Quiet here

[Mark Goodge]

It's all gone a bit quiet round here. Have I missed the rapture or
something?

Mark

[Mike Davis]

On 06/10/2021 09:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
> It's all gone a bit quiet round here. Have I missed the rapture or
> something?

Sorry you're not with us!!

;-)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-10-06, Mark Goodge wrote:

> It's all gone a bit quiet round here. Have I missed the rapture or
> something?

It looks normal out my window (maybe sunnier than expected).


--
A heretic is someone who shares ALMOST all your beliefs.
Kill him. --- Ivan Stang

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/10/2021 09:32, Mark Goodge wrote:

> It's all gone a bit quiet round here. Have I missed the rapture or
> something?

That means you've got 3.5 more years. REPENT!

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-10-06, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 06/10/2021 09:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> It's all gone a bit quiet round here. Have I missed the rapture or
>> something?
>
> That means you've got 3.5 more years. REPENT!

I'm missing something --- why 3.5 years?



--
The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we
concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this
great power. ---Nikola Tesla

[John]

Mark Goodge wrote:

> It's all gone a bit quiet round here. Have I missed the rapture or
> something?

We'll know when the rapture has come when only Jeff disappears :-)

Usenet is dying in general though and many of the younger generation
won't even know it exists.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/10/2021 10:48, Adam Funk wrote:

> I'm missing something --- why 3.5 years?

Teaching about the rapture is usually linked with a very esoteric (and
in my opinion, crazy) interpretation of Daniel 9. The prophecy about the
70 weeks is divided into 69 leading up to the baptism of Christ. The
final week is not linked with the 69 but will happen at some time in the
future.

At the start of this hypothetical 70th week the rapture will take place
and antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews and all will be
hotsy-totsy. 3.5 years later antichrist will break that covenant and
various nasty things will happen, collectively summed up as
"Tribulation". At the end of another 3.5 years Christ will return and
all those not raptured will be taken off to heaven (I can't remember
what happens to antichrist and the Jews, but presumably it involves
great heat).

This whole farrago of nonsense was not invented by, but was popularised
by some chap who wrote a book "The Late Great Planet Earth" (which made
him so much money he wrote a number of sequels).

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sjnja5$gub$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 7 Oct 2021 20:54:45 +0100:

> On 07/10/2021 10:48, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> I'm missing something --- why 3.5 years?
>
> Teaching about the rapture is usually linked with a very esoteric (and
> in my opinion, crazy) interpretation of Daniel 9. The prophecy about
> the 70 weeks is divided into 69 leading up to the baptism of
> Christ. The final week is not linked with the 69 but will happen at
> some time in the future.
>
> At the start of this hypothetical 70th week the rapture will take
> place and antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews and all will
> be hotsy-totsy.

This is the pre-tribulation rapture of darby and his dispensationalist
brethren

> 3.5 years later antichrist will break that covenant
> and various nasty things will happen, collectively summed up as
> "Tribulation". At the end of another 3.5 years Christ will return and
> all those not raptured will be taken off to heaven (I can't remember
> what happens to antichrist and the Jews, but presumably it involves
> great heat).

This rapture at the 3.5 year mark is the mid-tribulation rapture. I
don't think the dispensationalists (who are pre-tribulationists)
subscribe to this.

Other raptures are available. (Pre-wrath, Partial, Pro-trib... the
wikipedia page is extensive but I didn't check it now)

> This whole farrago of nonsense was not invented by, but was
> popularised by some chap who wrote a book "The Late Great Planet
> Earth" (which made him so much money he wrote a number of sequels).

IIRC it was a retired scotland yard AC, Sir Robert Anderson's "The
Coming Prince" who first published the 70 weeks timeline. It is still
in print and widely available on the net but I couldn't get a
publication date. Before 1918 for sure.

I do not find any evidence for the rapture in the bible. I see
Revelation as a manual for believers who are caught up in the
tribulation, not a memo of what's going on in earth for those who have
taken out of the action to read in the comfort of heaven. So the
teachings of the dispensationalists don't ring true with the bible, at
least in my ears. That said, I do not have an explanation for the
imagery of the 2 men in the field, or the two women grinding - which to
my mind mired in the muck of internet porn - conjures tribadism

[Stuart]

In article <sjnja5$gub$1...@dont-email.me>,

Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Teaching about the rapture is usually linked with a very esoteric (and
> in my opinion, crazy) interpretation of Daniel 9. The prophecy about the
> 70 weeks is divided into 69 leading up to the baptism of Christ. The
> final week is not linked with the 69 but will happen at some time in the
> future.

> At the start of this hypothetical 70th week the rapture will take place
> and antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews and all will be
> hotsy-totsy. 3.5 years later antichrist will break that covenant and
> various nasty things will happen, collectively summed up as
> "Tribulation". At the end of another 3.5 years Christ will return and
> all those not raptured will be taken off to heaven (I can't remember
> what happens to antichrist and the Jews, but presumably it involves
> great heat).

I will make comment on this topic but need to dig out some books I have
read previously and do some research

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-10-07, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 07/10/2021 10:48, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> I'm missing something --- why 3.5 years?
>
> Teaching about the rapture is usually linked with a very esoteric (and
> in my opinion, crazy) interpretation of Daniel 9. The prophecy about the
> 70 weeks is divided into 69 leading up to the baptism of Christ. The
> final week is not linked with the 69 but will happen at some time in the
> future.
>
> At the start of this hypothetical 70th week the rapture will take place
> and antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews and all will be
> hotsy-totsy. 3.5 years later antichrist will break that covenant and
> various nasty things will happen, collectively summed up as
> "Tribulation". At the end of another 3.5 years Christ will return and
> all those not raptured will be taken off to heaven (I can't remember
> what happens to antichrist and the Jews, but presumably it involves
> great heat).
>
> This whole farrago of nonsense

Well, I don't feel too bad about missing that reference.

> was not invented by, but was popularised
> by some chap who wrote a book "The Late Great Planet Earth"

I remember hearing about that but didn't pay attention to it; I don't
feel too bad about that either.

> (which made
> him so much money he wrote a number of sequels).

Why not, it worked for Erich von Däniken around the same time.


