Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Norway tragedy

(Radio script, with Adele ‘Set Fire to the Rain’ as music bed)

Something happened the other day - heard it on the radio. A guy had shot some people. Young people, just teenagers. In another country, across the sea.

Yet not so far away. Every Christmas they send us a beautiful tree, a token of friendship. Its lights blaze across a city square and warm people’s hearts.

I don’t know what to say, what to think. A nation weeps: for the loss of innocence; for the darkness that can engulf a man’s heart.

I wish I could help, wish I could bring someone back. I can’t. No running or hiding now. Grief’s shadow is upon you, engulfing, overwhelming.

Is there any hope? I dare to believe. Fragile, but there in the brokenness - the possibility of something unexpected, something new. A quality of love I hadn’t seen before. Could it be?

It’s my prayer.

30 comments:

Billy said...

Is there any hope? I dare to believe. Fragile, but there in the brokenness - the possibility of something unexpected, something new. A quality of love I hadn’t seen before. Could it be?


Are you actually using this to claim god is loving?
The nutter himself is an evangelical christian. Let's keep god out of this tragedy and focus on the human suffering!

cerebusboy said...

Amen Billy! About time right-wing evangementalists realised that it's not just fundamentalist Islamo-fascists who are a threat to us all. I see that Uganda, supported by right-wing Christians, are about to reintroduce their anti-homosexuality bill
http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/THE-ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY-BILL-amended2.pdf

And evangementalists consider themselves 'persecuted' just because most people don't have time for their creationist, homophobic nonsense? It would be LOL-worthy if it it wasn't tragic.

Bruce said...

billy, what I'm suggesting is that in the midst of tragedy good can come. you'll know the idea that it can bring people together. I'm imagining from that the possibility of people experiencing a new quality of love, between each other and potentially from God. beauty from ashes.

ryan, 'Amen Billy' always strikes me as having a certain amusing irony :) i do tho at least like ur 'evangementalist' coinage...

Billy said...

Bruce,
It is people who give love. Not god. To claim otherwise is dehumanising.

In what way are you expecting god to show love? Why did he not stop this happening? (if you claim he makes people love, you have to accept that he could have stopped this).

This incident outrages, saddens and moves people who do not believe in god too.
I hope good does come of it, but if you think it comes from god, you have a poor view of humanity if you think people can not show love without god.

Ryan, evangies are just disgusting. in their own way, the Crusaders were also evangies

Tolita said...

The Norway 'nutter' was assumed to be an evangelical Christian due to some vague religious beliefs expressed on his Facebook. It's funny how some are so quick to hang onto that to label all Christians as hateful. Genuine Christians i.e followers of Christ would never condone what happened in Norway.

It's as if Billy et al are more concerned about aligning Breivik with a warped form of evangelical Christianity just so they have another reason to condemn the faith, than the sad events themselves. Scoring points off a tragedy are we?
To evangelise means simply to share the Good News. It doesn't have to denote violence or aggression as those who wish to over-simplify things would have us believe. If some wish to do it that way it doesn't mean the rest of us agree or that we should be tarred with the same brush.

The amount of venom towards Christianity I see expressed by your principle commentators Bruce seem more redolent of the kind of hatred that can,if not checked, lead to violence.

By the way Ryan there are Christians who are persecuted around the world. Asia Bibi is a high profile example of many. You two might not like the theology but it doesn't mean you can get away with dismissing cold hard facts because you don't sympathise with those of the Christian faith at all. Regardless of what atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity past or present, it doesn't justify anyone's right to practise their religion being savagely impeded today, Christianity included.


By labelling all evangelicals as 'disgusting' you fall into the same reductive, dehumanising trap of someone like Breivik who fail to see individuals; just a mass at which he can aim his hatred. Christians are individuals. I am sure you must know some decent folk amongst them. So don't spill bile as if you exist in a vacuum of polarised views in which people's very humanity and individuality don't factor. That is childish.


