大象传媒

Dear oh dear,

Eagleton's review is just the sort of review you would expect from a religious person(Google the man) - but not from a professional. He presumably made up his mind by reading the title page, if not before. One may criticise Dawkins' editor for not tightening up the text and making it less emotional in a few places, but otherwise this book is one that is dearly needed in our times.
I will mention the way Dawkins clearly substantiates the way tolerance for religion in general paves the way for fundamentalism. His use of the American evangelical movement as a case is exemplary as a way to show the hypocrisy of christians towards any other religion. Secondly his focus on how we brainwash children makes for worries about the future.

We may only hope that education will have beneficial effects, even if Eagletons always will appear.

Best regards, Klaus

Re Eagleton on Dawkins:

Quote: 鈥淚t is rather to claim that while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it. For my claim to love you to be coherent, I must be able to explain what it is about you that justifies it; but my bank manager might agree with my dewy-eyed description of you without being in love with you himself.鈥�

One needs to metaphorize love.

Quote: 鈥淩eading Dawkins, who occasionally writes as though 鈥楾hou still unravish鈥檇 bride of quietness鈥� is a mighty funny way to describe a Grecian urn鈥�

A metaphor

Quote: 鈥淕od and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.鈥�

A model and a metaphor are not a pair.

Eagleton understands the difference between 鈥榤odel鈥� and 鈥榤etaphor鈥� while Dawkins does not.

Regards,
Michael

I haven't read either of these books and don't intend to. Glancing at the reviews, they are likely even more trite and superficial than the books themselves.

I've posted elsewhere that the real proof of Darwin's theories of evolution and natural selection will come from biomolecular evidence, not from collecting and comparing fossils. This will likely take at least a decade, it's just at its beginning. You can already see the first hints of it in documents like Dr. Miller's lecture. It could go something like this. 1. Scientists will demonstrate in a laboratory that under suitable conditions, DNA can form from inert matter and in a suitable environment will assemble primitive cells which can sustain themselves in an early biosphere. 2. Geologists will provide evidence that such conditions likely existed on earth billions of years ago. 3. Supernumbercrunching computers will trace the mutation of DNA from these early primitive cell forms to known DNA structures of modern living and extinct biota. 4. The link to the macroscopic morphology of how DNA expressed itself will be established. The fossils will merely serve to confirm what the proven theory predicts. Miller gave a piece of evidence of 3 when he showed conclusively how homo sapiens evolved from apes by the end to end fusing of one pair of genes showing identical markers as ape genes and therfore reducing the number of gene pairs from 24 to 23. He gave evidence of 4 by showing the evolution of protiens' functions eventually used in bacterial flagella from more primative forms of bacteria to more evolved species. These are specific proofs, not generalizations. When the pieces are all put together, they will form a consistant tapestry and a rigorous proof of Darwin. Dawkins expositon by comparison will be dismissed as amusing but scientifically unsatifactory for being almost entirely incomplete. But then it was written for the masses in these "early days." As for viable competing theories, there aren't any. So called creation science or ID is a joke among real scientists no matter how many people with a piece of paper with the letters PHD on them subscribe to it, and no matter how many otherwise reputable scientists turn their backs on their professions to try to prove their most cherished fantasies.

As for the review of Hitchen's book, I scanned the review and found it equally trite to that of the review of Dawkins book. Hitchens is not an historian, he's a television political pundit. Why would a review of book about a document written in the 18th century by a civilzation with one history, one cultural heritage be judged for even one second because it didn't analyze it by applying to an entirely different culture in the early 21st century? Trying to apply Payne's "Rights of Man" to post Taleban Afganistan is inane.

The quality of discourse in contemporary British journalism has been consistantly appalling from what I've seen. It routinely misses the crux of every issue it examines. I refer again to the example of 大象传媒's recent half hour broadcast "Politics UK" in which four analysts attempted to write Tony Blair's political epitaph after his 10 year stewardship of Britain's government without once even mentioning Britain's remarkarble economic success during the last six years in sharp contrast to the rest of Europe's complete economic failure. Political posturing has replaced thoughtful analysis and no one even takes notice let alone objects.

In post 1 Klaus wrote:

"Dear oh dear, Eagleton's review is just the sort of review you would expect from a religious person (Google the man) - but not from a professional."

Dear oh dear, Klaus has to google for a mental box in which to place put a writer before Klaus can judge the written text and determine that the person is not a 'professional'.

