B'ah Humbug!
Ooh it's been a while hasn't it? But it is time for a strictly one off
post! It won't be around for ever and a day so enjoy it while it lasts.
I wasn't quite sure where to post this. It's something I wanted to put
in writing somewhere, and this seems as good a place as any, it's about
the Royal Wedding, and it's about Christmas. What have they got in
common you might ask?
Well let me tell you about my friend, we'll call him Tom (not his real
name), but first a bit about me as well. I am Christian, I am a
moderate, liberal Christian with definite universalist sympathies, but a
Christian at the end of the day, and I quite like Christmas, both the
religious side and the more secular partying side. I get irritated with
the build up and having it shoved down my throat from mid August
onwards, but come the day I'm there with the Christmas pud and crackers.
Tom though is different, Tom is a staunch atheist. I don't mean the sort
that simply don't believe in God and it's no big deal, no I mean the
sort who is passionately atheist. He can't bare religion, he's not a
Richard Dawkins type (although he's a fan) who will go out of his way to
argue with you, instead he goes massively out of his way to avoid
anything religious. So Christmas is not a good time for Tom. He tries to
hide from it, he tries to avoid it, there's no Christmas dinner in the
Tom household, he'd rather work if only his employer was open on the
day.
Now I've always though, quietly, that Tom is a miserable so and so on
this issue, until recently.
You see I am a republican, not one that just ignores the whole royal
circus, but one who actively wants change. This is not the time and
place to debate the rights and wrongs of that argument, just take it as
read that I want an elected head of state and end to the current system.
I try to keep away from it, I try to ignore media stories about the
royals and try to take no notice, but it's always there. And in recent
months, with this endless build up to tomorrow's wedding it's become
harder than ever.
And it's made me suddenly have a huge amount of empathy with Tom, and
realise why he is such a miserable sod about Christmas, because I am
exactly the same about this wedding.
In the same way that Tom has no problem with me having a happy Christmas
and does not wish ill on my kind then if the wedding and the royals is your
thing I hope you have a fantastic time tomorrow, I really do. I hope
that the happy couple are very happy together, it's no skin off my nose.
Just please understand that I have now had weeks and months of every
corner of the media shoving it down my throat. In the same way that Tom
sees the Christmas lights go up I have seen the bunting go up. I have
been invited to parties I don't really want to go to to celebrate
something I don't believe in, just like him.
I don't care, I'm not interested and I cannot wait until it is all over.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Friday, July 17, 2009
The Christian Left - Part 1
Ok, as promised, it's time to start my series on the Christian left. So lets start at the very beginning (a very good place to start!), and it's not with Jesus, or faith or all that jazz, but, over two parts, with God. Why does someone like me, someone with a science background, that reads the Guardian et al, believe in something I can't see or touch or prove the existence of?
Well to start with I guess we can't get away from the whole cultural side of things. I was brought up in a moderately religious household. My Mum is what you would call Christian with a small c and my Dad is one of those who believes there is a God but hasn't settled on any particular religion. We were semi regular at church, maybe 8 times a year (plus weddings and funerals) and it was fairly standard CofE. No guitars and tambourines for the Akela household!. You could very easily point at me and say if I had been brought up in Iran I would have been Muslim, or in Thailand I would have been Buddhist. And there is a good chance that you would be right.
It wasn't though something I thought about hard until later in life when I did a philosophy subsid at uni along side Biochemistry. And it was then that I firmly concluded that there must be something more to this world than just the material world that we see around us.
Consider this, consider what it is like to be blind. Not like shutting your eyes but no sense of sight at all. Scary isn't it? Now strip away your hearing as well, and all your other senses. What part of you is still there? Is there anything? You may think no, but it seems to me that there is something. It is that sense of being self aware. That sense of a passing of time.
Consciousness, that is what I am talking about.
Now consider the universe and what it is made up of. It's made of matter, which is interchangeable with energy, as per relativity. It's pretty freaky stuff and a lot is not yet understood about it. Yet if I am just made of matter/energy, how has it come to be aware of its own existence? I can understand how it can form complex organisms, how my body can be formed, how plants and animals can all be formed (yes I am very happy with the concept of the big bang and evolution) but for those to be self aware?
It is my feeling that there must be something else there, something else that makes me conscious. Yup, I am a dualist.
Now this is the point where someone normally pipes up with something about the Turing Box experiment. Now if you don't know much about it the google it, I can't be arsed explaining it here. Now many people will say that Alan Turing proved that you could create a robot that is fully conscious, and those people have completely misunderstood. What Turing actually proved was that theoretically at least you could create something so life like that you couldn't tell the difference between it and a conscious entity. And that is a different kettle of fish all together.
Of course dualism opens up many many more questions about sleep, death, brains, how it fits with our bodies etc etc. I don't pretend to have all these answers at all, but that doesn't mean I wont keep looking for them.
So anyway, that briefly, is why I have concluded that we have souls and in the next part it's how this leads on to God!
Ok, as promised, it's time to start my series on the Christian left. So lets start at the very beginning (a very good place to start!), and it's not with Jesus, or faith or all that jazz, but, over two parts, with God. Why does someone like me, someone with a science background, that reads the Guardian et al, believe in something I can't see or touch or prove the existence of?
Well to start with I guess we can't get away from the whole cultural side of things. I was brought up in a moderately religious household. My Mum is what you would call Christian with a small c and my Dad is one of those who believes there is a God but hasn't settled on any particular religion. We were semi regular at church, maybe 8 times a year (plus weddings and funerals) and it was fairly standard CofE. No guitars and tambourines for the Akela household!. You could very easily point at me and say if I had been brought up in Iran I would have been Muslim, or in Thailand I would have been Buddhist. And there is a good chance that you would be right.