Bruce, God bless for trying to see God in all of this. It's not easy. Kudos for keeping your cool as well.

I don't have all the answers. I don't know why the tragedy in Norway was allowed to go ahead and why God didn't intervene in the way we would expect. I know it's not always satisfactory to respond with the free will argument. Can people who don't believe in God give love? Absolutely. Better than many of us Christians do. Does that mean I will stop believing in God as the source of that love or his power to redeem a bad situation? Nope.

Shalom, Miss T x

Billy said...

Hi Tolita, there is a lot wrong about you comment

"It's funny how some are so quick to hang onto that to label all Christians as hateful. Genuine Christians i.e followers of Christ would never condone what happened in Norway."

At no point did I make this claim. You just made that up.
My point has more to do with the myopic view christians take - that they are quick to attribute good things to god, but not the bad.
By the way, The problem with "genuine Christianity" is that no one can agree what it is. He is an evangelical christian. Please at least be honest and accept that

It's as if Billy et al are more concerned about aligning Breivik with a warped form of evangelical Christianity just so they have another reason to condemn the faith, than the sad events themselves.

I refer you to my comment above and refer you to this part of my comment: Let's keep god out of this tragedy and focus on the human suffering!. You have totally misrepresented me. Did you actually read my comment?

To evangelise means simply to share the Good News. It doesn't have to denote violence or aggression as those who wish to over-simplify things would have us believe. If some wish to do it that way it doesn't mean the rest of us agree or that we should be tarred with the same brush

I think you are projecting to the point of paranoia. Where did I say that?

The amount of venom towards Christianity I see expressed by your principle commentators Bruce seem more redolent of the kind of hatred that can,if not checked, lead to violence.

Are you serious?????? Anyone you dissents will be violent and hate (I presume ALL) christians???? I just had coffee with Bruce. Sounds like he was lucky to get away with his life. I'm glad you didn't tell me this beforehand.
I'm guessing you are also not aware that Ryan is himself a Christian - one I happen to have a lot of time for.
You are doing a lot of projection and (mis)judging others here.

By labelling all evangelicals as 'disgusting' you fall into the same reductive, dehumanising trap of someone like Breivik who fail to see individuals; just a mass at which he can aim his hatred.

In the context that Ryan and I discuss"evangies" on a personal level, they are understood to be the types that promote homophobia, take away self esteem, use the threat of hell and the bible as a weapon, insist on getting their own way and promote creationism and indulge in wilful dishonesty. Those are the ones I am labelling disgusting.

May I recomend these verse to you: Exodus 20:16 and Matt 7:1

cerebusboy said...

>>>
By labelling all evangelicals as 'disgusting' you fall into the same reductive, dehumanising trap of someone like Breivik who fail to see individuals; just a mass at which he can aim his hatred. Christians are individuals. I am sure you must know some decent folk amongst them. So don't spill bile as if you exist in a vacuum of polarised views in which people's very humanity and individuality don't factor. That is childish.


Lol! And your bearing-false-witness is deeply pure and Christian of course!

"right-wing Evangementalist" does in no way necessarily equate to "evangelical", let alone "Christian". I was thinking of e.g. The "Christian" Institute who lie (c.f. the amount of times they get their silly cases thrown out of court), whip up bigotry and then call themselves persecuted. Gays in Uganda are demonstrably persecuted. I'd maintain that conflating the two is indeed disgusting. Do you? I'm a Christian who believes in human rights for everyone. Do you? And of course looking for the wider cultural contexts that could at least theoretically inculcate dangerous extremism - with an eye to prevention - is hardly point scoring. Did you not read when I said "fundamentalist Islamo-fascist" NOT "Muslims"? So too with other groups. As a Christian I would of course prefer a world where there is no problem of Christian (or "Christian") fundamentalism and violence but it is quite simply pernicious nonsense to pretend that we currently live in such a world. Reality is always worth identifying, irrespective of whether or not it suits your agenda. In which light, your claim that my identifying the, yes, "cold hard facts" of gay persecution somehow either demonstrates an ignorance of Christian persecution (!) or, worse, is a support of it (!!) is utterly ludicrous and, yes, disgusting. Perhaps meditating on the personal and cultural implications of Matthew 7:3 would bring some light to your skewed and murky perception.

cerebusboy said...

