Episode 1 The Big Questions

Good morning. Welcome to a brand- new series of Big Questions. In a

New Year's Day message this week the Pope criticised capitalism for

causing hotbeds of tension, and conflict, he said the system

creates growing instances of inequality, between rich and poor.

So our first Big Question is the Pope right to condemn capitalism?

This legal economist says capitalism hasn't gone far enough

and the money has to be where the market is most efficient, this

Christian activist says responsible capitalism is as elusive and

friendly famine. There has been a global conference on human

fertility this week in Liverpool. One is to ewe stem cells to create

artificial sperm. Now, it could open the door to two women being a

baby's biological parents. Our next Big Question, should children be

created without fathers? This geneticist says it is morally

better for two less been parents to have a child related to both of

them. And on this, the feast day of St Basil, famous for defining the

Holy Trinity, our last big question, can the Holy Spirit move you? This

Christian says he heeled his brother through the fire of the

Holy Spirit. This psychologist says any believer can be moved but it is

through the charisma of the preacher or healer. O Good morning.

It is ironic in the week Pope Benedict decided to criticise

capitalism for making us too selfish, the Bank of Italy shut

down the Vatican bank because it didn't comply with money-laundering

legislation. Does the capitalist system enable the best to flourish

and create enough wealth to raise living standards for all? Is it a

system of winner take all, the devil take the hindmost? Is the

Pope right to condemn capitalism? Abhijit Pandya, is he right? No, he

is not. He is misguided. As Adam Smith pointed out, you know, over

200 years ago, it is self-interest and greed that makes us prosperous

and well thi. It is not just the case of some people are poor and

others are wealthy. The wealthy have got there through the

Endeavour of self-interest. But the growing inequality is inescapable.

That is, it is unarguerbl I would argue it is almost irrelevant.

People are becoming wealthy. It is never, no-one lives in a Utopia,

that is a fantasy, we, you have to face reality. If capitalism or

greed has been the biggest force for world peace, that we know. It

is not the interest of corporations that Governments have defence

spending, and such lie, like, if people think, for example, that the

European Union is about peace it is because of trade and investment.

People don't realise capitalism won the Cold War. But the wealth of the

top 10% is 100% greater than, 100 times greater than the wealth of

the poorest 10%. Is that sustainable, or acceptable?

alternative is everyone is poor. It is over time more people will

embrace wealth as they have done. There is no fix it all quick fix of

suddenly everyone will become rich. This is a delusion. The alternative

is not everyone will remain poor. There are other economic Molds and

there are co-operatives in the UK. You can have viable, sensible

economic models that work. They have outperformed those based or

more capitalist models. You say more, is there anence sense of

capitalism to them? No comibg model is pure, you have economicsed --

mixed economies. We live in the real world where you have different

Molds. Some o less profit driven and they tend to be more beneficial

for their worker, workers have a stake in them. They can ride out

the boom and bust, but capitalism has brought us to the bring of

financial crisis, brought us to a crisis, it has been the cause of

many wars, people don't think Iraq was not an economic interest.

think Angela Merkel the Chancellor really puts this well, when she

says that actually, it is the competitive economy that guarantees

freedom, and this is a woman that grew up in east Germany and freedom

defines us, as human, that is part of humanity. I think actually,

capitalism allows for self actual Asian, for each of us, we are born

with different talents. Capitalism allows us to push ourselves to meet

the best we can be. Is there room for and is there a need for a kind

of capitalism with a more compassionate face. It was a cheque

leader who tried to create Communism with a human face, that

got crushed by Soviet tank, do you think capitalism is possible?

about trying to get as much money for yourself and screwing other

people, that is what it is about. disagree. You can have free markets,

we have had without having capitalism. You don't have to...

People want to make money for their families. That capitalism is a

specific intervention to accumulate wement wealth for yourself, that is

why we have the inequalities we have. A man in the Soviet Union was

allowed to keep the profits from his coffee shop. Is that not

capitalism? .If You have a small trader who is not trying to

accumulate mass wealth, you spend a pound in your community, that money

stays in the local economy. You spend it in a chain store, the

money leaves the local community and doesn't benefit it. So when you

have small trade and exchange you have a benefit for other people,

when you have multi-nationals you are accumulating wealth for

shareholders and the richest in society. As much they are as much

part of society as anybody else. This idea it is about screwing

people over is nonsense. It is capitalism. The creation of goods

and services... I would start off reading Adam Smith old chap. It is

a dead thing, the finance shall crisis was caused by bad regulation,

if capitalism had been allowed to flourish, the banks and other

markets would... So less regulation would have allowed a financial

crisis. Crisis is a natural part of ups and downs of the economy. There

is no such thing as a perfect economic model. The fairness is

difficult, the redistribution is difficult, when you video the

globalised situation, where by many big companies can pick and choose

where they pay their tax. Indeed. The central question is about

regulation, the Pope's concern is unregulated capitalism. We now live

in a context where corporations are more powerful than the regulator

than the Governments themselves, we have to get back into a situation

where Governments can control something which is globally...

