MPaul: the reason Christianity is dying on the vine

2456711

Comments

  • There are two elements to this hell call. One is the views themselves. The other is his completely disingenuous attempt to depersonalise them. They are aimed at individuals, including me, and they hit their mark. If one is going to hate, one should have the courage of the associated convictions and own that hatred.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    The thing is that everyone should know the default Ship's view on these matters (ultra-liberal) and that variance is not tolerated by other shipmates.

    Erm no. You can have different views - and I know I have different views from the majority here, because my theological position would identify as evangelical.

    What you cannot do is a) expect these to be accepted unchallenged or b) use these to preach hatred.

    The problem is not that you have a different view than others. The problem is that you cannot justify it.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    The thing is that everyone should know the default Ship's view on these matters (ultra-liberal) and that variance is not tolerated by other shipmates.

    I also know that there are a number of shipmates who don't agree with the "default" view, but they won't discuss their opinions here, because they know they'll end up underneath a dogpile. Things get heated, and the person with the non-default view can end up with involuntary shore-leave.

    So MPaul, you are entitled to your views just as much as anyone else, but it's unwise to try to discuss them here - it's like going to a Labour Party conference and trying to discuss the benefits of privatisation.

    Oh what a load of self-pitying bullshit. This is this ridiculous conservative idea that freedom of expression means freedom from consequence, response or opposition. MPaul has the freedom to express his obnoxious views (within the constraints of the Ship's standing orders) and others have the right to expose the bigotry contained in those views, and here in Hell to point out that bigoted views, by definition, make the holder of those views a bigot.

    And if you're going to tell LGBT+ people they're a curse, you can expect them to tell you you're an utter shitstain on humanity. Non male cishet people have fought to be considered human for years, against the opposition of cockwombles like MPaul. You can't expect them, or anyone with an ounce of empathy towards them, to be nice back now. Too late.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    The thing is that everyone should know the default Ship's view on these matters (ultra-liberal) and that variance is not tolerated by other shipmates...
    Ultra-liberal?

    Liberal, yeah. But ultra? Naah.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    The thing is that everyone should know the default Ship's view on these matters (ultra-liberal) and that variance is not tolerated by other shipmates.

    I also know that there are a number of shipmates who don't agree with the "default" view, but they won't discuss their opinions here, because they know they'll end up underneath a dogpile. Things get heated, and the person with the non-default view can end up with involuntary shore-leave.

    So MPaul, you are entitled to your views just as much as anyone else, but it's unwise to try to discuss them here - it's like going to a Labour Party conference and trying to discuss the benefits of privatisation.

    Oh what a load of self-pitying bullshit. This is this ridiculous conservative idea that freedom of expression means freedom from consequence, response or opposition. MPaul has the freedom to express his obnoxious views (within the constraints of the Ship's standing orders) and others have the right to expose the bigotry contained in those views, and here in Hell to point out that bigoted views, by definition, make the holder of those views a bigot.

    And if you're going to tell LGBT+ people they're a curse, you can expect them to tell you you're an utter shitstain on humanity. Non male cishet people have fought to be considered human for years, against the opposition of cockwombles like MPaul. You can't expect them, or anyone with an ounce of empathy towards them, to be nice back now. Too late.

    I wholly agree with @KarlLB, but I had no idea what 'cishet' means....!

    The link is impossibly long (I don't want to try the Hosts' or Admins' patience), so if you're also uncertain, ask your kind friend, Mr Go Ogle.
    :wink:


  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I had no idea what 'cishet' means....!

    Me neither, but I can hardly wait for a chance to use cockwomble in polite conversation.
  • 'Cockwomble' is, in truth, a most Lovable, and Useful, word, no?
    :lol:
  • The self-pity makes me laugh usually. You can't say that gays are cursed these days without some virtue signalling libtard beating you up. Boo hoo, it's not fair.
  • Cishet = Cisgendered Heterosexual otherwise known as “straight”.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Cishet = Cisgendered Heterosexual otherwise known as “straight”.