>>>>>The amount of venom towards Christianity I see expressed by your principle commentators Bruce seem more redolent of the kind of hatred that can,if not checked, lead to violence.>>>>

Funny you should mention that, me and Billy were planning to blow up a school this week! *Rolls eyes*
Project much Tolita? The text I just quoted of yours is demonstrably dehumanising; compare and contrast with your (as it were) "eisegis" of my comment because you either didn't note or didn't care about the difference between "right-wing evangementalist" and CHRISTIAN. Of course, it might be possible that you do conflate 'evangelical' and 'Christian' which indicates a degree of solipsism that it surely, at best, not conducive to apt diagnosis of societal ills.

Billy said...

I like Marcus Brigstocke's take on so called Christian persecution in this country http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEnb2EFtSow

Funny you should mention that, me and Billy were planning to blow up a school this week!

OOOOOH, Can we make it a papist one this week? :-)

cerebusboy said...

Hmm, wouldn't that run the risk of accidently blowing up some paedo's? Sounds a bit too non-evil to me! ;-)

cerebusboy said...

And let's hope Tolita responds to the above, Billy, instead of adopting the Greg da Fud chap-door-and-runaway method of "debate" ;-)

Billy said...

Here are another bunch of evangies who think they are persecuted, where in reality, they are just nuts http://www.godhatesfags.com/#

I think thre is a reason for the "chap door, run away method". They can't defend their position (not that I'm levelling that accusation at Tolita - she seems pre-disposed to see things that way though).

Tolita said...

Hmmm, Billy, Ryan. You call it 'projecting' I'm just calling it as I see it.

First of all I had no idea you distinguished 'evangies' from 'evangelicals'. You use terms such as 'evangementalist' and refer to Breivik as an evangelical Christian nutter with no attempt to distinguish those who share their faith peacefully from the 'right wing' characters you dislike. There was nothing in your posts to suggest you made the distinction between different kinds of evangelical Christians and thus I got the impression you were referring to all evangelicals. I apologise if you feel misrepresented but as I said it wasn't all that clear in the first place. You use words like 'disgusting' and it sounds pretty vitriolic to me no matter to whomever you refer.

In light of the lack of clarity, I didn't 'bear false witness' against either of you at least not intentionally. I would state Billy that in hindsight the 'labelling people as hateful' aspect of my comments referred to Ryan's responses more so than yours although admittedly I didn't always make that distinction myself.

Both of your comments on 'Brushwood...' come across as quite aggressive to me. I have read several of your posts on this blog and have not felt the need to respond to all of them. People are entitled to their opinion after all. However when I speak of 'bile' and 'hatred' I'm referring to the overall tone of both your comments on this blog as a whole. I can't understand since the approach of Bruce's blog is anything but antagonistic. Yet you appear to lie in wait for what he will post only to pick it apart in a rather obtrusive way.

'...leave God out of this tragedy..'

Sorry to break it to you Billy but since as Christians God is at the core of all that we do we try not to leave Him out of anything. You're not new to this blog. You know where Bruce stands. I don't think you should try and 'silence' the way he chooses to see this issue because it gets your goat. Isn't that what those pesky 'evangies' do. Speak in the imperative and try force people to accept a certain perspective?

I'm sure Bruce can defend himself but it all seems a bit heavy-handed when his blogs have a tone of humility that shouldn't, IMHO, attract the kind of snide remarks I read on here.

