However, a series that fascinated me was “The Atheism Tapes” by Doctor Jonathan Miller made in 2003 for British television which sadly I cannot send to you. I found it fascinating as Atheists are invariably more interesting and stimulating than believers ever are. Believers often sound woolly and totally unconvincing as Richard Dawkins fairly claims but I hasten to add that while Dawkins is fascinating, I find he goes beyond reasonable levels of arrogance and evolutionary intolerance!

Could I ask you to follow this link: http://mcginn.philospot.com/ – because I would like your thoughts on his philosophy of being an Atheist – although I suspect you lean more, at present, in the direction of agnostism. Please pardon any presumption on my part? This philospot of Mcginn’s is not taken directly from the Atheism Tapes but does express his thoughts in cogent terms.

By the way I hope you had a wonderful wedding anniversary and may I wish you many years of happiness with your wife – who when I eventually visit Australia I would love to meet you both.

Michael Angrave

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Says the bull in the china shop: “These fragile teacups and silly vases are no match! Ha! Wherein is their purported beauty, when they are smithereened beneath my hooves! A graceful line is nothing compared to force. Show me your theories, and watch how fast I can smash them.”

Ha ha ha, hey WILTRF, don’t mind me, I’m just trying to be a parabolic wordsmith ;) hee hee

Like or Dislike: 0  2

As I have previously said, you are quite the wordsmith. However, I am beginning to realise this talent of yours rings hollow. For your eloquence fails to mask the glaring lack of substance within. I still have no idea why you defend Christianity – especially so on a website which questions the very fundamentals. And I am not convinced you do either.

It is ironic you suggest “this site has sadly become like a pond of inert water that lacks any fresh intake to circulate“. For it is the longwinded, indirect, question-dodgers that oxygen-starve and stagnate this proverbial pond.

In the interest of injecting “fresh intake” I challenge you to directly and succinctly respond to the questions that beg to be answered. Perhaps you can start with the 10 I have posted for the RF Basic Nights. Or maybe, as previously requested, you could guide me on an intellectual “dot-to-dot” from God’s proposed existence to your particular anti-ecclesiastic slant on Christianity. Or respond to this comment etc. You are more than welcome to use bullet points if that will aid concision.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

The deadly evangelical fundamentalist worm once invited in, crosses a slippery threshold and is like a demon that refuses to leave the body or mind. And once it enters the intestines resides there forever refusing to leave the colon. Note where I draw my metaphors – they reside not in the mind, heart or reason but in the lower portions of the body where waste products are generally evacuated. Potent words? – far from it – my words are not rigorous enough. This site has sadly become like a pond of inert water that lacks any fresh intake to circulate, add bite or piquancy or to stimulate either faith or reason.

Within the already sluggish and placid water the bacteria forms to structure a stagnant and lifeless liquid – hastily losing any potency or value. This site should have provided a solace, an oasis of comfort and a spiritual asylum for those fortunate souls who have escaped what is clearly the only hell that ever existed! Had I become a fugitive from its barbed wire clutches – I would never have found any peace or rest. Biblical interpretation remains a battle field and debating post where no one ever wins but where unfortunate victims can only find temporary rest on an indecisive fence. And I do have great respect and sympathy for agnostics. But beware of that group also who believe that in scientific knowledge lies the answers. Isn’t Dawkins as arrogant as fundamentalists?

Michael Angrave south western France
michael.angrave@gmail.com

Like or Dislike: 2  0

Like or Dislike: 1  1

to the aurthor of this article;
most likely you are set in your ways of thinking which is fine, however if you find the desire to continue your research in order to satisfy your soul please consider removing the limataions of your imaginations and expand your resourses. the use of the internet is a great tool to quickin your travels. My suggestion on your travels would be to remove all ideas that you have acquired concerning religion and start over. And try to remove the imaginations of Man during your search and look for the basics which points towards how we became into begin.

Like or Dislike: 2  1

With total respect to the historical bible, much of the “wisdom” “ethics” and spirituality is already themed in the Tao 500 years before biblical times. So what inspiration did the people of this era have in an eastern sense and how does, , could or would it ever be able to tie up with the christian/judaic understanding?