--
There's nothing in Scripture that forbids letting our lawn
go wild. --- Garrison Keillor

[Graham Nye]

On 2021-10-07 20:54:45, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
> At the start of this hypothetical 70th week the rapture will take place
> and antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews and all will be
> hotsy-totsy. 3.5 years later antichrist will break that covenant and
> various nasty things will happen, collectively summed up as
> "Tribulation". At the end of another 3.5 years Christ will return and
> all those not raptured will be taken off to heaven (I can't remember
> what happens to antichrist and the Jews, but presumably it involves
> great heat).

At what point does Brexit feature?


--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/10/2021 03:01, Madhu wrote:

> This is the pre-tribulation rapture of darby and his dispensationalist
> brethren

I think you are right.

> This rapture at the 3.5 year mark is the mid-tribulation rapture. I
> don't think the dispensationalists (who are pre-tribulationists)
> subscribe to this.

No, I don't think there is a mid-tribulation rapture (nor do I think the
first 3.5 years are counted as "tribulation"). The rapture - as I
understand it - marks the start of the 7 years.

> IIRC it was a retired scotland yard AC, Sir Robert Anderson's "The
> Coming Prince" who first published the 70 weeks timeline. It is still
> in print and widely available on the net but I couldn't get a
> publication date. Before 1918 for sure.

Maybe so, but it was Hal Lindsey who really made it popular.

> I do not find any evidence for the rapture in the bible.

The only "evidence" is Jesus statement that "two women will be grinding
at the mill, the one will be taken and the other left". It is poor
evidence for a rapture (other interpretations are not only possible but
more likely) but it is evidence for the foolishness of basing a doctrine
on a single verse.

> That said, I do not have an explanation for the
> imagery of the 2 men in the field, or the two women grinding - which to
> my mind mired in the muck of internet porn - conjures tribadism

I think Jesus is emphasising that outward appearances are not a good
guide to ultimate salvation. The two man and the two women are
apparently similar, but one is saved and the other not. (cf. those who
profess but are told "I never knew you"). The context is the world which
is unconscious of approaching doom (as in the days of Noah) and the
exhortation to "watch therefore".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/10/2021 08:21, Adam Funk wrote:

>> was not invented by, but was popularised
>> by some chap who wrote a book "The Late Great Planet Earth"

> I remember hearing about that but didn't pay attention to it; I don't
> feel too bad about that either.

In one way I sympathise with your feelings (or lack of them). On the
other hand, it is worth at least finding out the basic of ideas that may
have a bearing on salvation.

>> (which made
>> him so much money he wrote a number of sequels).

> Why not, it worked for Erich von Däniken around the same time.

Indeed - and Hal Lindsey was just as fictional.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/10/2021 18:31, Graham Nye wrote:

> At what point does Brexit feature?

No, no. It's the covid vaccine that is going to usher in the end times.
I'm surprised you didn't know that.

[Graham Nye]

On 2021-10-08 20:45:19, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 08/10/2021 18:31, Graham Nye wrote:
>
>> At what point does Brexit feature?
>
> No, no. It's the covid vaccine that is going to usher in the end times.
> I'm surprised you didn't know that.

It's made the JWs resort to letter-writing rather than door-knocking
so it's not all bad.


--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/10/2021 01:57, Graham Nye wrote:

> It's made the JWs resort to letter-writing rather than door-knocking
> so it's not all bad.

Ha ha.

[Stuart]

In article <59780fd3...@argonet.co.uk>,

In his book "Windows on Jerusalem", Rev W.G.Hathaway D.D. Postulates that
the 70th week happened immediately after the 69. the first half of the
week represents Jesus' ministry on Earth, the second half the post
resurrection witness of the Apostles to Israel, ending with their final
rejection of the message with the Martyrdom of Steven. Paul's conversion
began the witness of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

This view is supported by Rodney Stortz in his book "Daniel, The triumph
of God's Kingdom" in the "Preaching the Word series", a series of books
which I would highly recommend to everyone.

Apart from anything else, it means the time of great tribulation is yet to
come!

[Jason]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 01:57:42 +0100, Graham Nye wrote:

> On 2021-10-08 20:45:19, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> On 08/10/2021 18:31, Graham Nye wrote:
>>
>>> At what point does Brexit feature?
>>
>> No, no. It's the covid vaccine that is going to usher in the end times.
>> I'm surprised you didn't know that.
>
> It's made the JWs resort to letter-writing rather than door-knocking so
> it's not all bad.

I must admit a do admire the JWs outreach schemes, even if I have major
points of disagreement on doctrine and so on. They were regularly at a
railway station I used to use, just stood quietly at the entrance with
their trolley of leaflets in case anyone wanting to speak to them. And
if they have found ways to reach out during the pandemic restrictions, so
much the better.

And sadly (and it's as much to my shame as anyone else's) I don't see too
much "going forth two-by-two into the neighbouring towns and villages to
preach the good news" going on from other denominations.....

[Jason]

Does anyone (by which I mean individuals or particular denominations) get
too hot under the collar about the rapture? I've always filed it in the
"interesting, but otherwise safely ignorable" category and moved on. If
one day I wake up to find all my Christian friends have vanished and I'm
left behind I may reassess if it's not too late by then....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/10/2021 12:09, Stuart wrote:

> In his book "Windows on Jerusalem", Rev W.G.Hathaway D.D. Postulates that
> the 70th week happened immediately after the 69. the first half of the
> week represents Jesus' ministry on Earth, the second half the post
> resurrection witness of the Apostles to Israel, ending with their final
> rejection of the message with the Martyrdom of Steven. Paul's conversion
> began the witness of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

That, I believe, was the standard Protestant interpretation (and
possibly Catholic as well) until this "rapture" nonsense became popular.

The only problem with it is that it *assumes* that Stephen was martyred
in AD 34 (or whatever year you assign to that 70th week), but we are
given no Biblical data which would allow us to fix the date of his
martyrdom.

> Apart from anything else, it means the time of great tribulation is yet to
> come!

Yes, something to look forward to - I don't think!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/10/2021 12:22, Jason wrote:

> Does anyone (by which I mean individuals or particular denominations) get
> too hot under the collar about the rapture? I've always filed it in the
> "interesting, but otherwise safely ignorable" category and moved on.

I think you will find that most charismatic churches are committed to
the idea.

