ingold

Hi All, Here's me, then, as best as I can tell it. I've been a bookworm all my life - all fantasy and quests when I was little, discovered Stephen King when I was 12 and read only gory books for a couple of years plus anything else fun in the local library. What stories I wrote were usually to show off to other kids about the gory scenes I could come up with from reading lots of books I shouldn't At about 15 the biggest artistic influences on me started to hit - I got sent Poor Things by Alasdair Gray as book-of-the-month in a book club and was entranced, read Lanark and I was hooked; I also created problem 1 with any writing ambition I've had since, as I keep dreaming of wierd and wonderful typographical tricks I could use rather than getting on with the substance. (I do love Mark Danielewski's stuff, although Only Revolutions tries for an epic quality that the writing isn't quite deep enough to deliver - the book itself is beautiful however). I got into David Lynch, via Twin Peaks of course, and then Nic Roeg. Then I read Ulysses - or rather got a third of the way through, gave up perplexed, started again, finished it, was gobsmacked, started yet again, finished it again and have been obsessed since. Problem 2 - geting hooked on writers as clever as Joyce (or Pynchon for that matter) had the effect that I kept hoping to emulate that genius straight away, which I've come to accept is a bit of a steep aspiration even for a full and productive writing career - especially whilst my own written work is still mainly in daydreams and not on paper. Ulysses and Vikram Seth's A Suitable Boy are the two novels which feel to me like absolute perfection - not just great but melt-in-the-mouth perfect. I'd like to add Finnegans Wake to that list as I love it to bits, but I honestly have not the foggiest idea what most of it's about. Writing-wise I wrote for a music/theatre review site for a couple of years before my son was born, and co-edited my student paper. However, after various bits of dabbling, I finally want to actually learn to write fiction, starting with the short bits, the basics, actual stories which might someday be part of the grand conceptual ideas I keep having which need a better writer than me to deliver (but still one I could become?). I've failed at the first hurdle so far, because I've been what my father-in-law calls an artillery-man: a 'gunner' or 'gonna' as in 'oh yeah, I'm going to write this great epic translating the Divine Comedy onto a road trip hitching down the M1' whilst actually producing, er, nothing. Rubbish innit? So, with a good chunk of humility on board, joining the writers group here is my starting point. I'm going to try and do something for each monthly topic and to use what skills I have as a reader/editor to provide useful feedback to others in return. It may be rubbish to start with but I'm on a mission!!! Here's to new beginnings...now to start working on getting my name in colour on Mantaspooks list

The concept of being born in sin is a little outdated - in a world where child mortality was huge, violence and disease were everywhere and only a few lucky intellectuals leading priviledged lives had any inkling of the scientific know-how we have today it must have seemed pretty obvious that a) there is a God (esp if learned-looking people said so) and that b) if he is good there must be some worldly reason for all the suffering and c) that should then lead to hope of some kind. To restate the obvious, Christianity and Islam both democratised faith to a huge extent, giving hope to everyone regardless of birth and social standing and as such were two of the greatest powerful forces for good at various times in their history. Both have been used and abused since, and both have been used to justify mass-murder and various other crimes which are seemingly incompatible with the faith itself. We have now arrived at a time when we are far more aware of the consequences of our individual choices - for we have far more actual choices to make than those living 2000 years ago - and therefore have far more responsibility to think for ourselves and understand the actions we undertake and their impact upon the people and the world around us. The concept of sin is just too stark and inflexible to make sense of a complicated world where there are many gray areas.

Right - that's it, and that's why I objected so much to religion when I was a kid and still do now. 1) I am not a sinner - I have done good and bad in my life but I was not born a 'sinner' and I am not drowned in 'sin' now. 2) If God cares not about us being good and more about us redeeming our naturally sinful nature I actually find you're image of god more realistic and a lot less comforting. Maybe God does exist and maybe he is actually an evil, malignant, judgemental, facistic demon whose glory is measured in his ability to impose eternal suffering on those who dare to question him in any way whatsoever. This is the bit I always found hard to take - that a God like this deserves worship. He doesn't - he deserves to be overthrown. This may be impossible, but that shouldn't stop us trying - IF a god existed that was like this, that is. 3) Surely, in fact, the above description of God is the most blasphemous of all - after all it infers Jesus is not much different from Goebbels (i.e. communications mastermind for a vicious tyrant). Let's get this clear - I don't believe Jesus was like that, nor do I see Christians that I know behaving in general like Nazi sympathisers. However that's the picture painted by the view that we are all sinners and must become humble before the glory of a wrathful god in order to save our souls from damnation, and that's the picture you just painted. 4) I have read the bible, I did so as a kid, cover to cover. It's just a book, albeit a fascinating one. It contains wisdom, tedium, insight, contradictions all over the place (esp. that we should not judge, as judgement is for God, accompanied by lots and lots of judgement from the authors) and some utter rubbish too. The bible, remember was written by men (not God, or Jesus for that matter) and by taking the Bible as the whole truth you actually place your faith in these men, rather than in God anyway?

