« Previous | Main | Next »

Father of the Big Bang

Post categories:

William Crawley | 10:24 UK time, Sunday, 10 June 2012

This week on Radio 4, we explored the surprising story of the Catholic priest behind Big Bang Theory, the most important scientific theory of our time. Monsignor Georges Lemaître was both a great scientist and a deeply spiritual priest, and his work on cosmology continues to influence our best scientific accounts of the universe. His life-story also challenges the claim that science and religion are necessarily in conflict.


Listen again to Father of the Big Bang.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

     
    We know a song about that, don't we?


    ;o)

  • Comment number 2.

    Faith and science compatable? Major scientific theories attributable to a Catholic priest? Heresy. The "scientific" inquisition will call shortly, Crawley. You are anathema

  • Comment number 3.

    I find it fascinating how science is full of sometimes heartbreaking examples of wrong time, wrong place or outright deception and lies. Maybe Will you could look at other examples for broadcasting, Bill Brysons "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is full of such stories.

  • Comment number 4.

    As I said on another thread, I can't help wondering how Georges Lemaitre gets round the Scripture in which God Himself describes how the universe was created. I believe He was there at the time!

    And what exactly was it that went 'BANG!'?

  • Comment number 5.

    I've just sat through 4 1/2 hours, non stop, no intermission of Einstein on the Beach by Philip Glass as part of a birthday tribute to the tremendously important composer.

    http://www.mooneyontheatre.com/2012/06/09/luminato-2012-review-einstein-on-the-beach-pomegranate-arts-inc-and-luminato/

    This work is rarely performed as it is daunting for performers and audience, demanding above average contemplation.

    I did wonder about how to tell of Einstein's breakthrough in physics through music, dance and opera. It was challenging.

    As for the man up top and the proclaimed religiosity, there must be some underlying emotional issues that caused him to isolate from family in order to develop scientific ideas. Einstein thankfully had a smart wife and both were atheists. (Oh please don't go citing the Einstein god schtick) it is taken out of context.

    Isn't it exciting to be part of a scientific culture!

    @ Will, isn't it about time that you move this show forward and ditch the religion bits, that chatter tends to drag down anything progressive and meaningful. Um just sayin ...

  • Comment number 6.

    Philip, don't get bogged down in the term "bang". Lemaitre never used the expression "big bang" (that was Fred Hoyle's term for the idea): it's merely a metaphorical description of the theory.

  • Comment number 7.

    LucyQ

    Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this blog categorised as 'Religion'?

    I suppose if you had your way all talk of religion would be banned.

    I also suppose you would be a supporter of those who want to change important arrangements such as marriage.

    It's possible that you consider religious education as child abuse

    Yea, it's exciting to be part of a scientific culture. It's so enlightening to 'believe' that 100 billion galaxies with a 100 billion stars were formed billions of years ago out of a particle that would fit through the eye of a needle. It makes so much sense even a little child can understand it. It's also refreshing to think that some day we will come up with something to explain what existed before the particle banged. By that time all trace of superstitious beliefs will be erased from our thinking and we can take comfort in the ideas proposed by 'scientific' maniacs, sorry geniuses.

  • Comment number 8.

    After looking at the picture of Lemaitre above it suddenly struck me why he looks puzzled - he doesn't have an "E". Yes, that's it. Now, it all falls into place. Matter can be created out of energy and disappear into energy. This is all very complicated and puts some strain on god's made-in-Time firmament!

  • Comment number 9.

    The modern man says, "Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty." This is, logically rendered, "Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it." He says, "Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress." This, logically stated, means, "Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it." He says, "Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education." This, clearly expressed, means, "We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children."
    -- G. K. Chesterton, "Heretics".


    Just thought of this when I read LucyQ and the inevitable secularist notion of "progress".

  • Comment number 10.

    Pastorphilip - God did not write the Bible in the way that Mormons and Muslims believe He wrote their book. If He did, which of the two accounts of creation in Genesis do you think is wrong - did He create Man first, or did He create him last. Can't be both if you take a simplistic literalist view.

    I find the BBT beautiful in both its science and theology. It seems to me to fit in perfectly with Genesis - start with darkness, then you have light (energy) and then the universe begins to expand and you end up with Man. And it might even help explain non-corporeal beings such as angels - creatures of light/energy. Satan as Lucifer. It all fits.

  • Comment number 11.

    newlach

    How do you know that matter can be created out of energy and disappear into energy?

    How does this put a strain on God's 'made-in-Time firmament' whatever that means?

  • Comment number 12.

    LucyQ (@ 5) -

    Will, isn't it about time that you move this show forward and ditch the religion bits, that chatter tends to drag down anything progressive and meaningful.


    Will, isn't it about time you ditched all the stuff about atheism? I mean, it annoys ME, and anything that annoys ME should, of course, be censored. (That is clearly a foregone conclusion and one of the fundamental laws of nature, innit?)

    After all, we can't have people indulging in all this "freedom of speech" fantasy now, can we?

    (Oh, and do remember who pays the BBC license fee! All those loyal Canadians like dear LucyQ, I believe!!!)

  • Comment number 13.

    11 PTS

    "How do you know that matter can be created out of energy and disappear into energy?"

    On this matter I defer to others. Einstein in his 1905 paper on special relativity showed this to be the case (E=mc2).

    "How does this put a strain on God's 'made-in-Time firmament' whatever that means?"

    This was a reference to Lemaitre's response to Pope Pius XII statement that: "Creation took place in time, therefore there is a Creator, therefore God exists." Lemaitre advised Pius not to make his his statement "infallible".

    Do you agree with the view expressed by Pope Pius XII?

  • Comment number 14.

    newlach

    In response to my question you said, "On this matter I defer to others. Einstein in his 1905 paper on special relativity showed this to be the case (E=mc2)." He never theorised that matter can be created out of energy or disappear into energy. Where did he say this?

    I believe God organised materials that make up our world. When He did it I haven't a clue. As far as I'm concerned, it's doesn't matter to me.

  • Comment number 15.

    PTS post 11, newlach post 13,

    newlach is right to mention Einstein's equation. It underlies the process of conversion of matter into energy that is taking place in several hundred nuclear power stations that are helping to keep the lights on throughout the world as we speak. It is a piece of science that is well understood and the related power plant engineering is something that has been around for decades. In its less controlled, more explosive form (atom bomb) it's been around since the Summer of 1945. So it's not just well understood, but it is something we can even control as we like.