> If
> one day I wake up to find all my Christian friends have vanished and I'm
> left behind I may reassess if it's not too late by then....

No, you'll be quite safe; you'll have another 3.5 (or possibly 7) years
in which to sort yourself out. The only downside is that you will have
to endure the Great Tribulation!

This idea of a sort of "second chance" is one of the reasons why I view
the rapture teaching with grave suspicion. It encourages people to delay
full commitment to Christ because they can do that after the Rapture.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/10/2021 12:18, Jason wrote:

> I must admit a do admire the JWs outreach schemes, even if I have major
> points of disagreement on doctrine and so on.

Yes. The only bad thing is that it is a one-size-fits-all exercise and
not everyone is suited for door-to-door ministry. Some would be far
better at something like you next mention:

> They were regularly at a
> railway station I used to use, just stood quietly at the entrance with
> their trolley of leaflets in case anyone wanting to speak to them. And
> if they have found ways to reach out during the pandemic restrictions, so
> much the better.

I have noticed such stands myself. At one time you *had* to go door to
door, it was the only form of witnessing allowed. So yes, it is good to
see them branching out, but on the other hand, anything which enables
them to spread their pernicious doctrines is a Bad Thing.

> And sadly (and it's as much to my shame as anyone else's) I don't see too
> much "going forth two-by-two into the neighbouring towns and villages to
> preach the good news" going on from other denominations.....

I believe that we should all witness, but the exact form that witnessing
takes is a matter between the individual and God. I know of some who go
door-to-door, some who engage in street preaching (a singularly
ineffective method in this day and age, but God bless 'em), others run
soup kitchens, leave tracts or magazines in various places, or just
support such endeavours with their prayers and money.

I read of one woman who was convicted that she ought to witness, but
wondered what her "gift" was. After prayer and reflection she figured
that the only thing she could do well was bake bread, so next time she
baked an extra loaf and took it to her neighbour. The gift started a
friendship and conversation and eventually she was able to invite the
woman to her church. The day after the woman was baptised, she baked
another loaf of bread and took it to her neighbour on the other side of
the her house ....

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-10-08, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 08/10/2021 08:21, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>>> was not invented by, but was popularised
>>> by some chap who wrote a book "The Late Great Planet Earth"
>
>> I remember hearing about that but didn't pay attention to it; I don't
>> feel too bad about that either.
>
> In one way I sympathise with your feelings (or lack of them). On the
> other hand, it is worth at least finding out the basic of ideas that may
> have a bearing on salvation.

Generally, but I think you agree that I didn't miss anything important
there.

>>> (which made
>>> him so much money he wrote a number of sequels).
>
>> Why not, it worked for Erich von Däniken around the same time.
>
> Indeed - and Hal Lindsey was just as fictional.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>
>
>

--
"Gonzo, is that the contract from the devil?"
"No, Kermit, it's worse than that. This is the bill from special
effects."

[Mike Davis]

On 10/10/2021 21:23, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 10/10/2021 12:09, Stuart wrote:
>
>> In his book "Windows on Jerusalem", Rev W.G.Hathaway D.D. Postulates that
>> the 70th week happened immediately after the 69. the first half of the
>> week represents Jesus' ministry on Earth, the second half the post
>> resurrection witness of the Apostles to Israel, ending with their final
>> rejection of the message with the Martyrdom of Steven. Paul's conversion
>> began the witness of the Gospel to the Gentiles.
>
> That, I believe, was the standard Protestant interpretation (and
> possibly Catholic as well) until this "rapture" nonsense became popular.

I am not aware of that type of numerology ever being adopted formally by
the RCC. (Possible exception being parts of Daniel.)

[Mike Davis]

On 10/10/2021 21:26, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 10/10/2021 12:22, Jason wrote:
>
>> Does anyone (by which I mean individuals or particular denominations) get
>> too hot under the collar about the rapture?  I've always filed it in the
>> "interesting, but otherwise safely ignorable" category and moved on.
>
> I think you will find that most charismatic churches are committed to
> the idea.

Too broad a generalisation - some of the Pentecostal branches go for
that interpretation - but I'd be very surprised if it's 'most'.
(Possibly more in the USA, but I doubt it.)

>> If
>> one day I wake up to find all my Christian friends have vanished and I'm
>> left behind I may reassess if it's not too late by then....
>
> No, you'll be quite safe; you'll have another 3.5 (or possibly 7) years
> in which to sort yourself out. The only downside is that you will have
> to endure the Great Tribulation!
>
> This idea of a sort of "second chance" is one of the reasons why I view
> the rapture teaching with grave suspicion. It encourages people to delay
> full commitment to Christ because they can do that after the Rapture.

Agreed. It's no part of mainstream Catholic & Protestant teaching as far
as I'm aware.

[Jason]

Yes, that's a great story, and is just the sort of thing that should
encourage us all to get out there. But as I said, the JWs have a
reputation for "getting out there" (to the extent that some are annoyed,
but I guess the JWs just "shake the dust of their feet" and move on).
I'm not sure many other Christian denominations have such a reputation
for outreach amongst the general public at large.....

[Jason]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 21:26:31 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 10/10/2021 12:22, Jason wrote:
>
>> Does anyone (by which I mean individuals or particular denominations)
>> get too hot under the collar about the rapture? I've always filed it
>> in the "interesting, but otherwise safely ignorable" category and moved
>> on.
>
> I think you will find that most charismatic churches are committed to
> the idea.

But why?? Given that we know nothing about when the "end is nigh" (and
indeed are discouraged from even speculating), there's a good chance none
of us alive today will not be alive at the time of the rapture? And
those resurrected believers will already (presumably) have their fate
sealed by then?

>> If one day I wake up to find all my Christian friends have vanished and
>> I'm left behind I may reassess if it's not too late by then....
>
> No, you'll be quite safe; you'll have another 3.5 (or possibly 7) years
> in which to sort yourself out. The only downside is that you will have
> to endure the Great Tribulation!
>
> This idea of a sort of "second chance" is one of the reasons why I view
> the rapture teaching with grave suspicion. It encourages people to delay
> full commitment to Christ because they can do that after the Rapture.