Governments are infernt infantry at controlling. Capitalism the

transparency it provides, particularly in today's age, where

we have technology, we have twitter, the Pope uses Twitter, it is about

you know, Starbucks is a good example. The community was outraged.

Why did they change? Not because of a regulator, because of consumers,

that is capitalism working. I think the Pope was right to set the flash

light on this issue. Because the language that we are using, that it

is irrelevant what happens to other people, this is not the language of

a world that is caring for each other, and what I would bring, a

different question to the table. When we look at a system, what are

the morals that we are trying to bring? What are the questions? The

questions in economics should be, is this helping the social

cohesion? Is this helping the next generationst is this helping global

stability? Not that the measurement of good is how much money do I earn,

do I benefit? I disagree with that that capitalism is about profit.

The profit is a result of providing something of value. What is it

about if not profit? It is a result. Then you are saying the good is

just the making the money? No, the good is whatever you are providing;

if you are baking bred for the community, if you are making goods

locally... That is production. Christopher Hitchens, the late

Christopher Hitchens, said, he said he took issue with the tenth

commandment, you shall not covet your neighbour's ass. He said it

deh emulates the desire to aspire, and you know, create wealth. Do you

agree with that? It is not necessarily about creating wealth.

The wealth comes from focusing on a goal and providing something of

value. Again... Wanting a better ass than your neighbour. Let me say

donkey instead. It is part of human nature. With socialism as Margaret

Thatcher says, you run out of somebody else's money. You look at

the spirit level, all the countries which have the biggest division

between the rich and the poor have the biggest social problems..

does the money come from in the first place. Somebody is creating

that wealth. We can't say we are poor because they are wealthy they

are wealthy because they are creating the wealth. I would say

that wealth comes from God. It is our duty to look after it carefully.

It comes from God because as individuals we are being the best

decan be. For yourself. So it is inherently sell -- selfish. Without

proper language and regulation, this system is selfish. What would

you like to say? You are Maelo and a blogger. I think unregulated

capitalism is a disastrous role model for children. It is a false

state. Children everywhere think that money grows on trees because

of a false image that capitalism presents. I mean, there is

excessive spending everywhere. What kind of image THAT is that

presenting to children? That stumped you. Quite the opposite.

Regulation, the whole idea of overregulating is based on the idea

money grows on trees. You can control the events from a

bureaucratic machinery, which doesn't work. This is proven to be

unworkable. Do you want to come back? We are bombarded and our

children are bombarded with images saying if you consume more, if you

possess this, you are going to... So as a parent you say that is

rubbish. I know. We try and consume and make ourself happy through

retail therapy. We are poorer in term house of we feel in ourself,

our self worth, because we are trying to consume our way to being

better. Money does not grow on trees, mine, people bg even the

middle class are relying on food banks because they are hungry, I

have seen it round the community. How can we survive when the rich

know they are going to inherent, the middle class have a sense of

entitlement and the work class don't think anyone cares because of

Who said the Lib Dems' electoral prospects were bleak? All the main

political parties support capitalism but the debate is about

whether there should be, within that system, redistribution and a

decent welfare state. How welcome it is that the Pope is talking

about something other than homosexuality. That should be

welcomed. Can we discuss how capitalism allows for freedom? If

you are in the bottom 10%, does it? No access to medical care,

education. What freedom is that? Surely the problem is about having

a compromise in terms of regulation. Over-regulation limit growth but to

little regulation causes excessive inequality. Surely we need a

rational regulation, such as you were talking about advertising. Why

not make advertising costs so you cannot take away from the costs as

a business. Make it that you can only pay for advertising using

profit. That would limit the amount spent on marketing and allow

capitalism to flourish. Good morning. Good morning. Capitalism

is not consistent with itself. It does not believe in the free-market

principles it espouses. We have reached the stage where we can bail

out banks but we cannot be allowed individuals that are struggling. If

he believed in the free market, you would not bail out banks. If it is

a dog-eat-dog world, you would not be allowed anything. -- bail-out

anything. I agree. The Government was wrong to bail out the banks.

but then the whole thing would have imploded. Other banks would have

bought up the assets. The banking crisis is an excellent example of

how also, within a capitalist society, there are rights and

responsibilities on all the players, not just the banks. Consumers had a

responsibility to only borrow what they could afford to pay back.

