Radio script idea based on 'Britain's got talent'.
Simon Cowell:
Hello sweetheart, and what do you do?
Contestant A: I remember people’s birthdays.
SC: Ok, and how long have you been doing this for?
A: Since I was about twelve.
SC: Right, and is it just family birthdays, friends?
A: Everyone’s really, neighbours, pets, lolly pop lady.
SC: Well, it’s certainly unusual. So how did it all start?
A: I gave a birthday card to my teacher once, she was chuffed to bits. That was it, I was hooked.
SC: And do you have any special methods?
A: Not really. Just the colour coded diary. And a fluffy pom pom page marker.
SC: You're certainly taking this seriously. Ok, you’ve got two minutes to remember as many birthdays as you can. Bonus points if you remember mine.
Tag line: In God’s eyes, everyone’s got talent. What’s yours?
SC: (under breath) Just don’t remember the year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
52 comments:
Tag line: In God’s eyes, everyone’s got talent. What’s yours? I can talk for hours about the non-existence of God? :-)
Lee
I could talk about what god isnt for about the same...
rob
Tag line: In God’s eyes, everyone’s got talent.Including people without any?
Did he make me talented in non belief? :-)
PS,
What about Belgium?
What about Belgium?Erm...
The argumentum ad Belgiumium - disproves god every time :-)
What about Belgium? Chocolate, Tin Tin, Eddie Merx, the list goes on.
I'm sad to see such negative comments on here Bruce mate, but I need to add to them I'm afraid. Reading your script for Everyone's Got Talent, I just feel the concept seems far too vague, with God stuck at the end.
Jill and I were discussing the media hype surrounding Susan Boyle and it's such a sad state of affairs. The very fact she has become an international sensation has precious little to do with her ability to sing, far from it. It is born from our sick obsession with what people look like. Let's face it, the lass can sing a bit, but the real story is we all thought she looked like she couldn't.
This is the harsh reality of people living outside of a relationship with God and going their own way, look at what we're doing to ourselves! God commands us to accept all people for who they are, "Jews or Greeks, slave or free." And to "'Love your neighbour as yourself.'" We're telling Susan Boyle not that we love her for who she is and because she can sing, we love her because we think she looks like she can't sing.
Carl,
This is the harsh reality of people living outside of a relationship with God and going their own way, look at what we're doing to ourselves!Some of the most shallow and image obsessed people I know are christian and some of the most accepting I know are muslims or atheists.
1. billy surely your point must be that identities are meaningless or as the lord says :
"think not to say we are children of abraham for god can raise up these stones to be children of abraham"
the only problem with this point is that it works for athiesm as well as christianity - pragmatic skepticism is just as empty a tag as any other....
2. bruce,
I read an article the other day which suggested that modern manufacturing industry was a direct result of the miraculous component of the new testament narratives. The author believed that the supposed credulity of the early church was responsible - no rather accountable ! - for the process orientated structure of modern production.
3. A bonus point for anyone who can join these two ideas together and get my point....
p.s. billy , looked to me that novos shot crossed the line - referee seems to have got it wrong - where is hugh dallas when you need him ?
Cheers guys. Always a challenge Carlos to get the approach right, I agree it can sometimes be too vague and lack bite, I'll work on that!
Besides, my Simon Cowell inpression needs some work..
Billy,
"Some of the most shallow and image obsessed people I know are christian and some of the most accepting I know are muslims or atheists."
I'm sorry that has been your experience of Christians, but is that a real experience met with an objective view? Should you know that you are talking with a Christian, does your atheism cause you to respond or pick up on things in that conversation in a certain way? A Christian is someone on a journey and striving to search out ultimate truths concerning the human condition. But human we are, perfect we're not and we hardly ever walk this walk in a consistent, gracious, Christ-like fashion. Things that happen around us cause us to act and react in certain ways and we often find ourselves reverting back to the human and forgetting to walk in the Spirit. This is the struggle. You can argue the finer scientific points for ever, but it is our emotions and how they effect our relationships with other people in the here-and-now which need to be worked out. Do you meet these shallow and image obsessed Christians with the same acceptance, love and grace that Christ commands us to? If as nations, we each REALLY loved our neighbour and cared for them as a human being, worthy of being on this earth, how far would that neighbourhood stretch? Would it reach the children in Africa drawing dirty water from a stagnant pool? This may sound like ideology, but I think it's a reality of the hope we have in Christ. Nearly all of the skinheads I've ever met have been quite aggressive and angry fellas. But that has usually been in pubs and quite rough pubs at that. I recently met a guy who has a skinhead and we've become great pals, not an ounce of anger or aggression in him. So is hope hopeless?
