Thank God for Bishops that are not afraid.

H/T: Father Ray Blake.

Thank God that there are some (not many) Bishop’s prepared to speak for Faith. May the Holy Father send us more Bishop’s like Bishop Egan. The letter below is self-explanatory and was sent by Bishop Egan in the light of the recent document “Religion or belief in the workplace.

Rt. Hon. Baroness Onora O’Neill
Equality and Human Rights Commission
3 More London Riverside
Tooley St London SE1 2RG

Dear Baroness O’Neill,

From Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth

I write to you with the best wishes of the clergy and people of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, and the promise of our prayers, as you chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The EHRC has a very difficult task with
its statutory remit to promote a ‘modern Britain where everyone is treated with dignity and respect’. This task is certainly one that Catholics support. However, I also want to express to you some concerns I have as a bishop and pastor about the recent document issued by the Commission, Religion or Belief in the Workplace. Unfortunately, I believe some aspects of this document are problematic not only for us Catholics, but for all Christians in our country and indeed, for the Christian patrimony of our British culture.

First, it seems to me that the document has a philosophical flaw in that it fails to differentiate adequately or robustly between what constitutes a religion and what constitutes a life-style or moral conviction. The result of this is that, for instance, vegetarianism, environmentalism and even having a beard (p. 3), becomes equated with the ‘great’ religions of Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and so on. Although unintended, this is surely offensive?

Secondly, the document is based on the thesis that every religion or belief must be treated as absolutely equal and identical, rather than respected as essentially different and complimentary. In other words, a totalitarian or absolutist concept of ‘equality’ is at work. A consequence of this is that minority religions such as Druidism will be treated disproportionately and this will tend to obscure or dilute the religion of the majority, Christianity, in any policy-making. In the long run, this will subvert the core and essence of our national culture.

Thirdly, as the Queen traditionally acknowledges in her Message each Christmas, Britain is a Christian country. This is not only because of the number of those who practice of profess in some manner the Christian faith, but more importantly because of the self-evident Christian patrimony of our laws,
institutions, social mores and traditions. Indeed, even the secular values espoused by the EHRC itself (e.g. tolerance, respect, dignity, freedom of belief) are arguably derived from underlying Christian values. They have vibrancy, not simply because of the law, but because of the implicit adherence of the
populace to its Christian heritage and ethos.

Finally, Catholics fear the ‘dictatorship of relativism’ that arises when governments and legislators impose ethical guidelines and patterns of behaviour upon their citizens that are not demonstrably derived from the natural law and right reason. Without its basis in right reason and the natural law – which Catholics believe was confirmed in the divine revelation of Jesus
Christ – British law and social policy will be dominated increasingly by pressure groups. This will lead to social disintegration. Instead, we believe that governments and policy makers ought to foster the traditional religious identity of our culture, that is, our Christian patrimony. This will truly assist greater social cohesion, and the very respect and equality that the EHRC espouses.

I recognise the complexity of all these issues but I raise them out  of duty and concern. Please be assured of my prayers for all the members of the EHRC and for God’s blessing on your important work. Indeed, I pray, through the intercession of St George, for the peoples of our land that the Holy Spirit will bring about a greater social cohesion, with real respect and love for one’s
neighbour.

With my best wishes to you and your Commission members,
+Philip
Bishop of Portsmouth
cc Priests and People of Diocese of Portsmouth

About Gertrude

Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium.
This entry was posted in Bishops and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Thank God for Bishops that are not afraid.

  1. Dan says:

    I agree that every religion should be treated equally until one of them can be shown to be true. Sound fair?

    Like

  2. Toad says:

    “I agree that every religion should be treated equally until one of them can be shown to be true.”
    That might take a while, Dan, as no religion can ever be ‘shown’ to be true. Or false.
    That is if by ‘shown,’ you mean ‘proved.’
    Back to Popper again.

    Like

  3. Peter Northcott says:

    “I agree that every religion should be treated equally until one of them can be shown to be true. Sound fair?”
    …and then exterminate the adherents of the wrong one? Sounds fair to me. 🙂
    Thank God for Popper.

    Like

  4. Dan says:

    Old Shep, it’s not a case of equating the Ten Commandments with Sharia law as to what I’d prefer, but a case of which religion really speaks for God. We know that at best only one religion can be right. Therefore at least 99% of religions consist of a whole heap of nonsense. So are we to go around knowingly ‘respecting’ all this nonsense?
    BTW, the Ten Commandments clearly does not come from God.