'
Lol! And your bearing-false-witness is deeply pure and Christian of course! '

No need for sarcasm Ryan. I never made any claims of 'purity' not at least in that context.

'Skewed and murky perception'...really? Of what exactly? How have your last responses negated any of my points about the overall acerbic tone on this blog?

Making jokes about blowing up buildings is hyperbole and in bad taste at that. I said if the anger isn't checked it could lead to that. I didn't say it was inevitable. I was just making the point that you have more in common with the 'hell breathing 'evangies' than you might wish to admit. The tone really isn't that different after all.

Tolita said...

I like Marcus Brigstock but he's taken a very selective view on the whole issue because it's convenient for the dismissive argument he wants to make. He's correct in that we do enjoy many rights in this country compared to other states in the world. Nevertheless there have been developments in law that make the expression of Christianity in certain contexts very difficult indeed. And Christians do often feel muzzled by a certain kind of political correctness and when people like MB start reducing every legitimate concern to just 'whining' it doesn't help. Not being a Christian himself he won't exactly be best placed to know and he's not exactly the most even-handed voice on the topic either. Christianity is fair game for insults the way other religions are not because it's the 'state religion'. There is a disparity.

By the way the Christian Institute to fine work. There is a form of Christian persecution in the country that I've even heard non-Christians express sympathy towards. The issue is about freedom of conscience. Duke Amachee gets fired from Wandsworth Council for example after 20 years of good service because he told a resident to consider looking to God as a solution, she didn't want to know, he backed off and yet she still complained. Lillian Ladele formerly of Islington Council is bullied by her boss and colleagues because she refuses to do civil partnership ceremonies. Other colleagues are happy to do it. No gay couples would be prevented from getting married if she refuses and she was a registrar for nearly 15 years before the legislation was ratified and approached the authorities before she did it to try and work out a viable solution but they refused. I know of this case first hand as I worked in Islington's legal department, attended the hearing in my own time. My former boss, a senior Employment lawyer (who was not a Christian) when approached by the Council for her expert opinion advised them to try and accommodate Lillian Ladele because of the fundamental human rights issues at hand and they ignored her counsel only for the matter to result in a long drawn out case. The court, who ruled against Ladele at appeal, even admitted the way she was treated by Council staff was disgraceful.

Caroline Petrie is temporarily suspended from her nursing job for offering to pray for a patient (thankfully she was re-instated but the action was pretty draconian in the first place).

You might think these cases are isolated. Even if that might be they set legal precedents that are implemented in work places across the nation for fear of falling foul of the law.

You might not agree with these people's standpoint but these are matters of conscience that do not deprive anyone else of their human rights yet the Christians who hold these beliefs are penalised in some way for it.

I know this idea of Christian persecution is not one that you are willing to take on but there you go. It's the one who wears the shoe who knows where it pinches. Yes this cannot be compared to those around the world whose life is literally on the line if they want to follow Christ but it's there nonetheless....

Tolita said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tolita said...

Back to Christians being persecuted in the UK or not...I don't think the above cases (Amachee, Petrie etc), examples have anything to do with 'whipping up bigotry' Ryan in the way for instance the Westboro Baptist Church do. I don't know personally of any Christians who wish to be identified with those people and their interpretation of the faith. Just the way that the persecution of gays in Uganda in the name of Christianity doesn't mean that Christians who do not condone homosexuality will agree with how they are being treated over there. In that sense Ryan you seem to have conflagrated the two. I also think terms such as 'right wing' Christian are misleading and binary. Economically my views are leftist whilst in other ways I'm socially conservative as some would put it. People are rarely easily put in neat tidy stereotype-boxes.

So I am anticipating lots of detailed responses to this post from both of you. Don't feel obliged to do so but I assume you will anyway. I warn you however that I probably won't respond. This is long enough. I expect more aspersions cast and over-simplification and articulately expressed yet thinly-veiled insults. Life's too short. Nope, I'm not adopting a 'chap-door' evasive tactic (although I have no idea what that means. Sounds funny though :-) ). I just think after a while it will go in circles and end up nowhere except in increasingly pettier bouts of one-upmanship.

