Yes, I was - and perhaps should have added an extra comment that if I was a part of a wedge in a pie, I would feel trapped, whereas in the space outside a more flexible, variable set of curved shapes, I feel free.
The images that we have of God are mixed and include some female imagery.
A loving father is how we as humans can best understand God. That doesn’t mean he is either.
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.
Funny, I haven't heard Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I refer to God recently as "She." How strange......
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.
I don't go out of my way to keep inserting "HE" wherever I can, when talking about God. But, nevertheless, Jesus referred to God as his FATHER (and the Blessed Virgin Mary as his MOTHER) - I'm not going to tell Him he's being exclusive.
The reason God is described as male is because the works were written in a highly patriarchal society. Using the male description defines a role in society. That is the origins of the gendering.
However, this doesn't mean a) that God - the divine being - is gendered in any way that we would understand or b) that imposing the patriarchal society viewpoint is relevant today.
Most critically, this doesn't mean that the divine should be restricted by our limited language (we have no third person singular personal non-gendered descriptor). Or that the patriarchal society that the work was written in or reflects shoudl be used as a model for today.
OK as Schoerdinger’s Cat said the original hearers would have said and as Jesus said.
God is not gendered you can call God him or her. As SC said we have no neutral term to cover both.
MPaul needs to read some other passages, rather than edited highlights approved by some alleged authority other than God. Can I recommend The Sermon on the Mount, the passage in Mark including but not restricted to the widow's mite (and the disciples misunderstanding of same) and last but not least, the Ten Commandments. All of them. With a Concordance, so he can find out what it means.
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.
You have my admiration. And I mean that sincerely. And I think it is great that the Ship has Hell, where the toxicity of gormless cunts like MPaul and Betts can be taken out into the wilderness and beaten into a fine dust.
Seriously, Betts - no one is allowed to disagree here? Fuck off and die. You have experienced more grace here than you or your views deserved.
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.
You have my admiration. And I mean that sincerely. And I think it is great that the Ship has Hell, where the toxicity of gormless cunts like MPaul and Betts can be taken out into the wilderness and beaten into a fine dust.
Seriously, Betts - no one is allowed to disagree here? Fuck off and die. You have experienced more grace here than you or your views deserved.
Or perhaps it could just be that you are wrong. When did I ever say no-one's allowed to disagree?
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.
You have my admiration. And I mean that sincerely. And I think it is great that the Ship has Hell, where the toxicity of gormless cunts like MPaul and Betts can be taken out into the wilderness and beaten into a fine dust.
Seriously, Betts - no one is allowed to disagree here? Fuck off and die. You have experienced more grace here than you or your views deserved.
Or perhaps it could just be that you are wrong. When did I ever say no-one's allowed to disagree?
Earlier in this very thread, when you farted forth: "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."
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.
You have my admiration. And I mean that sincerely. And I think it is great that the Ship has Hell, where the toxicity of gormless cunts like MPaul and Betts can be taken out into the wilderness and beaten into a fine dust.
Seriously, Betts - no one is allowed to disagree here? Fuck off and die. You have experienced more grace here than you or your views deserved.
Or perhaps it could just be that you are wrong. When did I ever say no-one's allowed to disagree?
Earlier in this very thread, when you farted forth: "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."
Have you proper reproducible evidence that stands up to rational investigation, to prove the contrary?
Thought so.
Out of time today. But off the top of my head, Big-Bang and Evolution are good starting points.
But they answer a different question - how, rather than who, or why.
There's beer in the glass. Why? I could explain it in terms of CO2 pressure in a barrel higher than that in the atmosphere forcing beer out of the barrel when the tap was turned and a glass placed underneath.
Or I could reply it's because I was thirsty. Both are true.
So you can prove what happened at The Big Bang (or will at least try)?
Good luck. Who fired the fuse, though?
It's always the same with atheists, no?
They say we 'Christians' (whatever we might mean by that term) can't rationally prove that there IS a 'god' (whatever we might mean by that word), but, equally, they can't rationally prove that there ISN'T.
Didn't some atheists run into problems a few years ago by trying to put posters saying 'There is no God' on buses in London? IIRC, they had to be content with 'There probably is no God', or words to that effect. Pity they couldn't find anything better to spend their £££ on, but YMMV.
Whereupon, again IIRC, the Orthodox Churches responded with posters saying 'There probably is a God, and He wants you to be happy!', or, again, words to that effect.
I would say again that these things are unfasifiable - I mean that God created time, space, blah, blah. You can't negate it really, because if you advance a mechanical description, e.g., the Big Bang, it's straightforward to say that God did that. Whether or not an idea that cannot be falsified, is useful, seems to depend on taste as much as anything.