Presumably though the "second chance" only applies to those physically
alive at the time, so it's not really a second chance, simply an unusual
part of your "normal human life" (c.f. those alive who actually met
Christ the first time he popped down)?

Or have I misunderstood and all the dead are swept up in it for a second
go?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/10/2021 18:37, Mike Davis wrote:

> I am not aware of that type of numerology ever being adopted formally by
> the RCC. (Possible exception being parts of Daniel.)

Er - numerology is taking the numeric values of letters as a guide to
the interpretation of words. (Suppose the letters of "spirit" and
"water" add up to 321; your numerologist will claim that this proves
there is a link between spirit and water and go off into flights of
fancy about the significance of this link.)

I'm not sure whether there is a name for interpreting the prophetic time
periods. Doing this is not a Protestant preserve: Eusebius, History of
the Church, book 6 section 11

"These things have been recorded by us in order to show that another
prophecy has been fulfilled in the appearance of our Saviour Jesus
Christ. For the Scripture, in the Book of Daniel, Daniel 9:26 having
expressly mentioned a certain number of weeks until the coming of
Christ, of which we have treated in other books, most clearly
prophesies, that after the completion of those weeks the unction among
the Jews should totally perish. And this, it has been clearly shown, was
fulfilled at the time of the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ. This has
been necessarily premised by us as a proof of the correctness of the time."

Unfortunately I don't know whether these "other books" have been
preserved; it would be interesting to see how he understood the 70 weeks!

You may be correct that the Catholic church has not formally adopted a
particular interpretation; I don't think any Protestant churches have
"formally" adopted, but certainly particular interpretations are taught
in their seminaries and given in books and commentaries written by
expositors from those churches.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/10/2021 09:49, Adam Funk wrote:

> Generally, but I think you agree that I didn't miss anything important
> there.

Indeed - and I am glad to see that you are recognising my authority as
an arbiter of truth.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/10/2021 17:22, Jason wrote:

>> I think you will find that most charismatic churches are committed to
>> the idea.

> But why?? Given that we know nothing about when the "end is nigh" (and
> indeed are discouraged from even speculating), there's a good chance none
> of us alive today will not be alive at the time of the rapture? And
> those resurrected believers will already (presumably) have their fate
> sealed by then?

Most denominations have a teaching regarding the end times; there are
pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, a-millenialists, and so on. So
there is nothing surprising in charismatic churches also having a
teaching on the subject. And that teaching, in a surprising number of
them, is the secret rapture.

> Presumably though the "second chance" only applies to those physically
> alive at the time, so it's not really a second chance, simply an unusual
> part of your "normal human life" (c.f. those alive who actually met
> Christ the first time he popped down)?

That is correct. Your statement, "If one day I wake up to find all my
Christian friends have vanished and I'm left behind" does, I think,
rather presuppose that you are still alive ...

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/10/2021 17:28, Jason wrote:

> I'm not sure many other Christian denominations have such a reputation
> for outreach amongst the general public at large.....

I agree that there is far too little done in the way of evangelism by
most churches. That, in my opinion, is the main reason why so many are
closing down - there has been no attempt to win new members and the old
members die off, ergo the church closes.

Evangelism must have two aspects; the first is internal evangelism,
winning our children for Christ. We need to make the Sunday School a far
more relevant and evangelistic tool; it is not just finger paints and
cloth puppets to keep the children amused while their parents worship.
It is an opportunity to drill the teachings of Christianity into young
minds so that, as Scripture says, "Train up a child in the way he should
go and when he is old he will not depart from it."

The second is external evangelism. I fear that far too many churches
have no idea how to do it. They get involved in social action, but never
bring religion into it! They run a soup kitchen for the homeless[1] but
never sit down and preach to them as they eat (and if they don't like
the preaching, they can go eat elsewhere). They hold a march of witness
at Easter, but never hand out leaflets or have trained people to spot
those who might be interested and engage them in convesation. And so on.

Either we start to evangelise or we die, it's as simple as that.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: As a girl growing up in Sydney, my wife can remember
occasionally seeing "Eternity" chalked on the pavement. That was done by
a chap who had a horrendous life and ended up drunk and homeless. He
went along to a church for a free meal, but the meal was preceded by a
pointed sermon and if you weren't there for the sermon, you didn't get
the meal!

As the preacher droned on, Arthur Stace gazed around and noticed that
the men running the kitchen were well-dressed, well-fed, clean-shaven.
He nudged the man sitting next to him and asked, "Who are those blokes
dishing up the soup?" The man replied, "Dunno. They're the Christians, I
reckon." Arthur thought about it for a moment and then said, "Look at
them and look at us. I reckon they're on to something."

He started to go to church, "got saved" and in lieu of going to the pub
he went round various churches so he was somewhere every night of the
week. In one of these churches the preacher exclaimed, "Eternity!
Eternity! Oh that one would shout 'Eternity' through all the streets of
Sydney!"

Arthur was stirred and after the service, as he walked home, he
discovered a bit of chalk in his coat pocket. Without thinking and
although illiterate, he bent down and scrawled "Eternity" on the
pavement - then stared in astonishment at the neat, copperplate writing.
From then on he was never without a bit of chalk and he wrote the word
all over Sydney, in chalk on pavements and fences, with his finger in
wet concrete, whatever.

There is only one original Arthur Stace "Eternity" that still survives -
inside the bell on top of the Sydney Post Office tower - and people
still can't work out how he got up there!

Eternity was displayed in letters of fire on Sydney Harbour Bridge
during the year 2000 fireworks, it was part of the opening ceremony of
the Sydney Olympics. "He, being dead, yet speaketh."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_k-McpEQBU

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-10-11, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 11/10/2021 09:49, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> Generally, but I think you agree that I didn't miss anything important
>> there.
>
> Indeed - and I am glad to see that you are recognising my authority as
> an arbiter of truth.

Just on this one thing!