Dear oh dear, how many times have I seen people make that mistake with Maureen McNeill!

Regards,
Michael

A young writer may withdraw into his shell from a devastating review: Richard Dawkins is a seasoned writer who can give as good as he gets. Christopher Hitchens is a hard-hitting writer who may have made enemies among reviewers over the years; he too can take it. These are the occupational hazards of a writing life.

I'd like to see Hitchens write a book on the life and crimes of George Holloway. Whether it ultimately turns out Holloway technically committed crimes or not, he is Britain's ugliest face.

Post #1

He reads google before he can comment on the review .....

Post #3:

He hasn't even read Dawkins' book but he treats us to a 'yawn' about evolution.

He scans the review of another book he hasn't read and treats us to another 'yawn' about British journalism.

The quality of this thread is off to a great start.

Bravo post #5!

Peace,
Maureen

Mark- Have you heard the Grapple In The Big Apple, a live debate between Chris Hitchens and George Galloway? Oh what a romp.

John Wright#8
They took their so called debate on tour and made a road show out of it in the US. When you boil it all down, it's about one thing only for both of them, making money and what better place to do it. Who wouldn't pay to see a pair of Englishmen making jackasses of themselves in public. The answer is only someone who does not watch Prime Minister's Question Time on C-Span every week. If you get cable TV, it's included at no extra charge.

Post #7
Every word uttered in these blogs by this one so far entirely forgettable, vanishing from memory within seconds of being read.

Maureen- Lots of blogospective remarks from you and not much on-topic comment yourself. It seems a tad hypocritical to complain about the quality of a thread whilst conributing precisely nothing to it yourself. Have you anything useful to add, or is your endless polemic on Mark still far from cessation?

Re 10

John, actually yes. Thanks for asking. Let's get the thread back on topic - Eagleton's review of Dawkins' book.

Eagleton says in his review: "Dawkins thinks it odd that Christians don鈥檛 look eagerly forward to death, given that they will thereby be ushered into paradise."

Christians have a purpose and a meaning in their lives. Dawkins and his disciples say there can be NO purpose and NO meaning.

May I ask the Dawkins' disciples to tell me what their purpose is with respect to communications in this blog on religion and ethics?

Peace,
Maureen

What is the Christian's purpose in life Maureen?

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

--From Macbeth (V, v, 19)

Hey Maureen, there are similes, there are metaphors. A brief candle as a metaphor for life. Insects as metaphors for creationists. Well?

By the way, all the true "What I believers" have exited stage South (maybe they've gone West....by stage of course.) They've gone the way of all flesh. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Alas poor What I Believer, I knew him well.

What is your purpose in life Maureen (as though I didn't already know?) Mine? I blog, therefore I am. What was that word I invented so many entries ago? Do people who have a compulsion to enter their tritest thoughts in places like this suffer the disease "blogulism?"

#12:

Yes, yes, I read this little bit of Shakespeare back in post 36 of 'Creation Wars The Result'. I seem to remember you were 'out Shakespeared' in that exchange.

But back to the point of 'purpose'. You do admit that you have a purpose which is to blog since you wrote "What is your purpose in life Maureen (as though I didn't already know?) Mine? I blog, therefore I am."

My honest purpose on this blog is to enter into rational dialog on questions of ethics and religion for personal enlightenment.

May I now ask you as an atheist and as a piece of matter (Dawkins' position) existing in a materialist world which has no purpose and no meaning, how can you therefore have a purpose in blogging?

Can you rise above the trite Shakespearean quotes and the Descartes analogies? Can we have a serious discussion on what is after all an ethics and religion blog run by highly intelligent and serious minded people? I'm sure Hull will take care of your metaphorical concerns but I have yet to see him refer to honourable people as 'cockroaches'.

Peace,
Maureen

ps John: You wrote "Maureen- Lots of blogospective remarks from you and not much on-topic comment yourself. It seems a tad hypocritical to complain about the quality of a thread whilst conributing precisely nothing to it yourself. Have you anything useful to add, or is your endless polemic on Mark still far from cessation?"

I'm working on it - I expect you to come in with some thoughts on the questions I have raised concerning purpose in a purposeless world.

#13
"Yes, yes I read this little bit of Shakespeare back in post 36 of 'Creation Wars the Result."