    In the other direction (energy to matter) applications are not as everyday as nuclear power, but Einstein's equation applies equally well and it is something that we can also carry out at will. For example, in my field of materials science, positron probes are used to study defects in materials. Positrons do not occur naturally in any meaningful quantities here on earth, as their life spans in the presence of 'normal' matter would be so short, that if any were to ever appear, they would soon be gone again. But they can be artificially generated from photons (a form of energy) with the right wave length.

    So in short: we know about the matter/energy conversion you asked about from scientific endeavour. People have know about it since before you were born. As with so many questions about the real world, you could have very easily found out about this yourself too. Knowledge is not for the members of an exclusive club. The only requirement for membership is wanting to learn how the real world works and drive away one's ignorance (comforting as it may be at times). A short internet search would have given you the answer.

  • Comment number 16.

    PTS, your post 14 appeared while I was typing post 15. What you say about Einstein not considering matter/energy conversion is incorrect. For example, he co-wrote a letter with Leo Silard to FDR, encouraging research into the atom bomb, in order not to let Nazi Germany get there first. By the time of the writing of that letter, the principle of mass/energy conversion had been well known and Einstein proposed its application in a weapon of mass destruction.

  • Comment number 17.

    @puretruthseeker - As I understand the blog and point of Everyday Ethics as concept it is mutually exclusive from magical, superstitious belief and invites questions on the topic of morality. We all know by now that tribal religious beliefs are completely exclusive of that which is moral.

    "Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.

    Major areas of study in ethics may be divided into 3 operational areas:

    Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;

    Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

    I see Will as a philosopher trapped in a medieval nation that is too much isolated thanks to geography and history. He seems to have a plan but is taking too long to execute it.

  • Comment number 18.

    LucyQ

    As I understand the blog and point of Everyday Ethics as concept it is mutually exclusive from magical, superstitious belief and invites questions on the topic of morality.

    Mutually exclusive? That's a rather bold claim. I wonder if you can demonstrate it.

    We all know by now that tribal religious beliefs are completely exclusive of that which is moral.

    We do? They are? Don't commit murder, moral or not moral?

    The problem with boors playing a part is they can't help but give themselves away.

  • Comment number 19.

    Oh please Andrew don't be so trite, every thinking person knows that murder is wrong and it doesn't take a religious directive to comprehend that.

    The immorality of religious tribalism is seen everywhere.

  • Comment number 20.

    LucyQ

    'As I understand the blog and point of Everyday Ethics as concept it is mutually exclusive from magical, superstitious belief and invites questions on the topic of morality.'

    Mutually exclusive? That's a rather bold claim. I wonder if you can demonstrate it.


    So that's a no then?

    Oh please Andrew don't be so trite, every thinking person knows that murder is wrong and it doesn't take a religious directive to comprehend that.

    Which is irrelevant since that wasn't the claim you made, and which I questioned;

    'We all know by now that tribal religious beliefs are completely exclusive of that which is moral.'

    If 'religious beliefs are completely exclusive of that which is moral' is true then a moral statement such as 'don't commit murder' is either not found amongst religious beliefs, if moral, or immoral, if found.

    Referring to yourself as a 'thinking person' seems to be a rather gratuitous assumption on your part so far.

  • Comment number 21.

    Will #6

    I was querying the concept, not merely the term. Is it not possible to explain the 'Big Bang' in layman's terms? (I may be a minister, but those are the terms I tend to deal in!)

    (By the way, is the new beard the reason why you've been lying low for a while?!)

    Finnoula #10

    The accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are not contradictory but complementary. 'Big Bang Theory' simply doen't fit with Biblical teaching. Those who believe in 'Theistic Evoloution' have no answer to what God Himself said in the 4th Commandment (Exodus 20v11) - other than to say that God was either lying or didn't know what He was talking about!

    And if people become convinced we came into being because of a 'Big Bang', is it suprising that some will choose to end their lives with one? Surely it stands to reason that if we teach people that we came from nothing, are here for no reason and are headed nowhere, there will be some who will say 'What's the point?' Seems it's time we were honest enough to face the link between Evolutionary assumptions and suicide.

    However, the Christian Gospel gives a positive answer to both issue of human origins and human destiny. (Maybe - in resonse to 'Honest Doubt' - we could have a series entitled 'Humble Certainty'?)

  • Comment number 22.

    "About time" philip? Where have you been for the last hundred years? Did Nietzche and Sartre just not happen to you? We engaged with the supposed link between humanism and suicide back in humanism's infancy. The simple existentialist argument against suicide is decisive and conclusive - if you have justified reason to kill yourself, whether through instant action or progressive erosion through a life of self-destruction, you have justified reason to do literally anything else, including things you might previously have hesitated to question.

    If there is a question to be asked about suicide in the secular world, it is to be asked of the Neoliberal value theory - a view that all value is market-driven - that seems bogged down with antequated Protestant presuppositions about labour and status. Is it any wonder young people despair over a world governed by old men who feel they can get away with murder for the sake of protecting their own, then be legitimised by paying lip-service to a group of equally privileged and self-serving psychopaths every sunday; old men who, in the deepest Irony possible, proclaim a generous and self-sacrificing healer to be their inspiration and Saviour?

    The church isn't on the outskirts any more. It's the refuge of conservative domination. If you want to kill yourself, the church is no consolation. Absolutely none.

  • Comment number 23.

    PaulR (@ 22) -

    Where have you been for the last hundred years? Did Nietzche and Sartre just not happen to you?


    Well, I rather think that it is Phil's existentialist prerogative to ignore Nietzsche and Sartre, and to understand the history of ideas in rather different categories to you. Or perhaps you don't understand what existentialism is?

  • Comment number 24.

    pastorphilip, post 21,

    Were the straw many on sale at Tesco last weekend?

    "Surely it stands to reason that if we teach people that we came from nothing, are here for no reason and are headed nowhere, there will be some who will say 'What's the point?' Seems it's time we were honest enough to face the link between Evolutionary assumptions and suicide."

