MPaul: the reason Christianity is dying on the vine

1246711

Comments

  • Hugal wrote: »
    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.

    Secularists' eyes only see what they want to see.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    . You could say the church is leaner and fitter.

    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?

    What Hugal said.

    It is simply not true to say the the church is self-seeking, or fanatical, where I live. Rather, it reaches out to those around it, in Christian love. Nobody within it is perfect, we know that and hope others will accept us for who we are, as we do them.

    Perhaps it's the world which sometimes looks at the church through a distorting lens of its own creation.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    . You could say the church is leaner and fitter.

    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?

    What Hugal said.

    It is simply not true to say the the church is self-seeking, or fanatical, where I live. Rather, it reaches out to those around it, in Christian love. Nobody within it is perfect, we know that and hope others will accept us for who we are, as we do them.

    Perhaps it's the world which sometimes looks at the church through a distorting lens of its own creation.

    This.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @Raptor Eye said - It is simply not true to say the the church is self-seeking, or fanatical, where I live. Rather, it reaches out to those around it, in Christian love. Nobody within it is perfect, we know that and hope others will accept us for who we are, as we do them.

    I agree, it’s the thing that keeps me going to our Church as my faith in God has all but disappeared. I still think the Church is a great community and force for good - ours certainly is.
  • Thinking about this further, I believe there are two answers to the question depending on who you are and where you are looking from. I didn't acknowledge the local efforts congregations make, and the work done at that level, and I apologise for that. But I still feel that I have a point when it comes to the church hierarchy and the structure of which those local congregations are part. Things like the parish share and the way in which the structure of parishes is settled is around money, rather than need on the ground. There is also the fundamental question of whether the kingdom is built in the church or the world. To my mind, it is unequivocally in the world. Therefore the focus I perceive on emptying the world into the church is totally misplaced. It needs to be stood on its head. This will have more of an effect on some elements of the church than others, but I believe they are the elements of which the outside world is more conscious unless and until personal contact with a local church congregation happens, often by accident.

    My thoughts about this are not fully formed, but I thought I needed to respond.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    ...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 tseveral hours from now.he 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.

    Thanks

    Pressed for time at the mo; will come back to this later.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    No.

    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.

    who and why are, I believe, false questions. There is no purpose or meaning to existence.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    No.

    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.

    who and why are, I believe, false questions. There is no purpose or meaning to existence.

    Well, there won't be if you decide those questions have no meaning. Which starts to look like begging the question.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    No.

    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.

    who and why are, I believe, false questions. There is no purpose or meaning to existence.

    So why do you bother getting up in the morning, and posting on these boards?

  • So you can prove what happened at The Big Bang (or will at least try)?

    Good luck. Who fired the fuse, though?
    :warning:

    It's always the same with atheists, no?
    :weary:

    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!).
    :tired_face:

    Problem is "God created time, space, and gender. None of these constructs apply to him" is a statement of fact. There's no statement that it's a belief or anything. It's presented as fact. Now, to take one element, we know that some humans are born hermaphrodites, as are some mammals. We know that many forms of life, perhaps most forms of life, use asexual reproduction. They're not male or female. We also know that some species are hermaphroditic: that includes many plants and molluscs. We also know that the individuals of some species are able to change sex depending on their environment.

    So the idea that God created gender is misleading to say the least.

    As for "who fired the fuse"? the answer is no one. It's a modern-day example of blaming thunder on the gods being angry.
  • My recollections as to the posters on the buses weren't quite correct (no surprise there), but the point remains.

    @Colin Smith , please answer my previous post. Why, as an avowed atheist (a POV you are, of course, perfectly entitled to - and Your People can show their gratitude for my magnanimity by contacting My People), do you bother trying to persuade us Stupid and Deluded folk that there is/are no g(G)od(s)?

    Have you nothing better to do? Like making a bacon sandwich, or taking the dog for a walk?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    My recollections as to the posters on the buses weren't quite correct (no surprise there), but the point remains.

    @Colin Smith , please answer my previous post. Why, as an avowed atheist (a POV you are, of course, perfectly entitled to - and Your People can show their gratitude for my magnanimity by contacting My People), do you bother trying to persuade us Stupid and Deluded folk that there is/are no g(G)od(s)?

    Have you nothing better to do? Like making a bacon sandwich, or taking the dog for a walk?

    Surely the same reason all of us are here - he enjoys a discussion?