It wasn't though something I thought about hard until later in life when I did a philosophy subsid at uni along side Biochemistry. And it was then that I firmly concluded that there must be something more to this world than just the material world that we see around us.
Consider this, consider what it is like to be blind. Not like shutting your eyes but no sense of sight at all. Scary isn't it? Now strip away your hearing as well, and all your other senses. What part of you is still there? Is there anything? You may think no, but it seems to me that there is something. It is that sense of being self aware. That sense of a passing of time.
Consciousness, that is what I am talking about.
Now consider the universe and what it is made up of. It's made of matter, which is interchangeable with energy, as per relativity. It's pretty freaky stuff and a lot is not yet understood about it. Yet if I am just made of matter/energy, how has it come to be aware of its own existence? I can understand how it can form complex organisms, how my body can be formed, how plants and animals can all be formed (yes I am very happy with the concept of the big bang and evolution) but for those to be self aware?
It is my feeling that there must be something else there, something else that makes me conscious. Yup, I am a dualist.
Now this is the point where someone normally pipes up with something about the Turing Box experiment. Now if you don't know much about it the google it, I can't be arsed explaining it here. Now many people will say that Alan Turing proved that you could create a robot that is fully conscious, and those people have completely misunderstood. What Turing actually proved was that theoretically at least you could create something so life like that you couldn't tell the difference between it and a conscious entity. And that is a different kettle of fish all together.
Of course dualism opens up many many more questions about sleep, death, brains, how it fits with our bodies etc etc. I don't pretend to have all these answers at all, but that doesn't mean I wont keep looking for them.
So anyway, that briefly, is why I have concluded that we have souls and in the next part it's how this leads on to God!
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Christian Left
First of all an apology, not much blogging at the moment as I’m about to move house and my life is in a slight state of chaos. Once we move there is likely to be some disruption to internet access so the slow rate of posts may well continue for a week or two more. Such is life!
However, I thought I’d take the opportunity to announce a new project that will be appearing on here. I’ve scrapped this concentrating on the Mail’s recent coverage idea. No don’t worry, I still suspect that going off on one about the Mail or the Express will take up a large part of the reading matter on here, I’ve not lost my sense of anger just yet. No, what I’m planning on doing, over the rest of this summer, is to write a series of pieces about why I am that most rare of species, a member of the Christian Left. Most Christians are conservative with a small C, and the majority on the left appear to be atheist. Indeed it some times seems that most people assume that if you are a leftie you are a non believer and that if you are religious of any persuasion then you must be right wing.
So I’m going to write a few bits about why I am Christian (don’t worry, I wont get all evangelical on you and start trying to convert you, and I’m quite happy to be engaged in debate, I wont call you nasty names and I’m pretty thick skinned!), and why I’m quite happy that it fits with being a total leftie, why I’m perfectly happy to believe in the big bang, evolution etc. You will also find me being critical of the organised church and how it presents itself. And of course you’ll see me go off on one about the Mail’s attitude to religion, but let’s face it, you kind of expected that didn’t you? :)
Oh and just to get one thing out the way at the start, I think Stephen Green of Christian Voice is an utter prick.
First of all an apology, not much blogging at the moment as I’m about to move house and my life is in a slight state of chaos. Once we move there is likely to be some disruption to internet access so the slow rate of posts may well continue for a week or two more. Such is life!
However, I thought I’d take the opportunity to announce a new project that will be appearing on here. I’ve scrapped this concentrating on the Mail’s recent coverage idea. No don’t worry, I still suspect that going off on one about the Mail or the Express will take up a large part of the reading matter on here, I’ve not lost my sense of anger just yet. No, what I’m planning on doing, over the rest of this summer, is to write a series of pieces about why I am that most rare of species, a member of the Christian Left. Most Christians are conservative with a small C, and the majority on the left appear to be atheist. Indeed it some times seems that most people assume that if you are a leftie you are a non believer and that if you are religious of any persuasion then you must be right wing.
So I’m going to write a few bits about why I am Christian (don’t worry, I wont get all evangelical on you and start trying to convert you, and I’m quite happy to be engaged in debate, I wont call you nasty names and I’m pretty thick skinned!), and why I’m quite happy that it fits with being a total leftie, why I’m perfectly happy to believe in the big bang, evolution etc. You will also find me being critical of the organised church and how it presents itself. And of course you’ll see me go off on one about the Mail’s attitude to religion, but let’s face it, you kind of expected that didn’t you? :)
Oh and just to get one thing out the way at the start, I think Stephen Green of Christian Voice is an utter prick.
Friday, April 24, 2009
One step forward, two steps back
While not wishing to blow my own trumpet I do appear to be somewhat unusual in being both Christian and of a liberal/leftwing persuasion. Being that way is, at times, likely to try the patients of a saint, so what chance do my patients have when I see things like this? Yes, we have yet another attempt by a Christian group to "cure" gays.
*Pauses for a moment to hit head repeatedly against keyboard*.
Let's not dwell too much on the theology side of all this but let's not ignore it either. There are precisely 6 verses in the Bible that deal with same sex relationships. As we all know though none of the Bible was originally written in English, the various books were written in different languages at different times and have been translated many different times. Hence it is not surprising that those same verses can equally be read as dealing with abusive sexual relationships or even be dealing with priestly codes of behaviour.