    It would seem far better if you paid some attention to your own assumptions about what evolutionists generally think. Which, fortunately, is far removed from what you make it out to be.

  • Comment number 25.

    Philip, I haven't been lying low, I've been in America on an Eisenhower Fellowship meeting significant American leaders and other public figures. I'll broadcast a taste of some of that eventually. I'm now back and at work on a number of TV documentary projects while continuing to do my radio broadcasts. You will see the beard on TV soon! I'm told I suit it ;)

  • Comment number 26.

    Lucy: The only "plan" I have is hopefully intelligent journalism.

  • Comment number 27.

    PeterKlaver

    I took your advice and instead of spouting off the first thing that came into my head I looked up the thing you suggested called the Tinternet or something like that. Why didn't I think of that before? I could have saved myself so much time and embarrassment. You all sound so intelligent when you speak to me that at times I think that I must be the stupidest creature that ever lived. Not any more. Now I can do the same as you and 'google' till my understanding is complete about this real world of which you speak. There was me thinking that knowledge was the preserve of an exclusive club. Just goes to show yer never too old to learn and you don't have to be in a club either.

    Hold on a minute. You are confused me. You say, "Knowledge is not for the members of an exclusive club." When I read on, however, you say, "The only requirement for membership is wanting to learn how the real world works and drive away one's ignorance..." So, there is a club. Are you and newlach part of this club? Do you get support from others in this club when you start sounding silly again? Does membership of this club help me comprehend better? Would it help me state my premises more clearly?

    Oh yes, regarding newlach statement (and your support of it) when he said, "Matter can be created out of energy and disappear into energy." Well, I looked up a site (www. einstein-website.de) and it stated, "E=mc2 says that any energy, which is supplied to a body, also increases it's mass and each energy, which is deducted from the body, reduces it's mass." Further reading revealed that mass and matter are not the same thing. Einstein was talking about mass. However, lets say that he was talking about matter as well. Did he say that matter can be created out of energy (as newlach and you claim) or did he say that it can be INCREASED? And did he say that matter/mass can disappear into energy or did he say that mass can be REDUCED?

    Maybe these are small points or maybe my little jumbled mind can't comprehend what you club boys know. Either way, you will probably go back to your club and be able to come back at me again with equations and theories which you hope will stump me as I try to understand this real world, uncomfortable though it is.

    When you talked about the creation of matter from energy you mentioned something called a 'positron'. You did say, however, "...their life spans in the presence of 'normal' matter would be so short, that if any were to ever appear, they would SOON be gone again." (my emphasis) You didn't say how SOON. Well, I looked it up on this wonderful tinternet and found that it lasts for such a small fraction of a second that it can hardly be recorded. Nevertheless, I suppose this is evidence to you that something which is created from energy lasting a minute fraction of a second explains how the energy of a 'big bang' brought about the world, in it current space and time, and it has been around, not for a part of a second, but for billions of years.

    So, I need to join your club to drive away my ignorance, do I?

  • Comment number 28.

     




     
    ...now, where did I put that club?






     

  • Comment number 29.

    Will (@23) -

    Lucy: The only "plan" I have is hopefully intelligent journalism.


    And, of course, intelligent journalism and an intelligence-based worldview can hardly be contrary to each other.

    But, for some people, adherence to a worldview in which total mindlessness is the fundamental principle of reality, seems to be a necessary condition for intelligent discourse.

    Which is rather odd and eccentric, I have to say. Hardly the kind of position which lends itself to "progress".

    Anyway, keep up the good work, Will.

  • Comment number 30.

    Scotch Git

    Is that to beat off your apish ancestors?

  • Comment number 31.

    PTS, post 27,

    The distinction between mass and matter that you make isn't particularly relevant, given that positrons had already made their way into the discussion. Unlike in nuclear fission, where the numbers of protons and neutrons is conserved and only their masses are reduced, positrons and electrons are matter particles that annihilate each other fully. It's not a matter of the masses of an equal number of particles changing, the number of matter particles involved changes (lowered by 2). Or they appear as pairs of newly formed matter particles, increasing the number of matter particles by 2.

    "Nevertheless, I suppose this is evidence to you that something which is created from energy lasting a minute fraction of a second explains how the energy of a 'big bang' brought about the world, in it current space and time, and it has been around, not for a part of a second, but for billions of years."

    I never said that of course. The non-ignorants club probably is too hard for you, but you could join up with the straw men arguers club instead. LSV is president of the local chapter and pastorphilip is secretary. Either of them will be happy to issue you with an application form.

  • Comment number 32.

    PeterKlaver

    I see you ignored my 3rd paragraph which was the main thrust of my post. Never mind; it happens often here.

    You said, "I never said that of course." Well, why did you mention positrons then if not to show that matter can be created out of energy and to back up newlach's comment? Was it to show that the universe was created out of energy? If not, then what?

    So there is a club. The 'non-ignorants' you call yourselves. However, you suggest I join the 'straw men arguers' club instead. I may feel more comfortable with those you mention rather than those who are ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

  • Comment number 33.

    Peter Klaver (@ 31) -

    The non-ignorants club probably is too hard for you, but you could join up with the straw men arguers club instead. LSV is president of the local chapter and pastorphilip is secretary. Either of them will be happy to issue you with an application form.


    I can just imagine that there could be a club for people who are highly knowledgeable about the contents of the works of JRR Tolkien. I suspect they have heated debates about the psychology of Bilbo Baggins or whether Gollum deserves our pity or contempt. It is, of course, possible to be "non-ignorant" about a fable.

    So you are right. You are part of the "non-ignorants" club. And I hope your in-depth knowledge of your particular fable is something that gives you great fulfilment.

    As for the "straw men arguers club"... hmmm, I was obviously absent at my induction as president. How very remiss of me. Clearly this is a club that I am not particularly committed to, and neither are the members, given that they weren't too bothered that the president didn't turn up to his own induction. But then again, I suppose a club that only exists within the confines of your fertile imagination would be rather difficult to turn up to!

    But if I really am a practitioner of the straw man argument, then I can only assume that you are admitting that atheism does indeed acknowledge the existence of an intelligent creator of the universe. After all, that does seem to be the basis of all my arguments. And if that really is a straw man, then I am highly relieved to know that atheism is really just a big joke.

