The late Christopher Hitchens vs Dr John Lennox in Alabama

If you have nearly two hours to watch and to consider the arguments, the kindnesses, the energy of these two brilliant Englishmen, you will be rewarded. The YouTube is here:
https://youtu.be/5OXPlUCGScY

Is there a God?
Can we know anything at all about religions?
What about the problem of evil in light of the assumption that there is a caring God?

So much to consider. For those who know science and for those who know very little.
Please watch; please consider; please comment below.

Hitchens passed away, but his arguments remain, and need to be heard and need to be answered.

Professor John Lennox is a mathematician at Oxford University. His clarity and quotations from philosphers and scientists are again worth hearing.
I met him in Sydney some years ago and was benefited greatly.










Enjoy the debate!

Repeating. Did I say that already?

It was common for actors in the 16th Century, in Shakespearean companies to play different roles each night. A band of actors would travel from one city and village to the next, and in each location to perform another of the Bard's great plays. I have a friend here in Sydney who runs an opera company. And opera fans have seen the same companies perform different shows each night for weeks, while the cast remains the same, but change roles each day.

In this painting by Caravaggio, the setting is clearly the ancient story of Narcissus, and this one features some similarities to other paintings by the artist.

It has been questioned by art scholars, whether the painting Narcissus was actually painted by Caravaggio. Elements in the painting’s style and iconographic creativity has led to the acceptance that it actually was one of Caravaggio’s creations. Caravaggio, a young and poor artist, was known to reuse models and costumes repeatedly, in order to save money. The facial features of Narcissus look very similar to the angel in the painting Rest on the Flight into Egypt.

The composition of the vest that Narcissus is wearing looks as if it is the same material as Mary’s dress in another of Caravaggio’s paintings, The Penitent Magdalene, as well. Caravaggio was also known to produce paintings with a suspenseful, magical and introspective atmosphere, during the middle of his career as an artist, which is very characteristic of this painting.

Repeating ourselves, and reusing characters, plots, themes, story lines, even clothing... hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Of course, we're writing about Shakespeare, operas, and great artists. Their works have stood the test of time. But what about others who continue to peddle tried-and-true formula antics like comedians whose shtick is canned? Think of Abbott and Costello; think Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin; think Adam Sandler or Woody Allen. Their marks are all over their works and they 'work' which is why they didn't adjust; they didn't need to. It's still working.

I watched the first two debates in the US presidential election. One with the senior candidates, and the other with their 2ics. One of the knocks I hear from each side is that 'the other guy uses canned answers.' There is a sense of indignity that preparation in debate leads to answers which apparently are not real. As if answers have to be off-the-cuff to be genuine. I don't really understand that.

I go to a certain florist shop to buy flowers because the lady Rita who runs the place does a great job. I know what I'm going to get. She knows what I want. It's a comfortable albeit patterned situation. I trust her BECAUSE she's reliable. And the product is repeatedly good.

Most people who buy bread at the bakery want good bread. They want bread that is reliable and safe and healthy and tasty. They don't want something new or different as if that's the only good stuff. They want repeatability in reliability.

I wonder if someone can help me understand why 'canned' answers in debate preparation is wrong, but good paintings, bakery products or flowers is right. I'm willing to learn. Thanks.

Not reading... therefore... US primaries?

This article "don't read" from 9 March is scary. The clarity of the diminishing of the reading, not the capacity to read, but actual reading itself, brings to light so much about the Republican race for the White House and other locations in the US elections. I've been wondering, since I have not met a single Trump supporter, not one, and yet I've been in many places in the US since September last year. Why are there so many people voting for the Donald, people who should know better. He's not a "very good Christian' as he said in the papal criticism. In fact, I've never met a very good Christian who alleges that of themselves as Donald did. On top of that he's a misogynist in speaking about any of his wives, or Megan Kelly or so many women not only in politics, but just about anyone female.

Honestly I don't get it.