Investors had a responsibility for investing in things that they

understood. This bubble that we lived in, it was not the banks.

We're all in it together? Exactly. I do not think that is right.

think people are not empowered. You're assuming people have power

and knowledge and what defines distress is that people do not have

the choice. Is this not a bit rich coming from the Pope? Given the

enormous wealth that he presides over, and the trouble the Vatican

bank has got into over money laundering, and also previous links

to the Mafia, and the biggest cause of world... Sorry, I am on a roll!

The biggest cause of world poverty. The lack of contraception and the

developing world, and then he says this? I can see how that can be

argued and I have no mandate to defend the Pope. I think he has the

right to say that human beings are more than commodities. That is the

thing I'm hearing from my right. It seems to be a mean view of what

human beings are, but the most important thing about them is their

ability to generate wealth. Human thriving consists of more than

maximising profit. There is an assumption that capitalism relies

on profit incentive. But there are other systems that focus on

distribution of wealth, like the Islamic Mall -- the Islamic model.

It as a historical proven record. If you look at any... Acquiring

wealth is not seen as evil? Wealth is a source of good if you use it

for good. The point of an economic system is the distribution of

wealth. Technology and science helps us to build resources and

develop resources but the economic system is not about production. It

should be about distribution and this is the Islamic economic model.

It tries to distribute wealth and it has many features to do so.

Unless you have an incentive to produce the wealth, you have

nothing to distribute. There we will leave it, our first debate of

2013. Give yourselves a round of applause.

I'm sure many of you will have something to say about that so you

can log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions and join

in online. We are also debating live, should children be created

without fathers, and can the Holy Spirit move you? Tell us what do

you think about those topics. You're very welcome for future

Christians have just celebrated the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, one

of God's greatest miracles. But in just five or 10 years, having a

baby without a biological father may well be possible. Four in a

woman who wants it, thanks to genetic engineering and some stem

cells. This is the question. Should children be created without

fathers? You have written this fantastic book, like a virgin, how

science is redesigning the rules of sex. Would this be a good thing?

Children have long been created without fathers. It is something

that is already happening. There is a new breed of women, solo mothers,

as opposed to single mothers, because these are women who are

around the time of menopause, in good financial circumstances to do

not have partners but have lots of money. They're getting sperm donors

and egg donors if they have run out of their own and having a

technological adoption. They're giving birth to a child without a

father. It is important to differentiate. Assumptions are made

about the negative consequences on the children who are created in

this way. But those negative assumptions are extrapolated from

looking at single parents who were in a marriage, were there has been

the trauma of divorce and the loss of income. Every child has a father.

There is a sense of -- a Centre for Family Research in Cambridge doing

empirical research on all kinds of families and looking at how

children actually suffer. This idea that every child has a father,

creating eight child deliberately without a father, with two mothers,

would that be beneficial? Is that a good thing for society? Much of

this technology, you are talking about generating eggs from stem

cells, that has been developed to help the infertile. These are women

who have menopause very early, young men and women who have had

cancer and chemotherapy and have had their eggs destroyed. It is not

to say that once the technologies are available, other people cannot

use them, like lesbian and gay couples. Once it is out there, that

will be a possibility. If a lesbian couple, if you are permitting gay

marriage in society, why should they not have their own genetic

children? I have to ask my Christian colleagues, the Bible

speaks against homosexuality, and probably one of the reasons is

because there is an instruction to go forth and be fruitful. And two

men cannot do that and two women cannot do that, yet, but what if

they could? Natalie, you run the Gay Family web

Fertility Centre. It would be wonderful for you, this? It would.