    And don't you think that the "joke" has worn a bit thin now...?

  • Comment number 34.

    PTS, post 32,

    "I see you ignored my 3rd paragraph which was the main thrust of my post. Never mind; it happens often here."

    No I didn't. I explained why the distinction between matter and mass being created or disappearing was a moot point on your part, given that in the already mentioned case of positron annihilation/creation, both happen at the same time.

    "You said, "I never said that of course." Well, why did you mention positrons then if not to show that matter can be created out of energy and to back up newlach's comment?"

    You brought the billions of years the universe has been around into it. I never mentioned that. That is what I was referring to when I pointed out you were attributing statements to me that I never made.

    "Was it to show that the universe was created out of energy? If not, then what?"

    It wasn't to show that the universe was created out of energy. It was to address your first question in post 11.

    "So there is a club. The 'non-ignorants' you call yourselves. However, you suggest I join the 'straw men arguers' club instead. I may feel more comfortable with those you mention rather than those who are ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."

    Yes, and that's the problem, isn't it. Believers who don't mind their state of ignorance, even revel in it. I don't know what church you went to, but might it be the one with the church sign outside shown below?

    http://fails.failblog.org/2012/02/28/epic-fail-religious-advice-fail/

  • Comment number 35.

    Just checking back & see an interesting article again followed by sniping posts.At least they're intelligent sniping posts.
    You all have a good weekend & God bless!

  • Comment number 36.

    PeterKlaver

    It not that I am in a state of ignorance but rather people like you are in a state of arrogance. I have individual proof of what I know and your evidence comes from theories and incomplete and changing knowledge. I believe science is important but I know that the knowledge I have is of more value. Not every one who says 'Lord' Lord' know what I know and it is easy for you to pick out those who make ridiculous claims and try to paint us all with the same brush.

    Like many on this blog, you like to say things generally and then duck out of by claiming you didn't say what was implicit.

  • Comment number 37.

    PTS

    "I have individual proof of what I know..."

    What is it you know, and what is the proof of it?

  • Comment number 38.

  • Comment number 39.

    Dot Gale and Andrew

    I know God exists and that Jesus is the Messiah. I am not prepared to say exactly how I received proof as I am not prepared to have others rubbish an experience I hold sacred. But I know it and I know God knows I know it and it doesn't matter what anybody thinks, it is true. Let me just say that it involved revelation through prayer. Andrew will probably mock me again but it's obvious he doesn't know what I know and because others don't have this knowledge it doesn't mean that they can't come to know as well.

  • Comment number 40.

    PTS, post 36, 39,

    "Andrew will probably mock me again........"

    Then let me side with Andrew for once and join in with him.

    Yes, you have this certain knowledge of things that others don't have. And it's knowledge that has very, very great implications. You just won't tell exactly how you got hold of this knowledge. You know this great thing for sure, you just won't tell.

    It's an argument we've all made in our lives, nothing wrong with that. Though most of us stopped making it by the time we reached out teenage years.

  • Comment number 41.

    PeterKlaver

    Whatever. It wouldn't matter what I said to you or Andrew, neither of you would want to believe me. You because you want to discredit anything spiritual and Andrew because he appears never to have had this experience and probably does not think it possible to have, I presume. You can argue all you like, it will never make any difference to me. My knowledge was not achieved by reasoning or intellectually but spiritually. Nothing can change the fact of what I know.

  • Comment number 42.

    PTS

    First of all I don't think the words Peter has written in #40 are mocking. It is perfectly reasonable to ask you to explain your words.

    Now Peter and I differ in that he is an atheist and I am not, but there is something about your, 'I know, and you'll know when you know it' kind of theology/religion/experience which bothers me, and it comes down to this.

    Words enable us to explain ourselves; by using words, a kind of 'revelation' takes place between people in which one person learns something about another. I can explain my thoughts and feelings to another, I can communicate facts and knowledge, and by communicating and discussing with one another we can agree or disagree, we can make judgements about whose facts and information are accurate and whose aren't. If I recognise the expression of a feeling or an experience in someone's words, a response to a poem or work or art, for example, I can begin to share that with them, and so on. Words are central to humanity.

    You say you know, fair enough, but on the basis of that, I can never share with you what you know, even if I were to think that I 'knew' too.

  • Comment number 43.

    PTS

    You because you want to discredit anything spiritual and Andrew because he appears never to have had this experience and probably does not think it possible to have, I presume.

    Actually I do think such experiences are possible but they are normed by a public rule of faith. One person's experience is never mine. So presenting individual religious experience as a reason to convince someone else of one's position generally isn't going to be persuasive. That doesn't mean it is never, or can in no circumstances, be persuasive or that religious experience generally is not a good argument for religious belief.

    What I object to is this kind of statement;

    Like many on this blog, you like to say things generally and then duck out of by claiming you didn't say what was implicit.

    I've addressed your chronic inability to comprehend what people write over on the open thread.

  • Comment number 44.

    Dot Gale

    Peter @ 40 said, 'Then let me side with Andrew for once and join in with him." in response to my comment that Andrew would probably mock me again. (Benny Hill signature tune from youtube). He is mocking.

    You say, "...we can make judgements about whose facts and information are accurate and whose aren't." This is true. However, our judgement can only be informed by our experience and what we already know. If we have not had certain experience or are ignorant on certain facts we may have difficulty understanding an others experience and knowledge.

    Take for instance Matthew 16 where Jesus asks His disciples who He was and Peter said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." I fully understand this. I am not prepared to say more if I am 'casting my pearls...". I hope you understand.

  • Comment number 45.

    Andrew @ 43

    Points taken.

    I am sorry that I cannot comprehend your meaning at times. I will try harder in future - if there is a future.

    Im away to cast a fly and see if I can catch dinner.

  • Comment number 46.

    PTS

    For the sake of clarity regarding this 'mocking' thing, I wrote, "I don't think the words Peter has written in #40 are mocking. It is perfectly reasonable to ask you to explain your words." I didn't refer to the theme tune, or even his intent in writing them - can we stick to what I do say, it'll help, a lot. (and why not just see Andrew's link to the tune as funny?)

    "If we have not had certain experience or are ignorant on certain facts we may have difficulty understanding an others experience and knowledge."

