Thank you Keith, an interesting post.

Thank you. I'm surprised the thread on Facebook has started up again. As far as local preachers are concerned I believe the decision to suspend someone is ultimately for the LP meeting. If a LP was in trouble for some other reason it would be a LP decision. I don't see why it should be different for failure to attend a training session. I would have thought (1) if they are willing to do the training but missed it for some reason, sign them up for the next one and let them continue in post, and (2) if they refuse to do the training, it's a pastoral matter. Are there really no alternatives? My circuit's training consisted of someone reading the manual out loud. If the Super is satisfied that the person who refuses to do the training has read the manual, why should that not be enough? It becomes a matter of finding a compromise that enables the spirit of the Conference decision to be carried out. I would like to know, if there is anyone who refuses to co-operate, the reason for their refusal. Otherwise, we're not worrying about anything real.

Number 2. I'm amazed you have this in the states. I live in Sheffield, Emgland where we have our own version - Henderson's Relish, which is of course far superior. But it is only available in Sheffield - we have to carry it ourselves to other parts of the country.

Good old Bertie. He is right of course. But if you substitute 'Christianity' for 'Islam', you will get a statement that is similarly right. However, where he is in error and where most atheists are in error, is their belief they are the first people to notice this. Go back and read the foundation documents (Old and New Testament - I can't speak for the Koran) closely and you will see the same debate going on. Faiths are always a mix of the beliefs Russell describes and those who question this very tendency. The difference between an atheist and a Christian is that we remember.

This reminded me of the famous quote from Bertrand Russel's grandmother (quoted in his autobiography but here from memory): 'What is matter? Never Mind. What is Mind? No Matter.' Thank you for your comment. I'm not sure I follow all of it but here goes. When you write that everything is acausal, you presumably refer to its origins? Clearly, what we call causality happens all the time. What I think you mean is (1) there is no first cause, and (2) no need to postulate a God who holds everything in existence. My post I think challenges dualism by suggesting conversation as the key to this debate. Indeed consciousness may be the same thing as conversation. I suppose it's another way of saying things interact. Consciousness is not located anywhere because it is between things but not a thing itself. 'The lover, the beloved and the love between.' The idea of biochemical mnachine is Newtonian science, long since superceded. The idea of an ordered clockwork universe does not represent the universe as physicists see it these days. I'm left with an image of the science fiction computer that becomes conscious. (Usually with megalomaniac tendencies.) The point Martin is making is this model of consciousness emerging from the unconcious is unconvincing. It isn't even dualism - there is one type of thing and everything is derived from it. I think I agree with your last paragraph. I suppose the way you see it is 'I' must be an illusion because we're really just matter. I would argue 'I' is illusion because we are in endless flux. Consciousness is not something generated by matter but integral to reality.

3 - a bit harder than last week's!