billy,
"most accepting " - is this the greatest virtue then ? or is it rather the most characterless vice ?
what you are really saying is i like this - because you have no other foundation for argument - how can you imply one thing is better than an another when you have no objective grounds for moral argument.
why do you use christian moral language to attack christian ideology. If christianity is meaningless fine - but can you be consistent and drop this god fearing athiest approach ?
hugh dallas, bobby davros, wow, some interesting new friends.
Just streamlined the script a bit. It's a very simple one this.
Catch up with comments later.
Bobby Davro (rob?)
billy surely your point must be that identities are meaninglessMy point is that Carl's claim does not reflect reality.
pragmatic skepticism is just as empty a tag as any other....Strawman! I'm not making any claims that pragmatic Skeptics are better people.
looked to me that novos shot crossed the line - referee seems to have got it wrong - where is hugh dallas when you need him ?
Yeah. I've always thought that we were the more likely team to throw it away though. Aberdeen will do everything to beat us now and Utd are a tough team for us.
Carl
I'm sorry that has been your experience of Christians, but is that a real experience met with an objective view?No need to be sorry. That's just the way they are and yes, it is objective - dont think Bruce would be too happy with me giving away too much here though incase people think they know some of the people I am refering to.
Should you know that you are talking with a Christian, does your atheism cause you to respond or pick up on things in that conversation in a certain way?No. Does your christianity stop you seeing the inherent "good" in all people?
But human we are, perfect we're not and we hardly ever walk this walk in a consistent, gracious, Christ-like fashion.I never made any claims to the contrary - I just disagree that you somehow have to be a christian to be a "good" person.
but it is our emotions and how they effect our relationships with other people in the here-and-now which need to be worked out.That is your opinion and not based in fact. I probably agree with much of your moral values, but it is only an opinion - not objective fact.
Do you meet these shallow and image obsessed Christians with the same acceptance, love and grace that Christ commands us to? I dont believe in Jesus, so the question is somewhat meaningless. Whether or not I am accepting, there is no obective reason why you or I should be accepting.
If as nations, we each REALLY loved our neighbour and cared for them as a human beingAh good old Confuscious (c. 550BCE) :-) Christianity does not actually have any original moral values. I can be a peace maker without being a christian - can't I?
This may sound like ideology, but I think it's a reality of the hope we have in Christ.You have heard of the red crescent?
So is hope hopeless?False hope is worse than no hope.
Hugh
"most accepting " - is this the greatest virtue then ? or is it rather the most characterless vice ?There are no objective virtues, so again the question is meaningless. If you are questioning their motives, then I would say it is because they dont judge others or accept them warts and all.
what you are really saying is i like this - because you have no other foundation for argument - how can you imply one thing is better than an another when you have no objective grounds for moral argument.
Strawnam - where's my petrol? Going back to the original context, following Jesus does not make you someone who is not image obsessed - where is the need for objective moral values in that?
why do you use christian moral language to attack christian ideology. If christianity is meaningless fine - but can you be consistent and drop this god fearing athiest approach ?
Tell you what, you point out when I'm actually doing it and I'll stop.
Having said that, It is perfectly logical to point out the internal inconsistencies in christian moral thinking. If you believe "x" is good and can only come about through god, it is still perfectly consistent for me to point out that non christians do "x" too. So, where is the problem?
