Category Archives: My Thoughts

Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits…

Books and Literature, Writing

CHRISTMAS CARD

Leave a comment

When I were nobbut a lad in Essex me, me mam and me da would go and visit my dad’s brother and his wife, Uncle Dick and Aunt Sally. The visits we made were infrequent and boring to me, as a child, and to my parents as adults too.

Aunt Sally and Uncle Dick were a straight laced couple who, it seemed, had drained every ounce of jollity from their house. Aunt Sally was a strict Methodist and she boasted that Uncle Dick never touched alcohol either because he had promised her on their wedding day that he would become  tee total . The words he had actually used were ‘I promise that you will never see me drink spirits or beer. And she never did.  Hhe made sure of that…  Aunt Sally noted that Uncle Dick’s only indulgence was that of eating and chewing mints which he did all day and every day especially when he was out on one of his nature rambles in Epping Forest of a Sunday lunchtime.

On the rare occasions when we would visit them on a Sunday afternoon when they weren’t at a chapel meeting mum,dad, Uncle Dick and Aunt Sally would sit in the parlour and talk about the decline in morals of today’s generation. Well, Aunt Sally would do the talking while the others did the listening, or a good impression thereof and I would be on the floor playing with the toy Noah’s Ark that was the only plaything permitted on the Sabaath. In one game I played the animals would go in 2 by 2 led by the lions and tigers who would ambush the others, kill and eat them as they got on  the ship and away from the prying eyes of Noah (and Aunt Sally). The other game I played was when the lions and tigers were the last to get on the ship and would have a big fight as to who was the strongest and would end up eating each other.  

I once asked Aunt Sally, out of devilment, if there were Unicorns on the Ark and she told me that as Noah was loading the Ark the Unicorns played and dozed in the fields and so missed getting on the Ark. They chased after the ship but could not get on; when you see white water spraying out behind a ship that, my aunt said, were the manes of the Unicorns perpetually chasing the Ark.

The only time Uncle Dick and Aunt Sally were any different was at Christmas. Aunt Sally would allow herself a glass of Harvey’s Bristol Cream  ‘in keeping with the season’ but only after watching the Queen’s Speech on TV. If she drank it earlier in the day she was afraid that it would be direspectful to  Her Majesty to watch her broadcast whilst ‘under the influence’ of spiritous liquours.

Meanwhile Uncle Dick would be in the dining room with us kids playing with our toys, laughing with us and telling us all the jokes he knew that were too good to go in the crackers…they weren’t, they were awful, but we laughed at them anyway because we were all  happy and loved him and he was our best CHRISTMAS CARD.

Writing

Tater Dhu Lighthouse Cornwall

Leave a comment

I’m not sure if I have told you this before. If I haven’t here it is, if I have here it is again.

In the 1980s just up the road from Tater Dhu  Lighthouse lived the author Derek Tangye, ten miles down the coast from Tater Dhu lived me. I lived and worked on the Lizard Lighthouse.

Del boy hated the Tater Dhu lighthouse because its foghorn would sound  at odd times and occasions, even when it wasn’t foggy, disrupting his peace and sleep.

Del boy loved me and my fellow lighthousekeepers on the Lizard Lighthouse, he could see our Light shining bright at night to warn mariners from the cliffs and rocks of south Cornwall and because he couldn’t hear our foghorns booming across the misty waters of the Atlantic Ocean.

What Derek did not know was that the unmanned  Tater Dhu Lighthouse was partly controlled by us on the Lizard Lighthouse. It was our job to switch on the foghorn of Tater Dhu when necessary. Now, trying to work out the visibility around Tater Dhu from ten miles away was a bit tricky so we tended to switch on the fog horn when we could not see the Tower or because of fog around us.  The visibility around Tater Dhu could be fine but we would turn on the horn anyway.  I for one would lap up the praise Derek heaped on us whilst thinking of him hating the fog horn blighting his life that we had switched on.

I liked reading his books like ‘The Cat in the Window’ ‘A Gull on the Roof’ etc but I missed the one he probably didn’t write about how that fog horn drove him mad ‘Bats in the Belfry’

My Thoughts

The Ghosts of Godolphin

Leave a comment

Here is the first draft of a short story I just penned about Godolphin House.