Since we have been running the business, five years, in that time

we have had 700 couples who have had children. 85% of them would

prefer the donor not to be involved at any point. For this to happen,

the children, they would not have that question of how they had been

created. That biological connection is very important to you and very

important to a lot of people who come to you. Yes. This is what they

are concerned about, what do they tell the children when they get to

the age when they start asking where they came from, how they were

made. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. When the issue was the

discussion as to whether gay and lesbian couples should be able to

adopt children, the importance of genetic relationships was

downplayed and it was said that all that mattered is that you had a

committed couple, or even a committed single person, and that

the relationship between the parents, nurturing and so on, was

the important thing. You cannot have it both ways. I agree that

genetic patenting is very important. Well you should celebrate this.

think there are issues that we have not talked about and I am concerned

about. We are talking about equitable distribution. Most of

these lesbian women will not be infertile. I think a fundamental

question we need to ask is it appropriate that resources in the

NHS, are supposed to be treating the sick, are being used on healthy

people? Even if you agree that the resources should be used in that

way, I totally disagree with you about the research from the unit in

Cambridge which has been shown to be deeply flawed by the only major

study that has looked at a large sample of different parenting types

in the States, published this year. It shows that there is indeed deep

concern for those whose primary interest is the welfare of the

child, showing that children who are brought up by lesbian and gay

couples have gone on 80 markers they looked at, on 77 they look

that they did less well. Very worrying. There has been researched

and in America last year, ongoing research which came back to

children over 20 years, and the children that had been in a lesbian

relationship were achieving better and were more stable. That is

precisely not so. Some people will have picked up on the fact that you

think that biological connections are important. You have helped

couples to have children and another for some of those couples

who have sent them abroad to have anonymous sperm. That is an

acknowledgement that the biological connection is not important because

they will never know. Yes. It is simply there so that when the child

asks, there is no answer. There is an answer. These technologies will

become de rigueur. I think we are decades away from it. You do not

want the child to have answers? truth will end up being that the

parent was a dead embryo. I heard the pastor mumbling. I am very

concerned about how science is playing God. I am a pastor in

Croydon, the most populated by in London. The biggest social problem

that we have in Croydon, especially with young men, is that they come

from homes without fathers. I cannot believe we are discussing

deliberately engineering families without a father. Families Need

Fathers. You can talk about the research, but let me talk to you

about real life. You have no idea to cataclysmic paint and suffering

a families are going through, especially in the Afro-Caribbean

community, because there are no fathers. You have to be insane.

don't think you should assert... These problems were caused by

fatherless homes. You should not assert that everyone who disagrees

with you is ignorant of the real world. We have to be clear about

the distinction that automate between the prospects for children

in children parents hop -- single- parent homes where they had been

abandoned by fathers who were not with the mother or whether have

been cases of divorce a domestic violence, and a separate occasion

where children are brought up by single parents or lesbian couples,

with the established view of the research, without such quoting

specific studies is that they do very well. They certainly have no

disadvantage. Let him finish, I will give you another opportunity.

The Liberal way of dealing with this is that people should be

allowed to use technology, not on the National Health Service, nobody

is arguing that this would be on the health service, should be

allowed to use technology to be able to reproduce, unless there is

good evidence of a significant harm for the child or the parent that

would follow. That has not been shown to be the case and in the

case of someone who is sterile because of cancer, a young man who

wants to Rome biological child, if later research could derive sperm

from other cells in their body safely, with no adverse consequence

to the child for that man and his partner, then we should not ban it.

That is all I'm saying. I am not talking about banning it. Not for a

moment. I totally agree with you that infertility brings a lot of

pain. As a GP, I saw lots of it. That deserves treatment, but what

we're talking about here is people who were not infertile, but a

wanted child. And it is more to do with meeting their needs than

bringing up or creating a child in an optimal environment. Natalie

wants to come back to that, because it is an accusation of selfishness.

It is not just gay and lesbians. Two brothers or sisters might

decide. That would remain unlawful. I give you the floor. None of our

clients have ever had any support from the NHS. They are all

financially stable. You have to remember that these children that

they are creating are being created in a loving relationship and have

the stability of both parents. Those parents are what they know

from the off. That is all they need. A loving, stable home. The children

are progressing as they normally would. Good morning. I wanted to

pick up on something that the pastor said about fatherless homes.

I have worked a lot in this part of London, and I make films with

members of -- people who have fallen into the margins. I was

speaking to a man who had spent 14 of his 30 years in prison and he

was giving me an interview on camera. I asked him where he

thought that he had made his wrong choices, to end up where he was.

And he said when he was about eight you sit on the couch and want a

cuddle with his mother and his father would not let him do that.

It seems to me that human nature and love are the biggest issues

underlying this debate. Love can still exist in a gay couple, just

does capitalism is not necessarily a bad thing, it is what you do with

it. I think what my sister was speaking about was solo parenting.