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Just fuck off, @Colin Smith. You're bringing half-assed philosophy to a well-honed teleology fight. Worse, you are making it into a distraction from some real insight that could be foisted on these god-botherers.

    "God doesn't exist." That will just make people defensive and utterly intractable, and for no good purpose. People having religious faith is not necessarily a bad thing. As noted above, churches/temples/mosques generally are important forces for helping their local communities.

    "Organized religion has developed some large social problems." This is a real thing that they care about, and something we can help them wrestle with improving. The large-scale political actions of religious groups has had grossly negative affect for most people, and the abuses of power are undeniable. If those could be ameliorated, everything else about religion becomes a pleasant debate amongst fellow well-meaning sentient beings.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    …..as my faith in God has all but disappeared....
    But it hasn't, has it? I'd be curious to know what that tiny bit left over comprises of - maybe it's not so tiny after all.

  • Boogie wrote: »
    My recollections as to the posters on the buses weren't quite correct (no surprise there), but the point remains.

    @Colin Smith , please answer my previous post. Why, as an avowed atheist (a POV you are, of course, perfectly entitled to - and Your People can show their gratitude for my magnanimity by contacting My People), do you bother trying to persuade us Stupid and Deluded folk that there is/are no g(G)od(s)?

    Have you nothing better to do? Like making a bacon sandwich, or taking the dog for a walk?

    Surely the same reason all of us are here - he enjoys a discussion?

    exactly
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Rook I agree with a lot of what you say, but large scale political actions by people of faith have lead to changes in the law for good. Slavery being banned for a start. Yes there are problems but as you pointed out there are also positives

  • @Colin Smith , please answer my previous post. Why, as an avowed atheist (a POV you are, of course, perfectly entitled to - and Your People can show their gratitude for my magnanimity by contacting My People), do you bother trying to persuade us Stupid and Deluded folk that there is/are no g(G)od(s)?

    Have you nothing better to do? Like making a bacon sandwich, or taking the dog for a walk?

    I'm not. I'm pointing out that asking 'why' and 'who' of an event that was, in my opinion, arbitrary and meaningless is unreasonable.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Just fuck off, @Colin Smith. You're bringing half-assed philosophy to a well-honed teleology fight. Worse, you are making it into a distraction from some real insight that could be foisted on these god-botherers.

    "God doesn't exist." That will just make people defensive and utterly intractable, and for no good purpose. People having religious faith is not necessarily a bad thing. As noted above, churches/temples/mosques generally are important forces for helping their local communities.

    "Organized religion has developed some large social problems." This is a real thing that they care about, and something we can help them wrestle with improving. The large-scale political actions of religious groups has had grossly negative affect for most people, and the abuses of power are undeniable. If those could be ameliorated, everything else about religion becomes a pleasant debate amongst fellow well-meaning sentient beings.

    Where have I said "God doesn't exist."?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    No.

    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.

    who and why are, I believe, false questions. There is no purpose or meaning to existence.

    So why do you bother getting up in the morning, and posting on these boards?

    Because it passes the time.
  • IIRC, the Moomintroll books by Tove Jansson include a certain Uncle Muskrat, who possesses a book entitled 'The Uselessness of Everything'.

    @Colin Smith , you are the author of that book, and I claim my £5!
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    Problem is "God created time, space, and gender. None of these constructs apply to him" is a statement of fact. There's no statement that it's a belief or anything. It's presented as fact.
    This is a bulletin board where people talk about religion a lot, and where a relatively high proportion of posters are religious. Your requirement that we mark every belief statement as such is stupid and ridiculous.

    The statement "God created time, space, and gender. None of these constructs apply to him" was not directed at you, but was made in a conversation between two religious people about whether we can address God with a female pronoun. Within such a conversation, a mutual agreement about God's existence can be assumed, and doesn't need to be stated.
  • IIRC, the Moomintroll books by Tove Jansson include a certain Uncle Muskrat, who possesses a book entitled 'The Uselessness of Everything'.

    @Colin Smith , you are the author of that book, and I claim my £5!

    :smiley: I wish I had written anything as good as Moomintroll!
  • So do I.....
    :flushed:
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    …..as my faith in God has all but disappeared....
    But it hasn't, has it? I'd be curious to know what that tiny bit left over comprises of - maybe it's not so tiny after all.