    Well, yes; but that wasn't my point. My point referred to your refusal to communicate your experience - that gives us nothing to go on.

    ""Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.""

    Quite right. But may I suggest that you are reading into this a particular experience (akin to your own, perhaps) which you seem to think Peter must have had in order to know this. Here's another way of thinking about it: it's just as possible that Peter, having thought about all he had seen and heard Jesus say and do came to a particular conclusion - there was an 'Ah' factor (not uncommon in human experience). In light of this realisation, Jesus says, "The reason for your conclusion is that God caused it." It would probably be unwise to say less than this, but we certainly do not need to say any more than this. And feeling something about it is no greater a guarantee of it's reality.

    BTW Trout, almonds, beurre noisette and a squeeze of lemon isn't a bad way to use a 'catch'.

  • Comment number 47.

    Dot Gale @ 42

    For the sake of clarity, I was not referring to the words of Peter as mocking. It was Peter, not me, who said, "Then let me side with Andrew for once and join in with him", in reference to my comment that Andrew would probably mock again by sending me the Benny Hill theme music. I didn't think the words of Peter were mocking either. It was you who introduced the notion @ 42.

    Andrew has sent me the Benny Hill link on quite a few time occasions that it has become boring. I don't find boring funny. Andrew obviously does, but I don't. So, funny the first time but mocking thereafter.

    Regarding me communicating my experience, I am somewhat reluctant to go into details but generally speaking, as a response to prayer, I received an answer.

    Regarding Matthew 16, that is another way of looking at it but taking the scriptures as a whole and applying my own experience, which interpretation seems right? Well lets consult the record. By the time Jesus asked this question, He had healed many people, his fame had gone throughout the land, He walked on water, fed 5 and 4 thousand people and gave power to Peter, among others, to preach to the 'lost sheep', raise the dead and heal the sick. He told them if they were brought before governors and kings that they would be given the words that same hour to say. "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Matt. 10:20. Then He goes on to say in verse 32, "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." And in verse 40 He said, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." So, it appears that you are saying that after all this when Jesus asks His disciples who He was, Peter had an 'ah' moment and it dawned on Him that Jesus was the Christ. Really?

    In response, you are reading into this a particularly unlikely interpretation. For a start, when you quote "The reason for your conclusion is that God caused it.", what interpretation of the Bible did you get this from? I have googled it and can't find it. This is quite audacious given your scolding of me in giving my reading of Galatians 5:22,23. Furthermore, Jesus said, 'flesh and blood' (what the physical can show) has not revealed it onto thee (it's not what you have seen or heard) but my Father which is in heaven. If Jesus's Father in heaven revealed the fact that Jesus was the Christ then it must have come by revelation by way of the Holy Ghost. Much like the way a prophet would receive revelation from God.

    I know this to be true.

    No trout, btw, water to dark and muddy.

  • Comment number 48.

     
    #30

    puretruthseeker,

    Nah! Something to swing on my way to the nineteenth.


    (_8^(|)

  • Comment number 49.

    Scotch Git

    I used to live in an area like that

  • Comment number 50.

    PTS

    Andrew has sent me the Benny Hill link on quite a few time occasions that it has become boring. I don't find boring funny. Andrew obviously does, but I don't.

    We can't have hapless running in circles without Yakety sax.

  • Comment number 51.

    Andrew @ 50

    .

  • Comment number 52.

    PTS

    "So, it appears that you are saying that after all this when Jesus asks His disciples who He was, Peter had an 'ah' moment and it dawned on Him that Jesus was the Christ. Really?"

    No, you are saying less than I said; read what I said.

    " For a start, when you quote "The reason for your conclusion is that God caused it.", what interpretation of the Bible did you get this from?"

    It wasn't a quote, it was the use of speech marks to indicate speech in *my* writing - a normal grammatical form.

    What interpretation? Do you mean interpretation or version?

    Following from this, "If Jesus's Father in heaven revealed the fact that Jesus was the Christ then it must have come by revelation by way of the Holy Ghost."

    Indeed; which was why I said, "God caused it".

    "Much like the way a prophet would receive revelation from God."

    What would that be like?

    "my reading of Galatians 5:22,23."

    I have already explained why I picked you up on this. And 'scolding'? If that's the level of this conversation, I'm out.

    You know it to be true; it's just that you're not saying how you know.

    PTS, here's the thing, I have explained a way in which people might come to a particular conclusion about God; it includes God, God's activity in a person called Jesus, the written record of his life, the reactions of others to that person, the notion of God causing faith, and all that within the breadth of what it means to be human: thought, feelings, reactions, doubt, objective and subjective experience, conversation, history, culture, nationality - you're giving me nothing.

  • Comment number 53.

    PTS

    'Andrew @ 50

    .'


    Gee whiz, I just knew Walt wouldn't let me down.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6RoRRdyTxw

  • Comment number 54.

    Dot Gale @ 52

    You said, "...you're giving me nothing."

    Revelation/answer to prayer confirms God.

  • Comment number 55.

    PTS

    Like I said, "Nothing."

  • Comment number 56.

    If it's true, as claimed in the programme, that in the 1950s Mgr Lemaitre routinely drank a bottle of red wine at lunchtime and slept it off in the afternoon, that sadly is quite a serious dereliction of his high calling as a Catholic priest. People might say there are worse things he could have done, but if priests generally stay clear of this sort of thing, i'm inclined to believe that the worst kinds of betrayal, which have caused so much damage to children and to the Church, would never arise.

    If you're interested in Belgian priests, a truly edifying example is St Damien of Molokai (d. 1889). For sixteen years he laboured to bring physical, spiritual and emotional support to victims of leprosy on the Pacific island of Molokai, until he too contracted the disease and died of it. Leprosy sufferers at that time were otherwise utterly forsaken and rejected by the society in which they lived. In T.N. Jagadisan's 1965 publication, 'Mahatma Gandhi Answers the Challenge of Leprosy', the great Indian statesman is quoted as saying:

    "The political and journalistic world can boast of very few heroes who compare with Father Damien of Molokai. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, counts by the thousands those who after the example of Fr. Damien have devoted themselves to the victims of leprosy. It is worthwhile to look for the sources of such heroism."

  • Comment number 57.

    Dot Gale

    'Nothing'?