The Red Dress

Behind the main entrance door of godolphin house,the vestibule, even on the coldest winter day, was never chilly, the large fire at one end of the room kept that part warm but even the area near the draughty doors was never really cold.  But neither was it a ‘happy warm’ if you know what I mean. You know how on miserable wet days some Vestibules can be welcoming and warm, enticing you to linger in a chair by the fire, stare into the burning coals and dream delightful dreams or have pleasant thoughts of summer or love or sleep as you dry off from the rain outside before being invited into the house proper. But not the hallway of godolphin house, the warmth was awkward, you could almost say it was angry and hateful as if it did not want to welcome you into the house and it only led  you to think about those  who were outside in the cold wind and snow with a strange feeling almost of envy.  Standing next to the fire wouldn’t make you feel any warmer than standing by the  door did. No, it was not a happy or a comfortable place to spend any length of time in was that Hallway. There were some visitors that said that if they were kept waiting  there for too long before being invited into the main house they felt that they wanted to run outside and wash themselves and to actually burn their clothes.

Lord Godolphin’s second wife of two years Lady Honoria was not happy in the house; she did not like the Hallway at all and would, for preference get into the house through a side door  that led from the formal gardens into the Dining Chamber or even via the  servant’s door into the scullery. She would spend most of her time at Lord Godolphin’s house in London and would only visit his country estate when she felt she had to or if she was ordered to by her husband.

The gardens and grand avenue and  the house were said to be haunted.  A strange lady dressed all in white could sometimes be seen walking across the lawns or up the avenue towards the house and there would hang in the air as she did so  a sense of joy, happiness and anticipation.  If you were keen of eye enough to follow the movements of the apparition you could see it approach the front doors of the house and rap loudly on the huge door knocker to gain admittance. Then a howl like that of a wolf or a bereaved mother would rend the air and a ghostly woman in a red dress would rush screaming out of the door and push the lady in white away from the house who would then be seen walking back down the avenue cradling a child in her arms and a great sadness and despair would fill the air. The apparition  would make her way to the chapel in the woods where the first Lady Godolphin had been buried in the family vault with her stillborn  baby. Both of them had died some months after the Lady had married the Lord in London but before they were able to visit and live in godolphin house, a place she had come to know  and love from Lord Godolphin’s effulgent descriptions of it to her.

The spirit in the red dress at the front door was the the reason that Lady Honoria did not like using the front door, she felt that it was pushing her away, trying to stop her entering the house.

In the entrance hall in one of the chairs by the fire, the chair that nobody could bear to sit in could be seen a figure in a red dress, a  farmer’s daughter that Lord Godolphin had deceived and betrayed before he married lady margerate telling the girl that he would marry her and that she would be Lady Godolphin. The girl had poisoned herself and her unborn child when she found out about Lord Godolphin’s treachery. She now spent eternity defending from interlopers the house that had been promised to her.

The end

My thinking...

JUST GET ON WITH IT!

Leave a comment

I have got into a right pickle with writing my book. I thought arrogantly that I could write it without outlining or plotting it beforehand. silly me! SILLY SILLY ME!! I am somewhat belatedly having to reconstruct the darned thing; but it will be worth it because what I have written so far is pretty good, but to paraphrase Eric Morecombe, I have written all the right words but not necessarily in the right order!

My thinking...

Who is this God person Anyway?

Leave a comment

Who is This God Person Anyway?

God is ‘That Than Which None Other can be Greater’ or, in other words (sic),

 ‘That Than Which None Other can be Greater’ is God.

So, if one removes all prejudicial and pre-conceived ideas that one may have about God and his existence or not and starts asserting that ‘That Than Which None Other can be Greater’ is God I hope that we now have a proposition on which we can all agree: .

Then it begins to make sense. Find out whatever it is that you believe to be ‘That Than Which None Other can be Greater’ and you have God.   ‘Simples’ as Alexi says!

If you believe that God is a supernatural being, he exists. If you believe that ‘God’ (I.e. ‘That Than Which None can be Greater’) is the laws of Science, then he/it exists. So, God exists, that is an irrefutable point.

Any discussion about which of the 2 ‘Gods’, Science or the Deity, is the greatest, or between Theists; which of their Gods is greatest and with believers in the same God, which version of their God is the greater ceases to be a rancorous fight but a question of comparison and debate.

To me, being Christian, ‘that than which none other can be greater’ is Jesus Christ and I am prepared to discuss and compare my beliefs with any one, what I am not prepared to do is row about it.

Let’s have a look at Psalm 1 in the Bible

Psalm 1

King James Version

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Replace or translate the theistic phraseology into ‘Scientific’ terminology and there is little in there to argue about is there!

Let’s move on to Psalm 40:

Psalm 40

King James Version

40 I waited patiently for the Lord; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.

2 He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.

3 And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the Lord.

4 Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

5 Many, O Lord my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.

6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest.