    Like

  5. Bishop Egan is right, but will people like Baroness O’Neill listen? Probably not, until it’s too late.

    Like

  6. Dan says:

    Peter Northcott, “and then exterminate the adherents of the wrong one?” Why would you do that? Surely they will switch to the religion that has been shown to be true?

    Like

  7. Dan says:

    As I said, religions should be treated equally until one of them can be shown to be true, because it might turn out (God forbid) that Allah is a reality, as Islam claims. It’s not a question of weighing up which sounds nicest, but waiting to find out if any of it is God’s wishes.
    As for the Ten Commandments, I was implying that if God had come up with 10 commandments, I’m sure he would have come up with something much more convincing than the Ten Commandments.
    How do I seem desperate?

    Like

  8. Toad says:

    Dan, can you explain how a religion can ever be ‘shown’, to be true?
    Or even be ‘shown’ to be false?
    Until you can do one or the other, there’s nothing more to be said, is there?

    Can you – or anybody, for that matter – show Lutheranism, for example – to be false?

    Like

  9. Dan says:

    Toad, that’s down to the followers of the religions, not me.

    Like

  10. Dan says:

    Can I not fear one religion more than another, but still treat them equally Old Shep?

    Christpher Hitchens made some good points on the OT here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4s1nVm3mO8 , which I would agree with.

    Like

  11. Bishop Egan…a good shepherd indeed!! The statement above gives me hope.

    Like

  12. Dan says:

    Old Shep, how would they not be treated equally if they were treated equally? How would the slight fear difference make a difference?
    I told you, I agree with Hitchen’s points. I think God would have come up with something far better.

    Like

  13. Dan says:

    I appreciate your honesty Old Shep – it’s not a pleasant experience to concede defeat sometimes, and is much easier to say nothing.

    The points were those Hitchens made in the video (I gave you the link to it), and I have no idea who wrote the Ten Commandments – some Middle Eastern men in ancient times I suppose.

    Like

  14. Criss says:

    Dan, that’s a very primitive logic there, sorry to say that. If you try to think deeper of the 10 commandments and maybe test them, you will see that these: ensure more harmony in society, bring more peace to one’s soul (or however you wish to call it), and also enhance health. If you follow scientifically research closely, you will see that even the most ‘absurd’ of those commandments actually have their logic and long term benefits. So, at a point where one can test the validity of these in a practical way, it no longer matters who wrote them! It’s pointless to argue whether they were from God or not. Live them, test them and you will figure out by yourself. It’s of no use to anyone to have this sort of sterile argument on the web. Why keep things so simple and so superficial? Some see this as a fight, as a war… but it’s not. If one doesn’t support faith, then they might feel it’s their duty to prove it false. But they will then have to find what exactly is there to be proven false! (many believe that if, for example, a priest is pedophile, the whole faith he supports is then deemed false – infantile generalisation). This whole struggle to discredit something is proof of inner struggle… Perhaps people doing this fear what’s inside them. Psychology would say that, yes. If you are happy and content with yourself and your choice, why look for exterior confirmations? why the struggle to prove others they’re ‘wrong’? why the need to obtain validation from elsewhere? One’s own experience will always be superior to anyone else’s experience, it can’t be changed.

    And finally, on the most important: it is pure ignorance to consider that, in the case one religion is true, all the others are rubbish. All spiritual traditions have A LOT in common and their goals are very similar. Through all these, people have been trying to reach the truth. Some may be slower, some may be more confused, some may be weaker… but they have a common goal and, often, common means.

    Like

  15. Dan says:

    Thanks Criss. I am trying to reach the truth too, and why wouldn’t I? But unlike you I don’t believe I’ve found it yet. Religious people all make fantastic claims, and I think it’s right to challenge such fantastic claims, and expect these beliefs to be justified (especially as they have been fed to us since infancy through no choice of our own).

    Like

  16. The Raven says:

    Can I have the eight minutes of my life back that I spent watching your video, Dan?

    I had always heard that Hitchens was supposed to be a great wit, but this is just sophomoric rubbish.

    Like

  17. Dan says:

    I’m not really that surprised you can’t appreciate Hitchens’ talents, The Raven.

    Can I have all those countless hours of my life back that I spent in Church, and in school, listening to, and repeating all the nonsense?
    Can I have my mind back, wiped of all the indoctrination; the niggling feelings of unwarranted guilt, or the sense that supernatural beings can read my thoughts and monitor my actions, and to be free of the daft notions of an afterlife??