Nevertheless I felt I should at least respond to your previous claims of misrepresentation etc. There comes a time when even argumentative types like me need to know when to walk away. I'm certainly not going to enjoy an enriching discourse with either of you two. I won't arrogate to think a continuation of this discussion beyond a couple of very long posts will change that.


As I've decided in advance to step away, you might then like to believe you've 'won' and so be it. I can't stop you thinking that anyway if that's what you want.

God bless you fellows. I say the following with all sincerity and no condescension...at least you're engaging with Bruce. I might not agree with how you do it but you're supporting his blog by visiting it on the regular.

Shalom x

cerebusboy said...

>>>
First of all I had no idea you distinguished 'evangies' from 'evangelicals'. You use terms such as 'evangementalist' and refer to Breivik as an evangelical Christian nutter with no attempt to distinguish those who share their faith peacefully from the 'right wing' characters you dislike.>>

Exactly. You think I need to put loads of positive references to avoid pushing your ideology hot buttons. Would you read "Muslim nutter" for example as indicating that ALL Muslims are nutters? I'd hope not, suggesting that you abandon reason in favour of emotion when comments hit closer to home.

see, for example, your comments that you feel me and Billy are aggressive or ascerbic. Big whoop. guess we must be eh? You did not engage with 'points' ; you reiterated your emotionally subjective state (and all such states do tend to skew things, no?). How, pray tell, can I 'refute' your emotions? Reason can't win in an argument with emotion because emotion can, at any time, just go in a huff and stop listening.

cerebusboy said...

>>>>And Christians do often feel muzzled by a certain kind of political correctness


See above. Particular people FEELING persecuted is in no way evidence of genuine persecution (the cultish tend to be prone to persecution-complexes after all)

cerebusboy said...

>>>
By the way the Christian Institute to fine work.

No, they don't.

Here we have a Very Reverend pointing out one of the characteristic lies of The "Christian" Institute:
http://www.thurible.net/20100120/more-on-the-election/

At one point the CI had 3 stories on the Scottish Episcopal Church, 2 of which contained flat-out lies or distortions. Hardly an impressive strike-rate, eh?


>>>by her boss and colleagues because she refuses to do civil partnership ceremonie>>>

So you agree with the CI that she's a PUBLIC servant who gets to choose what members of the public she serves? Gay people pay taxes too. Refusing a service - an action - is a clear example that homophobia is indeed not just a negative emotional reaction to a particular group.

Here's some more facts about the Christian institute. Funny that you accuse (project much?) me and Billy of the puerile and emotional when you continue to confuse flat assertions of opinion with arguments and evidence, eh?

Their most famous case is that of Nadia Ewada, the poor persecuted BA worker sacked for wearing a cross. Or so the CI would have you believe. In reality, the employment tribunal noted that she:

"... generally lacked empathy for the perspective of others ... her own overwhelming commitment to her faith led her at times to be both naive and uncompromising in her dealings with those who did not share her faith."


and :

"[Eweida's] insistence on privilege for Christmas Day is perhaps the most striking example in the case of her insensitivity towards colleagues, her lack of empathy for those without religious focus in their lives, and her incomprehension of the conflicting demands which professional management seeks to address and resolve on a near-daily basis."

-----

cerebusboy said...