10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.

11 Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O Lord: let thy lovingkindness and thy truth continually preserve me.

12 For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me.

13 Be pleased, O Lord, to deliver me: O Lord, make haste to help me.

14 Let them be ashamed and confounded together that seek after my soul to destroy it; let them be driven backward and put to shame that wish me evil.

15 Let them be desolate for a reward of their shame that say unto me, Aha, aha.

16 Let all those that seek thee rejoice and be glad in thee: let such as love thy salvation say continually, The Lord be magnified.

17 But I am poor and needy; yet the Lord thinketh upon me: thou art my help and my deliverer; make no tarrying, O my God.

Do the same transposing of words and you will find another uplifting and affirming statement.

One’s process to find God is an inward not an outward journey. If one finds him and ‘follows’ him   then as it says in Psalm 40 verse 2: He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings. 

My God has given me certitude and confidence, I am no longer at the mercy of doubt and prone to thoughts and behaviours that ‘offend’ my God.

An argument based on or worded in emotional and scathing language ‘offends’ the ‘God’ (or principle)of reasoned and methodical scientific thought. One’s standpoint must be on the firm ground of reasoned thought processes, not personal insult and calumny (Psalm 40 v2)

I have read ‘arguments’ from the likes of Dawkins, Dennet and Hitchens that are couched in a most unscientific, unreasoned tone so as to make them useless and petty and I have read  stuff penned by written by Werleman, Steel and Thackery that are total tosh, yet these writers call upon Reason and ‘Science’ to justify their outpourings,  (outpourings that are totally unjustifiable!)

A quick dip into the New Testament:

Mark 12:28 Jesus Christ says ‘ This is the first commandment, You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength, and this is the second ‘you must love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.’

So it becomes apparent through their writings that these atheist writers do not Love their ‘God’ with all their heart otherwise they wouldn’t write such poorly argued papers and books.

I once had a delightful twitter conversation with an atheist who gave me a list of all the gods they didn’t believe in and I think that one of the authors I mentioned above has pulled the same stunt as well. That’s not atheism. To me Atheism is ‘There is no Deity and there are no non scientific entities, full stop.

The statement ‘I don’t believe in God’ is also ridiculous because for someone to say ‘I don’t believe in x’ requires ‘x’ to exist for them not to believe in it’s existence!

I am informed that the 19th century German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach argued that if there was no God then religion is a matter of Anthropology.

If Yahweh does not exist then all the horrible things that he did in the Old Testament cannot be ‘blamed’ on him, and maybe they did not happen at all but the writers chose to write about theological and psychological things in a language and a style that was pertinent and understandable to the people of that age. How should we read the Bible today to make sense of it?

Think about it.

My thinking...

Atheists Do it Without thinking.

Leave a comment

I have recently read 2 books (well, bits of 2 books) by CJ Werleman: ‘God Hates You…’ and ‘Jesus Lied…’ as well as a book explaining what Atheism is by Dan Steel

I have not enjoyed (sic) reading what I consider to be such utter trash since I read ‘The Christianity Myth’ by Ken Thackary.

I presume that Messrs Werleman and Steel, like Mr Thackary, are New Atheists, of the ilk that argue against the irrationality and absurdity of Faith by using irrational and absurd criteria to ‘support’ their claims.

So where does one start? Now, I am not claiming that all Theists are right but they, even the most basic Fundamentalists, do have one advantage over Atheists, their arguments are Logically Valid!

You may choose to disagree with their beliefs but, in most cases, you cannot fault their Argument. Atheists tend to waffle and make invalid

arguments.

The main thrust of my Argument is that if one has the intention of discussing, or arguing about, the existence or otherwise of God with another person then it behoves one, and the other one, to come to an agreement, even if only for the sake of Argument, as to what defines the term “God.’ and to define the term ‘God’ in as uncontentious a way as possible so that one is discussing what is ‘God’ and not what he, she or it, is named or whether you like him or not.

In any debate or discussion there must be a common starting point or agreement about what the issue is that is under scrutiny. In the absence of that commonality the debate cannot happen, or if it does it is little more than a slanging match which serves nobody any good at all.

I have tried to hold dialogues with Atheists but as soon as I mention the word ‘God’ they get all iffy and sniffy and go off in a sulk. So I will go into the situation further now.

In my endeavour to try and understand the nature and the whereabouts of God; I decided to revisit St Anselm’s ‘Proslogion , written in the 11th century to propose  ontological proof of the existence of God, that God’s existence can be proved by reasoned and rational thought. Here’s what I found, or rather, where I stopped looking.