--
Thinking about her this morning, lying in bed, and trying to get my
thoughts on the right track, I reached into the drawer of the bedstand,
and found the Gideons' Bible, and I was going for the Psalms, friend, honest
I was, but I found the Song of Solomon instead. --- Garrison Keillor

[Jason]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:31:41 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 11/10/2021 17:22, Jason wrote:
>
>>> I think you will find that most charismatic churches are committed to
>>> the idea.
>
>> But why?? Given that we know nothing about when the "end is nigh" (and
>> indeed are discouraged from even speculating), there's a good chance
>> none of us alive today will not be alive at the time of the rapture?
>> And those resurrected believers will already (presumably) have their
>> fate sealed by then?
>
> Most denominations have a teaching regarding the end times; there are
> pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, a-millenialists, and so on. So
> there is nothing surprising in charismatic churches also having a
> teaching on the subject. And that teaching, in a surprising number of
> them, is the secret rapture.

Fair enough. Teaching is one thing, but (to me anyway) it has never been
anything to get too excited about. Likewise, I'm ambivalent even of many
of those things (presumably some of which are actually "named" heresies)
of exactly the composition of Jesus ("the left hand side of his body is
Man, the right hand side is God"), or from which members of the Trinity
does the Holy Spirit proceed etc etc. It's great to have teachings about
these things, but I'm not sure why Christians get so hot under the collar
about them. [With the exception of course if they actually lead people
astray].

>> Presumably though the "second chance" only applies to those physically
>> alive at the time, so it's not really a second chance, simply an
>> unusual part of your "normal human life" (c.f. those alive who actually
>> met Christ the first time he popped down)?
>
> That is correct. Your statement, "If one day I wake up to find all my
> Christian friends have vanished and I'm left behind" does, I think,
> rather presuppose that you are still alive ...

:-)

[Jason]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:49:50 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 11/10/2021 17:28, Jason wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure many other Christian denominations have such a reputation
>> for outreach amongst the general public at large.....
>
> I agree that there is far too little done in the way of evangelism by
> most churches. That, in my opinion, is the main reason why so many are
> closing down - there has been no attempt to win new members and the old
> members die off, ergo the church closes.
>
> Evangelism must have two aspects; the first is internal evangelism,
> winning our children for Christ. We need to make the Sunday School a far
> more relevant and evangelistic tool; it is not just finger paints and
> cloth puppets to keep the children amused while their parents worship.
> It is an opportunity to drill the teachings of Christianity into young
> minds so that, as Scripture says, "Train up a child in the way he should
> go and when he is old he will not depart from it."
>
> The second is external evangelism. I fear that far too many churches
> have no idea how to do it. They get involved in social action, but never
> bring religion into it! They run a soup kitchen for the homeless[1] but
> never sit down and preach to them as they eat (and if they don't like
> the preaching, they can go eat elsewhere). They hold a march of witness
> at Easter, but never hand out leaflets or have trained people to spot
> those who might be interested and engage them in convesation. And so on.
>
> Either we start to evangelise or we die, it's as simple as that.

I agree with all of that. I don't know that the "social action" needs
always to be accompanied by such 'in your face' evangelism as that, but I
agree that there should be something [I'm reminded again of the other
recent thread about JWs and their leaflet stands. They don't need to be
shouting 'Repent for the end of the world is nigh' but they are
nevertheless very visible. All too often Churches are shown in the media
to be always in disagreement about "trivial" matters, so I wouldn't want
to underestimate the value of Christians and Churches simply being seen
to be involved in social justice even without specific 'religiosity'. I
do agree though, more could easily be done.

I also think care needs to be spent assessing the effect of 'mission'-
type activities. For example, if a new church becomes established, it
may seem like a great success, but if all it does is draw existing
Christians from other neighbouring churches because it serves better
coffee or has livelier worship bands or whatnot then I would argue its
success is more limited than simple numbers-in-the-pews would lead us to
believe.

> Note 1: As a girl growing up in Sydney, my wife can remember

> occasionally seeing "Eternity" chalked on the pavement. [snip]

Interesting story, I've not heard of that.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/10/2021 17:45, Jason wrote:

> Fair enough. Teaching is one thing, but (to me anyway) it has never been
> anything to get too excited about. Likewise, I'm ambivalent even of many
> of those things (presumably some of which are actually "named" heresies)
> of exactly the composition of Jesus ("the left hand side of his body is
> Man, the right hand side is God"), or from which members of the Trinity
> does the Holy Spirit proceed etc etc. It's great to have teachings about
> these things, but I'm not sure why Christians get so hot under the collar
> about them. [With the exception of course if they actually lead people
> astray].

I agree. Given how little we can possibly know about God, it seems the
height of folly to be dogmatic about such things.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/10/2021 17:58, Jason wrote:

> I agree with all of that. I don't know that the "social action" needs
> always to be accompanied by such 'in your face' evangelism as that, but I
> agree that there should be something

To those who say, "I live my faith and that's all I need do", I ask how
the man across the street can tell that you are a Christian and your
neighbour is not? Are you kind to cats? So is he. Do you keep your house
neat and tidy? So does he. Do you support charity? So does he. Do you go
to church on Sunday? He goes off the play golf. We have to *tell* people
about our faith, not just hope that they will guess it.

> I also think care needs to be spent assessing the effect of 'mission'-
> type activities. For example, if a new church becomes established, it
> may seem like a great success, but if all it does is draw existing
> Christians from other neighbouring churches because it serves better
> coffee or has livelier worship bands or whatnot then I would argue its
> success is more limited than simple numbers-in-the-pews would lead us to
> believe.

Agreed.

[steve hague]

>
> I also think care needs to be spent assessing the effect of 'mission'-
> type activities. For example, if a new church becomes established, it
> may seem like a great success, but if all it does is draw existing
> Christians from other neighbouring churches because it serves better
> coffee or has livelier worship bands or whatnot then I would argue its
> success is more limited than simple numbers-in-the-pews would lead us to
> believe.

That's a problem. When our church was set up seven years ago, part of
our informal mission statement was that we expected to grow, but didn't
want it to be at the expense of other local churches. There are plenty
of Christians out there who for one reason or another aren't regular
churchgoers. I was one of them for twelve years. The trouble is you
can't turn people away because they were members of another church, and
I would estimate that of the 200+ who met on Sundays here pre- pandemic,
about half had left other churches to join us. It's my experience people
who leave a church through dissatisfaction are likely to leave their new
church for the same reason, after a honeymoon period. Saying it's not
about numbers is partially true, but with numbers come resources, as
well as extra responsibilities, and we need resources to be effective.
Things are changing hereabouts though, it was pointed out to me that I'm
one of four people left from the original start up group of about fifty.
A few weeks ago I was on the door as part of our welcome team, and I
counted forty people who I knew come in, and twice that many I didn't
recognise. It seems we had quite a following on Zoom during lockdown.
Steve Hague

[Mike Davis]

On 11/10/2021 20:28, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 18:37, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> I am not aware of that type of numerology ever being adopted formally
>> by the RCC. (Possible exception being parts of Daniel.)
>
> Er - numerology is taking the numeric values of letters as a guide to
> the interpretation of words. (Suppose the letters of "spirit" and
> "water" add up to 321; your numerologist will claim that this proves
> there is a link between spirit and water and go off into flights of
> fancy about the significance of this link.)