    Like

  18. johnhenrycn says:

    I was going to comment, but then saw it was “Dan”, rather than Roger, or JK72, I was about to address. Apologies. Raven is not responsible for your loss, but you are for his.

    Like

  19. Dan says:

    I don’t really feel overly responsible for The Raven watching an entire video of Christopher Hitchens from a link which I offered to someone else. However, it might prove beneficial to him in some way, and afterall, he is an active part of the system responsible for my “loss”.

    Like

  20. johnhenrycn says:

    I’m sorry for your loss, Dan, whatever it may have been. The Church, however, is not responsible for it, by which I mean – please exercise your intelligence to distinguish between human systems and eternal Truths. We – me and you – are suffering from the sins of others. We – me and you – are inflicting suffering on others. The Church is not the cause of any of it. The Church is the solution.

    Like

  21. johnhenrycn says:

    Dan:
    Can I have all those countless hours of my life back… that I spent in Church…
    What would you have been doing otherwise? Playing with your plastic Transformer toys?

    Can I have my mind back…? No comment.

    …niggling feelings of unwarranted guilt…” Don’t feel bad, Dan. Your feelings of guilt aren’t unwarranted. Trust me. I have them too. They’re not “unwarranted”. You’re a sinner. Like me. Not a criminal, but a person, like me, who mostly puts himself first.

    …or tell me me why you’re so good that you don’t need outside help to amend your life?

    Like

  22. johnhenrycn says:

    You might not have those “niggling feelings of guilt”, Dan, if you would ony embrace the theme of
    Looking Out For #1, available (used) in England at £1.59. I’ve got a copy, if you can’t afford one of your own. Never read it, but you might enjoy it.

    Like

  23. The Raven says:

    Your “loss” was that you gained an education and, in the process, gained something to define yourself against; that isn’t a loss, Dan.

    Like

  24. Toad says:

    Well, Raven, I finally got around to watching the notorious Hitchens video.

    What did he say that you categorically disagreed with? That was inaccurate, distorted, or just plain stupid, in fact?
    Like you, I did not find it particularly witty, but I don’t think his primary intention was to amuse us on this occasion.
    It was, after all, a homily on the 10 Commandments, not second spot on The Comedy Store.

    How, to take just one example, did the early bit about, “Thou shalt not make graven images, “ go down with you?
    We Catholics just adore (in a manner of speaking!) a good graven image, no matter what God says, don’t we?
    The Good Lord features in a good few himself anyway, and very nice some of them are, too.
    But are we within our ‘rights’, though, to simply ignore this apparently sacred injunction? Can we just ignore the bits we don’t like?

    In short, it didn’t seem so bad as all that.
    To Toad.
    And it was nice and short.
    But what does he know?

    Like

  25. Dan says:

    Re. Hitchens video: Your “loss” was that you gained an education and, in the process, gained something to define yourself against; that isn’t a loss, The Raven.

    Like

  26. The Raven says:

    Toad

    Hitchens made his point on “graven images” by deleting/ignoring the rest of the commandment – the commandment is not to worship images, rather than a blanket ban on the visual arts! I am sure that we could all point to individuals who are a little too attached to a particular statue or icon, but even there, the injunction is not broken as the reverence is for the thing depicted, not the icon or statue itself (if you want an account of actual idolatry, I can’t recommend William Dalrymple’s book “Nine Lives” enough).

    Dave Allen used to do a similar schtick about the book of Genesis: he was more amusing, more convincing and he did it in half the time.

    Like

  27. The Raven says:

    Dan, I already knew that Hitchens was a very Protestant atheist and that his arguments were nothing new. The only “learning point” that I derived from it was to see how willing you are to suspend discernment when a commentator is repeating your prejudices.

    Oh and don’t parrot.

    Like

  28. Dan says:

    Here is Dawkins talking about the Ten Commandments. I do think he comes across rather smug in this, and the sound quality is not too good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoNqSrA7Mos

    Like

  29. Dan says:

    Don’t be so arrogant The Raven; life is more complicated than that. How can you be so sure of what is of use to you and what isn’t?

    Like

  30. The Raven says:

    Dan

    A rehashed argument presented as a new truth is never going to be of much use.

    Like

  31. The Raven says:

    Dan

    You’re going to have to make your own arguments, I really don’t have seven minutes of my life to waste watching Dawkins demonstrating his inability to separate his a priori assumptions from philosophical truth.

    Like

  32. Toad says:

    “4: Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:”
    So that’s that. All bases covered.

