BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:03 AM

Dave makes the important point of understanding doesn't mean accepting.

A lot of people cannot make this distinction. Presumably "to know him is to love him " has sinister overtones after all?

I'll never see Maddy Prior in the same light again 😥

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:23 AM

No tricks, Pete. So, you believe all of it I gather. I think that is fair enough. If you believe all of it then, yes, anything is possible. I don't believe any of it, which is also fair enough. As long as you don't try to force your beliefs on other people we have no quarrel. Why would you say you don't appear to be wanting to understand the Christian faith though when I have already explained that I do understand it? What I am trying to understand is what bits of the bible people believe to be fact and which bits are fiction. If it is permissible to pick and chose bits then which bits do you pick and chose and why?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:44 AM

Repentance late in life. One way of hedging your bets apparently. A bit like taking a tablet for the hangover of last night's drinking session.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 08:32 PM

that all who believe and repent may be saved

Did he say anything about those who neither believe nor repent but who still manage to lead good lives? What if there are people who believe, but who rob and cheat people all their lives, abandon their wife and kids, drive drunk, etc., but then repent quite late on, sort of thing...do they get more of a leg up than the non-believing, non-repenting good guys? Have you thought that through? Has God thought that through?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 07:30 PM

Is that the best I can do? Let's see. You appear to expect a sane and sensible person to address this gem:
contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, from which from nowhere was endued with information content and life !.
Then yes, it's the best I can do. And if that's the best you can do, I feel bloody sorry for you. It's tripe.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:09 PM

i'm sorry dave, I thought you were baiting keith with that question. a simple question you say ?. you don't appear to be wanting to understand the Christian faith, as you say you already do. now why would I suspect you were trying to trick me ?. perhaps I should be more charitable and at least answer the specifics you asked keith. yes I do believe that Christ came from God, died for us, that all who believe and repent may be saved, rose from the dead, and ascended after, to the Father. no problem for God since he is he who spoke creation into being.....but then you knew what I believe, didn't you. and as keith is not addressing me, I don't intend to get involved about whether a pick and choose bible belief is valid or not, with him. he is right though that neither of us would burn the other.
steve, the former science teacher,....that the best you can do.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:59 PM

Not sure that PFR's teacher would be a Jeremy Clarkson fan. I recall a magazine article where he said he was irreligious, a stance I too am comfortable with. Just like being aphilatelist or aincestous.

What's all this bollocks about God not being able to lie? Why do you put that pete?

After all, if what I heard is true, he loves us. The lie being the work I have been involved with at a children's hospice. If he was more than your vivid imagination, he'd be a bigger bastard than Hitler for that one. At least Hitler never claimed to love his victims.

Mind you, at least you aren't a hypocrit. Keith picks and chooses between the absurd and more benign aspects of the Bible and still claims to be a Christian. Boutique Christians are a laughing stock because they at least show enough intelligence to realise the absurdity of it all. They just use it to look smug.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:28 PM

It is not possible to discuss anything constructively with someone who can post that drivel.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM

Pete, is English your first language? If so, can you answer me a simple question that Keith seems to have problems with please? What bits of the bible are true?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:15 PM

well#, while admitting to a faith position, I believe it is supported by observations and daily experience over all time. to say that everything with a beginning needs a cause, accords with that overwhelming simple science of observation and experience. that is probably as far as a first cause can be demonstrated. it is at least logical to say that if there is a creation, and there is, then a creator [ who is outside of that space/time/matter creation], is a valid argument. contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, from which from nowhere was endued with information content and life !. lion asks what went bang ?. there was absolutely nothing to go bang. surely we are left with either a theological miracle, or secular miracles. and as great creationist scientists in past time have demonstrated, such a position spurred on science, rather than hindered it. by contrast the evolution belief has oftimes hindered it by its slavish devotion to darwinist dogma. steve asserts masses of evidence for his faith, but don't share it with us, other than yet more assertions. I reckon it is steve, and his fellow believers who deny the evidence for creation, and against evolutionism, but of course they can just put it down to further research needed !
and btw, #, there are some things God cannot do. one is , as scripture says is lie. it is also no reflection on his being and attributes that he could not construct a puzzle he could not solve...quite the reverse.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:39 PM

Lovely story, PFR. Reminds me of my late mate Adam, rest his soul. Was old enough to do national service in the RAF. He well remembered the drill on a Sunday. Fall out, Jews, Roman Catholics and other denominations... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:17 PM

I count my self fortunate that
even though my parents were 'only' menial manual factory worker and cleaner / care worker,
they were idealistic progressive post war young socialists.