Ah how sentimental you are Maureen, you remembered. It would hardly surprise me if you copied it all down to cherish as a keepsake of our first meeting. Folks, Maureen is revealed here as a true romantic.

"My honest purpose on this blog is to enter into rational dialog on questions of ethics and religion for personal enlightenment."

Then let me enlighten you, you are wasting your time here with the likes of me for it is my religion to be neither rational nor enlightened. (That was more my Dickensian style.) And here all along I thought your real purpose was to get under other people's skin.

To Blog or not to Blog, that is the question.

"Can we have a serious discussion..."

Not with me "old darling" (I've just acquired the entire 42 episodes of Rumpole of the Bailey and I am glued to them. Old darling is one of his favorite expressions...along with "She who must be obeyed." "An Englishman's gin bottle is his castle"...Horace Rumpole to his wife Hilda after he discovered she'd marked the whiskey bottles to see how much he was drinking, from "Rumpole and the Married Woman") Drama Tomorrow, comedy tonight (From a Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.) Maureen, if the softeware made it feasible, I'd give you footnotes instead of parantheses. (Footsie, get it? :>)

"I have yet to see him (Michael Hull) refer to honorable people as cockroaches."

Maureen, in case you haven't guessed, I have no shame either. Which of your honorable cockroach friends I referred to were you most offended at?

"Can we rise above the trite Shakespearean quotes and the Descartes analogies?"

Maureen you give me far more credit than I deserve, it was all I could do to manage that.

Maureen- You ask about purpose, and certainly I'll try to answer.

You have juxtaposed atheism and theism in respect of the word 'purpose', and I think that's useful. For athiests, the only valid use for the word purpose is in a humanist sense on the speaker's behalf, a measure of human determination. For example, "I have made it my purpose to convince everyone of the merits of libertarian political philosophy." For theists, another use of the word can be added - a use which appeals to a 'higher' mandate. For example, "The purpose of human beings is to love/obey/convert others/follow/whatever."

Without this higher mandate the word purpose is being used incorrectly. The latter usage cannot be made by atheists, though they attempt it all the time. For instance, "The purpose of human beings is to promote peace throughout the world." Without some higher moral authority that claim is garbage, and all that can be said of ALL human beings' purpose is that it is to carry on our genepool to the next generation.

So my personal opinion, as a theist, is that the word 'purpose' can only universally be credited to all humans accompanied by belief in a higher form of existence or being - God, if you will. I would go on to say that I also believe human beings to be incapable, in our current situation, of understanding or knowing that 'purpose' or if there is such a 'purpose'.

In short, I am a theist that doesn't know, but suspects, that we have a 'purpose'. And, to summarise, I don't believe atheists are entitled to claim a purpose of this type, beyond breeding.

John:

Re 15: Basically I am in agreement. It would be interesting to hear the argument from the atheist side just to round things out but I guess that will not be forthcoming.

Re 10: I tried, as I think you will agree, but you see what I got in return under posts 12 & 14.

Peace,
Maureen

Maureen, you shock and disappoint me. You who told me right off the bat that you believe in metaphors and such, who live in the land of poets and dreamers (NI still considers itself at least part Irish doesn't it?) I told you immediately what I think by giving you McBeth's Tomorrow and tomorrow speech. It seems remarkably clear and explicit to me. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. No purpose, no meaning. How much more explicit could it get? Which word didn't you understand?

Re #15

John:

A couple of comments on purpose and meaning.

I think that Kenneth Miller has a good point when he says (Finding Darwin鈥檚 God) that the creationists with the lure of a simplistic reading of Genesis have willingly handed atheists their most effective weapon on which to attack them. Genesis is 鈥榤etaphor鈥� (a spiritual document) but by insisting that it is 鈥榤odel鈥� (a scientific document) one has made it almost too easy to do exactly what Augustine feared: 鈥渢o show up the vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn鈥�.

That is what happens in these threads 鈥� the atheists are laughing this ignorance to scorn.

On the other hand Christians are handing atheists another free ride in permitting them to state scientifically that there is no such thing as 鈥榩urpose鈥� and 鈥榤eaning鈥�. Purpose and meaning are spiritual concepts (to be conceptualized with metaphor) and are not scientific concepts (to be conceptualized with model). Purpose and meaning are not amenable to a mathematical treatment or other similar scientific approach.