Tell you what, you point out when I'm actually doing it and I'll stop
False hope is worse than no hope
if there is any consolation in last nights defeat it is that the chasers i think tend to have more luck if it comes down to the last day - it may be a subjective reading of football history - who can forget hearts infamous collapse as celtic broke the net at love street. I met an ardent tim this morning who proclaimed he was now a hibs fan for life and that rangers would win the league on goal difference.
you can never really win
False hope is worse than no hopeAnd this is inconsistent how?
you can never really winTrue. Scot Mac Macdonald also handed us the title on the last day of the season a few years ago - when celtic should have won it.
The Toon are looking bad at the moment - how can this happen to such a big team?
The toon are a law to themselves - their is a living postmortem that hangs over the club - but once things slide - they keep sliding. They have enough money to buy hasbeens that care about money and not enough money to buy winners who care about winning - other smaller club buy wannabes who sometimes make winners : duff owen viduka barton smith - with the exception of taylor and harper none of them really have the fans respect.
and there is also the privacy issue - total population here is 260,000 - yet they fit in 50,000 every weekend - every 2nd person is a season ticket holder - its not much fun being watched 24/7 - especially by the most economically unproductive and religiously conservative people
in england.
all in all a little bit of sectarianism wouldnt go amiss - they should have an atheist newcastle and a thiest newcastle - that would take the heat off things.
the problem with language is " False hope is worse than no hope " It sounds like christian language - from a positivist viewpoint this is a nonsensical statement - how do you get here - to me it seems an obvious discrepancy. But the stress of the title race could be addling my mind.
that and the privacy issue - total population is 260,000 - yet they fit in 50,000 every weekend - every 2nd person is a season ticket holder - its not much fun being watched 24/7....
all in all a little bit of sectarianism would soften the blow - they should have an atheist newcastle and a thiest newcastle - that would take the heat off things.
see i' m repeating myself - do you think aberdeen see this as a chance to drive a wedge between the old firm ? I think rangers are streching themselves to be at this level - without a title , I wouldnt be suprised is boyd and the naughty pair are sold off to birminghman in the summer .
If you are watching the premiership - keep watching - I dread to think what sort of team ferguson will put out at hull next week - a point from arsenal and the title in the bag - the prospect of a mid week champions league final - i think he might field a reserve side - that way he can rest his players and see off a major team to the first division. I'm sure he would much rather be travelling to hull next season than a tyneside with shearer as manager.
all in all a little bit of sectarianism wouldnt go amiss - they should have an atheist newcastle and a thiest newcastle - that would take the heat off things.
Would the christians be better with crosses?
It sounds like christian language - from a positivist viewpoint this is a nonsensical statement - how do you get here - to me it seems an obvious discrepancy.Hope has nothing to do with christianity though - a partick thistle fan has to deal with false hope every season (and delusion too).
Think Aberdeen are solely motivated by stopping us winning. Surprisingly, Rangers have been the better team this season despite a few notable hickups. Celtic however are top not through being good by any strtch of the imagination. They are there because we have not been good enough.
At least Ferguson can play Fletcher against hull
C: I'm sorry that has been your experience of Christians, but is that a real experience met with an objective view?
B: No need to be sorry. That's just the way they are and yes, it is objective - dont think Bruce would be too happy with me giving away too much here though incase people think they know some of the people I am refering to.
C: I genuinely am sorry that has been your experience, on their behalf, I'm sorry. Have you told those people your experience of them? It may be helpful for them to know that their actions were received so badly. A person truly open to the challenge of the Christian walk should be accepting of such criticism. Try it, if you haven't already.
C: Should you know that you are talking with a Christian, does your atheism cause you to respond or pick up on things in that conversation in a certain way?
B: No. Does your christianity stop you seeing the inherent "good" in all people?
C: I don't know how you can flatly deny that any of our ideas or beliefs can obstruct how we perceive a point we don't agree with. Maybe I am just more open to accepting my failings in such areas than you are, because my goal is to strive towards working all that stuff out. And in answer to your attempt to twist this debate, if it is good, it comes from God. I never suggested otherwise. It is with that good we must flush out the bad.