    It comprises of a feeling that I’m not alone in the darkest times, that there is some ‘force’ for good and source of comfort ‘out there’. The only times I’ve had that feeling in the last five years or so is at hard times - e.g. at the death bed of loved ones. I’ve no idea if the feeling is self generated but, for some reason, I hold on to it and call it ‘God’.



  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Rook I agree with a lot of what you say, but large scale political actions by people of faith have lead to changes in the law for good. Slavery being banned for a start. Yes there are problems but as you pointed out there are also positives

    I'm going to farm out the response to this bit of self-congratulatory boosterism to Frederick Douglass.
    But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines. who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.

    <snip>

    The American church is guilty, when viewed in connection with what it is doing to uphold slavery; but it is superlatively guilty when viewed in connection with its ability to abolish slavery. The sin of which it is guilty is one of omission as well as of commission. Albert Barnes but uttered what the common sense of every man at all observant of the actual state of the case will receive as truth, when he declared that “There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it.”

    Let the religious press, the pulpit, the Sunday school, the conference meeting, the great ecclesiastical, missionary, Bible and tract associations of the land array their immense powers against slavery and slave-holding; and the whole system of crime and blood would be scattered to the winds; and that they do not do this involves them in the most awful responsibility of which the mind can conceive.

    This seems to be par for the course. A few exceptional cases are presented as typical of the church as a whole while the bulk of those who were on the wrong side of history are quietly whitewashed from memory. My guess is that in a few decades some rare exceptional cases will be used to "prove" that the church led the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay discrimination. It's always popular to engage in the self-deception of saying "if we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets".
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    …..as my faith in God has all but disappeared....
    But it hasn't, has it? I'd be curious to know what that tiny bit left over comprises of - maybe it's not so tiny after all.

    It comprises of a feeling that I’m not alone in the darkest times, that there is some ‘force’ for good and source of comfort ‘out there’. The only times I’ve had that feeling in the last five years or so is at hard times - e.g. at the death bed of loved ones. I’ve no idea if the feeling is self generated but, for some reason, I hold on to it and call it ‘God’.



    I suspect that many Shipmates could say much the same, albeit not necessarily in exactly those terms.

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Where have I said "God doesn't exist."?

    Do you really think yourself so subtle, pedant-boy? The conversation stirs among the boughs, and you deign to beaver away on one of the tree's lower trunk.
  • :lol:

    Stamp-collecting, or model railways, are much more rewarding ways of 'passing the time'.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Where have I said "God doesn't exist."?

    Do you really think yourself so subtle, pedant-boy? The conversation stirs among the boughs, and you deign to beaver away on one of the tree's lower trunk.

    Now, I believe there is no God, yes. But I have never said there is no God. Nor would I. The most I could say is that I cannot conceive or imagine a God or god answering to the description of any theistic belief.

    I challenged what was an apparent statement of fact that "God created time, space, and gender" and asked for evidence. The reply was "Revelation" which I regard as synonymous with because I imagined it so. I was then asked to provide evidence for my beliefs. I cited Big Bang and Evolution, for which there is plenty of material evidence. This was challenged because neither answer the questions of why and who. I argued that these are irrelevant questions for something that I hold to be arbitrary and meaningless.

    Basically, if I see an apparently objective statement that God exists, I will challenge it, just as I would expect to be challenged if I said there is no God.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Oh, for pity's sake.

    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.
    Many interesting points - in particular this last paragraph. My thoughts during this thread have been on the lines of, 'Well, the background of information and proven, working knowledge of all branches of science and technology is gradually being consolidated and relied upon, while at the same time its failings, human failings, because it is humans who design every part of it all, are acknowledged and being taken into
    account.

    What I had not thought of until your post was the aspect of people leaving or moving away from a particular branch of Christianity still with th eneed to be with something similar. What is not vailable to move into is an atheist 'church' which would work and 'take offf'! Other things, like sports, won't work and the areas of Christianity that people are moving away from cannot - not yet anyway!! - carry on leaving out the aspects which require 100% .faith.

    I have thought this before, but your paragraph and post certainly put it in a different way. Thank you.
    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.

  • :lol:

    Stamp-collecting, or model railways, are much more rewarding ways of 'passing the time'.

    Never been into stamps. I am a member of a few model railway and real railway forums.

