´óÏó´«Ã½

I hope you will have an expert who can contribute what the Constitution of the United States says about it and what the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean though rulings on cases brought before it. It's an issue American civilization has grappled with for over two hundred years including through times of war and dire national threat.

Hate Spech.
We don't need to have a moral discussion on this on the grounds of social justice or personal affront and hurt.
All the legislation and agitation about hate speech has only come about because of one thing. The need to avoid social disorder. It's nothing to do justice.
The British media has prided itself for years on satire, ridicule, cheap barbs all justified by apparently the need to prick pomposity and deflating ego.
All that stopped with immigration and 9/11.

"I hope you will have an expert who can contribute what the Constitution of the United States says about it and what the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean though rulings on cases brought before it. It's an issue American civilization has grappled with for over two hundred years including through times of war and dire national threat.?

That freedom was guaranteed to protect political decent.
To allow the truth to be told. when faced with oppression.
Not as you do to promote hate and intolerance .
Not to be rude to your neighbour, not to tell lies of others" a vote for O is a vote for O "

America guarantees free speech so people can say things like "I believe .... will not be in the future"
The international political decent from Iran should be covered by the US version of free speech.
if the US holds free speech in such regard then how about accepting it would be useful for other nations to.

Action is what gets you arrested. speech is free.
unless you seem to threaten an american or Israeli.
then you have no right to speak it seems.
in america free speech is confined now to hate speek.
One cannot speek about eco warriors as saviours of the planet
they are now terrorist so one would be inciting terrorism.
" though one can say awful rubbish like I care not for the people fire bombed in fallujha."
"the only problem is we did not stamp on their faces with the jack boot of the usa"etc
or osama sounds like obama.

no political decent just rude rubbish.
offensive rubbish.

so yea america debates but only to take those freedoms away except for a select minority of abusives.

jacksforge
So you are a constitutional lawyer. Perhaps you should be on the show as the expert on American constitutional law as it relates to free speech. You could explain the historic signifigance of legal precedents and how they related to the political climate of each era. By the way, which American law school did you attend and graduate from?

Marcus, since you've mentioned US constitutional law twice, I can assure you that we won't have a specialist on the US constitution in this item, since Northern Ireland is not yet a state in the US.

But you can hear a specialist on US constitutional law on tomorrow's programme, explaining the implications of the US Supreme Court's decision this week on the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

"I can assure you that we won't have a specialist on the US constitution in this item,..."

That is truely a shame. I can't think of any example of people struggling and grappling with this problem for as long a time or as seriously as the Supreme Court and the founding fathers of the US did. The problems with it became a real world issue almost immediately after the US government under the Constitution began. In 1898, war with France seemed imminent and Congress passed four Alien and Sedition Acts. One of them is still the law of the land today. Jefferson said they were unconstitutional but they were never put to the test in the courts. I think the other three just expired and circumstances changed. The problem of how to strike a balance between freedom of speech and national security and between freedom of speech and incitement to crime or riot has been in front of the American people and the courts throughout its history. So important is it to some that Jewish lawyers in the American Civil Liberties Union defended neo Nazi marchers right to march in public in places like Peoria Illinois. Questions of the definition of pornography, child sex on the internet, explicitly sexual material on broadcast television over publicly owned airwaves and many other aspects of this issue make it very complex. I hope we get more insight and nuanced analysis than simple minded rhetoric and pontificating.

Sorry, the imminent war with France was in 1798 just a few years after the Constitution was adopted.

I think this is one issue which deserves to be handled extremely, extremely carefully. In my opinion, rights are of supreme importance generally, and the violating of them something the law should avoid at any cost. One of those rights is freedom of speech and expression, and I'm not convinced that many of the examples of 'hate speech' being touted against it would warrant such lawmaking. There's a big difference between direct incitement to violence and speech which is generally hateful, and the law should reflect that.

