"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Yeah. But I thought you wouldn't be interested in my opinion. But since you insist, here it is:Philip wrote:Does anyone at least have a general opinion on these stories?
. 
FL, of COURSE, the Daily Mail is only a popular, low-brow, populist rag - but it does give a snapshot of popular culture and events in the UK - which is why I like to browse it - we almost never read much about the UK over here. It also often has much more info on local U.S. news stories than is typically seen in newspapers stateside - which is strange, if disconcerting. But it's lack of intellectual capital has nothing to do with the article, as it merely covers the book and author of the included info and subject. But the author's agenda would appear to be consolidate many different people's supposed supernatural experiences into some type of unifying explanation of New Age, Shirley McClaine type of spiritualism and to imply that all such experiences are ALL part of how the spiritual netherworld supposedly works. So, while some of the experiences may be authentically experiences - they clearly can't be ACCURATELY understood as the author interprets them. And obviously, some of the experiences may be from counterfeit spirits or just simply made up.The Daily Mail is trash: yellow journalism. It caters to nuts and assorted
If you have cable, you can watch the BBC. Of course, it is a left-leaning news service but it will give you plenty of info about the UK. Magazines: The Economist is good...maybe they have a website. How about the website of The Guardian?Philip wrote:FL, of COURSE, the Daily Mail is only a popular, low-brow, populist rag - but it does give a snapshot of popular culture and events in the UK - which is why I like to browse it - we almost never read much about the UK over here.
You'll find this true of any foreign news service. The reason? As strange as it may seem to your American ears, foreigners such as myself consider the US news services to be censored. Not officially censored, but self-censored. (Perhaps even self-censured!)Philip wrote: It also often has much more info on local U.S. news stories than is typically seen in newspapers stateside - which is strange, if disconcerting.
Sorry, I don't buy that. The Daily Mail has barely more credibility than The National Enquirer. Would you give any credibility to an article in the Enquirer???Philip wrote:But it's lack of intellectual capital has nothing to do with the article, as it merely covers the book and author of the included info and subject.