This whole episode is particularly personal to me, I'm not gay myself but the attitude of many main stream churches to homosexuality is one of the reasons why I am not a regular church goer. It, along with a number of other issues, has put me off somewhat. And I'm not the only one. There are plenty of left/liberal Christians out there who are as uncomfortable with the church as I am. And yet, in recent months I have started to feel the urge to return to church more often and be part of something a little more communal and not just keep my faith to myself. I have been encouraged by people like Rowan Williams and his views on the environment and by John Sentamu and his criticisms of the BNP. The Main stream church has seemed, recently, to be increasingly reflecting views that I share and passionate about.
Yet we then come back to things like this conference and the constants obsession with gays. In some ways it is like the conservative party. I know a number of people who are believers in the free market who simply can't bring themselves to vote conservative because of their obsession with Europe. I'm struggling with the church because of it's obsession with gays.
The fact is that some people are gay. That's the way they are. It harms no one and there is no solid theological basis for opposing it. So can't we all just grow up and let it go? If the church want to get the likes of me back through the door then in taking a step forward in recent times they have just taken two steps back.
Anyway, Akela is off to camp with his tribe of horrors this evening. I may knock out some kind of anti Daily Mail rant before I go but other than that I'll see you all Sunday night!
While not wishing to blow my own trumpet I do appear to be somewhat unusual in being both Christian and of a liberal/leftwing persuasion. Being that way is, at times, likely to try the patients of a saint, so what chance do my patients have when I see things like this? Yes, we have yet another attempt by a Christian group to "cure" gays.
*Pauses for a moment to hit head repeatedly against keyboard*.
Let's not dwell too much on the theology side of all this but let's not ignore it either. There are precisely 6 verses in the Bible that deal with same sex relationships. As we all know though none of the Bible was originally written in English, the various books were written in different languages at different times and have been translated many different times. Hence it is not surprising that those same verses can equally be read as dealing with abusive sexual relationships or even be dealing with priestly codes of behaviour.
This whole episode is particularly personal to me, I'm not gay myself but the attitude of many main stream churches to homosexuality is one of the reasons why I am not a regular church goer. It, along with a number of other issues, has put me off somewhat. And I'm not the only one. There are plenty of left/liberal Christians out there who are as uncomfortable with the church as I am. And yet, in recent months I have started to feel the urge to return to church more often and be part of something a little more communal and not just keep my faith to myself. I have been encouraged by people like Rowan Williams and his views on the environment and by John Sentamu and his criticisms of the BNP. The Main stream church has seemed, recently, to be increasingly reflecting views that I share and passionate about.
Yet we then come back to things like this conference and the constants obsession with gays. In some ways it is like the conservative party. I know a number of people who are believers in the free market who simply can't bring themselves to vote conservative because of their obsession with Europe. I'm struggling with the church because of it's obsession with gays.
The fact is that some people are gay. That's the way they are. It harms no one and there is no solid theological basis for opposing it. So can't we all just grow up and let it go? If the church want to get the likes of me back through the door then in taking a step forward in recent times they have just taken two steps back.
Anyway, Akela is off to camp with his tribe of horrors this evening. I may knock out some kind of anti Daily Mail rant before I go but other than that I'll see you all Sunday night!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Quick! Lets all kick Beardy!
Lying awake last night suffering from yet another bout of insomnia I listed to Radio 4 quietly murmur away in the back ground and that was when I first heard of this story. The Archbishop of Canterbury making a speech about the actions of humans on the environment and the fact that God will not intervene to prevent our trashing of it. Now regardless of whether you are a believer or not I don't think you can really deny that the central premise that it's about time we collectively took some responsibility for the state of the environment is a very sensible one.
And I have to confess that, and call me a boring old obsessive if you so desire, my first thought was "I wonder what the Mail and its readers will make of all that".
Well to be fair, the coverage by the Mail itself is quite reasonable, it just seems to be a straight forward reproting of the key parts of the speech. No slant, no agenda, in fact well done Daily Mail! (Fuck, did I actually just write that?)
When it comes to the comments though its a different story. And it highlights something that I love about Mail readers, they seem to think that the Church is about promoting conservative values and not Christian values. Now some of you may think they are one and the same thing, I happen to disagree, why should Christian values go either way, should they not be an interpretation of the teaching of Jesus? But I digress, lets take a look at exactly what the punters have to say.
Of course, remember the ten commandments: "Remember that thou need to find ways of promoting environmental responsibility through Government policies." I warn Roman Catholic priests to be prepared: they will be receiving more and more converts from the Cof E if we have more speeches like this one.
Click to rate Rating 8
- George, Bolton UK, 26/3/2009 9:50
Do you see what clever old George did there? Do you? Caring about the environment and taking responsibility is all about politics. It would seem. Of course it is George, of course it is.
Of course he wont, neither will he protect us from the Archbishop.
Click to rate Rating 38
- Chris, Yorkshire, 26/3/2009 10:03
What you mean the Archbishop that actually gives a toss about the world his kids and grand kids will inherit. Is that the one you mean Chris?
Just as God hasn't protected us from weak liberal Archbishops of Canterbury, he means?
Click to rate Rating 27
- Simon, London, 26/3/2009 10:06
Why would he Simon? Explain? Or do you just want the right to do what the fuck you want to the world and ignore the consequences?
Once the God-botherers get involved, you know there's nothing in it.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Steve, Cambridge, UK, 26/3/2009 10:29
Go on Steve, you tell them. none of its true, none of it. It's all a lie! Twat.
The C of E is infested with liberals. Give the C of E back to the English!
Click to rate Rating 89
- john, bristol england, 26/3/2009 11:17
Because liberals are all er... foreign?
