MR Prime Minister, I wish so that the efforts by parliament could be directed as strongly to making this govt a God fearing nation again. Does our bible no longer count. Look at prophecy and decide for yourself if man has the right to change God's laws. We cannot pick and choose what laws suit us.
Regards, Theo Rouma
God did not make these laws. Men calling themselves prophets (ranging from laughable to dubious, I suggest!) largely to the exclusion of women did. As for St. Paul, he kind of made it up as he went along his way, if you get my drift? I leave you with Sigmund Freud's analysis which says we are ALL bisexual to a greater or lesser degree! That seems a little closer to the mark, in my book - and think about it, for a moment. Do you not carry in roughly equal proportion traits from both your mother and father? I can say, with absolute certainty, I do!
david i would suggest that you read more shakespeare than freud for good psychoanalysis. i'm afraid the latter's theories are all but discredited save the undeniable link he made between childhood impact on adult behaviour.A theme the bible reiterates about very single one of the major prophets...As for why anyone would want to follow Christ i would again defer to the bard in Lear' He hath that which I would feign call Authority'
The Bard, it is true, had strands of many wise influences to his bow- Marlowe, Marvell, Southampton, Oxford, Pembroke, Bacon, Ben Jonson, all in high probability!, and Freud's therapies, I agree, were largely quack, particularly with regard to the Duke of Edinburgh's mother! However, I take issue with you over the prime instincts, protection and aggression, where I believe he was spot on, as well as the ego and super ego, and I resist any notion that suggests that we, like the binobos, are not thoroughly sexual beings, with all the hangups that entails! I also believe his theory of dreams wasn't far off the mark as well. Fashions come and go, and come back again!
I agree with you, though, about Christianity. I sing in a choir because I enjoy it, but although I believe in the wisdom of Christ's teachings, where I detect strong Buddhist strands, I do not believe he was any different from you or me. He himself was not a Christian and neither am I, and I believe there was a certain amount of theatre involved and a lot of adjustments made to suit Constantine and the Holy Roman See (of which he was not a part! - He worshipped Sol Invictus - the Almighty Sun - I do believe, however, (unlike my father) in God, but not man's feeble interpretation. I leave you with the wisdom of Johannes Kepler who said "who are we to question God's mind?"
i think there is an attempt on the part of Dawkins et al to try and 'de-intellectualise'
Christians. I cannot recommend highly enough 'The Language of God' by Sir Francis
Collins. it is a chronicle of a journey to faith by the scientist who first decoded the Human Genome and a worthy rebuttal to the 'new orthodoxy' on the question of the human condition. Shakespeare is important because of his ability to articulate that human condition with substantive clarity rather than the noisy volume of discourse which is being relayed more and more by a new aggressive atheistic orthodoxy.
Have to wholly disagree on Freud i think we all do have a 'Caliban' we have to tame
but the buck stops there.
On another note i think if you are intimate with Shakespeare's work there is little doubt that he probably was DeVere, earl of Oxford. I originally began to watch a doc
on this with irritation but was won over by the strength of the arguments...it's good to have an open mind on these things...
Well, we clearly disagree over Freud, but I agree with you concerning the principal Shakespearean source being Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford - his machinations and loyalty to QE I ensured that he could never be named! and I am not won over by Dawkins either although I find his arguments interesting.