    Whatever you say.

    Do you believe it is possible to receive revelation?

  • Comment number 58.

    PTS

    I thought you were "tapering off".

    Anyway.

    Do I think it possible to "receive revelation?"

    I do indeed; revelation is the only way in which God can be known.

    I suppose the next thing I'd need to do would be to explain what I meant by that...

    ...something I have already done to one degree, and is what I was asking of you.

    The real question is not, 'do I believe it is possible', rather, it is, 'how has God made himself known'. The Christian answer is - Jesus - anything less isn't Christianity - anything more isn't Christianity.

  • Comment number 59.

    Dot Gale

    I am tapering off. You say the Christian answer to 'the real question' of how God has made himself known is "Jesus". Am I suppose to understand what you mean when you give a name as an answer?

    From reading the text in Matthew it appears that Peter was 'blessed' not by what he had seen or heard Jesus do (flesh and blood), and he had seen and heard an awful lot, but that the Father had revealed it onto Peter that Jesus was the Christ or Messiah or Saviour. It was not the other way around; that Jesus had revealed the Father unto them (although at another time He did say that the Father was like Him and He was one with the Father).

    If it was important for Peter to know that Jesus was the Christ through revelation from the Father, after all He seen and heard, then how can we come to know that Jesus is the Christ by just reading a short account of His ministry from a second, third and forth hand, etc? Peter was there, we were not, yet Peter received direct confirmatory revelation from the Father of who Jesus was.

    I can tell you that it is possible today to receive revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Christ. Even though I was not there when Jesus walked this earth, when He performed many great miracles, when He taught with wisdom, when He suffered for all of our sins and when He gave up His life that He might take it up again and be the first to receive His body back again in an immortal state and that I and everyone else may follow, I know that He lives.

  • Comment number 60.

    @56.Theophane,
    Thanks. I saw a pretty decent movie about Fr. Damien recently & remember Robert Louis Stevenson wrote: "An Open Letter to the Reverend Doctor Hyde of Honolulu " defending Fr. Damien.Here's a link to it:
    http://books.google.com/books/about/Father_Damien.html?id=fp-ozvFYXZYC
    There are still new cases of leprosy in our area-very small numbers,thankfully-& the particular strain is linked to armadillos.Researchers can't figure out the connection.Back in the depression some poor folk ate armadillos but I don't know anyone who admits to doing that now.There are dead armadillos littering the highways here, live ones digging in gardens, dogs chase them, but no obvious,direct human to armadillo contact .
    Anyway, thanks for reminding me about Fr. Damien & R.L. Stevenson. Both were great men.

  • Comment number 61.

     
    mscracker,

    Here is a wee picture of our Armadillo!

    (One of Sir Norman Foster's creations).


    :o)

  • Comment number 62.

    @61. Scotch Git,
    Thanks so much. Is it in Glasgow?

  • Comment number 63.

     
    It is! Across the river from the new(ish) BBC Scotland building.

  • Comment number 64.

    PTS

    If we are in any way to continue this conversation, may I ask that you read what I have said rather than reading what you think I am saying.

    For a start, I have already said, at least twice, that ‘God causes knowledge of himself’. What I am not doing however (and it appears that you are) is disconnecting the ‘spiritual’ from the ‘physical’ - I’m putting them together - get your head round that and you’ll get closer to what I am saying.

    Next, ”Am I suppose to understand what you mean when you give a name as an answer?”

    Well, I have also already said something about the breadth of human experience, so it would fit the context to think of the breath of what it means to be a person. Perhaps, if you would stop examining the individual brush strokes and step back and look at the picture, you would see this. As for ‘a name’, a name can tell us rather a lot, attached as it is to a person.

    And now this, ”I can tell you that it is possible today to receive revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Christ.”

    Yes, you keep saying so, but other than restating that it is possible you say little (nothing really) of how. You refuse to communicate your experience, and you continue to assume that people like Andrew or myself know nothing of such - that would be a mistake. I know quite a lot about 'religious feelings' and I know quite a lot about doubt.

    ”Even though I was not there when Jesus walked this earth, when He performed many great miracles, when He taught with wisdom, when He suffered for all of our sins and when He gave up His life that He might take it up again and be the first to receive His body back again in an immortal state and that I and everyone else may follow, I know that He lives.”

    Yea, I know all that too.

    ”how can we come to know that Jesus is the Christ by just reading a short account of His ministry from a second, third and forth hand”

    If you’re not going to value the words, you’re not going to get far on this.

    "If it was important for Peter to know that Jesus was the Christ through revelation from the Father, after all He seen and heard,"

    But that's easy to answer, seeing and/or hearing what Jesus did is no guarantee that a person will accept that Jesus is whom he claimed he was - all sorts of people aren't prepared to accept it, many on this blog as an example. Faith, however, requires an act of God - but it doesn't have to be something 'mystical', it could equally be intellectual; why rule that out?

    The point I've been driving at, time and time again, is that if we are to know God we must know something about him - there must be propositions - propositions that people can agree or disagree on. Without that, it's every man for himself.

    Now, is there any chance that you might answer some questions?

  • Comment number 65.

    @63. Scotch Git ,
    Interesting how a conversation can begin with leprosy in Hawaii & jump to armadillos in Glasgow...
    Another "armadillo" here refers to a jalapeno pepper stuffed with sausage/cream cheese,wrapped in bacon & grilled or deep fried.I'm guessing the deep fried version might sell best in Glasgow.
    :)

  • Comment number 66.

     
    But not, perhaps, in Crown Heights.


    >8-D

  • Comment number 67.

    66.At 21:15 19th Jun 2012, Scotch Git wrote:

    But not, perhaps, in Crown Heights."
    ********
    Is that a Jewish neighborhood in Glasgow? I guess the bacon & sausage could be modified then.
    In Savannah they have a Jewish festival in the park called "Shalom Y'all." Excellent pastrami sandwiches & all kinds of other foods to purchase.Savannah had Jewish settlers from the earliest colonial times.You meet lots of folk there,both black & white, with Jewish last names.Some are practising Jews, some are descendants of slaves owned by Jews, some have assimilated & forgotten their family history.
    Now the conversation's gone from leprosy to armadillos, to Glasgow, & finally kosher food & Jews in Georgia....