In other words, I think we should be very, very careful before trampling on freedoms, and we should be mindful of that famous quote attributed to Voltaire, in which he holds these concepts in tension: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I must say that I found myself getting very frustrated and not a little heated while listening to the debate on Sunday Sequence. What I found especially frustrating was Callum Webster's failure to deal with William's very reasonable question regarding the difference between eating shellfish and practising homosexuality. As I have just pointed out on another thread (about Abominations) eating shellfish and other similar examples was about ceremonial law, about preparation for participation in Levitical rituals. Homosexuality (like paedophilia and bestiality, which are also mentioned) does not belong to the same category. This is evident from the fact that these "abominations" (qua examples of improper sexual activity) are echoed by Paul in Romans 1 v 18, and also in 1 Corinthians 6 vv 9-10. Paul says nothing about shellfish-eaters not making it into the kingdom of God! That's maybe what Peter would have said, beore God had to intervene in his life and break down his prejudices prior to his ground-breaking encounter with the Roman centurion Cornelius.

I was also frustrated by the fact that Iris Robinson, in her interview with Stephen Nolan, allowed herself to be driven into a corner from which she seemed to be lashing out at homosexuals as particularly desrving of our disgust and contempt. She could have pointed out that in Jesus encounter with the woman caught in adultery, the people he chose to "lash out at" was not the woman himself, whom he restored to a wholesome but aslo thuthful view of herself, but the self-righteous Pharisees who had dragged her before Jesus for punishment. Though her behaviour, from the standpoint of Mosaic law, was "abominable", she was met with compassion, while the pharisees' abominable treatment of her was met with recrimination. They were also given a chance to "engage with" what Jesus was telling them, but they walked away from it.

There is no getting away from the fact that Scripture condemns homosexual activity, but it does not single it out for condemation. As we read Scripture we are being offered by God an opportunity to engage with him about whatever it is in us that requires repentance and "reorientation". We will have to account for how we have responded to that invitation, not for how others have responded.

John Wright:

"In my opinion, rights are of supreme importance generally, and the violating of them something the law should avoid at any cost. One of those rights is freedom of speech and expression"

Now that is the difference between people who make sweeping generalizations or philosophers like Voltaire who can pontificate from the safety of their room, and those who actually have to create a working law society can live with. This is dangerous oversimplification. Are there to be NO restrictions to the freedom of speech whatsoever?

This is why I suggested someone who is expert in US constitutional law be available. Where, when, and how should freedom of speech be restricted? Even common sense tells us at times it must. Should people be free to shout fire in a crowed theater? Should they be free to reveal military secrets to the enemy such as where our troops are or what their plan of battle is in times of war? Should people be free to transmit or view sexual abuse of children over the internet? Should they be free to broadcast sexually explicit material over the publicly owned airwaves under their license granted to them by the government? Should they be allowed to incite felonies or advocate the violent overthrow of the government? In the US the answer to these questions has been no. How far freedom of speech can go and under what circumstances before its threat to the public's good outweighs the speaker's rights to express himself is the nuanced discussion the Supreme Court has struggled with. As has been said, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

"There's a big difference between direct incitement to violence and speech which is generally hateful, and the law should reflect that."

In the US the law does. It is not illegal to hate someone or some group for any reason and to say so although you may get public condemnation for it. The law draws the line at telling people to act on that hatred by committing felonies against other people. What that exactly means in a specific case is often left up to a jury and escalated to higher courts on appeal.

"In other words, I think we should be very, very careful before trampling on freedoms, and we should be mindful of that famous quote attributed to Voltaire, in which he holds these concepts in tension: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.""

The Supreme Court is very aware and wary of what it calls the slippery slope of censorship but it is clearly willing to take some steps down that path, steps it may later retrace and back away from. Above all a working law as opposed to a philosiphical point of view must take into account the real world issues of society. There are competing legitimate interests which must be carefully balanced.

jacksforge
So you are a constitutional lawyer. Perhaps you should be on the show as the expert on American constitutional law as it relates to free speech. You could explain the historic signifigance of legal precedents and how they related to the political climate of each era. By the way, which American law school did you attend and graduate from?

no I am not and neither are you.

my statement is true.
yours is smoke with no substance.
How does American constitutional law apply to the right for other nations to speak.?