    I wanted to make it clear that MPaul and his fellow-traveller wankpuffins had it in for transgender people as well as lesbian and gay. They're equal opportunity bigots.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    But who's going to speak up for the apostate Pentecostals and evangelicals? He has it in for them, too.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    But who's going to speak up for the apostate Pentecostals and evangelicals? He has it in for them, too.

    Can only do so much.
  • If MPaul is right, and I am cursed by God - what is the point of attempting to be a Christian ? I can’t not be homosexual anymore than I can make myself a different race or change my height. So if I am already damned from birth, why should I worship the entity that destroys me ?

    @MPaul , @Mark Betts , I’d appreciate an answer to this from your theological perspective.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Obviously, you should worship their god for the same reason they do: fear.
  • But presumably that won’t work ?
  • But presumably that won’t work ?

    If done with sufficient self hatred it will. Internalised homophobia is the cruellest master I've ever come across.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    One can't post anti-gay shit on the Ship? Go over to the old boards and look at Dead Horses and see the decades of anti-gay shit.

    What's particularly rich about that to me in particular is that I have in my official capacity argued in favor of continuing to allow such hateful threads because I think it's important for such ugly views so the faulty reasoning and general inhumanity behind them is revealed.

    So what you really think. Have the courage to defend it. Just don't expect us not to recognize hate and stupidity when we see it.

  • But there are plenty of forums where homophobia is welcome, aren't there? Some of the worst I have seen is on Ed Feser's blog, worst because it is dressed up in Catholic theology, yet still has a nasty streak.
  • How can homophobia not have a nasty streak?
  • Ruth wrote: »
    One can't post anti-gay shit on the Ship? Go over to the old boards and look at Dead Horses and see the decades of anti-gay shit.
    But, that was on threads about homosexuality. We've still got those dedicated threads.

    But, posting there means you're expected to engage in discussion, defend your position in a reasoned manner. When you're incapable of doing that, why not just launch a hit-and-run attack on LGBT+ people on a thread about how great a risk to the life of the mother is enough justification for an abortion. And, while at it throw in an attack on everyone who's ever faced the trauma of abortion or putting the life of one person against that of another, and practically the entire Christian Church while at it. It's such an effective tactic to convince everyone of the value of your position.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    MPaul, Jesus did not react the way you do when faced with those who he should have disliked. He did not judge (woman caught in adultery). He did not be have in a hateful manner (woman at the well). He did however call the religious leaders vipers and said they make those under their care twice as fit for Hell as themselves. He taught us not to judge and that the most important law was to love God and the second to love each other and that these sum up the law.
    May I suggest you think about those before you post such rubbish. And no I am not a liberal of any kind before you accuse me of being so.
  • But presumably that won’t work ?

    If done with sufficient self hatred it will. Internalised homophobia is the cruellest master I've ever come across.

    I’d still be homosexual thought, so presumably now both self-hating and damned ?
  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    I had been struggling, on the subject of another thread, to articulate how I would define the sin against the Holy Spirit. I thought of some paraphrase of Matthew Arnold's poem "Dover Beach": that the sin against the Holy Spirit is sincerely to believe and to persuade others that there really is no love, no joy, no light, no certitude, no peace, no help for pain.

    But something about MPaul's post crystallized it for me. The sin against the Holy Spirit is to believe and to persuade others that God is just as little, shitty, vicious, rule-bound and judgmental as you are. Watching as others on this thread say, quite rightly, "if that is God and that is the content of faith then I want no part of it" confirms for me that this is the opposite of evangelism, the opposite of the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing people toward God and toward faith.

    And for those who are sulking that this is just about conservative opinions: nope. I have heard conservative opinions expressed with greater love, understanding, and hope than the kakangelism practiced by MPaul. (Even the attempt at "blessing" at the end of MPaul's post seems to me as phony as a three-dollar bill.) For the record, I do not share those conservative opinions. But if I did, I would hope to express them very differently; MPaul's approach makes as much sense as terrorizing sick people away from the doctor's office on the grounds that it is a place for health.
  • But presumably that won’t work ?

    If done with sufficient self hatred it will. Internalised homophobia is the cruellest master I've ever come across.

    I’d still be homosexual thought, so presumably now both self-hating and damned ?

