Of course Bishop’s comment is correct (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Of course Bishop’s comment is correct
9:40am Wednesday 10th September 2008 in
SIR – If Bob Churchill adopted a little more humility and less belligerence in stating his apparently humanist/atheist views, he might find people less critical of him.
Of course the Bishop of Worcester is correct in saying the playing of sacred music in church brings us closer to God.
We are told in the chronicles of Enoch, the prophet, that the angels closest to God in heaven are the Seraphim, who constantly create music to maintain the vibration of creation.
On hearing such music in a religious setting, many people feel a mystical atmosphere connecting them to higher spiritual realms, which undoubtedly exist.
How sad for Mr Churchill that he cannot experience this as it might temper his views and his ways of expressing them.
LINDA ROBERTS, Worcester.
Comments(10)
anarchist
says...
10:34am Wed 10 Sep 08
Some believe in god, some don't and others are agnostic. So whether the Bishop is correct or incorrect is not a question of fact (i.e. correct or incorrect) but rather one of belief.
"On hearing such music in a religious setting, many people feel a mystical atmosphere connecting them to higher spiritual realms, which undoubtedly exist."
Again this is belief presented as if it is indisputable fact, which it isn't.
Bob Churchill
says...
1:53pm Wed 10 Sep 08
For the second time I am misrepresented with reference to the Bishop of Worcester's comments on music.
Linda Roberts (10 September) believes "the Bishop of Worcester is correct in saying the playing of sacred music in church brings us closer to God." Well, okay, but this was very clearly not the part I objected to.
What I objected to was the further implication that all music, whether designated "sacred" or otherwise, derived its power from God.
Roberts also says I should "temper my views" and my "ways of expressing them". This is unfair. Yes I was voicing a criticism (a mild philosophical criticism at that!) but unless you think religious representatives are exempt from criticism this shouldn't be a problem in itself. And if my words seem harsh, it's probably just that religion is so often protected from normal standards of commentary.
Finally, Roberts expresses sadness that I "cannot experience" mystical feelings induced by church music. Ms Roberts, there's really no need to feel sad for me. Different musical genres appeal to different people, and there is probably plenty of music that I appreciate, even profoundly, which you would appreciate less.
High Time
says...
3:10pm Wed 10 Sep 08
Art Morab
says...
3:19pm Wed 10 Sep 08
Bob Churchill
says...
7:18pm Wed 10 Sep 08
Could it possibly be that you're picking up on a completely arbitrary bit of completely inoffensive style because you can't address the actual argument?
High Time
says...
10:17am Thu 11 Sep 08
Bob Churchill wrote:Your doing it again.
High Time, doing what again? Of course I used Ms Roberts' name, I was responding to her specific comments. I'm sorry if it comes over ... well, however it comes over. But often it looks rather ruder to refer to someone as if they're "the cat's mother"!Could it possibly be that you're picking up on a completely arbitrary bit of completely inoffensive style because you can't address the actual argument?
Brent Rasmussen
says...
2:49pm Thu 11 Sep 08
You see, when an atheist speaks or writes, it's considered militant and hateful. It has nothing to do with the tone of the speech, or the truth or falsehood of the ideas contained in the speech, or with the cleverness or the efficacy of the arguments.
Even if the atheist's speech is polite and meek, it is considered hateful and bombastic.
Us atheists get that here in America all the time.
So, my advice is don't listen to those who would have you sit down, shut up, and move to the back of the bus. Keep making your arguments, and exercise your freedom of speech. Personally I'm sick and tired of being told that I'm a second-class citizen and that I have no right to speak when I happen to point out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
Hang in there, my friend, and keep fighting the good fight.
Forthright
says...
11:39pm Thu 11 Sep 08
Last time I mentioned that I prefered to be thought of as an atheist I was assailed with the usual tripe about being "nasty" and controversial for the "sake of it".
How anyone can make practical sense of Christ`s teachings still mystifies me.....it`s all so "nice" and impossible to live up to.
But you have to accept that these threads are not really debates but usually a succession of prejudices being expressed .....and the chances of anyone being persuaded to change their views is very slim.
Religion is irrational ....or you wouldn`t need faith to believe in it.
zeno
says...
10:07pm Fri 12 Sep 08
Bob Churchill
says...
12:59pm Mon 15 Sep 08
But I'm glad some others are on the same page.
Frankly, I think I write relatively clearly and with patience, yet t's amazing how often I'm being accused of "belligerence" or of saying things I very, very clearly didn't say.
In fact what's most interesting is that of my letters which I consider most vitriolic, but which aren't about religion, most have been largely ignored. However polite I am, if the subject is connected to a religious belief, offence is caused at the drop of a hat!
More Read stories
- I’m not sure National Service is the answer
- Why won’t Government stop price increases?
- It sounds like we had a lucky escape...
- Surely they won’t put price up this much?
- Listen to Labour? You’re having a laugh
- Canon John Davies was perfect gentleman
- Please, let’s have an Englishman this time
- We are lucky to have hospital facilities
- So what advantages would we lose?
- We must do more to protect countryside
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with