Of course there are those backing Beardy up but they all get lots of red arrows, people like this
Congratulations to the Arch Bishop for exposing how our selfish greed allows us to do what we want because it suits us. Those who believe that God does not allow us to face the consequences of our own actions have not read their Bibles. Those who think God had better pray they are right!
Click to rate Rating 31
- Simon Lissak, London, 26/3/2009 10:29
Not sure the last sentence makes any sense but Simon does generally and has lots of red arrows for his trouble.
At last ! He has said something sensible and relevant! Whether you believe in God or not The human race must take responsibility for all of its actions in relation to the use of the world resources. At the moment the human race and its predatory approach to everything is the worst thing to happen ever to this planet. Surely we must change our ways reap the rewards of non concern greed avarice etc?
Click to rate Rating 16
- jasbo montrose, montrose angus, 26/3/2009 10:17
More red arrows. I fucking despair, I really do. I would have thought Jasbo's comment would be the one everyone could subscribe to but clearly not.
Once again I find it terrifying just how many people read the Mail and what their attitudes are. The Great British Public. And to think I'm one of them.
Lying awake last night suffering from yet another bout of insomnia I listed to Radio 4 quietly murmur away in the back ground and that was when I first heard of this story. The Archbishop of Canterbury making a speech about the actions of humans on the environment and the fact that God will not intervene to prevent our trashing of it. Now regardless of whether you are a believer or not I don't think you can really deny that the central premise that it's about time we collectively took some responsibility for the state of the environment is a very sensible one.
And I have to confess that, and call me a boring old obsessive if you so desire, my first thought was "I wonder what the Mail and its readers will make of all that".
Well to be fair, the coverage by the Mail itself is quite reasonable, it just seems to be a straight forward reproting of the key parts of the speech. No slant, no agenda, in fact well done Daily Mail! (Fuck, did I actually just write that?)
When it comes to the comments though its a different story. And it highlights something that I love about Mail readers, they seem to think that the Church is about promoting conservative values and not Christian values. Now some of you may think they are one and the same thing, I happen to disagree, why should Christian values go either way, should they not be an interpretation of the teaching of Jesus? But I digress, lets take a look at exactly what the punters have to say.
Of course, remember the ten commandments: "Remember that thou need to find ways of promoting environmental responsibility through Government policies." I warn Roman Catholic priests to be prepared: they will be receiving more and more converts from the Cof E if we have more speeches like this one.
Click to rate Rating 8
- George, Bolton UK, 26/3/2009 9:50
Do you see what clever old George did there? Do you? Caring about the environment and taking responsibility is all about politics. It would seem. Of course it is George, of course it is.
Of course he wont, neither will he protect us from the Archbishop.
Click to rate Rating 38
- Chris, Yorkshire, 26/3/2009 10:03
What you mean the Archbishop that actually gives a toss about the world his kids and grand kids will inherit. Is that the one you mean Chris?
Just as God hasn't protected us from weak liberal Archbishops of Canterbury, he means?
Click to rate Rating 27
- Simon, London, 26/3/2009 10:06
Why would he Simon? Explain? Or do you just want the right to do what the fuck you want to the world and ignore the consequences?
Once the God-botherers get involved, you know there's nothing in it.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Steve, Cambridge, UK, 26/3/2009 10:29
Go on Steve, you tell them. none of its true, none of it. It's all a lie! Twat.
The C of E is infested with liberals. Give the C of E back to the English!
Click to rate Rating 89
- john, bristol england, 26/3/2009 11:17
Because liberals are all er... foreign?
Of course there are those backing Beardy up but they all get lots of red arrows, people like this
Congratulations to the Arch Bishop for exposing how our selfish greed allows us to do what we want because it suits us. Those who believe that God does not allow us to face the consequences of our own actions have not read their Bibles. Those who think God had better pray they are right!
Click to rate Rating 31
- Simon Lissak, London, 26/3/2009 10:29
Not sure the last sentence makes any sense but Simon does generally and has lots of red arrows for his trouble.
At last ! He has said something sensible and relevant! Whether you believe in God or not The human race must take responsibility for all of its actions in relation to the use of the world resources. At the moment the human race and its predatory approach to everything is the worst thing to happen ever to this planet. Surely we must change our ways reap the rewards of non concern greed avarice etc?
Click to rate Rating 16
- jasbo montrose, montrose angus, 26/3/2009 10:17
More red arrows. I fucking despair, I really do. I would have thought Jasbo's comment would be the one everyone could subscribe to but clearly not.
Once again I find it terrifying just how many people read the Mail and what their attitudes are. The Great British Public. And to think I'm one of them.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Have any Daily Mail readers ever read the Bible?
This may sound like a strange title for a blog post but it's an important one. You see as regular readers are aware I am a Christian. I am on the pink and fluffy, pretty liberal, live and let live wing of Christianity, (we do exist, it just seems that often we are few and far between) but still a Christian at that, that's right I believe that Jesus was the son of God.
Anyway, the Jesus I believe in, as described by the gospels, was an individual who didn't have a huge amount of time for the establishment, for traditions and how things were done. He spent time with tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers. He was a refugee himself. He had few if any possessions and sought to provide for the poor and treat the sick.
Even if you are not a Christian, even if you are of no religion at all, even if you think that the whole thing is a lot of hocus pocus, you must admit that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible was a pretty good egg.
So where is this going?
Well take a look at this story in the Mail
Now the story itself, while poorly written and a bit incoherent, is pretty balanced. Yet lets take a look at some comments shall we?
Total nonsense. Time these silly vicars got back to basics instead of trying to be politically correct. No wonder churches are empty!