The atheists take a free ride on this question by not admitting that they can not develop a 鈥榤odel鈥� for purpose and meaning. They try to reject metaphor with humor and scorn etc but the bottom line is that they can do no better than the Creationists are doing with their 鈥榮cientific鈥� defense of Genesis. There is no 鈥榤odel鈥� for purpose or meaning and hence the topic is rejected out of hand.

Some time ago I took a look at what modern physicists were saying about 鈥榝ree will鈥�. This is another concept that atheists reject from their perspective of model. But their position on this is very tenuous 鈥� modern physics is still struggling with the question.

Any thoughts?

Sincerely,
Michael

Hitch's Glitch?
Sometimes I think the titles for these blogs are chosen Higgledy-Piggledy.

Michael- From what I can gather you're agreeing with me that 'purpose' in a universal sense ("the purpose of life") can only be possibly claimed by theists. I think your point about atheists having no means by which to conceptualise 'purpose' is a good one. Do you think humanist appeals to a universal morality are valid?

Re 20 John Wright wrote: "

I think your point about atheists having no means by which to conceptualise 'purpose' is a good one."

John: I would use the word 'model' rather than 'conceptualise'.

I think that atheists could 'conceptualize' purpose but they have no way to 'model' purpose and so they say 'purpose' does not exist.

They could conceptualise purpose using metaphor but they won't.

It's a bit like saying that suffering can't be modeled with mathematics and therefore suffering does not exist.

You ask: "Do you think humanist appeals to a universal morality are valid?"

Humanists might say that because we are 'human' we all share and experience 'suffering' the same way. I think I would agree with that statement. I think that the metaphorization of suffering that a humanist might use would be very similar to what I would use. In my 272 word credo I ended it by saying "I am Thou". What I am getting at is that as a Christian, or a humanist or whatever we are all exactly the same with respect to spiritual things such as 'suffering'.

This is my initial reaction - it's an interesting question and I need to give it some more thought.

Regards,
Michael

Michael;
It seems to me you have an unresolvable dilemma. In all likelihood, you were indoctrinated into your religious beliefs at a very early age, coerced into believing in god and the religion it supports without even knowing it. I think even those who say they "came to god" later in life were coerced early on, rebelled against it, and then gave up their rebellion. Old notions are the most cherished and die the hardest, that's why as Thomas Aquinas said, it's important for the priests of any religion to get to their future flock at the earliest possible age before they develop the penchant of thinking for themselves.

So to a believer, god had a purpose in creating the universe and man, religion tells you its purpose, gives you a frequent report card and road map to accede to that purpose, and promises you eternal pleasure and salvation if you comply, eternal pain and damnation if you don't. You have complete control over whether or not you pass the test through your exercise of free will.

But as a trained chemist who learned to observe and draw rational conclusions later on in life, you have an entirely different view. How can purpose come into existance in a rational universe? Do atomic particles react with purpose? Do neutrinos and photons have purpose? Does hydrogen and oxygen combine with purpose? Do the atoms which form DNA molecules and cells have purpose? At what stage do living forms take on purpose and have free will? Does a dog have free will and purpose when you walk in the door and it jumps all over your and licks you in an obvious show of affection? Does a one day old baby have free will and purpose when it begins to cry or sleep? At what stage is inanimate matter imbued with purpose when it become biota?

I quoted Schiller's Ode to Joy in the first thread about McIntosh for a reason. Remember the line about how He set the course of the heavenly bodies in the firmament? Even theists recognize to a degree that the universe works according to rules consistant with its structure. You are right of course about biblical literalists reducing themselves to pathetic idiots. It may be so esoteric as to be incomprehensible to most of the population when McIntosh asserts the spontaneous formation of DNA violates a natural law but when he expounds on how the world is only 6000 years old and will not deny that the earth is the center of all existance, even a ten year old child who has seen dinasour bones and visited a planetarium will laugh at him.

I don't see how you reconcile the dilemma between a purely natural existance and one ultimately created by supernatural forces which cannot be sensed, tested, or understood. How does a rational mind accept the ultimate rule of the irrational? By finessing it with metaphors? That should only happen in the land of poets and dreamers, Ireland.

Re 22:

Paragraph #1. Not worthy of comment.

Mark writes: 鈥淒oes a dog have free will and purpose when you walk in the door and it jumps all over your and licks you in an obvious show of affection?鈥�

Mark: I referenced a recent article in the NY Times on the present scientific view concerning free will which would be of interest to you since you deal only in concepts that can be 鈥榤odeled鈥�. That is about as far as I can go in helping you with the free will question in the absence of your acceptance of the validity of metaphor.