Get an argument then join the debate.

That is truely a shame. I can't think of any example of people struggling and grappling with this problem for as long a time or as seriously as the Supreme Court and the founding fathers of the US did.

you think the rest of the world which has been around for quite a while has not discussed this, have never debated freedom. where do you think your constitution came from was it based on the MAGNA CHARTER.
wass free speech started back then when rights were attributed to more than just the king.
Why do you have to americanise everything and then wonder when people say in all free speach "I HATE YOU AMERICANS".

People are only "Americanised" if they want to be. Therefore, if there is anything wrong with it they only have themselves to blame.

This is why I suggested someone who is expert in US constitutional law be available.

why what is so important and great about US constitutional law.
it is not so great and america still suffers from a lot of problems.it is not so high on a pedestal that we have to care if it's failed attempt at free speech is debated.
Speech is not free in thUS you cannot say what you like.
It will be too late to say I had the right when the cop has tasered you.
or the riot police bag round to the head.

at least Gandalph is wise.

Fundamentalist Islamic states take Leviticus as evidence of the sky-god's attitude to gay and lesbian people. Unlike Iris Robinson and other homophobes here, however, the Islamic states put into practice the injunction to stone the 'offender' to death. It is not that long ago that there was a public hanging in Iran of several gay men.

In the UK homophobic attacks often result in serious injury, or even death, for gay and lesbian people.

In that context of physical threat and violent attack, it is callous in the extreme to give voice to denunciations of homosexuality. People, and politicians in particular, who have an in-bred distaste for homosexuality, should keep their feelings to themselves and speak up instead for tolerance and kindness. It is appalling that anyone from the heterosexual majority should bully and harrass people from the homosexual minority. Crass stupidity. But what else do you expect from the DUP?

What a disappointing panel discussion. It was a hodge-podge about morality, social re-engineering, religion, mental health policy, and the kitchen sink. It focused on one and only one aspect of free speech, attitudes and things said about homosexuality. And what light did it shed on the laws of NI, how they are implimented. Not a whole lot.

WC; "What are the limits of responsible speech?"

What does that have to do with the law?

NH; I dont think there is anyone listening who would regard the eating of shell fish as an abomination."

Guess he didn't expect any kosher Jews in the audience. Actually I am not a kosher Jew but ever since I saw a program on the Discovery Channel in 1993 about aborigines in the south pacific hunting down, capturing, and eating tarantula spiders and learned that they are closely related to shrimp and crabs and that lobsters are closely related to beetles, I have not eaten that type of shell fish since. (I will still eat mussels, clams, and oysters though.) I need to see a head shrinker about this, I used to love those foods but they suddenly became an abomination to me.

WC: "What does the law actually say about public speech that incites hatred."

RC; Case law goes from the 70s til today. "...Threatening abusive or insulting behavior likely to stir up hatred...."

Utterly imprecise and vague. Though I am no lawyer, even I can see it is a very poorly crafted law. Open to endless interpretation.

"Enough evidence to provide a realistic liklihood of conviction."

"motivated by hostility....
beyond all reasonable doubt."

WC; "If I say homosexuality is something hated by god, I hate them and you should hate them, have I broken the law?"

RC; "We do have anti-discrimination legislation. It's very difficult to bring prosecution under the laws we have."

Unresponsive.

WC;"Have we ever had a successful prosecution of incitement to hatred?"

RC; "Not that I can point to."

No surprise there. For every act of inciting hatred of homosexuals, there must have been ten thousand acts of Protestants and Catholics inciting hatred for each other since the 1970s including by their clergy from their pulpits which not only resulted in discrimination but in much real violence including many murders. If that wasn't prosecuted, why would anyone expect that inciting hatred of homosexuals whatever that actually means would be?

WC; "Should we change the law to make it (easier to prosecute?)"

GC; "Homophobia is tolerated and that is something we have to change."