Click to rate Rating 7
- GB, England, 11/12/2008 17:55
So GB thinks that a priest trying to emulate Jesus and bring attention to those at the bottom is politically correct. Sorry GB but I thought that following the example of Jesus was exactly what they were meant to do.
Not even funny. Leave our traditions alone.
Click to rate Rating 1
- Renee, Melbourne, Australia, 11/12/2008 19:06
Sorry Renee, but much like Jesus himself the job of priests is not to protect tradition but to spread the word of God and the example of Jesus. Do you think churches are there just to look pretty?
Stop 'getting with it' and leave well alone, too many on the bandwagon changing everything.....What for?
Click to rate Rating 14
- Ross, Bucks, 11/12/2008 19:35
What for? To do as Jesus did you twat.
The 'less fortunate' eh? At least six of the new items are self-inflicted. Fortune not only favours the brave, it favours the clean-living. And besides, GT of Belgium is right, it isn't a religious ditty so has no place in church. Oh, how I hate trendiness in the church. I stopped going to church when the choir started wearing jeans and tee-shirts and strumming their 'geetars' and we were all encouraged to hug the person beside us whether we knew them from Adam or not. Church is a place of quiet prayer and solemnity for me. Sorry to be so old fashioned, but there it is. I feel that this modernity has helped to destroy church-going, because there's as much racket there as anywhere else. B&Q is the new C of E for a lot of folk.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Kathy Bianco, Kensington, London., 11/12/2008 20:07
Arsehole, pure and simple.
The Rev. George Fisher, should remember that he is a disciple, who's job is to go out and spread the word of God.....not waste time re-writing the words and context of a Christmas song, that has nothing to do with the church....it is just another song that is sung at Chrismas. With religious ministers such as Rev, Fisher, it is no wonder that people are leaving the church in droves.
Click to rate Rating 6
- Max, Hampshire, 12/12/2008 3:11
This may sound like a strange title for a blog post but it's an important one. You see as regular readers are aware I am a Christian. I am on the pink and fluffy, pretty liberal, live and let live wing of Christianity, (we do exist, it just seems that often we are few and far between) but still a Christian at that, that's right I believe that Jesus was the son of God.
Anyway, the Jesus I believe in, as described by the gospels, was an individual who didn't have a huge amount of time for the establishment, for traditions and how things were done. He spent time with tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers. He was a refugee himself. He had few if any possessions and sought to provide for the poor and treat the sick.
Even if you are not a Christian, even if you are of no religion at all, even if you think that the whole thing is a lot of hocus pocus, you must admit that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible was a pretty good egg.
So where is this going?
Well take a look at this story in the Mail
Now the story itself, while poorly written and a bit incoherent, is pretty balanced. Yet lets take a look at some comments shall we?
Total nonsense. Time these silly vicars got back to basics instead of trying to be politically correct. No wonder churches are empty!
Click to rate Rating 7
- GB, England, 11/12/2008 17:55
So GB thinks that a priest trying to emulate Jesus and bring attention to those at the bottom is politically correct. Sorry GB but I thought that following the example of Jesus was exactly what they were meant to do.
Not even funny. Leave our traditions alone.
Click to rate Rating 1
- Renee, Melbourne, Australia, 11/12/2008 19:06
Sorry Renee, but much like Jesus himself the job of priests is not to protect tradition but to spread the word of God and the example of Jesus. Do you think churches are there just to look pretty?
Stop 'getting with it' and leave well alone, too many on the bandwagon changing everything.....What for?
Click to rate Rating 14
- Ross, Bucks, 11/12/2008 19:35
What for? To do as Jesus did you twat.
The 'less fortunate' eh? At least six of the new items are self-inflicted. Fortune not only favours the brave, it favours the clean-living. And besides, GT of Belgium is right, it isn't a religious ditty so has no place in church. Oh, how I hate trendiness in the church. I stopped going to church when the choir started wearing jeans and tee-shirts and strumming their 'geetars' and we were all encouraged to hug the person beside us whether we knew them from Adam or not. Church is a place of quiet prayer and solemnity for me. Sorry to be so old fashioned, but there it is. I feel that this modernity has helped to destroy church-going, because there's as much racket there as anywhere else. B&Q is the new C of E for a lot of folk.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Kathy Bianco, Kensington, London., 11/12/2008 20:07
Arsehole, pure and simple.
The Rev. George Fisher, should remember that he is a disciple, who's job is to go out and spread the word of God.....not waste time re-writing the words and context of a Christmas song, that has nothing to do with the church....it is just another song that is sung at Chrismas. With religious ministers such as Rev, Fisher, it is no wonder that people are leaving the church in droves.
Click to rate Rating 6
- Max, Hampshire, 12/12/2008 3:11
Priceless Max, fucking priceless. What do you think the word of God is? have you ever heard of "love thy neighbour"? Have you read the bible?
The people in this song are exactly the people who Jesus would have spent his time with if he was on earth today, exactly the sort. And Christmas, or the Christian Christmas anyway, is about celebrating the birth of Jesus. The traditions are neither here nor there, maybe it's time some Mail readers started remembering that.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Big enough and ugly enough to know better
What do you do when two particularly vile individuals decide to have a bit of a spat in public?
Well normally yours truly would sit back, point and laugh and let them fight to the finish till hopefully one of them although preferably both, crawl off broken, battered and no longer able to wield power, influence or generally piss me off. And that is how it would be if, say, Anne Widdecombe and Digby Jones had a row or Michael Howard and Michael Portilo, or Paul Dacre and Richard Desmond. The common theme in that list being that they are all representatives of causes or organisations that I can’t bare.
