An unlapsed catholic, i???

[ahinton]

Well, if I go south it is via Casnewydd of course via an omnibus and then, forward! onwards and upwards! with First Great Western via Bath to Southampton Central and then Brighton!

Well, there are no omni or any other kind of buses up yurr within a couple of miles or so (Madley, as in) and even the one that there is only goes to Hereford, so that's no use to me. I occasionally go to London from Hereford with FGW, a long, infrequent and tortuous journey that is fortunately relieved during daylight hours by some delightful scenery

"actually. I bin yurr far too long, isn' it?" Probably Duckie <'as 'e been up in't forest?>)

Definitely, I'd say - and let it also be said that even Rory Bremner is said to be unable to do a Herefordistan accent...

[handsomefortune]

More power to your elbow, umslopogaas!

seconded.

i particularly loved the snappy last line ....about 'anyway the brushwork has moved on'! and thought of (uncharacteristically sensible) george bush-isms, with: there are things that we just cant understand because we don’t have the knowledge, and things we cant understand because we do have the knowledge, but it’s someone else’s and I haven’t got the keys to the filing cabinet.

having just read umslopogaas's post out aloud, to a lapsed catholic who sang for 'Papa Popi' in 1981, along with thousands of other children, (not alone), i think the wine fueled anguish is more an expression of responsible concern, as regards stillhomewardbound's recent nostalgic sunday dabblings.

and in the spirit of this threads recent direction - 'so there's lovely for you umslopogaas isn't it'!

serial apologist's response ... being 'mindful' might help enormously, of use to shb, in his fearing a return to 'mumbo jumbo'. but i can't quite get why shb can't participate as a spectator at a theatrical event? not in a disrespectful sense, but apparently plenty of priests apparently train, only to find they nolonger believe themselves, and yet do good things for communities, provide a good example to others. if any religion's not about the latter - 'doing good, helping others' but just an excuse for (yet another) mystifying pecking order .... i might risk being much, much more evil than umslopogaas on this subject.....especially after wine.

shb's #1 is hardly an excuse, or an opportunity to exert an x factor style vote, for catholicism verses cofe, or any other faith, or agnostic preference - and everyone take positions accordingly, is it? at least i hope not! as with the 'royals verses republican' thread on this forum - it's a bit daft to limit oneself generally. it's quite likely that, as with politics, all options are ultimately unsatisfactory? perhaps more positive to marvel that peace and goodness regardless remain in existence - despite all hinderances, and poor example provided by 'superiors'?

lastly, perhaps we should rightly have a 'november mb festival of unknowns', where we all post one that we'd saved..... rather than posted.

or, perhaps not! since there's not a 'can of worms' emoticon - (besides, i've got a shedload of 'unposteds'(so it's silly to even suggest this...) but then again, who hasn't)?

[MrGongGong]

As a child/teenager I was in the choir at a very high "anglo-catholic" church
the whole ritual / performance was wonderful
BUT it really doesn't tie in with what its supposed to be in support of IMV
and i've been to and participated in performances (including parts of The Great Learning ) that work just as well in terms of their impact
the Kabuki theatre in Tokyo also worked well for me ..............
It IS possible to separate belief from culture ................. so for me nowadays, The B Minor Mass if part of my culture (as are the cathedrals) but NOT part of my belief

What strikes me often in the church musicians that I meet , is the way that they move between the Catholic and CofE without any problem at all
for those who do believe it really comes down to whether you think a priest is necessary for your salvation ! plenty of crazy high anglicans go for the whole transubstantiation nonsense (or "Logic" if you follow a certain train of Peak District thought )

[scottycelt]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God, and is just as much an act of faith as a belief that there is one.

Spot on, umslopogaas!

That's just what dogmatists like Professor Richard Dawkins seemingly cannot grasp. An aggressive espousal of atheism is being every bit as suffocatingly dogmatic as anything decreed by those scoundrels in Rome!

Bleeding, blindingly obvious to naive religious thickos and clear-thinking non-believers, but obviously not to the 'rational' Godless Intelligentsia of the modern world.

When it comes to matters of religious belief or non-belief, agnosticism is the only true state of the genuinely non-dogmatic, certainly not atheism.

[Serial_Apologist]

When it comes to matters of religious belief or non-belief, agnosticism is the only true state of the genuinely non-dogmatic, certainly not atheism.

Well, being of the agnostic (self)-persuasion rather than the atheist, I'm comforted to hear that!

However, I just do not get this notion at all that atheism is a form of "belief" in the sense that theism is. There is no symmetry to such logic: it is just not possible to "believe" in "nothing" - any such ascription of belief can only be posed in relation to its opposite: i.e. in the absense of verifiable evidence there can only be "no god" in relation to a prior assertion to the contrary.

[scottycelt]

Well, being of the agnostic (self)-persuasion rather than the atheist, I'm comforted to hear that!

However, I just do not get this notion at all that atheism is a form of "belief" in the sense that theism is. There is no symmetry to such logic: it is just not possible to "believe" in "nothing" - any such ascription of belief can only be posed in relation to its opposite: i.e. in the absense of verifiable evidence there can only be "no god" in relation to a prior assertion to the contrary.

But the atheist, unlike the agnostic, doesn't believe in 'nothing', S-A ... that's the whole point!

He/she believes and firmly declares that 'there is no God', no ifs or buts. What's the difference between that leap of faith and dogmatism than any other?. That's every bit a 'positive' expression of belief than the contrary, surely?

The atheist's refusal to accept that charge and then resorting to ridiculous talk about 'spaghetti monsters' or whatever is just a convenient smokescreen to divert attention from the double-standard applied..

In contrast, the agnostic's stance that he/she is not persuaded that there is a God because of a perceived lack of evidence one way or the other is a fair-minded and wholly logical position to adopt.