What other likes and dislikes would social engineers like GC want to legislate out of existance? We're not even talking about public or private speech here, we are talking about what attitudes people are allowed to have, what they are free to think. This is the kind of thinking that leads to tyrannical despotism of the worst kind, the kind George Orwell wrote about in 1984.

WC: "Does god hate homophobia"

NH; " god hates anyone who used violence against others."

Utterly unresponsive. He wouldn't go near the question.

The signifigance of the right of free speech in a much larger and very complex context was ignored. The penchant for despotic social re-engineering demanding conformity to a single social ethic is clearly a European mind set prevalent all over Europe and particularly characteristic of the EU. And so are massive vague poorly constructed laws which are so impossible to apply that they are for all intents and purposes useless except as weapons to impose a political will on the entire population by fiat. Want an example? The EU Constitution, a document nobody could read or understand without an advanced degree in law and a few hundred hours of free time.

I think Callum Webster's observation that the whole thing is a witch hunt is right on the money.

what utter nonsense William

You are a trained Presbyterian minister and you know full well that the church is urged not to follow levitical laws on shellfish, as explained in the New Testament.

Remember where God laid down a sheet with all sorts of 'unclean' animals and commanded Peter to eat?

Galations, Romans and Hebrews make this very clear, that the church should not attempt to follow OT law.

HoweverPaul condemned homosexual practise in Romans and Corinthian etc.

And Christ confirmed that he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins.

Funny how hate speech never excercsed William before when Dawkins and his disciples continually on this blog throw all sorts of personal venom at people of faith.

Indeed William gives regular platforms to the humanists here eg when they gave a copy of the God Delusion to all the politicians.

And that book says that believing in God is a mental illness - see the parallels with Iris'/Nolan's comments anyone?


All animals are equal William, but some are more equal than others, eh?

PB

PBmild, you make an interesting point. In the infinitely nuanced continuum between sharp disagreement of opinion about basic values and beliefs in life and the incitement to hatred, where does one cross the line? What is the legal test? From the broadcast even in the opinion by the "legal expert" there was no suggestion of an answer. In fact it is likely that in this poorly crafted law, no line exists, just a large vague amorphous gray region. What constitutes hate and what constitutes incitement to hate? Nobody knows. By American law on the other hand as I understand it which doesn't even come close to the UK law, the threshold is to demonstrate a clear connection between words of one person and the committing of a crime by another, in other words proof that what one person said was a clear contribution made to the commission of the crime by another. Even so, this is a difficult law to interpret and prosecute. So where does the incitement to hate begin and end? Is Dawkins guilty of incitement to hate because he says that believers in god are mentally deranged, deluded? Are those who are so called Euro-skeptics guilty because they would call the EU a contemptable despotism? Would I hypothetically commit a crime if I visited the UK and said there that the British are the world's worst cooks and should not be allowed anywhere near kitchen equipment for their own good?

The well researched and carefully constructed TV series, "Law and Order" grapples with these issues and often inserts into the dramas the most compelling situations which make them difficult to abjudicate under US law as it applies in NY State in the original series. (IMO the original is still the best, better than its many spinoffs because each episode covers an entire case from discovery of crime right through the end of the legal process of prosecuting it.) Freedom of speech is one topic which is is a recurrent theme in at least several of these episodes.

PB- Let's deal with the arguments you've just made:

1) That you're happy to agree that an Old Testament toevah does not a New Testament 'abomination' make;

2) That, therefore, the biblical case against homosexuality relies upon some New Testament texts in Romans and Corinthians.

Let's proceed with you quoting us the exact texts you expect to create the biblical case against homosexuality, and then we can talk about interpretation.

Over to you.

Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,


1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars,
perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The definition of abomination (to eba) is a moral term, a detestable thing or a repulsive thing. Something that is morally or religiously offensive especially to God.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Re. "hate speech", PB, do you really think that's what it is? I think they're attacking your arguments, not you as a person. And it isn't done from hate, it's done from intense disagreement on the issues.