C: But human we are, perfect we're not and we hardly ever walk this walk in a consistent, gracious, Christ-like fashion.
B: I never made any claims to the contrary - I just disagree that you somehow have to be a christian to be a "good" person.
C: This links in with my other answer quoting Genesis 14 below.
Of all the kings/people mentioned in Genesis 14 Abram, a shepherd, is the only man we see with a relationship with God. God, always accepting of the underdog, the not good enoughs. So Abram allows God to lead him. Nothing is really said about the character of any of these kings, they may overall be good people, but they're leading their people on their own. They don't have a relationship with God. They don't recognise God's authority. It's not simply about being a good person anyone can do that. It's about recognising where and how that "good" is defined. If you don't accept the authority of God, how do you determine what is good? By what means of your own can you determine this? This is why many of the world's dictators have led their country into war, genocide, famines etc. Are they good? We're still doing it today!
C: but it is our emotions and how they effect our relationships with other people in the here-and-now which need to be worked out.
B: That is your opinion and not based in fact. I probably agree with much of your moral values, but it is only an opinion - not objective fact.
C: I think it can be scientifically tested, see below...
C: Do you meet these shallow and image obsessed Christians with the same acceptance, love and grace that Christ commands us to?
B: I dont believe in Jesus, so the question is somewhat meaningless. Whether or not I am accepting, there is no obective reason why you or I should be accepting.
C: How can you say that? Of course there is.
You could test that in a scientific way. Have you ever been in this situation?:
Someone seems like they really want to tell you something and as they start to, you receive a text. In a split second, you've weighed up that whatever that person is half way through saying is probably not as important as the text you have just received, even though you have no idea what that text could be about. So, you answer the text. It reads, "Don't get milk, I picked some up on the way home."
Now, if I stood across the room and afterwards took that person to one side and asked them how that situation made them feel, you could image the response. How would you feel?
It happens again another day. This time you ignore the noise of receiving the text. You're fully engaged with what that person is telling you and they're aware of it. They see you are not distracted. Afterwards if I ask them how they felt, the response is something like, "Really good to share that with Billy, he's such a good listener."
You're acceptance or rejection of someone impacts their emotional state, which has a knock on affect on that part of their day, maybe their whole day. If the people they meet would always rather answer their mobile phones, that will certainly impact their whole life. Believe in Jesus or not, this is a good philosophy and if it's good, it comes from God.
C: If as nations, we each REALLY loved our neighbour and cared for them as a human being
B: Ah good old Confuscious (c. 550BCE) :-) Christianity does not actually have any original moral values. I can be a peace maker without being a christian - can't I?
C: The question here is really about authority. Take Abram in Genesis chapter 14, (circa 1800 BC). (Background to the story): Abram is a shepherd, who has such a strong relationship with God that his whole life is guided by God. The oppression of the King of Kedorlaomer and his allies against the people of the King of Sodom and his allies, finally erupts in a war. King Kedorlaomer and his allies win. As Abram's nephew Lot was living in Sodom, he and his possessions were carried off with all the victors had looted. Abram's not happy at the injustice firstly of a member of his family now being pulled into this battle (no doubt for power and possessions) between these kings. And secondly, because of the insult of taking Lot's possessions too. They are shepherds, nomads. All they own is stored in tents and carried from place to place as they find pasture and water for their flocks. Abram pursues them and with only a few hundred men defeats them, recovering all the looted goods.
(My point): Genesis 14:21-24 King Sodom tries to persuade Abram to take all the recovered possessions in exchange for these, A Few Hundred Good Men. Abram will not be bought or coerced into the politics of kings, he's seen the injustice and destruction of the wars brought by power struggles. He sets his heart to God and honourably values the men over the possessions and the worldly wealth those possessions could bring him. What Abram's done here is made a stand saying I will not enter into your way of power and greed for it leads to destruction. Neither will I send my men that way. (He's looked after his neighbour/s). He will not therefore belong to Sodom, He will belong to God. A very pertinent point in light of our current commitments in various theatres of war and the current economic climate all our capitalist greed has produced.
