The Telegraph’s George Pitcher has written a typically hilarious response to the latest atheist poster campaign and the Times’ Ruth Gledhill has just pointed out that the children pictured on the poster belong to Pentecostal parents.
It’s just funny – that’s all.
Nick Baines's Blog 
November 20, 2009 at 6:19 pm
ha ha ha.
Feel much better about not being a godmother now.
And my two-day-old-soon-to-be-Roman-Catholic nephew just sprayed wee all over my (unread)copy of the Church Times.
He’s clearly destined to be Pope!
November 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Nick,
I was just talking about you the other day with my mum when we were visiting London, then I stumbled on your blog! Don’t know if you remember me, my name was jen berry, and I shared your happy times in Rothley for a while (and I was in Richard’s class at school). Anyway, Interesting reading. Hope you and the family are well.
Jen
November 20, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Jen, I remember you very well. It would be great to catch up.
November 21, 2009 at 10:39 am
Yes, the curious bit is the imperative “let me grow up”. The whole history of the world is contained in that, don’t you think?
November 24, 2009 at 5:10 am
I like the concept that clarity may not be there to be sought.
Rather too much of the world is there for comfort.
Brings to mind the works of Alain Robbes-Grillet.
November 24, 2009 at 12:02 pm
[…] grow up and choose for myself.“ in bunten Farben auf weißem Hintergrund. Das Kind ist, wie Bischof Nick Baines auf seinem Blog schreibt, übrigens Kind pflingstlerischer […]
November 24, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I though the Bishop did very well on the Today programme and made some very sound points. His contribution also served to resolve one of the burning issues of the day: what is the difference between the current Archbishop of Canterbury and John Humprys?
Answer: The Archbishop tries to behave like Christ, whereas Humprys thinks he is Christ!
April 4, 2010 at 12:35 pm
In the RT article,bottom left hand column, ‘At the heart of … for that world’.Tell us something new. You take God’s existence for granted, but surely that’s what the argument’s all about. Do you suggest that some people accept ‘a God that has NOT opted into the world and HAS exempted him from it’? Perhaps, but in that case why bother about him: he would be uninterested and unresponsive. Why is your thinking, then, so much superior to Richard Dawkins’?
April 4, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Thomas Crump, I have never claimed that my thinking is superior to that of RD. But the limitations of my own thinking do not mean that I can’t sometimes see the limitations of someone else’s.
This might be inconvenient to your assumptions, but I don’t take God’s existence for granted. I stopped doing that when I was a teenager.