I am embarrassed that he demeans people relentlessly, like Marco Rubio whom the Donald calls "Little Marco." Who cares about Rubio's size? All short people should fight against Trump if that's the way he feels about all short people. Then he patronises people. On the CNN debate with the Telemundo woman (Maria Celeste Arraras), he said some ridiculous things about those he opposed, then said in a moment of pandering, "I love those people". His use of 'love' reminds me of something else out of Las Vegan and Atlantic City. Please.
That night last month, he told Arraras " First of all, I don't believe anything Telemundo says." It goes on:
ARRASAS: For the record, you have said publicly that you loved Telemundo in the past. But it is not just a Telemundo poll. We have...
TRUMP: I love them. I love them.
ARRASAS: All right. Well, it's not the only poll.
TRUMP: They're fine. Do you know what? They're fine."

How about just saying, "Please vote for me. I'll do or say anything to get elected." That makes it very clear, doesn't it? And if someone doesn't read the fine print, or any print for that matter, but gets caught up in the emotion, in the applause-o-meters and the polls and the media hype, it's just terrible. Not that I'm a Republican. But if I were, I'd never vote for Trump. Oh, unless I wanted to have him run against my candidate, then he would get in, and ours would win easily.

But in this season of un-intelligent conversation and debating, of emoticons and 140 character thinking, that this allegation about the Supreme Court by Ted Cruz of Mr Trump went almost unnoticed, "interesting now that Donald promises that he will appoint justices who -- who will defend religious liberty, but this is a man who, for 40 years, has given money to Jimmy Carter, to Joe Biden, to Hillary Clinton, to Chuck Schumer, to Harry Reid. Nobody who supports far-left liberal Democrats who are fighting for judicial activists can possibly care about having principled constitutionalists on the court."

Rubio had issues with the Donald in previous contests, but seemed to relax those tonight in the CNN Republican debate in Florida. What (didn't) get into him? Remember this from that same debate about the removal of Obamacare and alternate plans during the debate in Texas?

"BASH: ... Can you be a little specific...
TRUMP: ... competition...
RUBIO: ... He's done it again.
TRUMP: There is going to be competition among all of the states, and the insurance companies. They're going to have many, many different plans.
BASH: Is there anything else you would like to add to that...
TRUMP: No, there's nothing to add.
TRUMP: What is to add?

See, a reader would understand. An emotionalist would be cheering and thumping and waving his banner. A reader would say, "Wait a minute, mister, what's your plan?" And the silence would be deafening.

So what's it like in your world? I'm not really asking your political preferences. Although if you want to share those, fine. For me the issue is-- "Who are those people who are raising their hands to the Donald and casting their votes for him?" I may have found the answer to those real questions.

And it's not a pretty answer.

Final debate... listen to the spin

The Presbyterians in the US, according to the story in the New York Times, gave final approval to the change of the definition of marriage to include same sex (Gay and Lesbian) couples. The language of the first line is telling: "After three decades of debate over its stance on homosexuality, members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted on Tuesday to change" In other words the debate is now officially over. No one can vote again; no one can bring up the subject again; no one can debate again. Isn't that what their language indicates?

If that be so, then the debate was really a 'wear down' by one side over against the other, the more traditional side.

"“Finally, the church in its constitutional documents fully recognizes that the love of gays and lesbian couples is worth celebrating in the faith community,” said the Rev. Brian D. Ellison, executive director of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, which advocates gay inclusion in the church. “There is still disagreement, and I don’t mean to minimize that, but I think we are learning that we can disagree and still be church together.”

In other words, the debate is over, and although there is still disagreement, the Rev Ellison is declaring the conversation over; the debate is closed. The vote is now final.  The genie is really out of the bottle. And it's not going back inside.

Is that the way debate works? Is that the way denominations face hurdles of discord? I think the Presbyterians and others have much to consider in the decade ahead. But first, they who were the mainline church for many will now become more of a sidelined organization. Although they will officially welcome homosexuals, their numbers will officially plummet and they will become 'just another' formerly glorious place of God's working. Shame.

Spin matters. Final conversation will yet to be had. Watch this space.




 A version of this article appears in print on March 18, 2015, on page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Largest Presbyterian Denomination Gives Final Approval for Same-Sex Marriage.

The NYTimes article is here