I think calling people who used flawed logic, ignore pertinent facts inconvenient to their theories about the world, and insist on nonsense in some ancient books to try a hard sell of their point of view deluded is to show contempt for their ideas. To say they are mentally ill is to show contempt for them. At what point do we get to incitement to hatred? What precisely is incitement to hatred? Considering that this term is embodied in a law which was supposed to be the object of discussion and the question was asked in the original blog entry "what is incitement to hatred" there was almost no discussion of it and no answers. In fact, even the so called legal expeert couldn't answer the question. This is what happens when laws are passed by legislators who are not well versed in what law is, how it is used, and how it is tested in courts. I'm not a lawyer but I can see why so many of those in the US Congress have gotten their start as lawyers. Even they struggle to craft laws which meet these tests and effect their intent. As it takes an architect to design a successful house, it takes lawyers to design a successful body of laws. Poets and would be revolutionaries don't cut it.

Of course the problem is that protestants tend to discuss these issues purely in terms of scripture, with direct quotes to back them up, and that results in people giving you the shellfish, mixed textile type arguments.

Homosexual acts are wrong but the people who do them are no more of an abomination than people who have sex outside of marriage or lie or steal.

Hi Smasher

"Of course the problem is that protestants tend to discuss these issues purely in terms of scripture"

Yes, some do; but I think you will find that there are Protestants who are also happy to refer to the church fathers and others, including Roman Catholics, for assistance with the interpretation of scripture.

One of the points of the reformation, sola scripture, is that it is scripture which is our final authority. This does not do away with tradition, but it does mean that traditions are not authoritative.

Indeed, Peter, but I think Smashy's point is that proddies pick and choose which sola bits of scriptura they like and which they can conveniently ignore as "superseded". At the end of the day, the bible is a monstrously interesting collection of scribbles over the course of 800 years, and it tells us lots about the human condition - information that is readily available from multiple other sources - but only an idiot would regard it as some sort of final moral authority. Anything that *is* morally laudable in it is either bleedin' obvious, or was old currency by the time the writers of the bible jotted it down. The bible is as flawed as any other human creation.

But then we've got to ask Smashy why he regards homosexual acts as wrong anyway. Traditions change, and a lot of things that were wrong for our scribes are not wrong nowadays. We eat shellfish and expose our goolies on the steps of the temple with gay abandon; we mix our textiles and touch menstruating women with nary a look to the sky, and no-one gives a monkey's. We allow women to have authority over men. We completely ignore the banal little greetings to Paul's chums in his letters (what the heck sola scriptura should make of that, I don't know - looks like pretty good evidence that these letters were of their time, and we would do well to ignore the whole damn thing). We don't give a fig whether girlies cover their noggins in church or not and so on and so forth.

Euthypro would love it.

In the meantime, bigots like Iris can spout their drivel (no, it's not criminal, unless being stupid has suddenly become a crime), but adopt the high ground, as if *they* speak for "christians". Well, I'm a christian; I just happen to be an atheist and take a broader view of what morality should actually involve. Jesus did actually say a lot of good things (and some cobblers too, of course - he was only human), and one of the best was the story of the Good Samaritan.

The lesson? Religion is unimportant. It is how we act towards our fellow humans that is the core of *real* Christian morality. Iris and her Pharisee cronies can abominate off.

Heliopolitan:

Agreed. She should form a pop group: Iris and the Abominators
and record 'Sexual Healing'.

Heliopolitan

What temples are you attending??!!! The public should be warned!!

(Now, Gus of the Clippo, that was a joke. I don't REALLY think Heliopolitan attends temples. He was joking and I am joking. I thought he was funny. That means he made me laugh. Jokes are a lot of fun. They're a little like insults, except you don't really mean them. "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime" will explain ideas like this to you if you find all this confusing.)