More recently, the CI did a story about a receptionist whose daughter was scolded for discussing Our Lord and, after understandably requesting prayers (via email) from her 'trusted church friends', she was reprimanded by the evil Head teacher. This is the CI's version:
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/school-receptionist-faces-sack-over-prayer-request/
The reality: teachers and pupils (who are closer to the event, and therefore can't just be discounted as evil secular journalists) overwhelmingly backed the headteacher and refuted the CI's distortions:
(NB - you'll note that this link is from a Christian website)
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/8662


Overwhelming support for head teacher in school religion row

14 Feb 2009
Parents and local residents have overwhelmingly backed the head teacher of a Devon school where a young child upset a classmate by telling her that she would "go to hell" if she did not believe in God.
Gary Read, head of Landscore Primary School, Threshers, in Credition, explained to the 5-year-old and her mother, school receptionist Jennie Cain, that the behaviour was unacceptable after it caused another pupil to burst into tears.
The story became local and national news after it got into the hands of the media and of campaigners who repeatedly claim Christians are being 'persecuted' in Britain when public bodies implement diversity policies.
Governors are also investigating an email sent out by Mrs Cain which reached them, but which she says is private, and contains comments they feel are misrepresenting and discrediting the school.
The local Express and Echo paper reports this morning that its readers "have inundated the paper'swww.thisisexeter.co.uk with comments supporting headteacher Gary Read's actions."
Christians and a local Religious Education teacher are among those who have spoken out, saying that the school has a fine record of respecting different beliefs and values, and of trying to be decent and fair in its treatment of pupils.
RE supervisor Cindy Greenow, of Crediton, wrote: "I find it very worrying that a school can be criticised for allowing a teacher to do their job...A child frightened and upset another, they were both spoken to in an effort to resolve the situation, and it is my understanding that at no point were either of them told 'not to talk about God'."
The Telegraph and Mail newspapers are among those who have played up the incident.
Philosopher Steven Law pointed out on his website that the original Telegraph story "omits one crucial detail - that the schools objection was not to a child talking to another about God and Jesus, but to one child scaring another to tears with threats of eternal damnation - thereby putting a very different spin on the story."

cerebusboy said...

Readers of the Express and Echo have also criticised the inaccuracy of that paper's headline on 13 February, when it declared: "Five-year-old girl is told off at school for talking about God."
Landscore school says this is plain wrong. They encourage pupils to talk about their beliefs and opinions, but to do so with respect for others.
Mandy Manning writes: "I am a parent of a Landscore Primary School pupil and I would like to add my support for the excellent headmaster, teaching staff and governors. The issue was one child upsetting another...".
She adds: "I would be horrified if my daughter had been told this and the teacher had not stepped in, and I am thankful she attends a school where such scare- mongering is not allowed to pass as acceptable behaviour."
Other parents and Devon residents express concern that such an issue has been whipped up in the media.
One Crediton commenter says: "For any five-year- old to make a comment about 'going to hell' is worrying and it is something Mrs Cain should take responsibility for, rather than attempting to dirty this school's good name."
Meanwhile, a Christian from Exeter comments: "As a Christian, I would be very upset if my child had told another to go to hell."
Simon Barrow from the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia, who lives in Exeter, told the paper: "Teachers have a tough job trying to balance the needs of pupils from diverse backgrounds. Trying to do so is not 'political correctness', it's humanly decent and educationally necessary."
In an article on the affair (http://ekklesia.co.uk/node/8654) he adds: "[T]hose Christians who object to the school wanting to maintain a non-threatening environment should ask themselves how they would feel if a son of theirs ended up crying after being told by an atheist pupil that religious people are nuts and should be locked up? Or if their daughter was upset by a Muslim telling her she would suffer eternally for not believing in Allah and his Messenger?
"In both these cases, there would be an outcry if the school did nothing, or if it said that that their kids would have to put up with being frightened, because trying to stop this would amount to 'not showing respect for beliefs'. Most fair-minded people will see this."
-------------

cerebusboy said...

>>Just the way that the persecution of gays in Uganda in the name of Christianity doesn't mean that Christians who do not condone homosexuality will agree with how they are being treated over there. In that sense Ryan you seem to have conflagrated the two>>>>


Ah, so me and Billy having a style which you regard as overly fiery makes as potential bombers or at least supporters of a culture that leads to it, but my talking factually of a legitimate spectrum of anti-LGBT violence and prejudice is unjustified is it?

