Question of death, bloodshed and the Bible.
I ALWAYS enjoyed those endless philosophical or theological arguments one used to engage in as a student, such as ``Is might always right - in view of the fact the history is only recorded by victors?'', and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, etc. Sadly, one has so few opportunities these days to indulge in such pleasant intellectual distractions.
Trust The Post, however, gives everyone the chance once a week to slow down and deliberate on the finer points of life and letters, and even split the occasional controversial hair.
Which is why I must thank reader Cliff Lloyd, of Abergele, for his query which lack of space has obliged me to hold over since Easter.
``While I always have the impression that the Daily Post doesn't like to print anything that might upset the Christian clergy,'' he writes, ``I have to comment on Pastor Stanley Attwood's End Of The Week comment in which he quoted from the Bible, John 3.16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son
``What kind of father would give his son to be tortured and murdered? Is it any wonder that man-made religion causes so much hate on our planet?
``The clergy never quote passages such as Luke 19.27, where Jesus told his followers to kill those who wouldn't have him as king (But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me), or Matthew 10.34/35, where he says: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father . . .
``He certainly succeeded in that.''
Mr Lloyd is, of course, referring here to the tragic incidents in the Middle East at the moment, not least in and around the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
I am not qualified to interpret the words of the Bible for Mr Lloyd, but I am gratified that such questions can still be asked and discussed in this newspaper, and throw open the forum to those better able to comment.
Which brings me to my second item, namely correspondents writing letters for publication under the protection of ``name and address supplied''.
We do allow anonymity provided we are actually supplied with full details, because we appreciate that some frank opinions might render the writer vulnerable (an employee writing about his employers, for example, or a tenant about rents).
But we prefer people to have the courage of their convictions and recently many letters have not been published simply because too many people have unnecessarily asked for their details to be withheld. Please only do so as a last resort.