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Now when you want to discuss Acts-Corintians, Re: Apostle Pauls’s letters, I have learned you need to be listening to scholarly level academic folfkf doctorate level studies. The reason for this is that there is so much more info in terms of looking at these letters in a retorical/retrospective way that actually really does put some of revivals’ understandings in a completely different context. You find these people also have no vested interest in defending organisations, rather they present the info/findings far more truthfully.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Dear JP

Thank you for your direct reply, honestly appreciated. Once again I’m on my iPhone and it’s 3:33 am so please forgive errors or non-sensical grammar ;-)

My problem with taking the Bible as inspired by God but not the infallible word of God (the former refers to your take on the text) is that each book within the text is then subject to human error, superstition, spin and even lies not to mention the memes phenomenon. Putting it simply, which part is God inspired and which part isn’t. where does one finish and the other start. Surely this state of affairs would lead to a considerable number of different interpretations which would be the antecedent for a plethora of different “Christian” groups. Surely this would cause serious and Iean serious confusion for would be christian adherants. And as I’m sure your aware as I am after more than two decades of revivalists cognitive rape, that “the devil is the author of confusion”. I cannot subscribe to an all powerful and jelous Yawheh that perfectly created the universe and then left the salvation of his most beloved creation to be explained away in a group of books that when culminated are erronious and riddled with the word of men amongst his pearls. It’s non-sensical brother. If the all powerful God was to let the tranferance of knowledge regarding the salvation of his beloved race of Adam to be left in a book, then surely that book would be seamlessly perfect like all his other creations. Problem is, it’s not seamless. It’s not infallible AND IF it’s part him part us, the part him bit of the Bible is undistinguishable from the part us bit of the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is rendered inneffective whether held out as infallible or not. Altough an untenable position to hold by an objective person, the infslibility paradigm makes more sense in theory.
Thus, like Baal Yahweh is a false god. Lucky for all those who were sheduled to burn in hell for behing subject to the human condition, at the hands of a loving god.
With kind regards and lots of respect, Jamie Young

Like or Dislike: 3  2

Hi Guys/Gals

@Jamie
Hi, good to hear from you! Just quickly, as I’m in a bit of a hurry…
To answer your question as simply as possible: no, I don’t think the Bible is ‘infallible’ in the sense that fundamentalists and revivalists sometimes claim. (I think I already made a remark earlier in this thread about the Bible not being “a perfect object”). So it is not a purely divine object, let alone something to worship or have as an idol (which is almost how some fundamentalists seem to look at it).

But at the same time, I don’t think it’s a case of the Bible having to be either “infallible and therefore the word of god” or “fallible and hence not the work of god at all”. This way of looking at the problem is quite modern (as in “recent”) and I think is largely the by-product of some unfortunate interpretations of what the Reformation meant. But that’s a long story…

On the other hand, If you read accounts about scripture by Christians from the 3rd through 5th centuries (for example), you would probably be quite surprised at how candidly they dissected it, how openly they questioned how authoritative this or that part was, and how this or that text should be viewed by the Christian. I know when I had a read of some of the early commentary writings I was surprised at the level of critical thinking and intellectual honesty therein, because, like most people of today’s “enlightened” era, I was pre-conditioned to expect general superstition and extreme gullibility.

@WhyILeft
Your post deserves a good reply, so all in good time ;) However, I’m not sure what you mean by the “triangle” bit. I know I mentioned the concept of a triangle in a recent private message to you, but that was only to do with trying to understand why John Lennon would call god “a concept” in a particular song of his. I also made it clear that this wasn’t my view of God.

Anyway speaking of geometry, did you ever hear the story about the investigative reporter from the ABC’s Four Corners program, who travelled to the USA for a special assignment, but just couldn’t understand it when they refused to let him into the Pentagon?

OK, I know that’s not funny but I’ve always had a liking for anti-humour…

Like or Dislike: 1  0