    Yes, I fear so, though perhaps sufficiently pure hatred will buy institutional favour, and as the insitution manages our relationship with the divine for us, that will translate into divine favour.

    Thinking about it, I'm not sure how this translates into evangelical terms, but I'm viscerally convinced it does.

    Hideous to contemplate, but it rings true with what I have observed at times.
  • If we lived in world that generally gave a damn about MPaul's thoughts and feelings, he might be exhibited in a circus as a human oddity, the way unusually formed people once were. I wonder how he reacts to the gay people in his own family? Unless his family is, statistically, an almost impossible anomaly, he probably has several, quite close to him. People like our daughter, her partner and their children, for example. No matter how hard I look, I don't see any evidence that God has showered curses on that little family, and I'll bet they are a lot more fun to hang out with than he is. Is MPaul another case of man creating his god in his own image and likeness?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I'll stick in a contrarian oar here. Is there point or value in this thread when there's no evidence that its callee is even reading it? A fellow human capable of believing that folks he consorts with on a bulletin board are cursed, or are curses, or whatever the fuck he believes, is probably not reachable.

    I'll confess something: I am a plain old vanilla cishet woman who is FUCKING SICK AND TIRED of hearing/seeing human sexuality used as a FUCKING WEAPON ALL THE FUCKING TIME BY EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE. I AM SICK OF IT.

    I am 74 years old. 50 years ago, just about this time of year, I had to bail a co-worker out of jail because he made a pass at the wrong target in a bar (so much for Gaydar). He was beaten so badly I had to put him to bed and nurse him for three days, and GUESS WHO FUCKING HAD TO PAY A FUCKING FINE in the ensuing court case? YEAH: NOT THE FUCKING ASSHOLE WHO BEAT HIM BLOODY. 50 FUCKING YEARS -- HALF-A-FUCKING-CENTURY -- and here we STILL are, STILL beating ourselves and each other up over PLAIN ORDINARY SEX. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH US?
  • Thank you for being willing to do that half a century ago, so many people would not have done.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The Church is changing. There is a big difference between now and the 80’s. It is not perfect but we are not perfect. A couple of years ago I went to my friends wedding to his now husband. None of my Christian friends blinked and eye lid.
    There are still some people with a different view but your hope for a better church is getting there:
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    MPaul

    To quote Desmond Tutu from another context (the battle against apartheid).

    "You have already lost."

    Of course you do not realize it, not do you believe it. More fool you. You'll learn.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I wanted to make it clear that MPaul and his fellow-traveller wankpuffins had it in for transgender people as well as lesbian and gay. They're equal opportunity bigots.

    To mention self pleasuring puffins and MPaul in the same sentence is to denigrate puffins.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    MPaul, Jesus did not react the way you do when faced with those who he should have disliked. He did not judge (woman caught in adultery). He did not be have in a hateful manner (woman at the well). He did however call the religious leaders vipers and said they make those under their care twice as fit for Hell as themselves. He taught us not to judge and that the most important law was to love God and the second to love each other and that these sum up the law.
    May I suggest you think about those before you post such rubbish. And no I am not a liberal of any kind before you accuse me of being so.
    MPaul’s Gospel is, it has seemed to me over the years, a gospel of fear. It is fear, not love, that seems to motivate him and that he seems to believe motivates others.

    I see little of the Good New of Jesus in his posts.
    Ohher wrote: »
    I'll stick in a contrarian oar here. Is there point or value in this thread when there's no evidence that its callee is even reading it? A fellow human capable of believing that folks he consorts with on a bulletin board are cursed, or are curses, or whatever the fuck he believes, is probably not reachable.
    More than that, I think it probably confirms in his mind that he’s right—that the “persecution” he receives here is because of his faithfulness. “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you for my name’s sake.”