You also said

>>>>>>>However words such as 'homophobia' and fundamentalist are thrown around like confetti when someone doesn't go along with a particular agenda. I do not endorse a homosexual lifestyle. That does not mean I 'fear or hate' gay people as the word 'phobia' suggests or believe they should be mistreated or subjected to degrading or inhumane treatment.>>>>


Who is asking you to 'endorse' (!) a lifestyle? Do you 'endorse' atheism, or drinking too much, or gambling, or Judaism, or Islam? I'm guessing 'no' but there does not tend to be evangementalist campaigns to persecute those groups in the UK. You and the CI lobby are the ones asking for "special rights" by claiming that public servants can choose to not serve one particular group of society that they don't like. I'm of course familiar with the linguistic games around "homophobia". Firstly, not hating or fearing gay people but 'just' wanting to curb their rights is hardly much of an improvement. Secondly, surely you're aware that the term "antisemitic" doesn't make much sense, since Arabs are 'semites' too? On top of which the word was coined by something who hated Jews to give the prejudice a more scientific ring. Yet society is not full of people saying that we must come up with a new word (Judenhass perhaps?) before we can tackle anti-Jewish prejudice. Yet, when it comes to gay, we are to believe that there is no anti-LGBT racism-comparable prejudice or, if there is, we can't do anything about until we come up with a better buzzword! Don't you find that curious? What does it tell you about society? And of course Stonewall et all do have alternative to homophobia such as "heterosexist"; invoking these, however, does in my experience lead to the anti-gay laughing at the silly poofs and their made-up words.

cerebusboy said...

>>>> I'm what you'd call a 'creationist' who believes in hell and believes also in sharing my faith. Perhaps I would fall foul of your definition, correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm on the wrong side of your point of view.>>>

Ah, I love the smell of tactical relativism in the morning! ;-)

Evolution is scientific fact. The 'definitions' are not mine. It is arrogant, not humble, to think that one's theological *opinions* supplant scientific fact. From a Christian ethical perspective, I think that telling the truth in an (arguably ;)) argumentative manner compares favourably to lying in a demure style.

cerebusboy said...

Hmm, see you deleted your post on creationism and your unwillingness to "endorse" (!) - Presidential candidate style? - homosexuality. Whilst that might indicate a sensible attitude towards respectful "discourse" (strange to hear a 'conservative' Christian putting such store by such a poof-invented word tho...) it also serves as supportive of my point above: truth and honesty spoken passionately are ethically superior to nonsense like creationism spouted demurely. For example, many
who condemn homosexuality are fond of using the phrase "homosexual practise" (as opposed to perfection? ;-)) . Do you really think that any gay man is going to
regard such language as fair and balanced? ("Gee, this sure beats the bad old days when they called me a 'sodomite'!) .

And the concept behind this language is equally vile and offensive of course, suggesting as it does that "heterosexuality" denotes loving, cuddly, monogomous relationships whereas "homosexuality" consists of a litany of dodgy sexual practises. You might of course not think that your own rhetoric is offensive, but solipsism is not something to be proud of, let alone inately Christian.

Of course I don't know you. You don't know me, or Billy, yet you assume that I'm not a Christian and that we're both potentially (at least supporters of) cultural or literal violence! Again, project much?

cerebusboy said...

And, whilst I'm impressed that you worked in a legal department, Tolita, argumentum ad verecundium tends to be a waste of time at the best of times. Although the "schoolboy" (!) Billy is a professional scientist, so I'm sure that he could negate your creationist ideology if you had any interest in the truth (as opposed to thinking that number-of-words necessarily equates to genuine engagement; don't you think that flat-out ignoring pertinent points made by imago dei human beings is pretty disrepectful and dehumanising?)

cerebusboy said...