Doh! - of course!!

> I'm not sure whether there is a name for interpreting the prophetic time
> periods. Doing this is not a Protestant preserve: Eusebius, History of
> the Church, book 6 section 11
>
> "These things have been recorded by us in order to show that another
> prophecy has been fulfilled in the appearance of our Saviour Jesus
> Christ. For the Scripture, in the Book of Daniel, Daniel 9:26 having
> expressly mentioned a certain number of weeks until the coming of
> Christ, of which we have treated in other books, most clearly
> prophesies, that after the completion of those weeks the unction among
> the Jews should totally perish. And this, it has been clearly shown, was
> fulfilled at the time of the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ. This has
> been necessarily premised by us as a proof of the correctness of the time."
>
> Unfortunately I don't know whether these "other books" have been
> preserved; it would be interesting to see how he understood the 70 weeks!
>
> You may be correct that the Catholic church has not formally adopted a
> particular interpretation; I don't think any Protestant churches have
> "formally" adopted, but certainly particular interpretations are taught
> in their seminaries and given in books and commentaries written by
> expositors from those churches.

Thanks for your comments! Personally, I think such things are a
distraction from the Gospel message.

[Mike Davis]

On 11/10/2021 17:28, Jason wrote:

Nice story!

>
> Yes, that's a great story, and is just the sort of thing that should
> encourage us all to get out there. But as I said, the JWs have a
> reputation for "getting out there" (to the extent that some are annoyed,
> but I guess the JWs just "shake the dust of their feet" and move on).
> I'm not sure many other Christian denominations have such a reputation
> for outreach amongst the general public at large.....

Salvation Army used to, but I haven't been in so many pubs lately! ;-)

[Mike Davis]

On 12/10/2021 20:59, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 17:58, Jason wrote:
>
>> I agree with all of that.  I don't know that the "social action" needs
>> always to be accompanied by such 'in your face' evangelism as that, but I
>> agree that there should be something
>
> To those who say, "I live my faith and that's all I need do", I ask how
> the man across the street can tell that you are a Christian and your
> neighbour is not? Are you kind to cats? So is he. Do you keep your house
> neat and tidy? So does he. Do you support charity? So does he. Do you go
> to church on Sunday? He goes off the play golf. We have to *tell* people
> about our faith, not just hope that they will guess it.

Well said!

>> I also think care needs to be spent assessing the effect of 'mission'-
>> type activities.  For example, if a new church becomes established, it
>> may seem like a great success, but if all it does is draw existing
>> Christians from other neighbouring churches because it serves better
>> coffee or has livelier worship bands or whatnot then I would argue its
>> success is more limited than simple numbers-in-the-pews would lead us to
>> believe.

In principle I agree with that Jason, but one of the factors worrying me
at present is the number of churches I preach at (Methodist, URC,
Baptist) that have between 8 & 20 members at their main Sunday service*.
If only they were all going to one large church, at least the
unconverted might notice 'something going on', and be open to invitation.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

* No - it's not just because I'm there! I understand that's so for all
their services!

[Mike Davis]

Excellent!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Jason]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 20:59:18 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 12/10/2021 17:58, Jason wrote:
>
>> I agree with all of that. I don't know that the "social action" needs
>> always to be accompanied by such 'in your face' evangelism as that, but
>> I agree that there should be something
>
> To those who say, "I live my faith and that's all I need do", I ask how
> the man across the street can tell that you are a Christian and your
> neighbour is not? Are you kind to cats? So is he. Do you keep your house
> neat and tidy? So does he. Do you support charity? So does he. Do you go
> to church on Sunday? He goes off the play golf. We have to *tell* people
> about our faith, not just hope that they will guess it.

I only kind of agree. I don't think the example you are giving there of
being able to "tell by their actions" that they are Christian is an
example of the sort of church-based activities that I had in mind. I was
thinking of things where "The Church" had organised (and was seen to have
organised) something. My point was that while it would be great if
churches took the opportunities for evangelism, if (for example)
"Churches Together in Wolverhampton" organised a food bank or something,
this is to some degree its own witness of "Christians collectively doing
something for the good of mankind" even in the absence of more specific
evangelistic activities. Or if a Cathedral acts as a homeless shelter,
or whatever, unlike in your example, no-one would be required to guess
that it is the Christian Church that is behind it.

[Jason]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:05:19 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:

>>> I also think care needs to be spent assessing the effect of 'mission'-
>>> type activities.  For example, if a new church becomes established, it
>>> may seem like a great success, but if all it does is draw existing
>>> Christians from other neighbouring churches because it serves better
>>> coffee or has livelier worship bands or whatnot then I would argue its
>>> success is more limited than simple numbers-in-the-pews would lead us
>>> to believe.
>
> In principle I agree with that Jason, but one of the factors worrying me
> at present is the number of churches I preach at (Methodist, URC,
> Baptist) that have between 8 & 20 members at their main Sunday service*.
> If only they were all going to one large church, at least the
> unconverted might notice 'something going on', and be open to
> invitation.

I see what you are saying, but from my (very limited) experience where
only two churches merged, the resulting kerfuffle and disagreements would
only (I suggest) serve to put 'outsiders' off!! :-) I certainly would
rather go to a smaller congregation where I fitted in and felt I could
contribute to the life of the church than a larger one-size-fits-all one.

And I think it heavily depends on the geography and so on: if you had 10
churches with only a handful of people in a very rural area, with a
church in each village, I suspect more would be lost if instead there was
a "mega church" (for some value of "mega") in the nearest town.

>
> Mike --
> Mike Davis
>
> * No - it's not just because I'm there! I understand that's so for all
> their services!