Graham Veale

Thanks Graham, I was of course joking, but the very very best humour has a serious point to it, and should make us all think :-) [po-faced Heliopolitan raises the tone again]

Bottom line that all Christians, whether they are atheists or theists, agree that there are certain parts of the bible that have expired (Paul's salutations to his buddies are one trivial example; much of Paul's material is entirely context-specific). Me, I'd suggest we need to completely re-look at how we interact with this bundle of ancient texts, but that's for another time.

So as for homosexuality being "sinful", we already know that it's not a choice (I know a good looking man when I see one, but I do not feel sexually attracted to them), so our response to people who are gay should be the same as our response to *anyone*.

Iris's views are not "Christian". They just happen to be shared by a lot of people who *call* themselves "Christians". There is only so much "respect" that obnoxious views like this deserve. Hat tip to Norman Hamilton for a valiant attempt to make at least *some* sense out of the whole thing from within his paradigm. He could go further, of course, and that remains to be seen. but little steps towards moral behaviour by the churches are to be encouraged.

gveale I can tell a joke when I see one, and your comments elsewhere are anything but funny.

Gus the clipper
If I hadn't added the explanation, I guaruntee you, you'd have complined about how stupid I was thinking Heliopolitan actually attended a Temple.

Now what offensive remark have I made? I've apologised I've explained carefully how you are misinterpreting me. Brian and Heliopolitan and MarcusAurelius can all disagree with me in a robust manner, and I don't detect any acid in their posts. The only person I believe I have been unfair to is William. And our discussion concluded on amiable terms.

So, once again, if we have met, and I offended you, I apologise. If you don't like me, having met me, join the club. I think they're giving out badges. If you just like to be aggressive, thats ok too. Everyone needs a good "flame" now and then. And I just happen to have a little free time this fortnight, and I'm enjoying the discussion with Brian (and others) because I like to have my opinions challenged. I won't be around that much for much longer.

So if you find me annoying, can I ask you just to ignore me?

Graham Veale

Oh, and the intolerant fundamentalist Jihadi John Gray (look him up on Amazon) has argued that liberalism and pluralism are in conflict. I was trying to have a civilised and informed discussion on that topic. Silly me.

Graham Veale

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Helio - you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in God - it's a requirement I'm afraid.

The problem with Iris's comments and the specific terms she used is that it distracts from the real issues and arguments. In using words like "abomination" she lost the audience, most of whom would rather use the word on thugs who beat up homosexuals (or on Iris herself).

Sola scriptura simply doesn't wake - it's self referential but fails its own test cos there is nothing in scripture to support sola scriptura. That's why you need a living, breathing Church to help interpret these things, a Church which Christians (Catholics at least) believe is the body of Christ, still present among us. Homosexual acts are wrong because sexuality is what God intended "from the beginning" as Jesus said - a union of a man and a woman, together made in the image of God.

Persons are born homosexual in the same way that all sinners are born sinners - with sinful attractions, whether to money or power or drugs or other men, that can be overcome by grace.

Here's a question - which would annoy Iris most, a son who was homosexual or a son who became a fenian?

Smasher

I agree that we need more than the Bible to do theology properly. The tradition of the church is important.

It's also the case that the church has changed its mind on really significant issues over many centuries. It is just not the case that the church has remained unchanging on moral issues over time.

Take the church's attitude to jewish people, or charging interest on loans, or on divorce, or capital punishment, or even on issues like the rise of science. The church's statements have changed.

In a hundred years, I believe the Catholic church will have female clergy, married clergy, and openly gay and partnered clergy.

Smashy, why do you need to believe in god to be a Christian? That sounds very strange indeed. After all, Iris would argue that to qualify as a Christian, you have to be a prod and regard homosexuality as an "abomination". And such like. But here is poor wee Heliopolitan, who grew up in a Christian environment, led services, talked to youth groups, played in Christian bands, got saved at the age of 5, all the rest, and now just because he doesn't believe in god, suddenly he's not allowed to self-identify as a Christian any more? On whose say-so? Where does it say in the bible that you can't be an atheist Christian? Don Cupitt (interesting bit on SunSeq the other week, Will, although he ran out of steam pretty early on) would say that he's a Christian. There are loads of people who attend church regularly (one of my friends who I always thought was a theist recently confided in me that he doesn't believe it any more) who haven't "lost the faith", but rather moved *beyond* it to a better place. So phylogenetically they are by definition still Christians.