As for 'winning' : Tolita, there are, I'm sure you'll agree, so many hours in the day. It cracked me up when you basically accused Billy of Trolling, not knowing that he's pals with Bruce! Demonise, much? However, you'll see that both me and Billy engaged with your points and would continue to do so. In contrast, you make wild emotional slurs (whilst I'm sure that you're emotions are very important to you, they're a poor - not least theological! - basis for any kind of truth), conflate statements-of-evidence with opinion and then state that you won't continue this anymore because me and billy are such baddies that we have no interest in genuine debate! Again, project much?

If you check above, you'll see that you were the one that brought the personal into it, with your wild emotional slurs against me and Billy. I certainly agree that ad hom is both personally disrespectful and a total waste of time. Which is why I talked factually about e.g. The Christian Institute. In contrast, you misread what I wrote ('right wing evangelicals' in no way means that all evangelical are 'right-wing') and then blamed me!

It's sweet (or at least sickly) that you give your ex cathedra blessing (!) for me and Billy to continue to read and post here, but such egotism and failure to engage does not do your ideological team any favours.

Billy said...

Hmmm, Billy, Ryan. You call it 'projecting' I'm just calling it as I see it.


Really, I'd suggest that you are a bit too willing to see things in a particular way.

First of all I had no idea you distinguished 'evangies' from 'evangelicals'. You use terms such as 'evangementalist' and refer to Breivik as an evangelical Christian nutter with no attempt to distinguish those who share their faith peacefully from the 'right wing' characters you dislike

Making jokes about blowing up buildings is hyperbole and in bad taste at that.

Or it could be the deployment of "argumentum ad absurdum"?

So, you judged us?

Both of your comments on 'Brushwood...' come across as quite aggressive to me.

Maybe you should grow a thicker skin. Strong disagreement is not aggression! The fact I can say these things and still have a pleasant coffee with Bruce is evidence enough of that. Unfortunatey, too mant christians like to see persecution in everything.

Yet you appear to lie in wait for what he will post only to pick it apart in a rather obtrusive way.

It's called critical evaluation - how else do you test opinions? Again, you cry persecution where there is none.

I don't think you should try and 'silence' the way he chooses to see this issue because it gets your goat.

Sorry, but that is just paranoid and judgemenal. WHERE DO I EVER TRY AND SILENCE HIM? COME ON,TELL ME, WHERE??????

If anything,I try and get him to respond and think more deeply - you really are paranoind and throwing around demonstrably false accusations.I think perhaps you are the one who is being "got at"

Billy said...

Marcus Brigstoke is refering to the fact that christians want their way all of the time - despite having many unfair privilages alreadY, so, you can't dismss him that easily.

I know this idea of Christian persecution is not one that you are willing to take on but there you go.

Oh really,is that another judgement you have made?

Tell me, should christans have the right to discriminate against women and gays? Should they have the right to discriminate against the teaching of sexual health?
You can't keep everyone happy, but you are free to practice your faith, whereas I'm expected to sing "God save the queen" and fund repairs to your buildngs. There is discrimination everywhere. We dont feel the need to bleat abot it becuse we thik we have a divine right to discriminate in the name of Jesus.

I'm what you'd call a 'creationist' who believes in hell and believes also in sharing my faith. Perhaps I would fall foul of your definition, correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm on the wrong side of your point of view.>>>


I don't know, do you lie to promote creationism, or are you just ignorant of biology but willing to learn?

God bless you fellows. I say the following with all sincerity and no condescension...at least you're engaging with Bruce. I might not agree with how you do it but you're supporting his blog by visiting it on the regular.


And may you come to know the freedom and satisfaction that only comes from ditching your belief in your god.

Anonymous said...

tolita thanks for your comments

cerebusboy said...

Anonymous? Guy Fawkes mask a-hoy or:
If u want beef then bring da ruckus,
Greg da Fud ain't nothing ta fuck with

?
;)