They deliberately abstained from having me and sibling christened,
wanting us to make our own minds up when we were old enough.

So the reality was a total absence of any religion at home
to reinforce all the dogma encountered at school
and whatever other reactionary influences outside our house.

What still amuses me - at start of the new term,
4th year class after our grammar was converted to a comprehensive.

The form teacher called us all up to front of the class one at a time
to fill in registration forms.

He was middle aged, ex army, fought in the war [metal work teacher if I remember correct]

He noticed I hadn't filled in the required box for religion.

I answered "Sir, my mum and dad didn't have me christened"

His indignant reply "Nonsense boy, you're Church of England - now go back to your desk"

as he ticked the box for me.....

If he's still alive I bet he'd be a Jeremy Clarkson fan....😜

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:08 PM

Anyway, no answer so far. Which bits of the bible are true and which are not. Keith? Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:06 PM

and let's face it everybody needs a fantasy now and then

It's a funny thing, Musket, but if you compare the bible and the silmarilion they are spookily silmilar. Silmarilion may be better written but that is just my preference. Concepts are identical. I wonder if, in a couple of thousand years, someone with no knowledge of either, would like to confirm which people believed?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:22 PM

Brain washing..

I often wonder, if my brothers, father, uncles and grandfather hadn't been Sheffield Wednesday fans, would I have been a season ticket holder myself from the age of six?

Same with religion for others., although obviously not as satisfying as something important and relevant like football. It must have pissed off and confused the missionaries to find that despite God, Jesus etc being their big cheese and blamed for creating etc, that the local natives had never heard of him.

I am lucky in that my parents taught me how to think not what to think. I like to think I passed that on to my boys.

The main problem with religion, and let's face it everybody needs a fantasy now and then, mine being that Rachel Riley off Countdown, is those too shallow or intelligent to see it as faith and look for literal aspects.*

A bit like Michael looking for a literal big bang. Presumably looks for loose change flying around the screen when watching bongo flicks and it comes to the money shot...



*I've never seen Countdown with her on it, but have watched Eight out of Ten Cats do Countdown.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:17 PM

Michael, if I tell you we still don't know, do you absolutely promise not to say that it didn't happen, then? We are within billionths of a second of the event out of over 13 billion years. We may get there, we may not, but at least science is honest enough to admit that we're not quite there. The steady state theory is adhered to these days only by the ornery, and creationism not only relies on having faith instead of evidence :-) but also on denying all the evidence we do have for the Big Bang.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:10 PM

MGM - Best explanation I have seen is...

We don't know. Something went bang, that is a provable fact. What went bang is not known. I favour the energy peak (or trough) but there is no proof. It may have been god who went bang. We cannot prove or disprove it. But if it was, his work was done billions of years ago :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:43 PM

"It did not make you believe either.2

.. well from what I can remember..
it wasn't until well into my teens
I became sufficiently equipped with the intellectual tools and confidence
to question and counteract years of institutionalized christian indoctrination...

Same more or less with my close group of school friends.

It's a different story for my wife
[who I met when we were students on the same Polytechnic humanities subjects degree]

She's the product of a evangelical religious upbring in a tiny isolated village.
her brother is even a full time evangelical minister.

I'm an agnostic - she still has remnants of belief and fear of the devil...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:33 PM

PFR, it was the same in my school and all UK schools before the 70s, but none of my friends were practising Chritians, and the ones I remain in touch with still are not.
It did not make you believe either.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:20 PM

..."ARE well known", sodit

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:18 PM

OK, Steve -- so what DID go Big Bang, then? And don't say again it was the primal particle, or some such. Particle of what? Located where? Which came whence? Which, as Ben Elton points out in one of his novels, is well-known to be questions that only stupid people ask [ie bloody everybody, and only a liar will say different]. Don't tell me it's a concept with any more validity than God -- in whom, BTW, I don't believe; He/It/Whevs as big a copout as B. Bang Esq. But then, "Steady-State" doesn't tell us that much either, does it?