    But I do enjoy discussion and have an academic interest in all sorts of beliefs. It is enjoyable seeing how others view the world. My only hard stance is that none of us are capable of an objective understanding of reality. We only ever have our subjective experience of it.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    @Colin Smith Suppose that you are on a bulletin board of Star Wars fans. And a couple of people on there are discussing whether Han Solo shot first in the Cantina. They are talking between them about things like what the expression in his face was, where his hands were etc.

    From your Atheist point of view, there isn't a real difference between two Christians having a discussion about God, or two Star Wars fans discussing Han Solo. To you, in both cases people are discussing an imaginary character that doesn't really exist.

    Would you barge into the Star Wars discussion asking for evidence that a blaster really exists? Would the people discussing there need to preface everything they say with "we imagine Han Solo; we don't have evidence of his existence"?

    Or would you accept this as a thought experiment: "What if what we see in the Star Wars movies were real?" and then maybe we can have an interesting discussion about that.


    (PS He absolutely shot first.)
  • :lol:

    Stamp-collecting, or model railways, are much more rewarding ways of 'passing the time'.

    Don't forget not stamp collecting. I can spend many happy hours not doing that and then, afterwards, I feel refreshed and look forward to not doing something else.
  • New Atheists like Colin Smith are as interesting as drying paint. You realise that to the denizens you are not much more than a new chew toy, don't you Colin? SusanDoris never seems too have grasped that.
    What I really want to know is - was Betts' account really hacked?
  • New Atheists like Colin Smith are as interesting as drying paint. You realise that to the denizens you are not much more than a new chew toy, don't you Colin? SusanDoris never seems too have grasped that.
    What I really want to know is - was Betts' account really hacked?

    Well I can answer that for you, Darky my old bud. The matter's closed.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    New Atheists like Colin Smith are as interesting as drying paint.
    What disappoints me most is how incredibly dumb they are. The problem I have is not that they attack religion. The problem is that they completely mangle logic and Science while doing so. Of course the irony is that while they hold them up as superior to religion, they show all the time that they understand neither logic nor Science.

    The requirement that Christians should preface every statement they make about God with "this is what I believe" is utterly ridiculous. Because it immediately expands to the requirement that people in general qualify every statement for which they lack scientific evidence this way.

    This isn't how human communication works. Humans talk all the time, based on facts, based on their beliefs, based on their emotions, based on how many drinks they had … Just picture a normal human conversation, and imagine that they would have to start every non-scientifically-proven sentence with "this is what I believe". Any reasonably intelligent person would see the absurdity of this immediately.

    I've tried to explain this to SusanDoris a number of times, but I think we all agree she is too dumb to understand a simple thing like this. I still have hopes for Colin Smith, but maybe I'm being naive. Time will tell.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    New Atheists like Colin Smith are as interesting as drying paint. You realise that to the denizens you are not much more than a new chew toy, don't you Colin? SusanDoris never seems too have grasped that.
    What I really want to know is - was Betts' account really hacked?

    Oh, I think they both grasp it. They just don't care. That's real asbestos underwear.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    …..as my faith in God has all but disappeared....
    But it hasn't, has it? I'd be curious to know what that tiny bit left over comprises of - maybe it's not so tiny after all.

    It comprises of a feeling that I’m not alone in the darkest times, that there is some ‘force’ for good and source of comfort ‘out there’. The only times I’ve had that feeling in the last five years or so is at hard times - e.g. at the death bed of loved ones. I’ve no idea if the feeling is self generated but, for some reason, I hold on to it and call it ‘God’.



    I suspect that many Shipmates could say much the same, albeit not necessarily in exactly those terms.

    The "something bigger" or even just the possibility of it. Even Richard Dawkins hasn't ruled it out, which is why some see him as a possible theist rather than a confirmed atheist. The evangelical atheists don't like that idea of course, but..

    (I'm sure the Ship's evangelical atheists will fill in for me, whether I ask them to or not.)
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited April 2019
    Basically, if I see an apparently objective statement that God exists, I will challenge it, just as I would expect to be challenged if I said there is no God.

    Careful, kiddo; that is functionally similar to declaring yourself a crusader. Reference: Commandment 8.

    More importantly, it makes you a shitty contributor as well as a failure as a thinker. The shitty-contributor-ness is obvious: it turns every mention of god into an excuse to argue your personal crusade. The failure as a thinker is due to your inability to work from assumptions. In this particular case, somebody provided an elegant argument to bring a religious perspective to closely parallel the result of a secular humanist perspective. Instead of seeing the harmonic win of such an alignment, you shit on it for the sake of your weak-ass petty bullshit. Why? Because you suck.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    New Atheists like Colin Smith are as interesting as drying paint. You realise that to the denizens you are not much more than a new chew toy, don't you Colin? SusanDoris never seems too have grasped that.
    What I really want to know is - was Betts' account really hacked?

