BB, you are the sort of Christian I, as an atheist, can live with ( metaphorically you understand), whereas Ryan seems to be of the more fundementalist persuasion, and seems less relaxed in his belief and more defensive in his exchanges.

I think it has been mentioned previously but I wouldn’t have thought that the true believer would be concerned with criticism. I imagine they would be comfortable with what they thought was right and without the need to justify the belief.

If they’re upset by criticism it probably means they either want to burn you as a heretic or can’t stand having to consider your argument, which might undermine their beliefs.

If you don’t vote then I don’t think you have any right to complain about the government, good or bad, that you end up with.

I was pretty sure someone would say that.

Of course I have a right to complain even though I choose not to vote. I would certainly vote, given the chance to keep candidates out if I don’t trust any of them.

I’d suggest that ‘none of the above’ could work. If there were more votes for ‘none of the above’ than for any candidate in a particular ward, it would mean the majoity of voters didn’t want any of them. We’d then have a by-election where none of those candidates would be eligible to stand.

The parties would be more likely to give us candidates we wanted, rather than some professional politician ‘parachuted’ in to a safe seat.

Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to say ‘Yes, I want to vote for party X, but the candidate is a sleazeball.’ That would make me feel as if my vote could actually have an influence.

I don’t vote either. I’ve heard people say, ‘If you don’t vote you shouldn’t complain’, but it’s like having the choice of being strangled or hanged. Neither option is palatable.

If there was another choice on voting slips – ‘none of the above’, I would vote. Slightly over 60% turned out last time. I suspect one more choice on the slip would probably raise that figure as people turned out to express their disgust at the whole sorry lot.

I was most amused to read about the bishop who accused the monks who produce Buckfast of betraying christian values. When the bishop prays to Jesus he ought to give him a good telling off for being so irresponsible as to turn water into wine.

http://www.decanter.com/news/293976.html

And the thieving b*stards stole all the decent festivals and holidays.

I would ask a question – If you felt the need to write a history of an aircraft, because you felt that a proper history had not been written and you were passionate about this particular aircraft. You would do your utmost to gather as much info as poss, even talk to vets who had flown it. Then you would collate all this info and cross check everything you could, because you were passionate and loved this ‘plane. Now what would you do with evidence that contradicted your view of this ‘plane? Yes OK some would alter bits, but would you?
corrupt?

I’m not talking about a hypothetical or mythical aircraft. I’m interested in real, solid actual aircraft. Even if they don’t exist any more, they actually did exist. There is proof, not just anecdote. There are photographs, testimonies from pilots, parts in museums etc. The bible, from an objective point of view, is nothing more than a bunch of stories, with some good and bad advice thrown in.

As for your pre-flight checks, if faith keeps an aeroplane flying, then your checks are fine. I won’t fly with you though.

Forgive me I knew not what I did

Recite your pre-flight checks and all shall be forgiven

With this being an aviation forum and all, I’d like to add that you can break ‘Gods’ laws and pray for forgiveness. Try breaking the laws of aerodynamics and see how far praying gets you.

Oh dear, I realise now I just said ‘break’ and ‘breaking’ when everyone knows you can’t break the laws of aerodynamics. You merely pay for your errors or ignorance. I should have said ‘ignore’, or ‘ignoring’. I feel such a fool, and now I’ve completely invalidated my argument. How ignorant of me.