The last few days though have seen two individuals that I find particularly vile having a spat but I have felt very differently because quite frankly they are just making a mockery of two things that I believe in and wish people would understand better while both being under the impression that they are doing the right thing. What I have felt is a huge desire to tell them to both shut the fuck up.
Yes I am referring to Richard Dawkins, scientist and author of, amongst other things, the Blind Watch Maker and The God Delusion and Stephen Green, the head (or as many report, and I hope they are true, it’s only member) of Christian Voice, a right wing Christian pressure group.
So what has gone on, well take a look at this story.
Yes Dawkins is at it again, giving it all the arrogant attitude that he can and generally making scientists look like insensitive arseholes. And Green is equally at it, spouting hypocrisy of the highest order and generally making Christians look like reactionary bigots. These two are being childish, petulant and to be honest most of my cubs can show more maturity, sensitivity and back bone than either of these supposed adults.
Dawkins seems unable to comprehend the fact that Christians, and indeed those of any religion, can quite happily believe in God and in evolution. The bible may say God made the world, it does not say how he did it! Equally he doesn’t seem to realise that not all of those of a religious persuasion are right wing bigots who want to restrict anyone’s freedoms of belief or speech.
I have no problem with atheists arguing their point, what I do have a problem with is atheists arguing their point in a rude, aggressive disrespectful and arrogant way that Dawkins does.
Equally Green cannot seem to grasp that one of the fundamentals of his own religion is love, compassion and tolerance (actually that’s 3, but hell, who’s counting? And it’s my blog ok?). He too can’t grasp that I can be a Christian and have a biology degree and believe in evolution. You want evolution Green? Why do you think we don’t have a treatment for the common cold virus? Well? Because it mutates too fucking quickly, it evolves you prick! Comprende?
I have no problem with those of a conservative view pint arguing their case but again I do have a problem with them doing so in a manner that is rude, aggressive, disrespectful and arrogant, the way Green does. And indeed I have issues with Green's views full stop which are best described as sexist, homophobic, racist and every other ist and ic you can think of.
These two are as bad as each other and are making both science and religion look foolish.
It’s time for both of them to have points knocked off their six, lose their sixers stripes and bloody well grow up.
What do you do when two particularly vile individuals decide to have a bit of a spat in public?
Well normally yours truly would sit back, point and laugh and let them fight to the finish till hopefully one of them although preferably both, crawl off broken, battered and no longer able to wield power, influence or generally piss me off. And that is how it would be if, say, Anne Widdecombe and Digby Jones had a row or Michael Howard and Michael Portilo, or Paul Dacre and Richard Desmond. The common theme in that list being that they are all representatives of causes or organisations that I can’t bare.
The last few days though have seen two individuals that I find particularly vile having a spat but I have felt very differently because quite frankly they are just making a mockery of two things that I believe in and wish people would understand better while both being under the impression that they are doing the right thing. What I have felt is a huge desire to tell them to both shut the fuck up.
Yes I am referring to Richard Dawkins, scientist and author of, amongst other things, the Blind Watch Maker and The God Delusion and Stephen Green, the head (or as many report, and I hope they are true, it’s only member) of Christian Voice, a right wing Christian pressure group.
So what has gone on, well take a look at this story.
Yes Dawkins is at it again, giving it all the arrogant attitude that he can and generally making scientists look like insensitive arseholes. And Green is equally at it, spouting hypocrisy of the highest order and generally making Christians look like reactionary bigots. These two are being childish, petulant and to be honest most of my cubs can show more maturity, sensitivity and back bone than either of these supposed adults.
Dawkins seems unable to comprehend the fact that Christians, and indeed those of any religion, can quite happily believe in God and in evolution. The bible may say God made the world, it does not say how he did it! Equally he doesn’t seem to realise that not all of those of a religious persuasion are right wing bigots who want to restrict anyone’s freedoms of belief or speech.
I have no problem with atheists arguing their point, what I do have a problem with is atheists arguing their point in a rude, aggressive disrespectful and arrogant way that Dawkins does.
Equally Green cannot seem to grasp that one of the fundamentals of his own religion is love, compassion and tolerance (actually that’s 3, but hell, who’s counting? And it’s my blog ok?). He too can’t grasp that I can be a Christian and have a biology degree and believe in evolution. You want evolution Green? Why do you think we don’t have a treatment for the common cold virus? Well? Because it mutates too fucking quickly, it evolves you prick! Comprende?
I have no problem with those of a conservative view pint arguing their case but again I do have a problem with them doing so in a manner that is rude, aggressive, disrespectful and arrogant, the way Green does. And indeed I have issues with Green's views full stop which are best described as sexist, homophobic, racist and every other ist and ic you can think of.
These two are as bad as each other and are making both science and religion look foolish.
It’s time for both of them to have points knocked off their six, lose their sixers stripes and bloody well grow up.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Something a bit different
So me and Mrs Akela are just back from a wedding and what an interesting wedding it was.
I’m in that time of life where many friends are getting married and the last few summers have produced a huge crop of them. Most of them have been church weddings and of those all have been in Church of England churches. So how these things work is something I am quite familiar with. However yesterday was my first experience of a wedding at an evangelical Baptist church.
Now much of it I was expecting, a quite informal set up in terms of no alter to speak of, no pews, music provided by a full on rock band and some seriously enthusiastic singing from the regulars at the church. Like wise I was expecting quite a full on sermon. The couple getting married are seriously committed Christians, they met through both helping run a Christian youth group and so this was always going to be the nature of this wedding. And that should not be read in anyway as a criticism, it was their wedding celebrated their way and I am very pleased for them.
However, there were a couple of things that I was not expecting and indeed that in part left me feeling a little uncomfortable.