    Well I can answer that for you, Darky my old bud. The matter's closed.

    And yet, you failed to answer it. You really are a waste of time.

    Can someone else?
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    I'm fairly sure he wasn't - just posted something he later regretted and decided to go all cutesy on us rather than admitting he stuffed up.

    As someone who stuffs up themselves, but will (usually) admit to it if challenged, I don't think being coy about it wins any brownie points.

    Of course I may be totally wrong - in which case - whoops, sorry.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    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.

    Secularists' eyes only see what they want to see.

    You just can't stop generalising. Paul Simon did it much better.
    I am just a poor boy
    Though my story's seldom told
    I have squandered my resistance
    For a pocketful of mumbles
    Such are promises
    All lies and jest
    Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
    And disregards the rest

    (The Boxer Lyrics)
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    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?
    Do you think God is male? It's useful to be able to say "Our Father in heaven," but I rather doubt that the Creator, who made both male and female in God's image, has gender. That strikes me as rather primitive, frankly.


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    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?
    Do you think God is male? It's useful to be able to say "Our Father in heaven," but I rather doubt that the Creator, who made both male and female in God's image, has gender. That strikes me as rather primitive, frankly.
    He was trying to mimic this post.

    Bless his heart.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Bless his heart, indeed.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    admin mode/
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    What I really want to know is - was Betts' account really hacked?

    Well I can answer that for you, Darky my old bud. The matter's closed.

    Oh, it's closed, is it? Why is that then?

    So far as we can tell, you haven't contacted any admins for help, and you haven't provided any explanation. Unless you provide one, or alternatively an apology for what looks like a pathetic excuse not to own comments you actually made, you can expect further action from upstairs. We take this kind of thing very seriously.

    /admin mode

  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    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?
    Do you think God is male? It's useful to be able to say "Our Father in heaven," but I rather doubt that the Creator, who made both male and female in God's image, has gender. That strikes me as rather primitive, frankly.


    Technically it's probably right to say that God doesn't have a gender. However, how are we to understand or even envisage the Incarnation if Jesus had two mothers and no father?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    admin mode/

    @Mark Betts:

    Your complete disregard for the host and admin posts on this thread is noted, and constitutes a breach of Commandment 6: Respect the Ship’s crew.

    Your claims regarding the hacking of your account and its alleged use by an unknown third party also fall foul of Commandment 10: only one identity per member.

    If you're using a computer which others have access to you should be logged out (and, for the system not to save username/password) when you're not actually using it.

    Besides, your claims smell like bullshit.

    Either way, as already stated, we take a very dim view of wilful confusion about who has posted what.

    I've given you a two-week suspension to think about all that.

    At the end of that period, to ensure your posts here will not be the subject of any such confusion in the future, you'll also be sent an email requiring you to reset your Ship password.

    And for the avoidance of doubt, this suspension has everything to do with your jerkish behaviour and nothing at all to do with your theological or other views.

    /admin mode
  • {I know Mark's currently suspended, but I want to reply to his question.}
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Technically it's probably right to say that God doesn't have a gender. However, how are we to understand or even envisage the Incarnation if Jesus had two mothers and no father?

    Well, presuming the gospels are true and factual, a) Joseph wasn't his biological father, and b) Jesus had no human father. So God somehow managed, whatever gender(s) she is.* Unless God provided sperm, something special was done. (And the former would be special, too, but sounds too much like Zeus.)


    *I think God's nature/being includes the best of what different cultures understand about different genders, and goes beyond that.





  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Technically it's probably right to say that God doesn't have a gender. However, how are we to understand or even envisage the Incarnation if Jesus had two mothers and no father?
    Any way of understanding the incarnation in which it matters what gender we assign to God is incredibly dodgy. The idea risks an unfortunate implication that Jesus is half-human and half-god like a Greek demigod, rather than fully human and fully God. The Father's paternity of the Son is not a replacement for human paternity of Jesus. It would be just the same had Jesus got a human father. God and humans just are not in the same causal space.
    It's unfortunate that it's so natural to associate the incarnation and the virgin birth. The two are entirely distinct doctrinal propositions.

This discussion has been closed.