At least Mr Clarkson seems to be an identifiable entity of some sort...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:16 PM

"No-one is told to believe in Him."

Disagree strongly...

can't say how different it might be nowadays
but back in a west country C of E infant school in the early 1960s
we were taught bible stories as if they were historical fact.

And also in primary school, morning assembly prayers and hymns were imposed
still with the presumption all us small kids accepted & believed..

Don't recall any token mention of comparative religions & belief
until starting grammar school.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:05 PM

because billions of people who are told to believe in him don't question his existence,

No-one is told to believe in Him.
You can not order belief.
Those that do believe still question, and experience doubt.
They are no less intelligent even than you Steve.
(Or even Musket, the other three in one.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

"Big band or wet fart... "... oops... errmmm specsavers here I come...

.. unless of course Stan Kenton or Syd Lawrence created the Universe...???😕

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:46 AM

I sincerely hope you don't think I didn't know who you meant, Backwoodsman! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:44 AM

I don't think a satisfactory answer [or indeed any sort of answer] in fact emerged. It's a copout concept, not much more useful than "God", SFAICS.

Well, Michael, there's plenty of evidence for what happened between a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang right up to now. That evidence demolishes any concept of an eternal steady-state universe. It's not a copout because we're still looking. Copout concepts are those concepts that satisfy the incurious and the science-deniers. God is the greatest copout concept because billions of people who are told to believe in him don't question his existence, in spite of its incredibly high improbability. One concept is questioned to exhaustion, with all the scientific and intellectual resources we can muster ploughed into the quest, while the other is not allowed to be questioned at all in the minds of so many people. To equate them as both being copouts is, well, a bit of a copout really...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:39 AM

"What, surely not to Danny Alexander?!"

LOL. No, Steve - Chris Evans! Personally, I'd far prefer Guy Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM

I'd have thought that Jezza is a bit tainted now

Like Clinton was over (pun intended) our Monica?

The American public are not that different from the UK.
Blokey peeps love a blokey peep. He is bucks office. A bit sordid, and a lot grubby. He will be a hit (pun intended) - watch this space.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:29 AM

What, surely not to Danny Alexander?!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM



Oh, just wait until they give Clarkson's old job to the Ginger Tosser.... 😳

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:08 AM

Big band or wet fart...

- either way, we're all here and now adrift and along for the ride
on this deteriorating planet and need to make the best of it...

We're having tesco oven cook fish and chips soon
and settling down to watch a tripe blockbuster movie...

Wouldn't even have noticed Top Gear is cancelled...

Life really ain't so bad as it could be............

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 10:50 AM

There are only two choices. Either the universe always existed or it started at some point. Since the universe seems to be, it therefore started at some point which is called the big bang. Unless you see another way.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 10:07 AM

Still this assumption that there actually was a happening or occasion or whatever which is subsumed under that catchall nomenclature 'Big Bang'. I OPd a thread some years ago which ran&ran&ran for a good while, asking simply "What went Big Bang?" I don't think a satisfactory answer [or indeed any sort of answer] in fact emerged. It's a copout concept, not much more useful than "God", SFAICS.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 09:56 AM

". . . and time is a product, not a component of the big bang."

That is both profound and thought provoking. And true à part de ça.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 09:01 AM

I rather like the bifurcatory nature of this thread!

I'd have thought that Jezza is a bit tainted now and not such a good proposition. He cuts a picture of a somewhat ageing, scruffy, lonely, dyspeptic old bloke when you see the paparazzi shots of him having a fag outside his place. Time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 08:43 AM

The Rt Rev Keith A Hole of Hertford posted;

"Also the rock cycle, galaxy formation, and every other natural process.
A creator God is not disproved by any of them."

Perhaps, but neither is the idea that my pet dog created them, using the same evidence base.

Also, using the logic of theology, never mind science, Hawking put forward the perfectly reasonable theory that not only do you not need a God for the big bang, but the physics of the big bang preclude the very idea of it being created. There could be no conscious thought process to cause the big bang because cause and effect requires time, and time is a product, not a component of the big bang.

Presumably, there was a shortage of science teachers in Hertford. Anybody with an inkling of understanding would see that you were being disingenuous when you said "every other natural process."