In a follow up discussion about this article the following question was asked and answered. I just quote it to point you again in the direction of the referenced article.

Q. We have a cat named Emmy. Does Emmy have free will? It sure seems like it to me. And does Emmy have a conscious mind? It sure seems like it to me. She is alert, active and interacting with her environment in ways I can鈥檛 predict. But if I ask Emmy why she is doing what she is doing, she never gives me a comprehensible response. Does that prove she has no free will and no conscious mind?

A. My wife, Nancy, and I have been having this argument for some time now, about whether the cats have free will. I myself am happy to ascribe it 鈥� that is to say the limited version of being able to veto urges 鈥� to dogs, who can at least be trained not to eat the cat鈥檚 food. I draw the line at cats, which seem to blissfully do as they please. Others will draw the line someplace else.

Mark writes: 鈥淚 don't see how you reconcile the dilemma between a purely natural existance and one ultimately created by supernatural forces which cannot be sensed, tested, or understood. How does a rational mind accept the ultimate rule of the irrational? By finessing it with metaphors? That should only happen in the land of poets and dreamers, Ireland.鈥�

I know, Mark, that you can鈥檛 see that the material and the spiritual are separate nor do you understand that the universe is evolving 鈥榮piritually鈥� and that material and spiritual are not opposed as 鈥榬ational鈥� and 鈥榠rrational鈥�. That is OK with me and I have no desire to persuade you otherwise. I鈥檓 not interested in converting anyone to my way of viewing things but I learn and evolve in my own thinking by accepting or rejecting ideas from a variety of sources including you.

You don鈥檛 accept that there are two and only two ways of discussing concepts 鈥� model and metaphor 鈥� both are needed and both are equally valid. Again that is OK with me but it is like having a world view through only one eye 鈥� everything is flat, no depth, no stereoscopic vision. Robert Godwin considers the material/model as the horizontal dimension and the spiritual/metaphor as the vertical dimension. There are two dimensions to our existence the horizontal and the vertical 鈥� you are seeing only the horizontal dimension. But as evolution progressess life is moving up the vertical axis at an increasing rate. Godwin in his book 鈥極ne Cosmos Under God鈥� speaks about this type of approach. I don鈥檛 agree with the totality of how he views things but he brings another interesting perspective to it.

The universe was indeed all material and model from the big bang to the appearance of life. Life then developed mind, and then life was able to think about its material self 鈥� it developed 鈥榮pirit鈥� and began to study this developing spirit with metaphor.

It seems that the more genes a species evolves the greater becomes its ability to 鈥榯hink鈥�, i.e. the more spiritual it becomes. Let us do a bit of speculating about the existence of entities with zero genes or with an infinite number of genes 鈥� this will lead to the following conclusion.

As we approach zero for the number of genes one approaches the idea of 鈥榥on鈥� life. For example, a virus has about 10 genes 鈥� is it 鈥榣iving鈥�, is it 鈥榮piritual鈥� or is it simply a material 鈥榯hing鈥�. Below viruses one has prions, which are simply bits of protein. Are these spiritual or material? At zero genes one might argue that one has entered the non-spiritual, completely material world. This is the world that we 鈥榤odel鈥�.

Now imagine that in billions of years species have developed with say an infinite number of genes. These species will have an ability to think that is as far removed from us as we are from say a bacterium.

They will be infinitely more 鈥榮piritual鈥� and will use 鈥榤etaphor鈥� much more that we do today. Spiritual concepts can only be visualized with the aid of metaphor i.e. poetry, or music, or art, or novels etc.

We use models for the material things we study and we use metaphor for the spiritual things. It seems to me that as evolution continues the use of metaphor will become greater and the use of model will decline because these higher thinking species will have figured out the 鈥榝actual鈥� truth of the physical universe and will no longer need to employ models to represent physical things. That is they won鈥檛 need a diagram to represent the hydrogen atom, or a mathematical equation to describe gravity, they will 鈥榢now鈥� what a hydrogen atom or gravity 鈥榠s鈥� in its essence. Their concepts will probably deal more with intrinsic truths and hence will utilize metaphor.