:-)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/10/2021 12:35, Mike Davis wrote:

> Thanks for your comments! Personally, I think such things are a
> distraction from the Gospel message.

All sorts of things can be "distractions from the gospel message" -
depending of course on what you mean by that term. Let us suppose that
you mean what I would mean, that the gospel message is the good news of
salvation through Jesus. Teaching about the True Presence is a
distraction from that message; teaching about baptism is a distraction,
teaching about the community of saints is a distraction, and so on.

The only way in which such "distractions" are harmful is if they detract
from the gospel - that is, they lessen the value we place on what Jesus
has done for us. I don't think that any of the things mentioned above
detract from the gospel and neither does study of prophecy and the time
periods mentioned in prophecy. After all, God would not have given us
that information if it was not intended to be of value to us.

That said, I would agree that for *some* people, just about anything can
be harmful, simply because they become so concerned with it - whatever
it is - that they teach it instead of the gospel.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/10/2021 13:05, Mike Davis wrote:

> In principle I agree with that Jason, but one of the factors worrying me
> at present is the number of churches I preach at (Methodist, URC,
> Baptist) that have between 8 & 20 members at their main Sunday service*.
> If only they were all going to one large church, at least the
> unconverted might notice 'something going on', and be open to invitation.

That is why united services are valuable, especially if they move
around. At one time Cytun in Rhyl held a united service whenever there
was a fifth Sunday in the month, and it was held in a different church
each time. That way you had the local congregation and local witness but
you also had the "something going on" aspect as well - but not just
concentrated in one location.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/10/2021 17:12, Jason wrote:

> I see what you are saying, but from my (very limited) experience where
> only two churches merged, the resulting kerfuffle and disagreements would
> only (I suggest) serve to put 'outsiders' off!! :-) I certainly would
> rather go to a smaller congregation where I fitted in and felt I could
> contribute to the life of the church than a larger one-size-fits-all one.

Yes, you are correct in your first sentence and I totally agree with
your second.

> And I think it heavily depends on the geography and so on: if you had 10
> churches with only a handful of people in a very rural area, with a
> church in each village, I suspect more would be lost if instead there was
> a "mega church" (for some value of "mega") in the nearest town.

It's all very well people noticing that there is something going on - to
quote Mike - but if it is only the people in big city X that notice it,
while the people of little towns A, B, C, D, and Q never see anything at
all, then I think that is a Bad Thing.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/10/2021 17:05, Jason wrote:

> I only kind of agree. I don't think the example you are giving there of
> being able to "tell by their actions" that they are Christian is an
> example of the sort of church-based activities that I had in mind. I was
> thinking of things where "The Church" had organised (and was seen to have
> organised) something. My point was that while it would be great if
> churches took the opportunities for evangelism, if (for example)
> "Churches Together in Wolverhampton" organised a food bank or something,
> this is to some degree its own witness of "Christians collectively doing
> something for the good of mankind" even in the absence of more specific
> evangelistic activities.

I'm afraid I see little value in that unless there is some way of
communicating the Christian message and inviting commitment from the
observers.

As Jesus found, feed 5,000 and they come rushing back for more - but
what they want is another meal, not eternal life.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/10/2021 10:55, steve hague wrote:

> That's a problem. When our church was set up seven years ago, part of
> our informal mission statement was that we expected to grow, but didn't
> want it to be at the expense of other local churches. There are plenty
> of Christians out there who for one reason or another aren't regular
> churchgoers. I was one of them for twelve years. The trouble is you
> can't turn people away because they were members of another church, and
> I would estimate that of the 200+ who met on Sundays here pre- pandemic,
> about half had left other churches to join us.

Yes. I'm sure you regret weakening the other churches, but frankly, if
the other churches are losing members they need to sit up and do some
soul-searching as to *why* people are leaving them to go to you. If the
reason is doctrinal I don't suppose there is much the old church can do,
but if it is - say - attractive music, then the old church needs to
revamp its own music. If it is an overbearing and unpleasant elder, the
old church needs to decide which is more important - keeping members or
keeping the elder!

> It's my experience people
> who leave a church through dissatisfaction are likely to leave their new
> church for the same reason, after a honeymoon period.

In my experience that is particularly a problem for charismatic-style
churches, where the members base their religion on experience and
feelings rather than on intellect. After a while the new church grows
familiar and boring and they are off after the next new thing.

> Saying it's not
> about numbers is partially true, but with numbers come resources, as
> well as extra responsibilities, and we need resources to be effective.
> Things are changing hereabouts though, it was pointed out to me that I'm
> one of four people left from the original start up group of about fifty.

Sad.

> A few weeks ago I was on the door as part of our welcome team, and I
> counted forty people who I knew come in, and twice that many I didn't
> recognise. It seems we had quite a following on Zoom during lockdown.

Please keep the Zoom church going! It *is* an effective tool for evangelism.

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-10-12, Jason wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:31:41 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2021 17:22, Jason wrote:
>>
>>>> I think you will find that most charismatic churches are committed to
>>>> the idea.
>>
>>> But why?? Given that we know nothing about when the "end is nigh" (and
>>> indeed are discouraged from even speculating), there's a good chance
>>> none of us alive today will not be alive at the time of the rapture?
>>> And those resurrected believers will already (presumably) have their
>>> fate sealed by then?
>>
>> Most denominations have a teaching regarding the end times; there are
>> pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, a-millenialists, and so on. So
>> there is nothing surprising in charismatic churches also having a
>> teaching on the subject. And that teaching, in a surprising number of
>> them, is the secret rapture.
>
> Fair enough. Teaching is one thing, but (to me anyway) it has never been
> anything to get too excited about. Likewise, I'm ambivalent even of many
> of those things (presumably some of which are actually "named" heresies)
> of exactly the composition of Jesus ("the left hand side of his body is
> Man, the right hand side is God"), or from which members of the Trinity
> does the Holy Spirit proceed etc etc. It's great to have teachings about
> these things, but I'm not sure why Christians get so hot under the collar
> about them. [With the exception of course if they actually lead people
> astray].

I agree.


