Tuesday, 31 August 2010


I have always had a problem with it.I would welcome an explanation as to this. Did Christ exist in some form before he took an earthly one. Also without in any way defending the practice of crucifying people and bearing in mind his moment of doubt if he knew he was Son of God he must have somehow known he wasn't going to die and certainly God did, given he must have planned it all, so what sort of sacrifice was it. As an atheist I feel millions of humans have suffered much more than Jesus did so I resent the elevation of his above all else but then I would wouldn't I.
It is a pity that it is well nigh impossible for non believers to engage intellectually with believers. I don't mean because one is superior to another but as there can never be an agreed point of departure from which the discussion can develop. However I suppose it would be interesting to have a session devoted to conversions from one state of mind to another as this would be the closest we could come to exploring the differences.


  1. There has, of course, been much work done to construct elaborate theologies of the Trinity, and to deal with points such as those that you raise. I see such work as an attempt to reduce the gap between a hypothetical adequate account of God, an account that would be incomprehensible to human beings, and our understanding, using concepts like "love" and "sacrifice" to build out from our end. Where difficulties arise, as with God's foreknowledge, one has to pile on the epicycles.

    The failure to produce anything that will satisfy everyone, despite centuries of effort, the abundance of epicycles, and the absence of decent evidence for the existence of God, suggest to me that we should give up and be atheists (as I am).

    Joke of the day: Jonathan Sacks, responding to Stephen Hawking, is quoted as saying "The Bible simply isn’t interested in how the Universe came into being". So what is the opening of Genesis all about, then?

    (I have the Sacks quote from the Telegraph website, but it seems that the ultimate source is the Times.)

  2. In this age of enlightenment of the 21st century, only the likes of Tony Blair and George Bush would still pray to their God...

  3. Whoops, I should not have relied on a second-hand newspaper account. What Jonathan Sacks actually said (The Times, 3 September 2010, page 27) is immune to the criticism I made above. His words were: "The Bible is relatively uninterested in how the Universe came into being. It devotes a mere 34 verses to the subject".

    However, he also said, in the same article: "The mutual hostility between religion and science is one of the curses of our age, and is damaging to religion and science in equal measure". I cannot see how the last part of that claim can be even remotely plausible. The hostility may be damaging to religion, but science does not suffer in the least.