I do not know any solo parent who thinks that parenting is easy.

is not easy, of. Mac. -- it is not easy. For me, the pain of not being

involved biologically is enormous for lesbian couples at what is good

for children is happy parents. If this is such a divisive issue and

no to such a painful issue, that is a problem. I have a flak which is

that there are two X chromosomes. My concern is about that as well.

It is in very difficult thing because the pain is enormous.

confirm that that would be the Unless you use artificial

chromosomes. Artificial Y chromosomes? Carry on. So, I think

for us, as a society, we need to look at what makes happy units of

parenting, whether it is solo or two together. This issue for

lesbians is huge, I am frighten wid the -- by the technology, that is

the level for me, when it goes into a zone it is so, it is so

manufactured I am scared of it. should go to an intensive care

units that saves people's lives and say you are frightened by that.

There is no danger of sex being eradicated. Most people will choose

to have sex. It is only people who have a specific need to use this

form of technology, in order to have a happy family, they are

biologically related to that would use it. What you were saying to

Natalie, it is also true for hetrosexual couple, when they are

infertile they want to try everything to have their own

genetic children before they look to adoption. I am a single mother

and I am not, you can't say all single mothers raise children and

live in deprived areas. Are you a sickle mum by choice? No. Would you

prefer. That is a great question. Would you prefer the father of your

child to be parenting with you, yes or no? The father of my child has a

fantastic relationship with my daughter. You see, there are many

ways of having a family, and raising children, and it does

necessitate that person has to be a man. You have grandmother, you have

mothers... Are you happy being a single parent or you would rather

have dual parenting? I am very happy being a single parent Whose

chat show is this?! I am happy being ale parent. That is not what

I am asking you. Would you prefer? In other cultures, where you have

care... What about this idea of scaring -- scarring the child?

By nowing its parents are a dead embryo? Why are you saying the

parents are dead? I don't know if it is the case you start with the

precautionary principle. Unless we know what the risks are, we don't

know ahead wit, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.

What... No. So what are the possible reasons for doing this

technology? Well, you can imagine Doomsday snar row o snar rows where

there are no men left on earth, or otherwise where you can, you have

dispense with the need for a father. There is going to be for the future

lots of semen sloshing round the planet. That doesn't seem to be the

short to medium term a real reason to go down this road. Then we are

dealing with questions of infertility which raise their own

problem, then we are dealing with two possible situation, firstly the

lesbian couple, but the sole woman who decides I want a child by

myself with no man or indeed other human being involved. The only

motivation for that has to be selfishness, denial of rationality,

has to be a desire to cape that child away from contaminating

influences. It could be two women, another human could be involved.

Can you not understand the desire to be biologically related to the

child? This is preferable than sending off to America for some

sperm off the internet. Isn't it morally preferable? When we come to

lesbian couples there has been a great deal of argument by those

advocating gay adoption to the effect it doesn't matter what your

biological background is, the important thing is loving parents.

That now seems to be skated over in the argument which is going on.

Nobody pretends that anonymous semen donation is a psychologically

easy way of conceiveing children. Nobody pretends it is ideal. Why

should one pretend this is a better way of raising children than simple

adoption, the means...? There will have -- there is no such thing at

simple adoption. The arguments were... I take a different view, I

say when it comes to liberty, the right to reproduce, not relying on

state hand outs or the NHS paying for it, the principle should be

unless there is clear evidence of harm, and there isn't in these

cases, which should be permissive. We shouldn't ban people from

reproducing, as you would wish to do unless they can justify it in

some way that suits you. It should be the other way round. There is a

principle that trumps to liberty of the barnts and that is the welfare

of the child. That is my point. Woody aten said he didn't

understand how children survive one mother. -- Woody Allen. One of the

solo parents that was studied, there was a case of a Christian

woman. She decided to have IVF to have her baby because she didn't

have a partner. She believed it was wrong to have sex outside marriage

so she chose to have a child that way. That is a fun away twie have a

Virgin birth. There we will leave it. Thank you very much for that.