Firstly one of the readings was part of Ephesians and included Paul’s instructions that wives should submit to their husbands.
Now this is where me and Paul part company in our opinions. Lets remember what the book of Ephesians is, it was a letter from St Paul to the Ephesians in the 1st century AD that consists of Paul’s views on the teachings of Jesus. And I have never been able to fathom where Paul gets his views on women from, I really don’t.
Now if you are a woman and a Christian and you subscribe to Paul’s beliefs on that point then that is your choice and far be it from me to interfere. However I was surprised that this particular friend of mine has gone along with it. Maybe one day we’ll discuss it but I certainly didn’t think that her wedding day was the time and place to do so!
Second was the sermon. The sermon was all about a passage from the book of Solomon that describes love and to be honest the priest had some very wise and thoughtful words to say on it and made me think quite deeply. However the priest, in my opinion, let himself down quite a lot with comments that I think can be paraphrased as atheists cannot fully appreciate love because they believe that it is a purely biological function. Now I am not an atheist, I am Christian, but I have many friends and family who are and to say that these people cannot fully appreciate love is so wrong as to actually be offensive.
And that is frustrating because it further polarises the differences between those of faith and those of none. It is very similar to the way Richard Dawkins comes across. His aggressive form of atheism often repels the religious from exploring science when it actual fact is perfectly possible to be both religious and believe in evolution and the big bang. And so this priest’s attitudes risk alienating the religious from exploring the world of science. Both sides come across as arrogant and that does not help anyone.
To see two sides that simply wont listen or try to understand each other is incredibly frustrating when you have a foot in each camp.
So me and Mrs Akela are just back from a wedding and what an interesting wedding it was.
I’m in that time of life where many friends are getting married and the last few summers have produced a huge crop of them. Most of them have been church weddings and of those all have been in Church of England churches. So how these things work is something I am quite familiar with. However yesterday was my first experience of a wedding at an evangelical Baptist church.
Now much of it I was expecting, a quite informal set up in terms of no alter to speak of, no pews, music provided by a full on rock band and some seriously enthusiastic singing from the regulars at the church. Like wise I was expecting quite a full on sermon. The couple getting married are seriously committed Christians, they met through both helping run a Christian youth group and so this was always going to be the nature of this wedding. And that should not be read in anyway as a criticism, it was their wedding celebrated their way and I am very pleased for them.
However, there were a couple of things that I was not expecting and indeed that in part left me feeling a little uncomfortable.
Firstly one of the readings was part of Ephesians and included Paul’s instructions that wives should submit to their husbands.
Now this is where me and Paul part company in our opinions. Lets remember what the book of Ephesians is, it was a letter from St Paul to the Ephesians in the 1st century AD that consists of Paul’s views on the teachings of Jesus. And I have never been able to fathom where Paul gets his views on women from, I really don’t.
Now if you are a woman and a Christian and you subscribe to Paul’s beliefs on that point then that is your choice and far be it from me to interfere. However I was surprised that this particular friend of mine has gone along with it. Maybe one day we’ll discuss it but I certainly didn’t think that her wedding day was the time and place to do so!
Second was the sermon. The sermon was all about a passage from the book of Solomon that describes love and to be honest the priest had some very wise and thoughtful words to say on it and made me think quite deeply. However the priest, in my opinion, let himself down quite a lot with comments that I think can be paraphrased as atheists cannot fully appreciate love because they believe that it is a purely biological function. Now I am not an atheist, I am Christian, but I have many friends and family who are and to say that these people cannot fully appreciate love is so wrong as to actually be offensive.
And that is frustrating because it further polarises the differences between those of faith and those of none. It is very similar to the way Richard Dawkins comes across. His aggressive form of atheism often repels the religious from exploring science when it actual fact is perfectly possible to be both religious and believe in evolution and the big bang. And so this priest’s attitudes risk alienating the religious from exploring the world of science. Both sides come across as arrogant and that does not help anyone.
To see two sides that simply wont listen or try to understand each other is incredibly frustrating when you have a foot in each camp.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Advertising
If you click on the little map at the top right you will get through to a world map showing where the visitors to this blog come from, run your eyes over it and you will also see adverts. Now it has become abundantly obvious that these adverts are targeted. Normally you will see adverts for retailers of scout and guide uniforms, or for out doors equipment, you get the picture. It seems to tie in with my more common ramblings.
So why, at the moment, do I keep getting a big advert for scientology? Why? I'm a Christian, albeit of the more liberal, takes Genesis as alegorical, varierty but I quite frankly think scientology is complete twaddle, and, until now, have not even mention it on here (that I can remember).
Who ever is paying for this advertising is getting a pretty poor deal and I would advise Scientologists (should they ever stumble across this) to find a new advertising agency!
If you click on the little map at the top right you will get through to a world map showing where the visitors to this blog come from, run your eyes over it and you will also see adverts. Now it has become abundantly obvious that these adverts are targeted. Normally you will see adverts for retailers of scout and guide uniforms, or for out doors equipment, you get the picture. It seems to tie in with my more common ramblings.
So why, at the moment, do I keep getting a big advert for scientology? Why? I'm a Christian, albeit of the more liberal, takes Genesis as alegorical, varierty but I quite frankly think scientology is complete twaddle, and, until now, have not even mention it on here (that I can remember).
Who ever is paying for this advertising is getting a pretty poor deal and I would advise Scientologists (should they ever stumble across this) to find a new advertising agency!
Friday, March 14, 2008
A quick lesson in theology
Thanks to the enemies of reason for bringing this to my attention.