And, to be honest, I feel in a lot of ways I have Jesus of Nazareth to thank for that. Eloi eloi, lama sabachthani? Ah - that's right - you don't exist. That's it sorted out right there.

I do take your point in that it's not possible to build Christianity from the bible alone, and that church tradition is important; I'd argue that both together remains inadequate also - you're still left with this "mystery" fudge, and if Christianity taught me anything, it's to watch out for bollocks; misrepresenting "mysteries" as explanations for "unknowns" or contradictions is bollocks.

You chaps should give atheism a whirl - it's excellent.

Helio - I understand agnosticism - it accepts mystery and from a scientific point of view simply accepts that the evidence is not convincing, but atheism is much harder to justify.

I'm not trying to throw people out of the Christian church as such - but as a matter of fact the fundamental requirement to be a Christian is the acknowledgment that Jesus is Lord, the incarnate Son of God who died and rose from the dead - if you don't believe that then you cannot in fairness really describe yourself as a Christian.

Hi Helio

You say, "But here is poor wee Heliopolitan, who grew up in a Christian environment, led services, talked to youth groups, played in Christian bands, got saved at the age of 5, all the rest..."

That is quiet a personal, and quite a revealing statement. Even more interesting is your use of, "Eloi eloi, lama sabachthani?" and so I want to be very careful with what I say.

I expect that there are many, myself included, who have had similar 'experiences' to these, and when I read those words what I hear is a description of the evangelical christian sub-culture. I could add to the list of activities, indeed the list is almost endless, and for those of us still within touching distance of 'church' the list (the 'all the rest') seems to grow longer every year.

And from my point of view, much of (my) Christianity has been high on that type of sub-culture and low on substance. The funny thing is that christians, of all people, seem to have fallen for the idea that the medium is the message, and then what do they (we, I am still included) do, well it seems to me that they do little more than impose guilt on non-participants. The whole thing is dreadful. And the question which has to be asked, and one I have tried to ask is, what is the measure of our christianity when the trappings are removed?

You see when I begin to think about loving enemies, or mercy, or patience, or kindness or incarnation or forgiving and forgiving and well just forgiving, then I wonder what the point of organising another meeting was. The trouble is that too many christians seem to think that bigger better buildings and, God preserve us, "relevant music" or PowerPoint is progress. But that's just high on sub-culture, low on substance. What's worse, the more 'successful' the sub-culture, the less we seem to notice.

If you've left it all behind, I understand and I don't blame you in any way. I too have deconstructed my christian faith. I have kicked the concept of faith and mystery to pieces, and turned the pieces over and over, and, if truth be told, sometimes they all just looked like... well... pieces! There are many things in evangelicalism to loose faith in!

However I still believe, and the reasons why I do, and you don't might make an interesting conversation. In the end I had to ask myself what it was I had lost faith in and what it was I still trusted in.

So if I were to ask you questions, and you felt like answering them, I would ask, what did you say to the youth groups? and what were you saying to yourself? what songs were you playing, and what was the message?

And, probably most important of all, why Eloi eloi, lama sabachthani? That's a big statement.

Best wishes

Peter

Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar.

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one.

Hi Puritan

You refer to the doctrine of predestination and highlight the sovereignty of God, very biblical. However what concerns me is that too often the church emphasises a range of extras, cultural additions to faith which it seems to require for belonging. This is the very thing that Protestants, and evangelicals in particular, criticise the Roman Catholic church for doing and yet we are guilty of it ourselves. It only confuses people. When I say that there are many things in evangelicalism to loose faith in, part of what I mean is that many people seem to place their faith/confidence in issues which are unimportant and probably unnecessary. Some even seem to be trusting in their own ability to believe.

This, in my view requires a critique and that is why seeking to understand the culture and the bible is important.?