If you have something to say about that de bait log on and follow the

debate to online discussion. Our last Big Question, can the Holy

Spirit move you? If you would like to an an Ade yens you can E mail: -

While attendances at tradition alchurches have been on the wane t

pes cos tal movements have seen their congregations climb in

numbers. One reason may be because they encourage believers to be open

to feeling their faith, they say they can physically experience the

joy of the Holy Spirit entering you, and that this presence can lead to

talking in tongues, or healing powers. Can the Holy Spirit move

you? Taiwo is here. It has happened to you. Yes. What is the feeling?

mean for example my brother, who was living in Warwickshire at the

time, he had a issue with himself, like with his brain, and he

couldn't walk, he couldn't talk, we would call him, he had slurred

speech. We went up, my family went to get him, and we saw him in a

state and we were so shocked, and it was like, this guy capable, you

know, he is oven his way, he is at uni, he is studying, he had to drop

out because he couldn't walk, he couldn't talk, when he would talk

it would sound like he was babbling, we took him back to London and

brought him to hospital, and he was on the bed for two weeks, doctors

were literally trying to find out what was wrong with this guy. So,

what we done, we started to pray, and started to interseed for him. I

took it upon myself. I said nothing is changing, the doctors are saying

they can't find out what is wrong with him. What I then done, I laid

my hands on him, and I asked, you know, God to heal him, and to

restore him, asap. I believe the fire of the Holy Ghost came upon

him. The fire? He was healed he was? He was healed. Describe that

fire. When you feel it, is it like a fiery feeling? The Bible talks

about it in... I want you to talk about it. Tell me what you feel.

is found in the bound -- boundary of prayer. What is that feeling?

One of fire inside? It is a spiritual covering you get. It is a

spiritual covering. The world will understand, it, I explain. There is

three stage, you have the baptism of water, then the Holy Spirit.

feeling of ecstasy? No, it's the baptism of fire. Where God gives

you spiritual power. Do you speak in tongues as well? That is the

baptism of the Holy Spirit. So people speak in tongues, you do

don't you? Absolutely. What is the fiscal feeling? As a Christian I

get my context from scripture. I believe Jesus spoke in tongues, all

of the disies ips -- disciples spoke in tongues. Does everyone

start shouting? It is a prayer language, you can pray in tongues,

the Bible speaks about the gifts of prophesy. One of those gifts is a,

the gift of prop -- prophesy is normally preceded by tongue, what

does it feel like? Tongues, tongue, do you understand each other.

Tongues are always involved. You always understand each other?

when I pray to God in the tongue, the Bible says if I have been bap

tiesed in the Holy Spirit my spirit interseeds with God's Holy Spirit.

The Bible speaks about praying with your uping and praying in the

spirit. What is the fiscal feeling? A warm feel something.

Pentecostalism is about experience. What o do you feel? There are times

when I feel the presence of God. What kuz that feel like? Sometimes

it convicting. Sometimes cleansing. I remember the first time I was

audibly, well the phrase was when I became a Christian. I can remember

praying, acknowledging I was a sinner, and I felt a weight come

off my shoulder, in my heart there was a tangible difference. Love?

Some people describe it as liquid love. Some have described it as a

weight coming off your shoulders. There was a change, certainly on me

on the interest side -- inside. it happen anywhere, on the bus?

is found in the boundary of prayer. Has it happened inappropriately.

pray when I am driving sometimes. Especially in London. You are

listening to the radio? That is not speaking in tongues, that is a

phone-in. That is your show! would like to move away. I want to

move away from this language of feeling. Because I think the Holy

Spirit is bigger than an emotion, it is more than a feeling. I am a

rational. I am a rational person myself, I am a head person. When I

receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in my life, I didn't

particularly feel any different. But I knew everything changed. For

me it is the difference between maybe watching a movie in black-

and-white that can be nice, and you enjoy the movie, but when you see

it in colour you have a new perspective. You were energised in

a sense? Things have changed for you, you see a life in a new way. I

think that is what it is like to receive the Holy Spirit in your

life, is the ability to see the richness of the world round you,

that maybe you couldn't see before. It is more than an experience.

are they feel something I don't know what you are feeling, I am

thinking about the Bible. The scriptures what do we see when the

Holly spirit came upon then. The prophets talked. When Hannah was

praying and she was our first model, Ellie, the priest thought she is

drunk, what is happening. She said I am praying, talking, the level of

legitimacy to the large world of irrationality concerns me here.

mi, -- Jeremy. What is the difference between what these

people are telling us, I believe they are feeling this, of course

they r but what is the difference between that and a 14-year-old who

is getting hysterical about Justin Bieber, or a form of hysteria, we...

We are not talking hysteria. that feeling of, you know n a less

benign environment, the films of the Nuremberg rally, people getting

crazy, what is the difference? There is a lot of things going on.

