Comments on: Thought for the Day (again)

By: Rachael

Rachael — Thu, 20 May 2010 04:47:01 +0000

I could not said it better myself, lucy

By: Tony B

Tony B — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:50:12 +0000

I don’t often listen to it, but it seems to be called “Thought for the Day” not “Religious Thought for the Day”. Many people are pleased that Richard Dawkins has been saying and writing the things he has been saying and writing, because it has stirred up debate about, and interest in, God. Surely the same could well apply here. Surely we all want to be stirred up and challenged by things.

By: MacQ

MacQ — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:37:43 +0000

In my experience, it’s often in the unexpected that God speaks to us. Whether that is through someone or something where you didn’t have an immediate association with faith or belief. If the same insight is spoken from a Hindu’s mouth as an Anglican’s, then I don’t think we should be afraid to let it sink in to us.
I remember reading the story about the proprietors of a Scottish Island called Canna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canna,_Scotland). The future wife of the then owner left for the shores of Scotland in her late teens. I read her story recently and one piece of counsel which her father gave her as she left home for foreign shores has stayed with me. ‘Don’t let anyone do your thinking for you’ was his advice. Now, I’d exclude the role of the Holy Spirit obviously(!) but I like the simple expression of independence of thought when it comes to weighing up what we might be exposed to on our lives journey. That’s a long way of saying – if Thought for the Day urges people to think beyond the here and now to the unknown and uncertain into the complicated world we live in and stretch out a hand to hope then that’s a result. We need to be there to offer a hand to meet.

By: andy goodliff

andy goodliff — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:00:22 +0000

Simon Perry would be good ... Craig Gardiner, (who blogs here: http://gatheringandscattering.blogspot) often does thought for the day on radio wales and would be good too ... come on the baptists ...

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:50:45 +0000

>Anglican – 9, Christian (non specific denomination) 6, Jewish 3, Roman Catholic 3, Christian Evangelical 3, Methodist 2, Muslim 2, hindu 1, Church of Scotland 1, Baptist 1, Sikh 1, Buddhist 1
>Or, you could read the figures as Christian – 25, other religions 8
I haven’t read specific proposals for how the lineup should be created, whether a – interesting people, b – max diversity, c – representative of communities or attendance, or d – some combination.
But, on communities, assuming no humanists (though it is a belief system) and using 2.5m per contributor that line up has too few Anglicans, probably slightly too few RCs, and too many of the rest.

By: Lisa Watkinson

Lisa Watkinson — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:35:39 +0000

This one gave me some confusion why? well I want to say keep Thought for the Day religious/theistic and as for there being more Anglicans, that gives me no problem.
As for my confusion it relates to the possibility of opening up and branching out to include non religious thought systems such as Atheism or secular humanism. On the one hand this would in my opinion deflect from what Thought for the Day is about but by branching out it may open up some real interesting conversations.If this post sounds confused it’s because I am. Also why do we alwats seem to use the word religious rather than chrstian at these times.