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.
You have my admiration. And I mean that sincerely. And I think it is great that the Ship has Hell, where the toxicity of gormless cunts like MPaul and Betts can be taken out into the wilderness and beaten into a fine dust.
Seriously, Betts - no one is allowed to disagree here? Fuck off and die. You have experienced more grace here than you or your views deserved.
Or perhaps it could just be that you are wrong. When did I ever say no-one's allowed to disagree?
Earlier in this very thread, when you farted forth: "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."
I think they put "There is probably no god", as they are agnostic atheists, not strong atheists, (I know that there is no god).
ISWYM, but I think they may simply have fallen foul of the Trades Descriptions Act, or whatever!
FWIW, something similar happened to a fundamentalist sect around here, which claimed (in their publicity) to be able to 'cure' autism (Yes! Really!). A recipient of their house-to-house postcard took exception to this, took them to Law, and they had to retract the claim....NO PROOF!
There are strong atheists around, but I'm not sure how they argue it. Dawkins did a scale from 1-7, where 7 equals "certain there are no gods", and some people on his old forum put 7. Dawkins described himself as 6.9. Why not 6.999999? 1 is "100% probability of God".
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.
You have my admiration. And I mean that sincerely. And I think it is great that the Ship has Hell, where the toxicity of gormless cunts like MPaul and Betts can be taken out into the wilderness and beaten into a fine dust.
Seriously, Betts - no one is allowed to disagree here? Fuck off and die. You have experienced more grace here than you or your views deserved.
Or perhaps it could just be that you are wrong. When did I ever say no-one's allowed to disagree?
Earlier in this very thread, when you farted forth: "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."
Anything to add Betts, you total deadshit?
My account's been hacked.
So which wasn't you? The statement or the denial that you'd said it? Or the claim you were hacked? Or?
"The dog ate my homework" is about something that hasn't been done
"My account was hacked" is about something that has been done (but it wasn't me)
Not at all! "The dog ate my homework" is about something that has been done, but the dog ate it, therefore not my fault!
Likewise "my account was hacked" is also about something that was done, but by some malicious hacker, therefore not my fault!
It's all about finding a (semi-)plausible scapegoat and daring everyone else to say "pics or it didn't happen".
"The dog ate my homework" is about something that hasn't been done
"My account was hacked" is about something that has been done (but it wasn't me)
Not at all! "The dog ate my homework" is about something that has been done, but the dog ate it, therefore not my fault!
Likewise "my account was hacked" is also about something that was done, but by some malicious hacker, therefore not my fault!
It's all about finding a (semi-)plausible scapegoat and daring everyone else to say "pics or it didn't happen".
I beg to differ. Think about two imaginary scenarios where the two phrases might be used.
In the first, the student wants his mum and dad (or teacher) to think he has done his homework, but because the "dog ate it" he cannot produce it. However, in reality he hasn't done it.
In the second, the person is likely to have posted something, erm… compromising, but later wishes he hadn't - so he tries to convince certain persons that he didn't post it, but this time the reality is that he has posted it.
So, you see, the scenarios are actually not the same, but opposites.
Surely the point is that both are frequently used as a childish lie to excuse something people don't want to take responsibility for - whether that is an act or an omission is irrelevant to the point. Normally it's teenage girls I see claiming their little brother got onto their account, after they've posted something mean and they have got a lot of backlash for it. I've never seen an adult do it.
Surely the point is that both are frequently used as a childish lie to excuse something people don't want to take responsibility for - whether that is an act or an omission is irrelevant to the point. Normally it's teenage girls I see claiming their little brother got onto their account, after they've posted something mean and they have got a lot of backlash for it. I've never seen an adult do it.
Yes, I'll agree with that. The point I was trying to make is that (as you said) one is an act, the other an omission.
You say you've never heard an adult do it, but the last time I heard it was when (the late) George Michael's boyfriend claimed someone had hacked into his twitter account.
I know the point you were making, but as I said, it seemed irrelevant to the point being made. Kind of like if someone were likening someone to a cat, because of certain behaviours, and the person were to respond with, 'But I don't have fur and a tail, so I'm nothing like a cat.'
And yes, I'm sure adults do it too. I'm talking about my own experience of observations on websites I've been on. I don't follow celeb twitter accounts. (And I realise you may not follow them either, and you might have just heard of it elsewhere, etc.)