Emotion and and rational experience. What is the relationship between

language and experience. How do we make sense of experiences? There

are experiences which change consciousness, a football stadium,

a rally. It is Newcastle United for you. Unfortunately not doing too

well! When Shearer was playing we had moments, and the point... The

point here is,... They are speaking in Geordie tongues. What language

do we employ to describe experiences? Psychologists from

William James in the 19th century taked about intense experiences,

changing personalities, and today we have neuroscientists saying that

when people are speaking in tongues, the lobe, the blood going to the

The key thing is happen to people interpreted? In different cultures

and different contexts, experiences art -- interpreted in different

ways. Context is important. I do not think he understands because

the fire of the Holy Ghost comes about through holiness. You get it

through holiness. It is the highest level for a believer. Could he feel

it? Again, to move away from the experience side of it, let us talk

about the ethical side. For me, the baptism of Holy Spirit, for example,

I come from a family of broken marriages. My father has been

divorced and was married three times. I have been faithful to my

wife for 17 years. To me, that is my -- not my own strength, it is

the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not this ecstatic thing, there is

an ethical element. Plenty of people without religion are capable

of being faithful to their wives. That is not the point I was making.

For me, in my context... Meyer view is that I do not do it -- my view,

I do not deny that you have these feelings and their common across

many religions. Many religions that are contradictory to each other.

You have to choose which one is the truth and which one is not. But it

is harmful only when it comes into this issue of therapy. There may be

vulnerable people who think that they can be healed when they have

something seriously wrong with them. I am not happy with and a fierce

talking about my Pentecostal faith. He is a doctor. I am still a doctor.

People who have serious conditions need not to be sidetracked into

things for which there is no good evidence of effectiveness. If faith

healing was effective, just answer this question, if faith-healing was

effective, why is there no single example of an amputee being healed?

And at BT has been healed. When was this? It sounds unbelievable but

there is evidence. There are people that had the fire of the Holy

spirit. His leg grew?! Laurel wants to come back to the fire. It is not

for me to speak about someone else's religious experience. But

when you use the word fire, the fire has been used as a

justification for burning other people, and that is one issue that

I would love to race here. When we talk about Holy Spirit, lots of

religious people feel moved by different spirituality and religion

and institutions, and that is great. So long as it does not clash with

therapy. But the word fire, how do you use fire with other people? Do

you use it to ensure that other people become Christians? What do

you do with that? It is the danger would here. You could say that of

conviction or anything? The word fire is very different. Possessed

children in some churches, children are said to be possessed and they

go through exercise a more worse. I think that is a form, and I'm not

saying that happens in your church, but it happens in some churches.

Alexander Perepilichny, it has been said that some people reciting the

Koran enter a state of ecstasy. -- Alexander Perepilichny.

There are some sect's that convulse, and they might jabber various

things or recite prayers in that state of ecstasy. I would agree

that there are different religions where attendants will enter into

convulsions and will start speaking in tongues. When you here at the

beautiful recitation of the Koran, do you not feel warmth imbuing your

spirit? Generally speaking, the Islamic orthodoxy have not embraced

the idea of God entering into the creation and going into a human

being and making them convulse. not talking about that, but a

feeling of well-being. That is a psychological aspect. It is faith,

the sweetness of faith. This is a psychological aspect of human

beings, faith secures you and makes you feel happy and content and

fulfilled. Of course, when you have a court consciousness, in the

throes of such consciousness, you will be happy and content. Is this

on the same spectrum? What is fascinating is that different

religious traditions and cultures have these kinds of peculiar

experiences. The questionnaires, why do people interpret it in

different ways? What is the relationship between language and

experience? Every cultural system demonstrates this kind of aesthetic

experience. A no other face has the fire of the Holy Ghost.

question is not so much the imagery or the feeling, but the question of

can the Holy Spirit move you. Move you to do what? I am not bothered

of how you experience it. I do not care whether you are swinging from

chandeliers or sitting in silence, but all the spirit moves you to

change the world. All the spirit is the power. I want to hear from

audience members. I want to hear from the congregation. Good morning.

I think we have to be very careful. There are some places around the

world where people are using the whole the spirit to heal people.

For example there are places where children and adults are being

refused treatment because they are going to be healed by the whole

disparate. In the worst-case scenario, people have died for

refusing treatment. I think we have to consider that. These feelings

you're feeling, why are they not demonstrable to everyone on a wide

scale? Because they do not have the fire. It is in your head, basically.

