Ok. We don't need to move on from pete proclaiming his faith as it is self evident. We do however need to note why it is relevant to this thread.

He is falling into the trap of feeling his faith itself is being questioned whereas in the spirit of this particular thread it is when faith extends its influence outside of church or temple and tries to find a place to fit in reality. That's what is being questioned.

Oh dear.

The idea that God did it may have been a comfortable way of filling in the gaps when just about everybody was hard wired into a faith but society has moved on. Society has evolved, and rather rapidly in the last 50 years in this country. Same in The USA really but reactionary forces are more vocal and prevalent. In Dumbfuckistan they will host a book burning. Here they write odd letters to The Times.

The message is the same. Identify lack of faith. Call it atheism. Make it the bogey man.

So we end up with threads asking if the bogey man is militant. We get a thread pointing out the persecution people identified as one particular cult receive and we get concerted effort to shout down anyone who sees through the fog.

Mind you. Not blaming pete for that last bit. He is the only committed Christian to speak on this thread and whilst he is on a hiding to nothing and berates the march of discovery with simplistic ignorance (which is rather annoying) at least he tries to make a case for what faith ultimately means.

I reckon faith means putting an imposed set of ideas above your own reasoning. The aim being not allowing your own reasoning to get a look in. Then you will have found the face of God.



I am enjoying writing bollocks masquerading as high brow shit masquerading as bollocks. A vicar friend told me yesterday that they were trained to write sermons aimed at Sun readers not Guardian ones.