  • Comment number 68.

     
    #67

    mscracker,

    "Is that a Jewish neighborhood in Glasgow?"

    No, Brooklyn. The Jewish community in Scotland is a small one.

    You have armadillos in Hawaii? I thought they were in Texas!

  • Comment number 69.

    Dot Gale @64

    Im just in from work and as I said I was tapering off. There are many points in you post that I would like to respond to but I really don't have the time to check my answers against the scriptures. However, you say, you, "... know quite a lot about 'religious feelings' and I know quite a lot about doubt." Faith is the opposite of doubt and I don't doubt what I know. You want to know how I received revelation and I don't think I want to try to put it into words for you to criticise. What I will say is that Jesus would say exactly the same thing to me that he said to Peter. That's as much as I am prepared to say.

  • Comment number 70.

    PTS

    "That's as much as I am prepared to say."

    Fair enough.

    All the best.

  • Comment number 71.

    @68. Scotch Git ,
    Sorry.I live a long way from Brooklyn & guess I'm not overly familiar with it's neighborhoods.
    No, I live in the Southern United States, not Hawaii.We have armadillos at least as far north as Georgia & I believe in most or all of the Gulf Coast states. I sure hope they don't make it to Hawaii, but you never know...

  • Comment number 72.

    I’m finally over here and gave the broadcast a listen. It was very enjoyable!

    It sounds like Lemaître may have influenced the Catholic Church and its possible run-away-with-the-idea teaching, by quieting his pope’s giddy proclamation that big bang was ‘let there be light.’

    Here’s an interesting and complimentary article on Lemaître, and yes it is from a Catholic education site,..since he was a priest and all...

    an excerpt:

    “Despite this high praise, there were some problems with Lemaitre's theory. For one, Lemaitre's calculated rate of expansion did not work out. If the universe was expanding at a steady rate, the time it had taken to cover its radius was too short to allow for the formation of the stars and planets. Lemaitre solved this problem by expropriating Einstein's cosmological constant. Where Einstein had used it in an attempt to keep the universe at a steady size, Lemaitre used it to speed up the expansion of the universe over time.”

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

  • Comment number 73.

     
    A wee message for all our friends Stateside...


    HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY, Y'ALL!

    :o)

  • Comment number 74.

    Re science vrs religion:

    There is only one 'truth' in science; there are an infinite number of 'truths' in religion.

    Monsignor Lemaître was, according to the radio broadcast, a "devout believer", as well as a scientist.

    The question arises: a devout believer in *what* exactly?

    Let's not get away from the facts that Monsignor Lemaître was:

    1. A first class scientist
    2. A believer in a very specific form of an invisible, incorporeal entity.

    Put it this way: if Lemaître is right about 'his' version of God-belief, then Isaac Newton was wrong about 'his' version of God-belief. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism believe in fundamentally different Gods. (Otherwise they wouldn't have had any urgent need to separate.)

    This discrepancy expands the further you reach out from Europe and away from Christianity. What about the early Muslim scientists, who were magnificent at describing mathematics, but were diametrically opposed to the Christian version of God?
    The fact is that some scientists happen to believe in one or other of the many diverse religious doctrines the world has to offer. They mainly disagree with one another over this; but they can never prove their own case, nor disprove anyone else's.

    You can make a scientific case that meets a common benchmark, but not a theological one. Theology is 'whatever you like': it is, in my view, magic thinking.

  • Comment number 75.

     
    #74

    newdwr54,


     "Roman Catholicism and Protestantism believe in fundamentally different Gods. (Otherwise they wouldn't have had any urgent need to separate.)"


    Are you sure? Coz from this angle it doesn't look that different.

  • Comment number 76.

    75. Scotch Git wrote:

    "Are you sure? Coz from this angle it doesn't look that different."

    The way the Christian God interacts with people is disputed among Catholicism and Protestantism, is it not? For instance Protestantism claims justification by faith alone; Catholicism claims justification by grace, implying good works, etc. I'm sure there are other important doctrinal differences you can think of (otherwise there wouldn't be a schism in the first place).

    So effectively, at least by His means of interaction, Catholics and Protestants believe in two fundamentally different Gods; or at least in one God with two fundamentally different means of interaction with people. It's the same difference, really, in this context, because neither side will *ever* be able to show with greater likelihood that one idea is right or that the other is wrong.

    That's the fundamental difference between science and religion. I don't understand Will Crawley's apparent need to reconcile these two fundamentally different ways of human thinking. One is based on testing, repeatable experimentation and observation of measurable phenomenon; the other is based on opinion and nothing more. Science cherishes doubt; religion abhors doubt.

    To paraphrase the late physicist Richard Feynman: doubt is the 'soul' of scientific thinking. Science starts out by saying that we're not absolutely certain about anything, and that everything we think we know might be wrong, possibly. Apply that way of thinking to religion and let's see how far it gets. Because religions know that once their congregations starts to doubt, then they're on a slippery slope from which it's very difficult to recover.

  • Comment number 77.

     
    #76

    newdw54,

    "Catholicism claims justification by grace, implying good works, etc."

    Please forgive my pedantry, but I'm not convinced that the statement above is correct. Does the word grace (in this context) really imply "good works, etc."? With your blessing, I'd like to seek the advice of a practising Catholic.

    I'm not sure if she is sober yet, but I know we have one hereabouts...




    doubtful git


    ;o)

  • Comment number 78.

    I’ll have a go at it:

    Good works would imply you’ve done something to deserve ending up in heaven. That’s bad. Grace means there’s nothing you can do, you don’t deserve it and never will, but you’re going to heaven anyway if you say the magic words, so you may as well damn homosexuals or spout some other self-righteous nonsense whilst gorging yourself into a planet or working yourself into some more-acceptable addiction.

  • Comment number 79.

    Uh oh. Saying the magic words might be actually doing something, so that negates the grace part, unless God decided early on who he would grace with what words.

    As for the people who do good works but don’t say anything, well, that just must be part of his plan for the expendables, to brighten up the place a bit. Oops, except for the saved are supposed to be the light, right? Oh shoot, I forgot the rules again.

  • Comment number 80.

    The point I'm trying to make is that where science relies on testable hypotheses, theology relies on untested opinion.

