Views show a lack of faith in the human race
Once more Michael Brucciani has been allowed the space to parade his "the End is Nigh" views (Mailbox, August 24).
The gist is always that the human race will face extinction if it denies his Truth. This Truth being a code of conduct which is to be followed without question.
Examples of "liberal/secular" lapses from the code are "killing babies", which, Mr Brucciani may be surprised to know, is still a heinous crime, as established in human law which recognises the distinction between a person and a yet unborn extension of its mother.
Marriage is similarly offered as an ignored and dying institution. In fact, marriage in its many religious and secular forms predates the word of the creator and was simply captured and redefined by Mr Brucciani's forebears more than a century after the founding of Christianity.
Another example often offered is the necessary celibate existence laid down for those unable to find a partner to marry, a denial of natural human practice to which even the trained advocates of his faith seem unable to adhere.
More seriously, what always pervades Mr Brucciani's warnings is a profound lack of faith in the human race to continue to shape its future.
He fails to recognise that those who reject his prescriptive view of life, place our faith in the accumulated experience and wisdom of centuries of human existence, most of which was formed for centuries prior to the arrival of his Infinite Being, and in fact laid the base for its rather late appearance.
Mr Brucciani may believe we are all doomed but we are simply in a process of progressive enlightenment in which decency and good will prevail because humankind is naturally loving and co-operative and does not need a book to know the difference between good and bad. Have faith, Mr Brucciani!
Chris Lymn, Oadby.











18 Comments
View all
by Keith A., Leicester
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 6:22AM
“After a second look, I'm going to retract my examples, since none match your initial definition of invisible.
invisible = "something still actually exists & can be physically touched & felt, it's just not visible"
And from your reply, should be expanded to:
invisible = "something still actually exists & can be physically touched & felt, it's just not visible directly or indirectly to the naked eye"
I think that will then also cover those with impaired vision.
But this definition doesn't fit non-corporeal beings, which can neither be seen by the naked eye nor be physically touched or felt.”
by Dazzer, Leicester
Monday, September 06 2010, 7:21PM
“O dear Keith,
Infra red cameras cam pick up infra red information so we know it exists.
A distant relative exists as we know they do as we have met. When they put down the phone, they don't just vanish into thin air.
Time is a man made concept.....just like religion/ Jesus & god.”
by Keith A., Leicester
Monday, September 06 2010, 6:12AM
“I affirm those sentences as objectively true, independent of an individual's belief in them. So those words were unnecessary. Thank you for explaining your viewpoint, I understand now.
Surely you believe in invisible things: infra-red light, for example - felt but not seen.
A distant relative on the telephone? Not seen, not felt, but heard. Once they put the phone down?
What about time? Can you see it? Can you feel it?”
by D.B., Leicester
Saturday, September 04 2010, 12:40PM
“Yes this is getting boring..... Best end it here & as you say agree to disagree as neither point of view can be resolved.”
by Dazzer, Leicester
Friday, September 03 2010, 11:54PM
“"I believe in both visible and invisible things."
Do you really believe that invisible things exist?
I don't, being invisible would mean that something still actually exists & can be physically touched & felt, it's just not visible
We will have to agree we disagree.........”