C: This may sound like ideology, but I think it's a reality of the hope we have in Christ.
B: You have heard of the red crescent?
C: I have no idea what this is.
C: So is hope hopeless?
B: False hope is worse than no hope.
C: I don't see a division of false hope and true hope. Hope is just hope. You could say that any hope is false hope, until it delivers/transpires to be the "fact" that you hoped it would be, like your team winning. Until then, we live by faith.
billy ,
im not denying that you can say there is such an experience which we agree to label hope - i am saying issuing statements about what type of hope we should have or not have - really is christian language
if you said that you personally considered what you personally labeled as false hope was not only approximately the equivalent of what others labelled as false hope and but also that it is somehow statistically observable to effect a set of consequeces which in a way which you could probably not demonstrate as being holistically detrimental...
that is the sort of chain which i would expect you to go down - but are you implying that one should not breed false hope and delusions in the gullible ?
that is a different matter....
just wondering ?
there has been a flatness to celtic this season - although with scott brown back i think they will close out the title - at the bottom of it i think it is all about cash - rangers to me get more for their buck - celtic are in danger of fielding a team of overpaid tools and premiership rejects - and maybe "in danger" is flattering...
Hi Carl,
I genuinely am sorry that has been your experience, on their behalf, I'm sorry. Have you told those people your experience of them?Yes, they know and I am by no means the only one to point this out. Not that it did any good though. We are however getting away from the point I was making – you can be a “good” person without Christianity.
A person truly open to the challenge of the Christian walk should be accepting of such criticism.A person truly open to the challenge of self improvement should be accepting of such criticism.
I don't know how you can flatly deny that any of our ideas or beliefs can obstruct how we perceive a point we don't agree with.I didn’t actually deny anything. You are also setting up a strawman here. Some beliefs are also testable and open to falsification. Objectivity can be applied in some circumstances. Are you saying your beliefs are feeling based then?
Maybe I am just more open to accepting my failings in such areas than you are, because my goal is to strive towards working all that stuff out.So, you are making assumptions here about someone you have never met? Is this biblically based or just another one of these failings you allude to?
And in answer to your attempt to twist this debate, if it is good, it comes from God. I never suggested otherwise. It is with that good we must flush out the bad.Twist what exactly? You also have no objective basis for your claim. How can you even claim to know what good is if you believe you can’t understand your god? I would say the OT god is a particularly nasty character – how can you claim he is good?
Of all the kings/people mentioned in Genesis 14 Abram…. It's about recognising where and how that "good" is defined.
This is not actually an argument. Lot is also not exactly a good role model – he offers his daughters to a mob and gets them pregnant – yet he is the one guy god spares from Sodom and Gomorrah.
If you don't accept the authority of God, how do you determine what is good?Allsorts of ways. None of them based in any absolute moral laws. Your text analogy even provides a possible mechanism. However, human societies have thought all sorts of things were good – including killing your enemies. What the Christian consistently fails to do is show that anything is actually good in an absolute sense – more later.
Do you believe something is good because your god commands it, or do you think god commands something because it is good?
This is why many of the world's dictators have led their country into war, genocide, famines etc. Are they good? We're still doing it today!Including the crusaders and inquisitors……
They are neither good or bad in an absolute sense – they break no unbendable moral laws. What you are trying to do here is get an emotional response. Objective morality is not about emotions. Is a worm eating a child’s eyeball in Africa breaking any moral laws? What about a lion crushing the throat of a child while its pride tuck into some living flesh?
I think it can be scientifically tested, see below...I disagree. The problem here is that you are mistaking offense with what is actually right or wrong. You are making the person the arbitrator of what is good or bad – not a god. I think you misunderstand what I mean about objective moral values. Let’s call them fixed moral laws that are external to us. What you do though is point out a possible mechanism that natural selection can use to shape our morality – but that is not absolute (dependent on a god).
How can you say that? Of course there is.See above.
You could test that in a scientific way. Have you ever been in this situation?:…..No, all that does is show that you can upset people – it does not show the presence of an external moral law.