    Religion requires conviction (belief without knowledge). Some forms of atheism also suffer from this problem, i.e. the 'belief' that there is no God. If we're honest, then all we can say is that it is our 'opinion' that there is or isn't a God. No one 'Knows' - not the Pope, not Ian Paisley, not any Imam, Buddhist Priest or Hindu Holy Man ... and not Richard Dawkins.

    It will forever be a moot point.

    Science needs to proceed with the assumption that there is no controlling influence outside of nature for the simple reason that, even if such 'supernatural' influences exist, we have no way of identifying them, testing them or predicting what they will do.

    In my view it is pointless to try to reconcile the scientific world view with the religious one. They are different ways of thinking and should be kept completely separate. One will only ever serve to muddle the other.

  • Comment number 81.

     
    newdwr54,

    Yeah, but we're only human. Muddle is what we do best!


    :o)

  • Comment number 82.

    Thanks for that link SG. Lord Sacks is a figure of very considerable stature on this question.

  • Comment number 83.

    74. newdwr54 :"Roman Catholicism and Protestantism believe in fundamentally different Gods. (Otherwise they wouldn't have had any urgent need to separate.)"
    ***
    Even within Protestant denominations there's much separation.
    We have Anabaptist (Mennonite) friends whose churches separate over whether to wear smaller or larger head coverings, use hooks or buttons to fasten clothes,drive cars or horse & buggies, etc, etc.
    Same God, different understandings & disciplines in serving Him.

  • Comment number 84.

    @77. Scotch Git,
    Which practising Catholic might be sober?
    :)

  • Comment number 85.

     
    #84

    mscracker,

    Well, as comment #77 was posted on July 5th. and 'twas an entire day thereafter before your response appeared, I suspect our fellow bloggers will draw their own conclusions.

    ;o)


    Did y'all have a good time?

  • Comment number 86.

    @85. Scotch Git,
    "Did y'all have a good time?"
    ***************

    On July 5th? Not so much.I was mowing the back field til dark & have the mosquito bites to prove it.
    July 4th was nice & involved BBQ with family & fireworks the night before, but I partook of cream soda & sweet tea only.Really.
    :)

  • Comment number 87.

     
    mscracker,

    Dunno if it's the same thing, but when I was wee one of my favourite drinks was American Cream Soda, a carbonated beverage I would mix with milk.

    Ah, the memories!

  • Comment number 88.

    @87. Scotch Git,
    Our cream soda of choice is Barq's French Vanilla. I haven't had it mixed with milk before, though.Cream Soda is a vanilla flavored fizzy drink.Barq's makes a good root beer, too.Even better if you can find it in glass bottles.
    An old timey practise is to drop salted peanuts in a Coke.Few people I've met under 40 still do that anymore.I guess it stems from back when a limited variety of snacks were available in country stores, but it's actually very good.
    We tend to call all carbonated beverages "Cokes" locally, even if they're not actually Coca Cola's.

  • Comment number 89.

     
    mscracker,

    As Kinky Friedman says of Texas - "It's all Coke. Unless it's Dr. Pepper."

    In Glasgow the generic word is "Ginger." Presumably borrowed from Ginger Beer.


    Which reminds me of a joke!

    A clumsy child is sent to the ice-cream van...

    Clumsy child - "Geeza boatle ay ginger!"
     
    Man in the van - "Whit kind ay ginger?"

    Clumsy child - "It disnae' matter. Ah'm gauny drap it anyway!"


    >8-D

  • Comment number 90.

     
    As a local N.I. subject is dominating the Open Thread just now, I'll leave this here.


    Didn't Muhammad say that there should be no compulsion in matters of religion?

    I guess it depends on your interpretation...

  • Comment number 91.

    90. Scotch Git,

    “Didn't Muhammad say that there should be no compulsion in matters of religion?”

    That is a laugh.

    “I guess it depends on your interpretation...”

    Yep. It depends, fellow infidel, on whether or not you want to call the great leader’s - peace be upon him of course - own killings self-defense or not. Even if we were allowed to live, there wouldn’t be anything close to equality. It’ll be best to keep every church separate from government.

  • Comment number 92.

    @89. Scotch Git,
    Thanks.
    My favorite "Coke" is ginger beer.Straight, with no peanuts.
    :)

  • Comment number 93.

    90. Scotch Git,

    You know, I was wondering why you wrote that out of the blue.

    I didn’t realize until now that ‘this’ is a blue link. That blue is so subtle. I’ve resisted my reading glasses every step of the way - even resorting to peering through a hole in my fist to get a quick focus. It really works. Although if I do it too much, my eyeball feels weird.

  • Comment number 94.

     
    marieinaustin,

    It's weird eyeball time!


    (Yes, I do realise that Iranians are neither Arabic nor African).


    ;o)

  • Comment number 95.

    @90. Scotch Git,
    Sorry, I had missed the "Jerusalem Post" link, too. Just read it now,(thanks Marie).
    We actually used to suscribe to the print edition years ago.

  • Comment number 96.

    It looks like its a challenge to practise one's faith-or conscience- in China, too:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18778655

  • Comment number 97.

     
    #95

    mscracker,

    In that case, you might want to check out the Jerusalem Post Christian Edition.


    Apologies to yourself and Marie for not making the link at #90 more obvious.

  • Comment number 98.

    97. Scotch Git,

    I like the weird eyeball link. 8o)

    No hay problema. Maybe the link got lost in translation. “Well, since the Open Thread is closed, I’ll leave this here question right over here for ya.” That sounded right fit, so we didn’t think to look for a link in it.

    Btw, I hope I don’t offend you, but: Why are you Scotch, not (manky) Scots Git? Mscracker, you know we should’ve listened to him. Or in this case, read more carefully. :)

  • Comment number 99.

    @97.Scotch Git,
    Thank you.I had no idea they had a Christian edition online.

  • Comment number 100.

     
    #99

    mscracker,

    You're welcome! :o)


    #98

    marieinaustin,

    Long story short, I was given the nickname by an old (English) flame's sons. These adorable wee Sassenachs would shout "Mum! There's a Scotch Git on the phone!" or, alternatively, "Mum! There's a Sweaty Sock on the phone!"

    Don'tcha just love kids?



    >8-D

 

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.