Posts by Andrew Smith
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The jury's still out for me on Richard Dawkins. He's obviously a very adept thinker, but often gets bogged down in petty complaints that mar his good logic. Much like Ian Wishart? For example, in his book "The God Delusion" he quotes C.S.Lewis on Lewis' view about God and then uncharitably says, "and he(Lewis) should've known better". Unwise and elitist to slate a thinker of Lewis' capabilities I would have thought.
On Jackson and Tamihere. If Shadbolt can get elected, who knows?
-
"But I think the essay makes it quite clear that Rudd sees the moral dimension of Christianity to lie with our attitude to the poor and downtrodden, not with obsessing about sex."
Yes. Jesus had mountains more to say about 'the poor and downtrodden' (and money) than sex. I do, however, think personal morals can make or break a society. History shows though that morals are difficult to legislate...but forgive me for getting off topic!
-
"I would venture to say he's closer to what-Jesus-would-have-done than Howard is."
I think I agree with you Russell if you are not saying that christianity doesn't have a moral component, only that the moral component often gets in murky when brought into poiltics. However, there is a danger for any of us to compartmentalise our faith according to the 'institution' we are dealing with. I do think that Rudd's christian principals should have alerted him to the moral dangers of 'titty bars'!
Another 'Bonhoeffer-esq' example is William Wilbeforce, who has been adequately portrayed in the current file, "Amazing Grace".
-
Perhaps all this blustering (now focusing on Australian conservatives for goodness sake!) from the Labour Party is just them trying to create a smoke screen for their loses in the polls. I see another article in the Herald today warning them not to keep mentioning John Key's wealth. Labour sure sounds like a Party in it's death-throws for now.
-
Looks like we need a real statistician to front up here. I failed Statistics 101 in 1980...
-
A good example of the changing nature of climate change debate is the news story today of NASA having to revise their data on US surface air temperatures. Apparently, a Canadian scientist by the name of Steve McIntyre found a 'bug' in NASA's computer software. NASA adjusted their data and now the averages have cooled somewhat. The hottest year is now 1934, not 1998. So it's still a very fluid scientific debate.
-
I still think the whole climate change debate is far too loaded with 'us and them' terminology that makes it difficult for reasoned debate. Russell you sometimes perpetuate this as well. I object to language like 'climate change denial'. It runs seriously close to the 'holocaust denial' label and those that illogically follow that line. And then there are the 'conspiracy' theories and the mentioned whackos in Newsweek that fund rediculous campaigns. All this leads to frightening prospects for anyone who wants take a view that climate change may not be occuring as the mainstream thinking suggests.
-
Thanks Russell and Don. But 'pig organ soup'!? Really! I have seen some peculiar unearthly 'star wars' type beasts lurking in some of the Mall's Food Halls, but I'm not that game to try them. Thanks for the tips.
-
I am still in Singapore and still don't know where the best food halls are. This means even more to me than commenting on Michaels Moores new film...blimmin hot here.
-
Terrorists look for loop-holes in any system. They found one in the Bristish immigration checks for medical physicians. They used it. Simple as that.