    I think MPaul views the Ship as his mission field. He’s here to convert all of us apostates and unbelievers and save us from Hell. Our rejection of him and his beliefs just demonstrates in his mind that we are among the reprobate.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    MPaul, Jesus did not react the way you do when faced with those who he should have disliked. He did not judge (woman caught in adultery). He did not be have in a hateful manner (woman at the well). He did however call the religious leaders vipers and said they make those under their care twice as fit for Hell as themselves. He taught us not to judge and that the most important law was to love God and the second to love each other and that these sum up the law.
    May I suggest you think about those before you post such rubbish. And no I am not a liberal of any kind before you accuse me of being so.
    MPaul’s Gospel is, it has seemed to me over the years, a gospel of fear. It is fear, not love, that seems to motivate him and that he seems to believe motivates others.

    I see little of the Good New of Jesus in his posts.
    Ohher wrote: »
    I'll stick in a contrarian oar here. Is there point or value in this thread when there's no evidence that its callee is even reading it? A fellow human capable of believing that folks he consorts with on a bulletin board are cursed, or are curses, or whatever the fuck he believes, is probably not reachable.
    More than that, I think it probably confirms in his mind that he’s right—that the “persecution” he receives here is because of his faithfulness. “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you for my name’s sake.”

    I think MPaul views the Ship as his mission field. He’s here to convert all of us apostates and unbelievers and save us from Hell. Our rejection of him and his beliefs just demonstrates in his mind that we are among the reprobate.

    Very likely. I recall long ago back when I was a Conevo an evangelist type riffing on 2 Cor 2:16 to say that "our message" that humanity was all heading for Hell but you could avoid it by signing up to our beliefs (sorry, "asking Jesus to be your personal saviour") would be offensive to people who weren't willing to repent.

    Our telling MPaul how obnoxious his beliefs maybe just confirms in his mind that we're furnace-fodder.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Our telling MPaul how obnoxious his beliefs maybe just confirms in his mind that we're furnace-fodder.
    And that, my friends, is why Christianity (however defined) is dying on the vine.

    I left the church once it became obvious that a single older woman's time, labor, money, and service were all welcome, but her voice, ideas, questions? Not so much. I got sick of being patronized, sick of watching my congo get mesmerized by a charming MCP, sick of watching that leadership manipulate a supposedly spirit-led congregation into a passel of yes-men busy implementing a "father-knows-best," anti-gospel (note Hugal's examples of Jesus reacting to women above) agenda.

    How we torture a simple, gentle message of kindness, compassion, and social justice into one of fear, intimidation, and exclusion, I don't know: but that's the public face Christianity seems to wear today. It's ugly and downright dangerous and not fit for human consumption.



  • Just breaking radio silence to say 'furnace fodder' is masterful.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Just breaking radio silence to say 'furnace fodder' is masterful.
    Reading through this thread, I find it is a case where my image of being outside all the linked-to-a-centre loops of a Venn diagram is where I am and suits me better than being in a wedge in a pie chart.. (Saying this seriously, not flippantly by the way.)

  • So … If you say you’re a Christian and accept the Bible as the final authority, you accept that Jesus’ greatest commandments – love the Lord with all your heart, love your neighbour as yourself – and you do your best to live by that. Jesus didn’t include any small print about who is and isn’t your neighbour.

    If you’re describing your neighbour as a blight and a curse, you are not following Jesus’ teachings. You are not loving your neighbour as yourself. I’ve got no idea what this means in relation to your listing in the Book of Life, but it’s a total fail in terms of following God’s teachings and it’s a terrible witness to just about everyone.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Tubbs wrote: »
    So … If you say you’re a Christian and accept the Bible as the final authority, you accept that Jesus’ greatest commandments – love the Lord with all your heart, love your neighbour as yourself – and you do your best to live by that. Jesus didn’t include any small print about who is and isn’t your neighbor.

    No, but He did append a rather lengthy discursus on the subject, the bottom line of which is that if you spend a lot of time arguing about who is and isn't your neighbor, you're not being a good one.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    So … If you say you’re a Christian and accept the Bible as the final authority, you accept that Jesus’ greatest commandments – love the Lord with all your heart, love your neighbour as yourself – and you do your best to live by that. Jesus didn’t include any small print about who is and isn’t your neighbor.

    No, but He did append a rather lengthy discursus on the subject, the bottom line of which is that if you spend a lot of time arguing about who is and isn't your neighbor, you're not being a good one.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    So … If you say you’re a Christian and accept the Bible as the final authority, you accept that Jesus’ greatest commandments – love the Lord with all your heart, love your neighbour as yourself – and you do your best to live by that. Jesus didn’t include any small print about who is and isn’t your neighbor.