    Well, Raven we seem to have opened up a fine can of worms here.
    The ‘Commandment’ if such it is, or part thereof – (from the King James Bible) appears to foolish Toad, who went to the source to verify it – to be utterly specific.

    To suggest that it does not constitute a ‘blanket ban on the visual arts’ seems, to me, completely erroneous – that is precisely what it does do.
    It could hardly be any clearer.

    What other interpretation could conceivably be put on it?
    What possible difference could any wording, appearing either in front or behind this categorical statement, make that might alter its meaning in any way?

    However, Toad looks forward to being enlightened.
    Eagerly.

    Like

  33. Toad says:

    ..And, I must boringly add that the “commandment” makes absolutely no reference to ‘worshipping’ anything. In case that had escaped your notice.

    …And the fact that Dave Allen could do it quicker than Hitchens is a comfort to us all.

    Like

  34. The Raven says:

    May I suggest that another translation sheds light on the matter?

    http://newadvent.org/bible/exo020.htm

    The context is the commandment to worship only God; claiming that this one clause can be read in isolation as a prohibition of the visual arts ignores the context of the passage.

    Like

  35. Old Shep says:

    “I appreciate your honesty Old Shep – it’s not a pleasant experience to concede defeat sometimes, and is much easier to say nothing.” says Dan.

    I’m glad someone appreciates it, Dan. Someone else removes my posts to you every time, though you have no problem with them.

    Like

  36. Old Shep says:

    “May I suggest that another translation sheds light on the matter? ”

    This Knox Bible asserts it is in “timeless English”. Anyone having glanced at a history of English will realise how this cannot be true.

    Like

  37. Toad says:

    “Thou shalt not defy me by making other gods thy own. 4 Thou shalt not carve images, or fashion the likeness of anything in heaven above, or on earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth, 5 to bow down and worship it. I, thy God, the Lord Almighty, am jealous in my love; be my enemy, and thy children, to the third and fourth generation, for thy guilt shall make amends;”

    Your point being, Raven,< if you don't care for one interpretation or edition of The Good Book, just get one that says what you want it to.
    A bit 'relative' that seems to Toad, but no doubt he's got it wrong again, and we shall that it go.

    Your other point appears to be that making graven images is tickety-boo, as long as you don't worship them.
    I would suggest that even pagan people didn't worship the actual statues, of say, Venus, (early version of Mary) but worshipped the deity in whose image the statue was fashioned.

    So, it seems that God was talking somewhat incoherently .
    At least in this particular translation.

    But what do I know? (Plagiarised from Montaigne.)

    Incidentally, God sounds a bit ‘waspish,’ at the end there, doesn’t He?
    Tough luck on the great-grandkids it would seem. To Toad, anyway. (Perhaps we can get a less nasty translation of that bit?)

    Like

  38. Toad says:

    Stupid Toad. Bolded, by Jimminey. New computer, Old habits.

    Like

  39. golden chersonnese says:

    I should think that once God took on an earthly image/visage himself, it makes perfect sense to have images of above/on/under earth things, that point inspiringly to God.

    Like

  40. Toad says:

    Toad should think so too.
    Pity God does not seem to agree with us, Goledn.

    Like

  41. Old Shep says:

    “4 Thou shalt not carve images, or fashion the likeness of anything in heaven above…”God says.

    Golden says” … it makes perfect sense to have images of above/on/under earth things…”

    Who’s right here?

    It occurs to me that those annoying Moslems will not have any images of God whatsoever.

    Like

  42. golden chersonnese says:

    Now, Toad, what was that you were saying about old habits, hmmmm?

    Like

  43. Old Shep says:

    “Silence is Golden”….

    Like

  44. golden chersonnese says:

    On the contrary. historically they’ve gone in for lots of images, Shep, of people. animals etc.

    http://www.colourlovers.com/group/Artist_Palette_Challenge/conversations/16775/APC_325_Ottoman_Miniatures

    Like

  45. Old Shep says:

    ” Moslems will not have any images of God whatsoever.” says Shep..

    Golden says that I’m wrong, for they have images of animals and people.

    Like

  46. The Raven says:

    No, Toad, I’m merely pointing out that different translations shed a different light on the matter: you have to remember that the KJV was composed, in part, with a polemical intent (neither the Hebrew nor the Greek was written with any punctuation, it’s up to the translator to decide where the sentence ends).

    If this part of the first commandment, the rest of which deals with the need to worship God alone, must be read in isolation as an injunction against the arts, why does God determine that the Tabernacle furnishings should include representations of Angels, men and beasts?