…..And yes, I'm sure adults do it too. I'm talking about my own experience of observations on websites I've been on. I don't follow celeb twitter accounts. (And I realise you may not follow them either, and you might have just heard of it elsewhere, etc.)
No, I don't follow celeb twitter accounts - the incident I referred to was in the news.
Neither Mark Betts nor MPaul is remotely capable of taking out contemporary Christianity in any of its forms, regardless of flimsy excuses, bigotry, or anything else.
What IS the cause of dwindling attendance at mainstream churches? The vast cracks which have appeared in our social fabric, revealing the strains of ordinary people's commitments to the gospel message? The frailties of Christian leaders with their widespread susceptibility to greed, power, and sexual abuse? The deepening sense of the uselessness of passive prayer and patient tolerance against the spreading, poisonous, Lewis-like shades of evil seeping into our work, our good deeds, our passions, our hopes?
What IS the cause of people swarming toward the rigid rules and certainties of reductionist views of scripture that turn a message of compassion into one of exclusion and hate? They very same forces.
Christianity crushes itself under its own weight -- splitting, dividing, malicious and bitter in-fighting, murderous rampages -- and ages of unrealized hopes, betrayed ideals, and shattered promises. It's taken 2,000 years, but the average human is finally realizing that there is no there there.
Didn't some atheists run into problems a few years ago by trying to put posters saying 'There is no God' on buses in London? IIRC, they had to be content with 'There probably is no God', or words to that effect. Pity they couldn't find anything better to spend their £££ on, but YMMV.
Whereupon, again IIRC, the Orthodox Churches responded with posters saying 'There probably is a God, and He wants you to be happy!', or, again, words to that effect.
(I rather hope my recollections are correct!).
According to Wikipedia, the slogan was "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." from the start, and the Advertising Standards Authority ruled "that the adverts were not in breach of its rules as the advert 'was an expression of the advertiser's opinion' and was incapable of substantiation. They also claimed that although the advert was contrary to many people's beliefs, it would not generate 'serious or widespread offence'."
Neither Mark Betts nor MPaul is remotely capable of taking out contemporary Christianity in any of its forms, regardless of flimsy excuses, bigotry, or anything else.
What IS the cause of dwindling attendance at mainstream churches? The vast cracks which have appeared in our social fabric, revealing the strains of ordinary people's commitments to the gospel message? The frailties of Christian leaders with their widespread susceptibility to greed, power, and sexual abuse? The deepening sense of the uselessness of passive prayer and patient tolerance against the spreading, poisonous, Lewis-like shades of evil seeping into our work, our good deeds, our passions, our hopes?
What IS the cause of people swarming toward the rigid rules and certainties of reductionist views of scripture that turn a message of compassion into one of exclusion and hate? They very same forces.
Christianity crushes itself under its own weight -- splitting, dividing, malicious and bitter in-fighting, murderous rampages -- and ages of unrealized hopes, betrayed ideals, and shattered promises. It's taken 2,000 years, but the average human is finally realizing that there is no there there.
Neither Mark Betts nor MPaul is remotely capable of taking out contemporary Christianity in any of its forms, regardless of flimsy excuses, bigotry, or anything else.
What IS the cause of dwindling attendance at mainstream churches? The vast cracks which have appeared in our social fabric, revealing the strains of ordinary people's commitments to the gospel message? The frailties of Christian leaders with their widespread susceptibility to greed, power, and sexual abuse? The deepening sense of the uselessness of passive prayer and patient tolerance against the spreading, poisonous, Lewis-like shades of evil seeping into our work, our good deeds, our passions, our hopes?
What IS the cause of people swarming toward the rigid rules and certainties of reductionist views of scripture that turn a message of compassion into one of exclusion and hate? They very same forces.
Christianity crushes itself under its own weight -- splitting, dividing, malicious and bitter in-fighting, murderous rampages -- and ages of unrealized hopes, betrayed ideals, and shattered promises. It's taken 2,000 years, but the average human is finally realizing that there is no there there.
I think that is only a part of the problem certainly here in Blighty. The main problem is that going to church is no longer what you do. It used to be you went to church full stop no questions. What we have now are actually people who believe. Those who went out of a sense of obligation are not going. You could say the church is leaner and fitter.
Neither Mark Betts nor MPaul is remotely capable of taking out contemporary Christianity in any of its forms, regardless of flimsy excuses, bigotry, or anything else.
What IS the cause of dwindling attendance at mainstream churches? The vast cracks which have appeared in our social fabric, revealing the strains of ordinary people's commitments to the gospel message? The frailties of Christian leaders with their widespread susceptibility to greed, power, and sexual abuse? The deepening sense of the uselessness of passive prayer and patient tolerance against the spreading, poisonous, Lewis-like shades of evil seeping into our work, our good deeds, our passions, our hopes?