Believe in Jesus or not, this is a good philosophy and if it's good, it comes from God.I may agree, but that does not make it good in an absolute sense. You need to show that good exists and that it comes from god.
Take Abram in Genesis chapter 14, (circa 1800 BC).Actually, there are so many anachronisms in genesis that it is unlikely to have been written then. More realistically, it was probably written post Babylonian exile (c500 BCE) I could also quote the Sumerian councils of Wisdom (dated to the 3rd millennium BCE).
As for Abraham (he probably actually changed his name because of the knitting together of other traditions) that shows nothing. Can you verify the story? Can you provide real examples of this claim?
I have no idea what this is.Just one example of people not needing Jesus to be “good”.
I don't see a division of false hope and true hope. Hope is just hope. You could say that any hope is false hope, until it delivers/transpires to be the "fact" that you hoped it would be, like your team winning. Until then, we live by faith. False hope keeps people in a state of helplessness. Hoping my team will win is entirely different. Whether that happens or not is also largely down to them – and I don’t live my life based on the hope my team wins.
Rob,
Christians dont hold the monopoly on the fefinition of hope.
I dont think you should fill people with false hope - unless of course you want to control them
Hi Billy,
Overall, your argument seems to be concerned with absolutes. What are your methods in determining such things as an idea of an "absolute right or wrong?"
I dont think you should fill people with false hope - unless of course you want to control them
Is that itself is a statement of control ? deconstruction is itself open to deconstruction - one reason why I dont get too involved in it in christian circles - is people deconstruct the institutionalised church only subtly legislate their own personal agendas :)
ive just got in - was going to watch the highlights of the easter road game - but how do you watch highlights of a 0-0 ? Till next weekend...
oh and I do think christians hold the definition on christian hope - others types of hope do not interest me - they are like the sex pistols compared to bach....
Carl,
Christianity needs absolutes or there is no sin or anything to "aspire" to. That is the basis of your initial statement. Can you show they exist? That way we can determine whether they exist or not.
Rob,
Is that itself is a statement of control ? Is debate an attempt to control?
Was "exciting" last 20 mins - cant get that experience from highlights. Just relieved though.
I like the sex pistols and Bach
Billy,
I understand the basis for the Christian thinking in absolutes, or yes you're right, sin wouldn't exist and there would be no greater state of being to aspire to. I don't think I understand what exactly this mission you seem to be on is trying to search for. On one hand you say you agree with much of the moral values of Christianity, yet reject their validity as "moral laws," because you don't believe they stand strong enough to constitute being any sort of absolute moral code. I wonder if you would be so philosophical if someone stole something from you or worse. I wonder if you could say something to the effect of, ah well, there's no real absolute reason why he shouldn't have stolen it. However, conveniently for me, I live in a society which believes their is. I pay my insurance and I'll get the goods replaced. I really don't want to get into a tit-for-tat situation here (as I'm genuinely intrigued to understand your argument), but can you prove an absolute good or absolute moral laws don't exist?
Is debate an attempt to control?
absolutely - a very english attempt at control - one which i can only ever take a mocking reverence for...
hibs have given both set of old firms great pleasure in the last week - i watched the end of the rangers game and felt I can only imagine - the mirror image of your emotional rollercoaster.
I am always puzzled by your approach to ethics billy - morality may be absolute but our understanding of it subjective - god like the universe can only be understood through a variety of mutually contradictory paradigms - unless of course you are advocating idolatry - and that wouldn't exactly be bluenose approach....
bruce, have you seen the apostle with robert duval - i really enjoyed it - its sent me searching for my own inner black pentecostal - I'm sure he must be here somewhere !
r.
Is debate an attempt to control?
absolutely - a very english attempt at control - one which i can only ever take a mocking reverence for...
hibs have given both set of old firms great pleasure in the last week - i watched the end of the rangers game and felt I can only imagine - the mirror image of your emotional rollercoaster.
