Comments on: Crucifixes ‘could be disturbing’ to atheist school pupils, says Euro Court

By: Barry Duke

Barry Duke — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:04:44 +0000

William, I have good reason to believe that the creature calling itself Guten is none other that the pitiful little creep Bob Hutton,who just cannot stay away from this blog. I assure you I will do my level best to stop this vermin from leaving its droppings on this site again.

By: talitha

talitha — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:22:19 +0000

The display of a Crucifix reminds everyone, not just Christians of how Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ temporarily died for all of us.
The showing of a Medieval torture device is a recognized symbol of christian kindness and tolerance.

This now means Christians are denied the right to practice one of the most basic aspects of our faith, which is to impose it on everyone else at every opportunity.

By: William Harwood

William Harwood — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:47:11 +0000

see my review of “Evidence for the Resurrection” (a 28-page pamphlet) at http://www.amazon.ca

By: Broga

Broga — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:54:01 +0000

Uzza. As a bit of a nature worshipper myself I like the vagina idea. Round my edge of the known world there are lots of vagina like shapes in the forests on the trunks of trees. Often holes, sometimes with moisture in them, and with labia type circles round the edge. An idea of genius. Patent the idea before someone else steals it.

By: Uzza

Uzza — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:39:55 +0000

gsw@ #1 captured my sentiments exactly. Constant exposure to torture is not good for children. (maybe the virgin-in-a-tub shrines are a tribute to waterboarding?)

As a kind of nature-worshipping pagan, I’m inclined to put up a graphic representation of a vagina, you know, source of life and all that. I feel it would be much better for children to be exposed to than people being tortured. I wonder how the catholics would react. Call it obscene? Like the Vatican’s statues?

By: Broga

Broga — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:23:53 +0000

The signs were all there for Guten: “a plain cross will do” – most kind, and thank you. Once you get that whiny certainty you know you are dealing with a serious off the wall nutter.

“I would suggest” – that “would” is just so achingly pompous and flatulent. There is a sub text of “I am such an expert that I do not want to skewer you with my encyclopoedic knowledge so I will let you learn with a gentle start.”

“Evidence” – this usually means something either hysterically funny, diabolically dishonest or so clinically paranoid that the words “he really does need sectioning” must be heard soon.

“Sir”: this, dear reader, in the class ridden UK is often taken as the clincher. The masses bend the knee to this one. If he has a title then examine no further because it must be true. But not in this parish, Guten, and “Sir” seems even nuttier than yourself and that is setting some standard.

By: William Harwood

William Harwood — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:38 +0000

Guten made a smart move in hiding behind a pseudonym. While he revealed to the 4,000 people who will read his comment before it becomes yesterday’s news, that someone called “Guten” is as dangerously, criminally, certifiably braindead as the kindergarten dropout whose doubletalk he takes seriously, he also made sure that persons who know him by his real name will not associate him with the raving lunatic called Guten who thinks that Alice in Wonderland is nonfiction. Just the same, he should be wary of posting his verbal diarrhea online, in case Nurse Ratched finds out what he is doing and stops lending him her crayons.

By: Angela_K

Angela_K — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:54:39 +0000

Thanks Barry. I’ve just read part way through the material provided by your link but as it was such nonsense, I was starting to lose the will to live. It seems a shame the author wasted his time with circular arguments and using a dodgy book as reference. For the benefit of others, the end piece is priceless: “But the ultimate proof of the resurrection for each individual lies in his own knowledge of the risen Christ, for in this matter the evidence of experience can supplement that of history.

I have yet to see evidence that can be verified; the testimony of some characters – some of whom are fictional – is meaningless.

By: Barry Duke

Barry Duke — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:01:16 +0000

Oh Angela, stop being such a skepchick! I have followed Guten’s advice and looked up Anderson’s “Evidence for the Resurrection” – and it is faultless!

Sample: “Let us assume that the resurrection of an ordinary man is indeed incredible. But such a line of reasoning cannot apply to the One whom we are considering. He was unique in all He did; in all He said; in all He was. Whichever way one looks at Him, He is in a class by Himself. Even apart from the resurrection, there are excellent and convincing reasons for believing that He was ‘God manifest in the flesh’. Is it, then, so incredible that such a One should rise from the dead? It would have been far more incredible if He had not. It is, indeed, the profoundest of mysteries that He should ever have died ‘for us men and for our salvation’: but, having died, it is no mystery that He should have risen.”

If this nugget of impeccable scholarship and reasoning does not convince you, then read more here:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.....erson.html

By: chrsbol

chrsbol — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:44:43 +0000

Chris Hobbs.

I had a google of the bathtub virgin and true enough it’s there.Maybe somebody could put the bath the other way up and rig up a water feature using the taps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_madonna