What IS the cause of people swarming toward the rigid rules and certainties of reductionist views of scripture that turn a message of compassion into one of exclusion and hate? They very same forces.
Christianity crushes itself under its own weight -- splitting, dividing, malicious and bitter in-fighting, murderous rampages -- and ages of unrealized hopes, betrayed ideals, and shattered promises. It's taken 2,000 years, but the average human is finally realizing that there is no there there.
I think that is only a part of the problem certainly here in Blighty. The main problem is that going to church is no longer what you do. It used to be you went to church full stop no questions. What we have now are actually people who believe. Those who went out of a sense of obligation are not going. You could say the church is leaner and fitter.
Well, Ohher's post is simply the tiresome old sceptics' point scoring we've heard so often from the likes of Stephen Fry and Jimmy Carr (desperate former "comedians" who ceased to be funny long ago).
However, Hugal does have a point worth making. Church-going used to be the thing "normal" people did - it was part of our culture. Now it is anti-cultural and you need to be strong-willed and thick skinned to hold on to your faith and continue going to church, while everyone else is shopping, working, or going to a car boot sale.
...What IS the cause of dwindling attendance at mainstream churches? The vast cracks which have appeared in our social fabric, revealing the strains of ordinary people's commitments to the gospel message? ... The deepening sense of the uselessness of passive prayer and patient tolerance against the spreading, poisonous, Lewis-like shades of evil seeping into our work, our good deeds, our passions, our hopes?...
I found the whole of your post thought-provoking, but would you unpack the above parts a bit so I can understand better.
You could also say that the church is more fanatical, more self-seeking and less prepared to see itself as serving the whole of creation, when the whole of creation is on its way to being the kingdom of God.
Why should anyone beyond it give a monkey's about a self-seeking members' club, that tends to see the world beyond through a distorting lens of its own creation, which also gives it far too much comfort about itself?
And yet lots of churches are food banks. Lots of churches are CAP centres. Lots of churches provide food to the homeless. Lots of churches are active in their community. We my local government wanted to distribute money and work out where the money was best spent they came to the churches. Churches provide Patent and Toddler groups, pensioners groups, I could go on. Doesn’t sound very self centred to me.
Comments
What mt and Oher said.
We discussed this many times on the Vintage Ship. Some past convos you might find enlightening:
"Purgatory: Use of the Pronoun She When Referring to God" (Limbo).
"The Sacred Feminine" (DVC).
A loving father is how we as humans can best understand God. That doesn’t mean he is either.
Funny, I haven't heard Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I refer to God recently as "She." How strange......
I don't go out of my way to keep inserting "HE" wherever I can, when talking about God. But, nevertheless, Jesus referred to God as his FATHER (and the Blessed Virgin Mary as his MOTHER) - I'm not going to tell Him he's being exclusive.
However, this doesn't mean a) that God - the divine being - is gendered in any way that we would understand or b) that imposing the patriarchal society viewpoint is relevant today.
Most critically, this doesn't mean that the divine should be restricted by our limited language (we have no third person singular personal non-gendered descriptor). Or that the patriarchal society that the work was written in or reflects shoudl be used as a model for today.
OK as Schoerdinger’s Cat said the original hearers would have said and as Jesus said.
God is not gendered you can call God him or her. As SC said we have no neutral term to cover both.
If anyone is wondering, mass was constructed by the Church of Rome.
Seriously, Betts - no one is allowed to disagree here? Fuck off and die. You have experienced more grace here than you or your views deserved.
Or perhaps it could just be that you are wrong. When did I ever say no-one's allowed to disagree?
Earlier in this very thread, when you farted forth: "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."
I didn't doubt that. I do think her perception is a little off-kilter.
Err. Evidence?
Revelation??
Anything to add Betts, you total deadshit?
What? I mean proper reproducible evidence that stands up to rational investigation.
Have you proper reproducible evidence that stands up to rational investigation, to prove the contrary?
Thought so.
Out of time today. But off the top of my head, Big-Bang and Evolution are good starting points.
But they answer a different question - how, rather than who, or why.
There's beer in the glass. Why? I could explain it in terms of CO2 pressure in a barrel higher than that in the atmosphere forcing beer out of the barrel when the tap was turned and a glass placed underneath.
Or I could reply it's because I was thirsty. Both are true.
Good luck. Who fired the fuse, though?
It's always the same with atheists, no?