That's the problem with God botherers. They cannot accept that it is a nice for them but otherwise irrelevant hobby, and try to twist science to accommodate their fantasy.

Dangerous fuckers, to a man.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:29 AM

Recent myth has it that all their contracts expire at the same time, and JC sold his part of the progrsamme to the BBC not that long ago.
And talk of setting up a rival in America. And he has made a few friends in the Hollywooden Glitterati over the years.

Well I did posit to the effect, was this stupidity or tactical agenda.

Methinks I was right to be cynical. He is not stupid, he just does stupid things. A lot of them scripted.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:03 AM

You're probably right, Ake. It's both pathetic and scary at the same time!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 05:36 AM

Apparently the boss of the BBC has received death threats for sacking Clarkson......what a mad society we are creating.

Almost everyone seems to live in "medialand"......is this Orwell's 1984 for the 21st century?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 05:01 AM

Go with the flow, Thompson. I know that this blatant thread drift seems a bit odd, but do you really think there much more to be said about Jezza? Is preserving this thread in its pure form really that important?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

None of the famous four gospels was written before at least forty years had passed since Jesus's death. Think what that means with regard to all those "quotations" of his that form the bedrock of Christianity. Tape recorders didn't exactly exist in those days. The only references to the man Jesus we have are all by the religious writers who were on his side. There is not a single reference to Jesus in any secular source from the time, and sources from the time are abundant. Rather strange. I should like to know how these facts sit with your take on what represents valid historical sources and legitimate historians, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

Would there be any way (as is done on other forums) to ask people who want to talk about creationism vs evolution to do it on a thread that's specifically for that purpose, and perhaps for the mod to direct people there, and if they continue to discuss it on another thread to suspend their posting rights?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:22 AM

Thanks Keith - Hope you understand my doubts.

So, what bits do you believe in?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:21 AM

If the Romam Emperor, Constantine (reigned 306 337 AD) had not adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire, would we have even heard of it - or would it now be regarded as just an obscure ancient cult, known only to a few historians?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:55 AM

For the record, everything Musket said on the closed scots thread about me and about meeting me is untrue, except that I believe there is only one person writing his posts

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:46 AM

Confirming my posts.
Dave, those ancient stories were passed on orally for millennia before they were ever written down.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 03:38 PM

Well there's a fair chance that much of the four gospels is also myth. The jury's definitely out on whether Jesus even existed at all, and there are some pretty irreconcilable inconsistencies between the four accounts. It seems to me that, as the accounts were written long after the death of Jesus, they are most likely not intended to be historical documents, more a tendentiously produced manifesto for a new religion. Much of what Jesus is alleged to have said resonates with me, too, but some of it doesn't. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, and turning the other cheek to someone who's attacked you, sound suspiciously like hippie philosophy to me.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 03:13 PM

'How do you decide which bits of the Bible are true and which bits are not?'

That is a very reasonable question. Unfortunately I do not think that there is a single answer. I know how I do it. The Gospels contain a view of how life should be lived to which I subscribe. I suppose it is not a question of whether it is all literally true but whether the underlying message resonates with me, and it does. The Old Testament traces (supposedly) the history of the Jewish race; it is treated with respect in most Christian churches because some of it foreshadows the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ. However, it is my perception that a good many Christians give scant attention to the Old Testament and that most recognise that it is more myth than reality. The fact is that truth is a slippery customer and that religious belief cannot be equated with objective truth, unless of course you are a fundamentalist, which I am not.

Shimrod, when I used the word 'must' in the post to which you objected I was not suggesting compulsion but implying that it was Steve Shaw's view that one could not, logically, think in that way. I thought that that was quite clear, I apologise for confusing you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 01:47 PM

I will confirm these posts as mine later.

If and when you do, I will believe it.

In the meanwhile

This is all from an old oral tradition thousands of years old, not literal history.

No it isn't. It is from the bible. A book that millions of people use as the basis for their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 01:11 PM

I will confirm these posts as mine later.
I am a member of CofE.
I doubt any member believes that the universe began with a 6 day conjuring trick 4000 years ago, and that is no part of the teaching of my church.
Or Jonah living inside a whale, or pairs of animals boarding an ark.
This is all from an old oral tradition thousands of years old, not literal history.