Back to blasphemy laws as reference earlier - Grahame you can't surely defend any sort of blasphemy law can you? For all you may like to defend Christians from abuse (and fair enough for that), whilst non-religious children are still told by some so-called responsible adults that they're a lesser person for not being Christian there needs to be some comeback. I spent so much of my childhood angry that kids who did good so they could go to heaven were considered morally above kids who did good purely because they'd chosen to. Maybe some Christians are just too scared that people exist with the self-control to do the right thing with no tangible reward structure in place that they choose to deny them? It's a little like the dubya/Sarah Palin ethic (that strange Christians who love guns thing that I never understood) where just thinking too much about things means you're elitist, unpatriotic - intellectuals aren't representing the ordinary American (does democracy really mean you need a proportion of idiots in parliament/congress to represent those in the rest of the world properly?). The rise in religeous fundamentalism has come hand in hand with a vast amount of anti-intellectualism that started with Thatcher - remember how Channel 4 were told to make more TV for thick people because the Tories thought they made people think too much? Good consumers need to respond as planned to advertising to keep our current system working, and there's nothing like religion to stop people thinking outside the box too much and messing with it. Now the church has also been a force for good at times, and I'm not going to feebly argue otherwise as I'd be wrong, and i'm genuinely not just trying to offend. Those churches aren't supported by blasphemy laws, compulsory religious elements in assemblies and the like, as they already encourage people to think. Those religious movements which aim to dull the brain and create a bunch of mindless consumers going to the God supermarket for a BOGOF dose of indoctrination and slavation - they're threatened by genuine intellectual debate and challenge. People will always say and write things which are blasphemous, offensive and also dumb, callous, abusive, mean and without any intellectual justification whatsoever. These people are wrong to say these things but it is far worse to make it illegal for them to do so. Surely everyone who is strong in their faith can brush aside insults and rise above them in the knowledge that they are secure and whoever threw the insult almost certainly is not?? er. ok rant over.......

suggested reading: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paranoid-Parenting-Ignoring-Experts-Child/dp/1556524641/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220699030&sr=8-6

maybe all powerful as if we are all formed or grown from what was there in the beginning then what was there is equivalent to where we've ended up? In which case we're all made out of 'God' but then so is a post-it-note, Richard Dawkins, Dubya, Osama-bi-laden, Salman Rushdie, and the diskspace this post will be written on... No wonder its been historically easier to draw an old man with a beard and a fierce light-emitting forehead...

This has to be the nub of the problem I think - there's nothing at all wrong with calling whatever was there at the beginning God, and being able to talk about it in abstract terms just as we talk about the soul etc. The moment people start to argue about what that God is we get into some debate, which is OK - the problem comes when one group says 'we're right, and those who disagree will end up living eternity in screaming agony' and so on. That's back to faith vs Religion - most reasonable atheists have nothing against faith and everything against religion. Grahame, so long as you're secure in your own faith (which you seem to be and good on you) then no slights any of us agnostics or whatever decide to make against your church can hurt you

How about Organised Religion = original sin 'ere God?

Personally, I need no hope beyond the grave - my faith (which is my own personal combo of unprovable and arguably foolish beliefs) is for living. I doubt that many Christians could actually say (though I don't want to be too presumptuous here) that they believe exactly the same as their fellow church-goer, as faith/belief is just too personal and complex. Along with that I'm sure there are plenty of Christians whose primary concern is with life rather than what may or may not happen after death. That said, if JC was right then I'm screwed; if brought before the seat of judgement after death I probably am stupid enough to raise a middle finger in defiance and be heard for eternity screaming 'I'm sorry sir I didn't mean it!' as I fall forever into the dark pits of hell...

Why does it actually matter whether Jesus Christ was the son of 'God' (whatever that may be') or the son of Mary's boyfriend, a Roman soldier, Joseph, whatever - history certainly does have him down as a good man, certainly influential and I agree that plenty of good has been done in his name as well as otherwise. There are plenty of other good men and women in history though - to talk about there only being one Jesus Christ and all that denies the inherent good that exists within so much of humanity, whatever their faith, surely?

a swollen pride for not agreeing with the words of Jesus Christ? This comes back to the same point which, possibly, most atheists who try to completely reject the existence of any creator being really want to avoid - there could easily be a 'God' but there is no reason at all to believe that God is good at all... Depressing, huh?

As sort-of-an agnostic/atheist/humanist/dabbling-unitarian-maybe-whatsit person, I can't think of a single way in which Dawkins can prove the non-existance of God as any proof could have easily been put there by said deity for the express purpose of hiding the truth from the likes of Mr Dawkins. You can't get around that, especially if you dabble in the Matrix-logic are we all in a computer program philosophy and all that jazz. The problem I have is with the idea that a deity of any sort can be benevolent and utterly at ease with their power and at the same time actually insist upon adherence to the rules laid down in any number of human-built religions. Faith is what Mr Dawkins has, faith that he is right. I also have faith and it's arguably dumber than Dawkins' - I somehow believe that if I do the right thing, good will out. I have no evidence to prove that and no bribe of eternal salvation to work for or care about. There's lots of us dumb people about who think the same way, which I think makes for a better society all round, but us atheists still carry a lot of baggage from school, or from phrases like 'good Christian' that infer that your moral status is higher if you need a bribe of eternal salvation to do good as opposed to needing no payment at all. Once the insistence of a religeous spin to school assemblies is gone, or on Thought for the Day, and humanist thought is allowed to stand alongside, a lot of the fundamentalism will gradually wither away on the atheist front...hopefully...

Maybe malignant black holes are a wider contributor to obesity than we know..

Do these black holes have to keep growing in size till they take the whole planet? Couldn't they just reach te size of a beach ball and dance around the planet randomly sucking up whatever they passed? We'd have to start writing blackhole suckage cover into insurance policies, build a real-life Ghostbusters gun to try and suck the suckers up and blow them into space, build cosmic levees to try and keep them out at sea, or special levers like a cosmic Atlantic pong to bounce them away from the land and major shipping and flight routes? Maybe we could use them to suck up excess seawater created from melting the ice caps and reverse climate change? There's a lot of options here that really haven't been thought out properly...