    On this Hitchens is merely repeating a Protestant polemic that has been doing the rounds since Calvin.

    Like

  47. Toad says:

    Well, Raven I must politely point out that, regarding your first paragraph above, I don’t have to remember any such thing.
    You can, if you like.

    And, as to why God, in apparent contradiction of His own edict, then allowed statues of angels and beasts and whatever, your guess is a definitely good deal better than mine.
    Whimsy, possibly? Changed His mind?

    If so, would it be too optimistic to hope He also changed His mind about this:
    I, thy God, the Lord Almighty, am jealous in my love; be my enemy, and thy children, to the third and fourth generation, for thy guilt shall make amends;”
    …for the sake of the great, great grandkids?

    Or do we need a kinder, softer, interpretation?

    Like

  48. Toad says:

    …And where is it written that Hitchens should only have employed original polemics?

    Is (or, more accurately, was) a Calvinist one off limits to him? Why?

    Like

  49. The Raven says:

    Toad

    There is no need to infer the softening of a line if no line is drawn!

    The first commandment is about the worship of God, you only get to a prohibition on representational art if you read one clause in that commandment in isolation (a tactic adopted by the Protestant reformers); the context is the worship of God and the prohibition on the worship of other things.

    As for idolaters, modern Hindus genuinely worship their images, because they believe that they are physical repositories of the essence of their deities; look at Ovid or other Roman writers, they believed in the divinity of the images if the gods.

    Like

  50. The Raven says:

    And on Hitchens and Calvin: I’m not banning Hitchens from using Calvin, merely pointing out that Hitchens was repackaging an old Protestant libel to make his (allegedly) modern, atheist point.

    Like

  51. Toad says:

    True enough, Raven, Nothing new under the sun. No libel like an old libel.

    I refuse to believe Ovid worshipped statues.
    Not his style at all. A very sophisticated man.
    Not the man who could write, re: Pygmalion (of all things!)

    “Kisses he gives, and thinks they are returned;
    Pursues and holds. and thinks the flesh gives way
    Beneath his fingers thinks a mark will stay.”

    But I might be wrong.

    And wouldn’t it be “The essence of their deities,” that the Hindus are actually worshipping ? Not a lump of wood?
    But what do I know?

    Like

  52. The Raven says:

    I rather hope that Ovid wasn’t a statue worshipper myself, but the transformation in Pygmalion was an image being the very thing that it represented.

    On the Hindus, their position is that once the statue is endowed with the spirit of the deity in question it actually becomes the deity: that dancing Siva really is Siva (although the essence does away if the image is not properly worshipped). As I said, I recommend William Dalrymple’s book as an insight.

    Like

  53. Toad says:

    So, the Siva ‘effect,’ is a bit like transubstantiation, then?

    No? Thought not.

    Mind you, if a statue “came to life,” I’d probably start worshipping it myself.

    Like

  54. johnhenrycn says:

    I don’t think the day is far off, Todd, except perhaps for the likes of you and me, when scientists will spark life into something in a petri dish, and I don’t mean something as blasé as in vitro fertilization.
    Have fun worshipping it.

    Like

  55. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad 😉

    Like

  56. Old Shep says:

    ” William Dalrymple’s book as an insight.” Dalrymple is a wonderful writer – glad you like him!

    “when scientists will spark life into something in a petri dish, ” says JH.

    It’s been done. What has doctrine to say on this, for guidance to catholics who will be pilloried in debate on this topic?.

    Like

  57. Toad says:

    If scientists do produce life in a petri dish – that’s the jig up for religion.
    Or so some say.
    Toad, of course, doesn’t know.
    And he sees no particular reason for worshipping the result, anyway.
    And his remark about worshipping a statue was either irony or plagiarism. Or both.

    Like

  58. Old Shep says:

    In Toad’s post above, there is not a single word which I haven’t read elsewhere, not one, throughout my sorry life. Is he a mega plagiarist?

    Or as I was encouraged to say at Uni, ‘intertextuality’.

    I think we should be told.

    Like

  59. johnhenrycn says:

    Scientists have sparked life in a petri dish have they, Shep? Not that it would ever make me question my faith, but can you supply a link to support your statement? Not in vitro stuff, which is old hat.
    Is he [Toad] a mega plagiarist?
    You have to be able to point to at least one complete unattributed sentence before making such a scurillous accusation. Again, give us a link? Enough of your “J’Accuse” tomfoolery.