They say we 'Christians' (whatever we might mean by that term) can't rationally prove that there IS a 'god' (whatever we might mean by that word), but, equally, they can't rationally prove that there ISN'T.
Didn't some atheists run into problems a few years ago by trying to put posters saying 'There is no God' on buses in London? IIRC, they had to be content with 'There probably is no God', or words to that effect. Pity they couldn't find anything better to spend their £££ on, but YMMV.
Whereupon, again IIRC, the Orthodox Churches responded with posters saying 'There probably is a God, and He wants you to be happy!', or, again, words to that effect.
(I rather hope my recollections are correct!).
My account's been hacked.
If this is actually true, please PM an Admin immediately.
DT
HH
Well not hacked exactly, someone typed it in while I was AFK, but still logged in.
ISWYM, but I think they may simply have fallen foul of the Trades Descriptions Act, or whatever!
FWIW, something similar happened to a fundamentalist sect around here, which claimed (in their publicity) to be able to 'cure' autism (Yes! Really!). A recipient of their house-to-house postcard took exception to this, took them to Law, and they had to retract the claim....NO PROOF!
What is it with these Bozos™?
So which wasn't you? The statement or the denial that you'd said it? Or the claim you were hacked? Or?
DT
HH
Not really.
"The dog ate my homework" is about something that hasn't been done
"My account was hacked" is about something that has been done (but it wasn't me)
Not at all! "The dog ate my homework" is about something that has been done, but the dog ate it, therefore not my fault!
Likewise "my account was hacked" is also about something that was done, but by some malicious hacker, therefore not my fault!
It's all about finding a (semi-)plausible scapegoat and daring everyone else to say "pics or it didn't happen".
I beg to differ. Think about two imaginary scenarios where the two phrases might be used.
In the first, the student wants his mum and dad (or teacher) to think he has done his homework, but because the "dog ate it" he cannot produce it. However, in reality he hasn't done it.
In the second, the person is likely to have posted something, erm… compromising, but later wishes he hadn't - so he tries to convince certain persons that he didn't post it, but this time the reality is that he has posted it.
So, you see, the scenarios are actually not the same, but opposites.
Yes, I'll agree with that. The point I was trying to make is that (as you said) one is an act, the other an omission.
You say you've never heard an adult do it, but the last time I heard it was when (the late) George Michael's boyfriend claimed someone had hacked into his twitter account.
And yes, I'm sure adults do it too. I'm talking about my own experience of observations on websites I've been on. I don't follow celeb twitter accounts. (And I realise you may not follow them either, and you might have just heard of it elsewhere, etc.)
Neither Mark Betts nor MPaul is remotely capable of taking out contemporary Christianity in any of its forms, regardless of flimsy excuses, bigotry, or anything else.
What IS the cause of dwindling attendance at mainstream churches? The vast cracks which have appeared in our social fabric, revealing the strains of ordinary people's commitments to the gospel message? The frailties of Christian leaders with their widespread susceptibility to greed, power, and sexual abuse? The deepening sense of the uselessness of passive prayer and patient tolerance against the spreading, poisonous, Lewis-like shades of evil seeping into our work, our good deeds, our passions, our hopes?
What IS the cause of people swarming toward the rigid rules and certainties of reductionist views of scripture that turn a message of compassion into one of exclusion and hate? They very same forces.
Christianity crushes itself under its own weight -- splitting, dividing, malicious and bitter in-fighting, murderous rampages -- and ages of unrealized hopes, betrayed ideals, and shattered promises. It's taken 2,000 years, but the average human is finally realizing that there is no there there.
I think that is only a part of the problem certainly here in Blighty. The main problem is that going to church is no longer what you do. It used to be you went to church full stop no questions. What we have now are actually people who believe. Those who went out of a sense of obligation are not going. You could say the church is leaner and fitter.
Well, Ohher's post is simply the tiresome old sceptics' point scoring we've heard so often from the likes of Stephen Fry and Jimmy Carr (desperate former "comedians" who ceased to be funny long ago).
However, Hugal does have a point worth making. Church-going used to be the thing "normal" people did - it was part of our culture. Now it is anti-cultural and you need to be strong-willed and thick skinned to hold on to your faith and continue going to church, while everyone else is shopping, working, or going to a car boot sale.
Thanks
You could also say that the church is more fanatical, more self-seeking and less prepared to see itself as serving the whole of creation, when the whole of creation is on its way to being the kingdom of God.
Why should anyone beyond it give a monkey's about a self-seeking members' club, that tends to see the world beyond through a distorting lens of its own creation, which also gives it far too much comfort about itself?