Regards,
Michael

I scanned the first page of your linked article and found nothing new or interesting in it, the same old prattle rehashed for the umteen millionth time. Not worthy of comment. I really hate reading through peoples' linked references, if you have something to say, then say it yourself. It also seems to me if someone has nothing to say, at least they could have the decency to be brief about it. Unfortunately that doesn't fill up newspaper columns, books, seminars, staff meetings, and all of the other pointless insufferable wastes of time our lives are burdened with (at least Rumpole brings wisdom through irony and entertainment) BTW, I lost my respect for anything I read in The New York Times long ago even before Jason Blair (remember him?)

"I know Mark, that you can't see that the material and spiritual are separate..."

Au contraire, as I see it, there is a world of difference. The material is as real as anything which exists, in fact it is the only thing which exists, while the spiritual exists only in the imagination.

Does purpose require free will? Do you think you have free will? What if you are involuntarily, forcibly injected with a drug which alters your mind. You could be induced into any one of many different states of mind which would lead you to actions normally uncharacteristic of you. You could be induced to commit murder, suicide, any of many different violent crimes, acts you'd consider immoral such as adultery. What if you took them voluntarily? What if some of them occurred in you naturally. You might be schizophrenic or suffer any of a number of what are considered abnormal mental states. Whether or not moralists consider that an exercise of free will, in the so called more enlightened societies, the law has sat up and taken notice of it absolving many anti social actions once considered crimes as not being an exercise of free willful intent and therefore not warranting criminal culpability and criminal punishment. It instead requires treatment for mental disorder. Even the clergy often take a similar view.

Is your conception of free moral will and purpose subject to measure of degree as your posting suggests, or is it absolute, either you have it or you don't? I think many religions would consider it absolute and reserved to man, not to animals no matter how intelligent or independent in their actions they might appear. In the view of the major world religions as I understand them, no dogs go to heaven. If free will and purpose were matters of degree it would create unsolvable dilemmas for religion should biology advance to the point where the distinction between the human species and other engineered species become blurred beyond recognition, a real possibility. Did you see the recent articles about introducing mouse genes in human cells? At what point in evolution does a species acquire a soul?

Is the ability to think and reason your criteria for free will and purpose? What will happen when machines can not only think faster than humans but far more effectively. You can see the glimmerings of that already in computers which can play chess games and those which learn from their errors. What happens when that capacity matches them against each other and they learn and develop their intelligence a million fold faster than humans. What happens if they are programmed to view themselves as corporial and express themselves with artificial personalities which can change and develop with time? What if they are given autonomy and the capacity to kill? Would robot soldiers or planes which can independentally acquire and destroy targets be guilty of murder? Would their designers or builders be? What if those who programmed them inadvertently made an error not having had the intent that their creations would kill innocent people? Who would be guilty?

I don't know that there is any correlation between the number of genes a species has and it's ability to think. Some species have more genes than humans such as apes which have 24 pairs of genes to our 23. I don't think anyone would say a chimpanzee could out think a human being....but I do wonder about it when I hear people like Wilder Smith lecture.

In post 24 Mark wrote:

"I SCANNED the first page of your linked article and found nothing new or interesting in it, the same old prattle rehashed for the umteen millionth time. Not worthy of comment. I really hate reading through peoples' linked references, if you have something to say, then say it yourself. It also seems to me if someone has NOTHING to say, at least they could have the DECENCY to be BRIEF about it.

Reading through your complete post #24 I have to say that I agree with you. ;-)

Regards,
Michael

Perhaps you are right, our diaglogue has gone on for far too long already. Considering your response, it seems to have no purpose whatsoever. Then it's agreed :>)

You guys are just too funny. Maybe either of you have an opinion of the question I ask PB (and which he still hasn't answered) in the 'Faithworks opposes Lords protest' thread?

John Wright #27
No but for the sake of brevity, I have one question myself. As an observer of the passing scene and of history, could someone tell me what Christianity has to do with Jesus Christ? As far as I can tell, there seems to be no connection whatsoever.

Mark- You're right in a sense... Jesus never wanted to start a new religion, and, arguably, modern Christianity has more to do with people like Paul, Augustine, Iraneus, even Martin Luther, than Jesus Christ per se. But bring this up to someone like PB and you'll be entrenched in a quagmire of self-denial and requests for proof.

It seems to me that in NI Christianity has more to do with Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams than anyone else. Some say had Christ never existed, the good people of NI would still have found one reason or another to kill each other. Hasn't that been the tradition of the faith all along?