Constance writes; "LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO RUSSIA IN 1917! Up to 60 million people murdered by Stalin."

I hope the management will forgive the sidestep into the barely-relevant, but drivel like the above quote should not be allowed to appear without challenge.

In 1917, Stalin was chairman of the Petrograd Soviet trying desperately at Lenin's behest to reconcile with the Mensheviks and other splinter groups. It was a power struggle not susceptible of reasoned settlement. Lenin's life was in danger and Stalin assisted his Bolshevik colleague first to hide in the Alliluyeva household for several weeks and then shepherded him to greater safety over the Finnish border. As an editor of Pravda and an upper-level party functionary in those revolutionary turbulent times, Stalin had precious little time to organize such industrial-sized massacres. In fact no centralized authority existed in 1917 that could have instigated such action.

Trying to ally Stalin's antipathy toward religion into a pathological hatred fails every time when some zealot with a dim smattering of Russian history raises Stalin's supposed atheism. It was a powerfull tool of political and social influence. He used religion, he neither hated it nor favoured it. He destroyed the Russian church because it opposed him politically to protect its royal and aristocratic privilege. One could assert with no less authority that Stalin's penchant for philately drove him to commit the massacres he was later responsible for.

As for atheism being a driving force behind the dreadful sacrifice of life as communism arose in Russia and China......this rather twisted reasoning is tantamount to claiming that not playing golf is a sport.

My apologies to management for the diversion but I confess that historical ignorance, when so blatantly exhibited by Constance, should be revealed as worthless.

Craig Minns,

"I'm at a bit of a loss as to why GY doesn't take some form of action though. Not just against Constance, but the equally hateful, although slightly more contained (in the sense that he limits himself to his own articles and their threads, so at least he's easy to avoid) David Singer, who spouts precisely the same sort of guff on a somewhat reciprocal vector."

If you're unhappy with a post and have a complaint, then you should hit the red cross and report it - Graham isn't psychic and hasn't time to trawl through every thread.

Regarding David Singer, it would appear that his articles are published on OLO by choice - why would Graham "take action" against them?

Your point to AJPhilips:

"....You are taking a faith-based approach, which you are entirely sincere about, but is not going to ever allow you to accept that a view different to your own faith is acceptable. You will go on trying to "change my mind", as every good evangelist is driven to do."

I think you're off the mark there. If you want to an example of someone giving atheism the "faith-based" approach, you could do no better than peruse David Nicholl's 2012 article on the Atheist Convention, which resembles old-style revivalist rhetoric.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13634

"Most attendees came away from the three days and three nights of being voluntarily entombed in the magnificent Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre from 13 to 15 April with feelings varying from elation to euphoria..."

"Now the event is over the afterglow still burns brightly in the thoughts of attendees from being enthralled by an intellectual stimulus noteworthy for its call to celebrate reason...."

"...the atmosphere was filled by a powerfully exquisite joy..."

Etc...

AJ Philips,

>>Religion allows people in the millions to believe what only a crazy person could believe alone.<<

I thought we had already agreed on this, namely that one of the differences between us two is that I would not say that only a crazy person could believe what you do or have an understanding for.

We have been also through the following: If you don’t see the message supposed to be conveyed through a metaphor you just don’t get it, full stop - no need to explain why.

Craig Minns, Sells,

I’d like to endorse your recent reactions to some contributors here (though I agree with Poirot re authors of whole articles like David Singer). Indeed, the purpose of this kind of discussions ought to be to better understand (the others but also oneself) rather than convert.

Hi Poirot,
I rarely report others' comments. On the other hand, GY has applied some rules to our discussions here and it seems to me that some commenters routinely honour those rules more in the breach. Constance is the obvious benchmark, of course, but Singer is not a long way behind. His articles are relatively simple polemics drawing on a particular political view, but his comments are frankly loony rants that detract both from the articles and the quality of the forum. Criticising Israel's policies or his articles does not make one a "Jew hater" for example. I'm not completely sure why GY publishes his work, since in my own experience he's quite a tough editor.

I realise GY is not a mind reader, but I'm sure a simple script could be written to alert him to the posts of some contributors for direct vetting.

Thanks for that great link to Nicholls' piece, it shows precisely what I've been trying to get at. AJP's stuff is slightly more subtle, but is every bit the apologetic that one might see on a site like Theology Web or Answers in Genesis, replete with the favoured preachers to offer "authoritative" quotes.

The shame is that I agree with you that AJP is obviously an intelligent person, but he is a convert with all the fervour of a new faith to evangelise.

George, thanks for the endorsement. I think we manage OK to achieve a better understanding on the whole. It may even be that it is helpful to have the more outrageous comments as a measure of when we are straying too far from the middle ground for understanding to be reasonably possible.

Yes George, I remember that agreement.

<<...namely that one of the differences between us two is that I would not say that only a crazy person could believe what you do or have an understanding for.>>

But I have not asked you to say that, and nor is that what I said. For you to suggest that I did, only goes to show that either you missed the point entirely, or you’re throwing a red herring out there.

<<If you don’t see the message supposed to be conveyed through a metaphor you just don’t get it...>>

Well, you’ve never said what this message was, but I understand that you believe it’s “supposed to be conveyed through a metaphor” (often in Scripture). So I don’t think you are in a position to yet to claim that I’ll never get it.

I know what I thought it was, but it was more of a literalist one and you refuse to explain what your non-literalist one is (and yet you claim to believe that discussions on OLO are about understanding each other).

<<Indeed, the purpose of this kind of discussions ought to be to better understand (the others but also oneself) rather than convert.>>

I don’t think there is any particular purpose to these discussions other than to (as the website suggests) debate. Any purpose beyond that is entirely personal and subjective.

I have simply pointed to the problems in Craig Minns’ arguments. The fact that this comes across to some as an attempt to convert is rather telling indeed.

Craig Minns,

"I rarely report others' comments. On the other hand, GY has applied some rules to our discussions here and it seems to me that some commenters routinely honour those rules more in the breach...."

Most of us "rarely" report comments - some posters here never do - however, what is the point of rabbiting on about posts we find offensive, if we're not prepared to alert Graham?

"I realise GY is not a mind reader, but I'm sure a simple script could be written to alert him to the posts of some contributors for direct vetting."

How would that work? We're dealing with humans here - and it's often a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable. I think Graham prides himself on not interfering too much.

The onus is on each of us to report if we believe a post is out of order. There's no badge of honour available to those who decide the red cross is only to be used in dire circumstances.

"The shame is that I agree with you that AJP is obviously an intelligent person, but he is a convert with all the fervour of a new faith to evangelise.'

I disagree - AJPhilips is merely employing reason and rational argument. Yes, he's particularly driven to articulate his point - but so is everyone else.

Just point out, that I, on numerous occasions have sought to imbibe theology, to provide myself an opportunity to "believe"...I used to have an inherent attraction to metaphysical explanations (part of the human psyche/condition?). They appealed to me. I "love" cathedrals and churches, their architecture (my favourite thing to draw), the feeling of "sacred space" when one enters their confines...and yet my rational mind will not allow me to "believe".

I've tried often - the "Holy Spirit" still awaits without.