I am always puzzled by your approach to ethics billy - morality may be absolute but our understanding of it subjective - god like the universe can only be understood through a variety of mutually contradictory paradigms - unless of course you are advocating idolatry - and that wouldn't exactly be bluenose approach....
bruce, have you seen the apostle with robert duval - i really enjoyed it - its sent me searching for my own inner black pentecostal - I'm sure he must be here somewhere !
r.
p.s. billy do you have stats on the inquisition i think you are looking at maybe 400 people killed over 300 years - certainly not unusual for any religious group in that time - better to keep your ranks trim than you flanks weak in battle. This is another example of your exceptions becoming the rule. 80 million died mao and stalin in decades. One death is too many - but your black myths are a bit dan brown...
Is debate an attempt to control?
absolutely - a very english attempt at control - one which i can only ever take a mocking reverence for...
hibs have given both set of old firms great pleasure in the last week - i watched the end of the rangers game and felt I can only imagine - the mirror image of your emotional rollercoaster.
I am always puzzled by your approach to ethics billy - morality may be absolute but our understanding of it subjective - god like the universe can only be understood through a variety of mutually contradictory paradigms - unless of course you are advocating idolatry - and that wouldn't exactly be bluenose approach....
bruce, have you seen the apostle with robert duval - i really enjoyed it - its sent me searching for my own inner black pentecostal - I'm sure he must be here somewhere !
r.
p.s. billy do you have stats on the inquisition i think you are looking at maybe 400 people killed over 300 years - certainly not unusual for any religious group in that time - better to keep your ranks trim than you flanks weak in battle. This is another example of your exceptions becoming the rule. 80 million died mao and stalin in decades. One death is too many - but your black myths are a bit dan brown...
billy
online live football link - best one i have found yet
http://www.myp2p.eu/index.php?part=sports
off to watch the sunderland game...
Haven't seen that film rob though heard of it..
lookin' forward to reading some comments.
Hi Carl,
sin wouldn't exist and there would be no greater state of being to aspire to.Not true. You can still choose to aspire to something,
don't think I understand what exactly this mission you seem to be on is trying to search for.The truth of course.
On one hand you say you agree with much of the moral values of Christianity, yet reject their validity as "moral laws," because you don't believe they stand strong enough to constitute being any sort of absolute moral code.Not quite what I said. Strength does not make something absolute. I can adhere to quasi absolutes - which is what I believe morality actually is. I can even be biologically shaped to accept some values, but that does not make them absolute in the sense that your faith claims.
I wonder if you would be so philosophical if someone stole something from you or worse.Ah this old chestnut! Again, you seem to confuse my reaction to something as being an indicator of something being absolute. Suppose I'm a dictator and feel outraged at the UN trying to interfere. Does it then follow that the UN interfering violates an absolute moral law?
I wonder if you could say something to the effect of, ah well, there's no real absolute reason why he shouldn't have stolen it. Again, you make the same mistake.
Tell me, do you think consentual sex outside of marriage is wrong?
but can you prove an absolute good or absolute moral laws don't exist?
Why do you think I should have to do that? By asking that question, you clearly take absolutes as a given. Logically, it is the person making the claim that has to provide evidence - ie you. Not me. Let me illustrate the error here. I have a pencil case that eats giraffes. Do you accept that statement?
If you want to try and show that absolutes exist, I'll show you why I disagree.
Rob,
To quote Alex Ferguson, it's squeaky bum time.
- morality may be absolute but our understanding of it subjective In a way, I agree. You could go even further and say if absolute morality did exist, then we have no real way to show it does. It also means that you have know way of telling if what you call good is actually evil in absolute terms.
p.s. billy do you have stats on the inquisition i think you are looking at maybe 400 people killed over 300 years - certainly not unusual for any religious group in that time - better to keep your ranks trim than you flanks weak in battle. This is another example of your exceptions becoming the rule. 80 million died mao and stalin in decades. One death is too many - but your black myths are a bit dan brown...
Let's go back to the point I was making - religion/christianity has used for evil. (I also mentioned the crusades - care to comment on those? or Hitler's and Musselini's catholicism - or indees the orthodox indoctrination of the young Stalin?). Cast your mind back - Carl was taking a onesided and unrealistic view of dictatorships.