    Like

  60. Old Shep says:

    JH – I gave the info from memory. Which I agree is not good enough. I should have known that on this most literate site, someone would hoist me with my own leotard. As I would do them.

    But I am a techo buffoon and don’t know how to offer links. Which is actually a good thing, but that’s another story.

    But if you type the relevant keywords into Google, you will find what you so urgently seek.

    I have no axe to grind here, but I do note your scepticism – and that it more important to me than any old boll**ks about dishes. A word of caution though – remember Galileo, and don’t go there.

    Regarding my “J’accuse” tomfoolery (how often have I heard that?) you say I must offer a sentence ( of plagiarism). Fair enough. .Yet I am a tad hurt because I referred to Toad’s plagiarism at WORD level. Which I felt would support your noble but futile cause.

    It’s “j’accuse “to “jacuzzi”, I suppose, where I bathe in ambiguity.

    Like

  61. johnhenrycn says:

    …that’s the jig up for religion.

    Toad, the jig will never be up for religion, which is why you and Shep are so enamoured of this blog. You’re both fascinated and unsure about the hereafter, which is why you need to talk about it. So do I, which is why I need to talk about it. I never go on football blogs or postage stamp blogs. Don’t care about them. Just admit, you’re thinking about your fate and need to discuss it.

    Like

  62. Old Shep says:

    Jh – I already feel the tightening of the instruments of auto da fé, the crackling of the fire, the leper’s bell and thus am unable to comment freely on your post. I already suffer the restriction of breath and speech.

    If I admit anything, I will be done in.

    Like

  63. johnhenrycn says:

    Old Shep:
    …someone would hoist me with my own leotard.

    Another typo, methinks, but I won’t mention it.

    Your techno-ignorance is shared by me, Shep, and some others here; but go ahead – type in: “the relevant keywords into Google [and] you will find what you so urgently seek” that will reveal the Toad as a plagiarist.

    There’s no such thing as plagiarism at “WORD” level, else all of us are.

    …and while accepting you have difficulty with links and such – been there, done that – it’s not right to make statements that scientists have already sparked life in a petri dish, unless you can give sources to support your assertion.

    Like

  64. johnhenrycn says:

    Old Shep, a techno-dinosoaur like me, may not be able to give links for life being sparked in a petri dish. Brother Burrito can probably lead us to the links Old Shep relies on, if there are any. But that’s not his business. If you can’t cite chapter and verse, Shep, don’t ask me to trust you.
    If there are any links like that, my faith won’t be shattered; but until I see them, please don’t ask me to accept what you say on faith, which is a concept you despise anyway?

    Like

  65. Toad says:

    “You’re both fascinated and unsure about the hereafter, “</i?

    Wouldn't deny it for a moment, JH. If God exists, as I’ve said on here before, it’s the most important idea imaginable. And if he doesn’t, it’s the most important idea imaginable.
    Currently I’m skeptical, but who knows?

    We all grow up with a concept of “God”, even if it’s simply the concept that He does’t exist.
    So, the subject has to be addressed. At great length.
    If – or when – ‘life’ is produced artificially, this will deal the concept of God another very severe blow, as did Darwin. But it will not, in my estimation, kill it.
    Because, for a lot of people, the idea of no God is simply not acceptable. Regardless.

    Like

  66. Toad says:

    God has decided it will all be in itals. So be it.

    Like

  67. Old Shep says:

    I am acting for the estate of Old Shep and it is with regret that I say that Old Shep has been led into a field, and done in as the song says.

    He left a note to say that he wishes all the best to Toad, JH and many others here who made his last days a pleasure – how his tail wagged! His bleakest moment came a week ago when in response to Toad saying ‘Down Shep’, he replied ‘Arf Arf’ ;but sadly, this was deleted. How his big kind eyes filled with tears. He didnt understand why this was bad, but knew he couldn’t survive after this. . How could such a nice pooch be treated like this?

    Shep is in heaven now, out for walks with St Peter , chasing a ball. He may have lodged a complaint up there about cruel treatment.

    His last words were in Spanish for he liked Spain and its people-
    “A la tarde te examinaré en el amor”. He nicked it from St John on the Cross. Another plagiarist. Shep that is. But he gave the source as he should, to please JH.

    There is a corner of a foreign field which is forever Shep. (nicked).

    Like

  68. johnhenrycn says:

    Here lies Old Shep. Age 102. Why is it the good die young?
    Not to worry. Like Porky Pig, he will return:

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s