Do you really need to tell me that knowing God, you are sealed? 95% of

the Church right now, they are stuck between sanctification and

de-baptism of all the ghost. They do not have the fire? That does not

really make any sense to me. brother is not from the same church

as me. He has a different take. But the question, does the Holy Spirit

move you? Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to his disciples with the

call of evangelical witness. virgin birth. Let me finish. Today,

the Pentecostal church is the fastest growing movement within

Christianity, because they are moved by the Holy Spirit. What

happened with the Virgin Birth? They are moved to show their faith

-- share their faith. The Virgin Birth. My understanding of the

Virgin Birth is that the whole the spirit came upon the Virgin and the

reason why that is important to Christians is because Jesus, we

believe, was different from every other being that ever lived on

planet Earth. We believe his life was supernatural and his birth was

supernatural at his death was supernatural. He did not have man's

fallen nature which is why he could not be born from a man. He had the

nature of God which is why we can say that Jesus was without sin

because he did not have Adam's nature. It is good to hear that the

Holy Spirit can move you but I would like to know why does not and

why there are so many people who do not get a whisper it. There are

friends of my family who had a daughter who was diagnosed with

leukaemia at three years old and three years later she died, despite

being a Christian family that went to church every Sunday. Nothing

worked, so why does a Holy Spirit...? One of the interesting

points is the belief that, for example this lady said, and a

picket is a fair point, but what matters is not how it is

interpreted culturally but whether it moves you too could -- moves you

to do good things. But I think it is just as legitimate to do good

things for their own basis, to use our intellectual power, judgment

and reason, to say that this is good and not rely on some mystical

or spiritual insight in order to do good things. It is actually

subversive things, things that challenge power. To quote my a

Pentecostal friend's interpretation of the Bible -- the Bible, it is

about freedom and the good news to the poor. These are the things that

the Bible quotes. I want to know, how do you challenge power and how

is it good news for the poor, how are people being liberated? I want

to hear that because that is the biblical evidence. I see a clash

between evangelical Christianity or any religion and freedom. I don't.

You are imposing your fire on someone else. That is his. His fire,

your Holy Spirit. If you started religion... My face freed me. -- My

Faith freed me. It freed me from simple habits. You have an

evangelical mission. His question was, how is the Holy Spirit moving

us to do good to change the culture. How have you helped the poor in

Croydon? How would they helped by this? We support a homeless charity

and typically we have not given to charities before. In preying as the

pastor of the Church, I have been looking at how we are going to use

our resources. I was moved by the Holy Spirit to start making

donations to homeless charities. Amazingly, we stepped in as Croydon

council were stepping out. That is one of the ways the Holy Spirit is

moving us. Is this entirely benign. That is wonderful and lots of

religious and non-religious people do fantastic things. I do not feel,

I do not think that this is entirely benign, because when the

Christian majority and the established Church comes and talks

about evangelical missions in any way, and other parts of the Church

are talking about fire, as someone who... A budget deism is where the

fire originated. For us, the people who had been victims of the fire...

-- but to Judaism is where the fire or originated. Some hands have shot

up. In the time available, --... do not understand why you have to

make a connection to religion with these feelings. I am an atheist and

I can have amazing feelings when I am surrounded by my family or I

could wake up one day and see the world differently. I do not

immediately think it must be some omniscient God. Someone might say

something to you that changes should day, and this connection to

religion, and we get excluded as atheists, but we cannot have these

feelings. And actually we do, we just don't like it to a god.

you don't have any power. That is the thing. What do you mean? She

doesn't have power because she does not have the fire? What I say the

fire, Jesus says that you will be baptised by the whole spirit and

with fire. The world does not understand that. When you are a

believer and you have sold out for Jesus Christ, you will get it.

think one point is that people interpret their experiences

differently. Psychologists of religion have shown that we need to

come back to the Court of humanity. But she cannot have the fire.

People have different views about their experiences. We can tolerate

and understand people when we respect this. The question is been

asked, can be Holy Spirit move youth, and the emphatic answer from

Christians is, absolutely, yes. should not be making claims... You

should not be making claims that legs grow back. That is the

fundamental problem. As soon as you say things like that, you exploit

the vulnerable. Clare any response to that. We have a young lady in

our church. When she was born she was born severely prematurely and I

came down and prayed for her. We rallied the church to pray and the

doctors said that they were going to turn off the life-support

machine within 24 hours and she was not going to make it. You can

always say these anecdotes. Doctors do not say the things that family's

field the doctors have said. Under the law, thank goodness, the

responsibility is not to reject medical treatment. Thank you all

very much indeed. The debate continues online. We're here next