Anselm was the Archbishop of Canturbury, the most senior Christian clergyman in England. In writing his proof he called upon the works of scholars and philosophers from Classical Greece and mooted that  God was ‘That than none other can be Greater.’  He propounds that if the existence of God can be acknowledged in one’s mind then there could be something greater than that ‘imagined God’ and that would be a God that physically existed as physical reality is greater than mere mental existence.

He then proceeds to extol the virtues and nature of the Christian God as being ‘that of which none other can be greater’, after that statement, I have to be honest, he loses me…

St Anselm then argues, unsurprisingly for an Archbishop, that the Christian God is ‘That Than Which None Greater Can be Thought.’   He then goes on to detail an exposition of his statement which has invited elaboration and disputation through the ensuing centuries, even to the extent of convincing the great Bertrand Russell himself, albeit briefly, that the Argument was valid. (I suspect that it was St Anselm’s exposition that ‘de-convinced ‘ Russell!)

If we return to Anselm’s opening proposal then we can determine what God is; he is ‘That Than Which None can be Greater.’ and this has been elaborated further by stating that God is: ‘That Which Cannot be Thought Not to Exist.’ To my mind that would be defined as a Creator.

Here comes the problem facing interdisciplinary dialogue, Atheists cannot countenance using the word God and Theists can not countenance not using it in any discussion but until they do there can be no meaningful dialogue between the 2.

So, God is not non-existent neither is he an old grey bearded man sitting on a cloud, a sky fairy nor a flying spaghetti monster. To reverse Anselm’s statement ‘That Than Which None can be Greater’ is God. Which leads us to ponder Oolan Kaloofid’s query: Who is this God person anyway?

Think about it.

See you in the next post xx

My thinking...

In My Opinion All ATHEISTS ARE THICK.

Leave a comment

My plan was to post this thread on my other blog: ‘From the Pulpit of…’ but I have decided that I will stay on this site as what I have to say is my  opinion and although we all know that I am right, Truth is best served by phrasing this as an opinion. (But not just any old opinion but it is MY opinion!

Many years have passed since I was accused of believing that ‘Eddie thinks it’s right because he has said it (I’m 66 years old now,  so that would first have been said about me some 58 years ago!) but that is not so, I don’t believe that something is right because I said it but I say something because it  is  right.( I’m a bit like the Pope on that score, only sometimes he says something that disagrees with what I believe,  so that proves that he is not always right!)

Not so many years have passed since  someone. I think that it was my wife..I  forget which one, number 2 or number 3 I suspect, told me,  during a row,  that I was the most arrogant man that she had ever met. My reply to her, and to any of you that may be thinking the same about me, was, Arrogance is for lesser men than me my dear.

Anyhoo, back to the matter in hand.  Atheists and the cognitive  thickness thereof.

I admit that my interactions have mostly been with Atheists on social media and as we all know, Twitter is not the best place for informed opinions and discussions but some of these people  have written books and articles. God bless their little cotton socks.

The 2 books that have occupied me lately are ‘All God Worshippers are Mad’  by JP Tate (hence my riposte ‘All Atheists are Thick!) and ‘Why God does not Exist…’ by Dan Steel, I have made short trips to books by CJ Werleman, his ‘God Hates You…’ and ‘Jesus Lied…’

What all these books have in common with all other Atheist works of the 20th and 21st centuries that I have read is a complete lack of understanding of what Atheism actually is and a vehement hatred for Christianity and Islam, blaming all the ills of the world on a God that they don’t  believe exists.

The title of this post is ‘in my opinion all atheists are thick’ but that is not necessarily true, not all of them are thick, some of them are stupid and the others may just be merely naive. (I suspect that there may be one or two intelligent ones out there but I have not seen any proof of that theory!

The main thrust of my Argument is that If one has the intention of discussing, or arguing about, the existence or otherwise of God with another person then it behooves one, and the other one, to come to an agreement, even if only for the sake of Argument, as to what defines the term “God.’ and to define the term ‘God’ in as uncontentious a way as possible so that one is discussing what is ‘God’ and not what he, she or it, is named. As in any d debate or discussion there must be a common starting point. In the absence of that commonality the debate cannot happen, or if it does it is little more than a slanging match which serves nobody any good.

I have tried to hold dialogues with Atheists but as soon as I mention the word ‘God’ they get all iffy and sniffy and go off in a sulk. So in my next post I will go into the situation furthrr.

Think about it