The spanish inquisition murderd over 1000, but it was about using religion to control people (with plans on the world) Many more were tortured
The portuguese inquisition killed a few hundred more and tortured over 30 000. Give my regards to Bishop Eusebius - fiddler of historical texts
billy
do you fear jesus ?
rob.
i actually quite like eusebius - history is a drama in the making.... as for the crusades what was your problem - not thinking of converting to islam are you...
"hitlers catholicism" - now you are barking...
squeaky bum time ?
celtic need to sign marvin andrews - just for the dundee utd game - as for newcastle - there chances are slimmer - maybe they should have gone for glenda hoddle instead of big al...
r.
"hitlers catholicism" - now you are barking...
Nope. He was a catholic - whether a "true" one or not ...... He certainly gained a great deal of support from the german christian parties and often "esteemed" the church and sucessfully used christian imagery to achieve his goals. You may find these interesting
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
I'm betting he would also have been a celtic fan
Amidst all this talk about moral absolutes and football, I just want to know what you all thought of my line about the fluffy pom pom page marker!!
billy
I have seen most of those pictures - cornwell's book is in my feeble scholarly opinion - popularist trash - its only a shelf away from the holy blood and holy grail - and the da vinci code. I found dalins comments interesting :
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4608
You can find anything you want on the internet - but evaluating the information is a different matter.
I can handle some of the criticisms which come out of the jewish lobby - they may be worth discussing - but cornwells book has to be the ultimate dumbdown - take two voyeuristic obessions of popular culture and cook them together: get an instant best seller.
If I had no scruples I could write such rubbish and retire - all he needs is to link it to jfk and marylin he will be a millionaire
rob.
p.s. there is nothing wrong with genocide anyway is there ? - its just that I assume you think you dont like it...
But Ive never taken hitler as a celtic fan - not really a drinker - not really a fitba kind of guy was he ? more vegetarian breakfasts in the alps wasnt he - there is always the question of how clever he was - and how much he was just a puppet of the times. I get him as half and half - stalin was more of a monster I always thought - but I dont know much about him - ll check out his upbringing - he was the love child of rasputin you say ?
in reference to the pom pom's : everyone's got talent. I reckon i would say while there is life there is hope and meaning - i hope that means something
r.
Rob, you seem to make some fantastic leap of the imagination there. Perhaps you could focus on the actual photo contents. It is well documented by many sources that hitler had christian support. He also professed from time to time to be a catholic - the only real debate is (like many popes) whether he actually believed it. Many of his stooges certainly believed it and swallowed the jews killed jsus line - Martin Luther would be proud.
p.s. there is nothing wrong with genocide anyway is there ? - its just that I assume you think you dont like it...Not in an absolute sense anyway - biologically, it may not be good though.
I think Hitler had control. That's why he lost. He made some desicions based on astrology (think operation barberosa was one)and forced the suicide of Rommel. He also depleted Rommel's force in Africa with his stubborness.
Bruce, I never got the pom pom thing
'I never got the pom pom thing'. If only the above debate could be summarised so succinctly.
Personally I think hitler had it too good - even at the start of the russian campaign. It is hard to concieve of losing when you never have done. Given his sucess -it is hard to think of why he should have taken a defensive appoach to the russian campaign. I have never seen any grounds for thinking religion was a determinant factor in his life - the only criticism would be that the influence of christianity never stopped him. But it never stopped Judas either - anymore than law and government, Brutus..
Rommel was fantastic - the word from the gound was El Alamein was a lot closer than it was commonly reported. From people I Know who knew him Monty was as much a pain in the arse as Patton thought he was.
Monty was a total moron. He still lost something ridiculous like 4 tanks to every German one - even when the Afrika Korps were in retreat - then there was the operation market garden fiasco
theres the second time we have agreed on something :)
Sorry Rob,
Did I say moron, I meant to say genius :-)
ok how about gordon strachan ?
rumours of him going to sunderland ? very amusing - that would make a bleak season bearable - at least for the green and black.....
Post a Comment