It makes me despair it, really does. Where the hell is the compassion or intellectual thought behind this kind of thing? You see compassion and a rigorous intellect are, I believe, two things that you should expect from a bishop, i.e. a leader in a religion that has, as one of its central pillars, the concept of forgiveness.
Conservative Christians will tell you that the bible is very clear about homosexuality. Sorry folks but it’s not. Yes there is Sodom and Ghomorah and all that jazz but the old testament also tells us not to eat shell fish and I don’t see any of these people giving up their cockles and mussels, do you? When you point that out they will point to the teachings of St Paul in the new testament. Yet here is the rub, and listen carefully. The whole point, the whole fucking point, the entire basis of Christianity is that NO ONE IS PERFECT. That’s the whole point fuck nut!
So you cannot take the opinion of any person as being absolute.
God gave us all a brain, now bloody well use it.
I don’t think it would ever be possible to put all my thoughts on theology and religion etc into one post so I wont even try. Just let it be known that people like this really piss me off.
Thanks to the enemies of reason for bringing this to my attention.
It makes me despair it, really does. Where the hell is the compassion or intellectual thought behind this kind of thing? You see compassion and a rigorous intellect are, I believe, two things that you should expect from a bishop, i.e. a leader in a religion that has, as one of its central pillars, the concept of forgiveness.
Conservative Christians will tell you that the bible is very clear about homosexuality. Sorry folks but it’s not. Yes there is Sodom and Ghomorah and all that jazz but the old testament also tells us not to eat shell fish and I don’t see any of these people giving up their cockles and mussels, do you? When you point that out they will point to the teachings of St Paul in the new testament. Yet here is the rub, and listen carefully. The whole point, the whole fucking point, the entire basis of Christianity is that NO ONE IS PERFECT. That’s the whole point fuck nut!
So you cannot take the opinion of any person as being absolute.
God gave us all a brain, now bloody well use it.
I don’t think it would ever be possible to put all my thoughts on theology and religion etc into one post so I wont even try. Just let it be known that people like this really piss me off.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Prejudices......
So I took a personality test, not sure how serious it was meant to be, it was an online thingumy. Anyway, I wont put the full results on here but one thing it did give me was 70% Religious. Which I think is just about fare.
But..... when I clicked on the option to tell me what Religious actually meant it said the following
"Closest confident is a Higher Power, has more belief than doubt, prefers to let religion not themself decide the meaning of their life, opposed to strip clubs, believes that life is meaningful, reveres holidays and traditions, considers themself very spiritual, more likely to be politically conservatie, opposed to euthanasia, fears being corrupt or evil, old fashioned, thinks abortion should be outlawed, has faith things will work out, would sacrifice their life for a good enough cause, caring, honest, generous, prude, modest, drawn to public service, purposeful"
Some of those are right but theones I have highlited are completely the oposite of what I think, with several others (eg strip clubs) being things I am titally ambivilent about.
Simply having religious faith does not make anyone prude, conservative and unable to think for themselves. Why do people automatically believe that?
Sorry, but we're not all the same and it's time people realised that.
So I took a personality test, not sure how serious it was meant to be, it was an online thingumy. Anyway, I wont put the full results on here but one thing it did give me was 70% Religious. Which I think is just about fare.
But..... when I clicked on the option to tell me what Religious actually meant it said the following
"Closest confident is a Higher Power, has more belief than doubt, prefers to let religion not themself decide the meaning of their life, opposed to strip clubs, believes that life is meaningful, reveres holidays and traditions, considers themself very spiritual, more likely to be politically conservatie, opposed to euthanasia, fears being corrupt or evil, old fashioned, thinks abortion should be outlawed, has faith things will work out, would sacrifice their life for a good enough cause, caring, honest, generous, prude, modest, drawn to public service, purposeful"
Some of those are right but theones I have highlited are completely the oposite of what I think, with several others (eg strip clubs) being things I am titally ambivilent about.
Simply having religious faith does not make anyone prude, conservative and unable to think for themselves. Why do people automatically believe that?
Sorry, but we're not all the same and it's time people realised that.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Religion re-visited.
(twice in a few days, this is unusual!)
So there I was, first thing this morning, having crashed at my friend's house over night, flicking through the various random channles you can get on Sky Digital while I ate my Cheerios.
I came across one of those Deep South Christian channels and I stopped for a look out of curiosity. I have my prejudices against such channels (despite being Christian) as I have heard worrying stories about just how Conservative and also down right dishonest they are.
The language they used was not the kind of language I would use about my faith, despite believing roughly the same thing. But that is a cultural difference and not something that greatly concerns me.
What concerns me was their invitation to phone a premium rate number to tell one of their people about your faith.
That's right, a premium rate number, so you get to be shafted for loads of money to line the pockets of the preacher for the pleasure of telling someone that you've never met that you believe the same thing as them.
What a crock of shit.
And people wonder why I have so little time for organised churches.
(twice in a few days, this is unusual!)
So there I was, first thing this morning, having crashed at my friend's house over night, flicking through the various random channles you can get on Sky Digital while I ate my Cheerios.
I came across one of those Deep South Christian channels and I stopped for a look out of curiosity. I have my prejudices against such channels (despite being Christian) as I have heard worrying stories about just how Conservative and also down right dishonest they are.
The language they used was not the kind of language I would use about my faith, despite believing roughly the same thing. But that is a cultural difference and not something that greatly concerns me.
What concerns me was their invitation to phone a premium rate number to tell one of their people about your faith.
That's right, a premium rate number, so you get to be shafted for loads of money to line the pockets of the preacher for the pleasure of telling someone that you've never met that you believe the same thing as them.
What a crock of shit.
And people wonder why I have so little time for organised churches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)