    No, but He did append a rather lengthy discursus on the subject, the bottom line of which is that if you spend a lot of time arguing about who is and isn't your neighbor, you're not being a good one.

    :)
  • ISTM that, if God exists, and she cares about both correct doctrine and compassionate behavior, and if we can only manage one of those...I suspect correct doctrine wouldn't be at the top of her list.

    NOT that it's easy to do, nor that I'm any good at it.
  • It has been said many times before - the test of your faith is whether it amkes yu a better person, a better member of the human race.

    If it doesn't, that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. It does mean that it is not something I want anything to do with.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    ISTM that, if God exists, and she cares about both correct doctrine and compassionate behavior, and if we can only manage one of those...I suspect correct doctrine wouldn't be at the top of her list.

    NOT that it's easy to do, nor that I'm any good at it.

    Just a question - I've heard people talk about God as "our Father and Mother" - that's a topic which is most likely talked about elsewhere on the board.... but She? That's a bit exclusive isn't it?
  • Mark BettsMark Betts Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    Golden Key wrote: »
    ISTM that, if God exists, and she cares about both correct doctrine and compassionate behavior, and if we can only manage one of those...I suspect correct doctrine wouldn't be at the top of her list.

    NOT that it's easy to do, nor that I'm any good at it.

    Having said that, you're not wrong in principle. Sound doctrine should lead to right behaviour, but who decides what sound doctrine is? The reformers?

    Most often, when it comes to doctrine we don't go much beyond talking - but God's more interested in the things we do than the sounds which come out of the end of our trumpets.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Sound doctrine leads to sound doctrine. As fallible humans are e are going to make mistakes. As long as we know this it is not a problem. Deliberate action is a different matter
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Sound doctrine leads to sound doctrine. As fallible humans are e are going to make mistakes. As long as we know this it is not a problem. Deliberate action is a different matter

    Preach the gospel. Sometimes you can use words :wink:
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Most often, when it comes to doctrine we don't go much beyond talking - but God's more interested in the things we do than the sounds which come out of the end of our trumpets.

    Isn't that a matter of some dispute among Christians, though? A lot of evangelicals and Calvinists (two categories with a lot of overlap) are very set against "works righteousness". To them, God doesn't care about "the things we do", just whether or not we hold theologically correct opinions at the moment of our death.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Just breaking radio silence to say 'furnace fodder' is masterful.
    Reading through this thread, I find it is a case where my image of being outside all the linked-to-a-centre loops of a Venn diagram is where I am and suits me better than being in a wedge in a pie chart.. (Saying this seriously, not flippantly by the way.)

    Just because you perceive yourself to be outside the Venn doesn't mean you get a special pie. Plus, mixing up your statistical graphic tools is inadvisable.

    On a more serious note, I think everyone exists in the Venn.
  • SusanDoris was being serious.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    ISTM that, if God exists, and she cares about both correct doctrine and compassionate behavior, and if we can only manage one of those...I suspect correct doctrine wouldn't be at the top of her list.

    NOT that it's easy to do, nor that I'm any good at it.

    Just a question - I've heard people talk about God as "our Father and Mother" - that's a topic which is most likely talked about elsewhere on the board.... but She? That's a bit exclusive isn't it?

    Hahaha! And "He" isn't? Hahahaha! Puh-leeze.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Again, if I -- a female human -- am made in God's image, that necessarily means She's a She. If you -- a human male --are made in God's image, that necessarily means He's a He. Given that we're speaking of a supernaturual being with miraculous powers, that shouldn't be a problem. What IS a problem is that this shows we probably DO create God in OUR image, not the other way around.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Again, if I -- a female human -- am made in God's image, that necessarily means She's a She. If you -- a human male --are made in God's image, that necessarily means He's a He. Given that we're speaking of a supernaturual being with miraculous powers, that shouldn't be a problem. What IS a problem is that this shows we probably DO create God in OUR image, not the other way around.

    This.
This discussion has been closed.