in the achievements of the human mind and spirit - and more alog the same lines.

Revcourt – at the end of my many years of thinking about and observing what goes on under the banner of Christianity (I speak only of the negative side – the only side our atheist friends seems to see; there IS enormous good that goes on) what is conclusion of this Christian? It is simply this:
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT YET READY TO TALK WITH ATHEISTS.
It is too inbred. Too narrow. Too barren of the true spirit of Jesus Christ.
That is THE BIG PROBLEM dear revcourt.
JESUS CHRIST WOULD KNOW HOW TO SPEAK TO THE ATHEISTS OF OUR DAY IN A WAY THAT MADE SENSE TO THEM. THAT WOULD DRAW THEM – THAT WOULD AT LEAST MAKE THEM THINK IN THEIR HEARTS.
Your brother john

36. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77939 by brother john on October 11, 2007 at 7:23 am

Dear revcourt
Thanks for your reply. Useful for our discussion. But first a warning: given in concern. From my own experience. This forum stuff is /can be quite addictive. Right? Here is the caution. I have towatch it myself. Make sure that the time you spend on here is not time you take away from what you know, under the one you serve, to be your duty: home, family and wife (if you are married with children), your work. It IS very time consuming – and you devote a lot of time. It is praiseworthy in you to give so much time, effort and genuine intention for our Saviour and the good of our web sisters and brothers. But make sure it's not you following your likes,, as opposed to God's will for you. You will recognise the strong loving advice contained in:"Be still and know that I am God."

Down to the rest of the business.
I am basically going to suggest you think on some issues.
You ask me:"after reading the verses quoted can you come away with any other understanding than what I've said here?" The answer is Yes. I am as committed as you to the whole of scripture – and have been for longer. I have no intention of pulling back on my total commitment to the Father for the sake of my dear family worldwide (by which I mean men women of good will, who follow the law of God in their hearts as best they can, in their circumstances. In a face to face private discussion I would tell you something else to prove my claim – and would ask you if you had spoken in the same terms to our God – I suspect you may have – you seem to have a good spirit of discipleship in you.
Question 1
Here is my first question to you – which you must grapple with as a follower. How do you cope with the fact that you can have two or three or maybe even four different sincerely committed Christians, who all revere the Scriptures as God's word – and yet, claiming all of them to be faithful – can come up with a different understanding of one text or other, or a group of texts.
Let's take just you and me. We read the same scriptures, we put ourselves