--
Some say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults.
[XKCD 312]

[Mike Davis]

I think on those matters, we are agreed in principle. I was only
referring to the chronology of 'future' events - I read a number of
books in the late '90s about the 'millennium' - their main purpose was
to make people aware that "You have a decision to make!". Unfortunately,
I suspect that the majority of those who read them had already made
*that* decision!

.. I was listening to a talk yesterday on evangelisation by someone who
suggested that, instead of asking people where they are going on
holidays next year, we ought to ask, "Where are you going when you die?"!!

[Mike Davis]

On 14/10/2021 17:12, Jason wrote:

There's an interesting 'experiment' or 'outreach' going on here in
Rochdale: HTB are starting a 'branch' - I'm both excited and concerned.
(I haven't been in touch yet). They are trying to concentrate on
under-40's (at least for the start up) and that sounds good - for it's
needed for the future generations - but I think we need a 'balanced church'.

Anyway, proclaiming the Gospel cannot be a bad thing!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

Good idea! It's along the lines of something I was trying to get our
local CT to do, but we're now having to wait* until we've 'stabilised'
post-Covid.

In short, the ministers are concerned about numbers (as above) and that
also has ramifications for their own calling.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

Perhaps, but a number ask, "Why do you do this?" and that's the opening
to explain the Gospel message.

[Jason]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 20:30:34 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 14/10/2021 17:05, Jason wrote:
>
>> I only kind of agree. I don't think the example you are giving there
>> of being able to "tell by their actions" that they are Christian is an
>> example of the sort of church-based activities that I had in mind. I
>> was thinking of things where "The Church" had organised (and was seen
>> to have organised) something. My point was that while it would be
>> great if churches took the opportunities for evangelism, if (for
>> example) "Churches Together in Wolverhampton" organised a food bank or
>> something, this is to some degree its own witness of "Christians
>> collectively doing something for the good of mankind" even in the
>> absence of more specific evangelistic activities.
>
> I'm afraid I see little value in that unless there is some way of
> communicating the Christian message and inviting commitment from the
> observers.

Well, I see more than "little value". The Church is often seen in the
papers to be divided, squabbling over trivia, sex scandals, financial
irregularities etc etc that simply being seen to be living and behaving
in a godly way is beneficial and a valuable witness. I think that unless
the Church gets these basics in place, why should anyone even bother to
listen to what they have to say?

> As Jesus found, feed 5,000 and they come rushing back for more - but
> what they want is another meal, not eternal life.

If the miracles were not of value in pointing people to God then I don't
think he would have wasted any time doing so many. I doubt that every
miracle was accompanied by "full gospel" sermon....

[Jason]

I personally like the idea of these joint services and think they are a
great idea to get together with a wider-than-usual cross section of
believers. However, it can obviously depend on the "traditions" of the
individual congregations: I was on holiday in the lake district once and
visited a church there on the "4th Sunday" (or whatever it was) where
there was supposed to be a combined service that rotates around the
different churches. The vicar told us that virtually everyone from the
non-host church simply used the opportunity for a Sunday lie-in.....

[Jason]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 20:35:30 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 13/10/2021 10:55, steve hague wrote:
>
>> That's a problem. When our church was set up seven years ago, part of
>> our informal mission statement was that we expected to grow, but didn't
>> want it to be at the expense of other local churches. There are plenty
>> of Christians out there who for one reason or another aren't regular
>> churchgoers. I was one of them for twelve years. The trouble is you
>> can't turn people away because they were members of another church, and
>> I would estimate that of the 200+ who met on Sundays here pre-
>> pandemic,
>> about half had left other churches to join us.
>
> Yes. I'm sure you regret weakening the other churches, but frankly, if
> the other churches are losing members they need to sit up and do some
> soul-searching as to *why* people are leaving them to go to you.

I agree with that, in fact I had something like that in the back of my
mind when I wrote my previous comment, I guess it is always useful to
know why people leave.

> If the
> reason is doctrinal I don't suppose there is much the old church can do,
> but if it is - say - attractive music, then the old church needs to
> revamp its own music.

I think that's more difficult to assess. If a bunch of people leave
because they want an "upbeat pop music band" style of thing, I'm not sure
that the answer is to throw away your pipe organ straight away.....

> If it is an overbearing and unpleasant elder, the
> old church needs to decide which is more important - keeping members or
> keeping the elder!

:-)

>> It's my experience people who leave a church through dissatisfaction
>> are likely to leave their new church for the same reason, after a
>> honeymoon period.
>
> In my experience that is particularly a problem for charismatic-style
> churches, where the members base their religion on experience and
> feelings rather than on intellect. After a while the new church grows
> familiar and boring and they are off after the next new thing.

I think that's a little overstated; and if you are questioning
"experience and feelings" as a basis for their religion, I would also
question "intellect". Jesus asks we come like little children, not
Mastermind contestants or theologians.

>> Saying it's not about numbers is partially true, but with numbers come
>> resources, as well as extra responsibilities, and we need resources to
>> be effective. Things are changing hereabouts though, it was pointed out
>> to me that I'm one of four people left from the original start up group
>> of about fifty.
>
> Sad.

I may have misunderstood, but I read that paragraph as a *positive*
thing, not something sad. If a church had been formed that years down
the line had exactly the same membership as it had at the beginning I'd
think that "sad"!

>> A few weeks ago I was on the door as part of our welcome team, and I
>> counted forty people who I knew come in, and twice that many I didn't
>> recognise. It seems we had quite a following on Zoom during lockdown.
>
> Please keep the Zoom church going! It *is* an effective tool for
> evangelism.

Yes indeed. I've very much enjoyed "going" to visiting churches this
way, ones where I used to live, ones where I know people, ones that
simply interest me from all over the world. Praise God for it, and it
has a very low "barrier to entry" for the wider non-Christian public.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/10/2021 16:47, Mike Davis wrote:

> .. I was listening to a talk yesterday on evangelisation by someone who
> suggested that, instead of asking people where they are going on
> holidays next year, we ought to ask, "Where are you going when you die?"!!

A good question - but whether you should ask it depends on the level of
your acquaintance with the other person and the circumstances of the
conversation. Shouted at a complete stranger across a noisy cocktail
bar, probably not a good idea. Presented to a good friend when the
conversation has taken a serious turn, why not?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/10/2021 16:54, Mike Davis wrote:

> There's an interesting 'experiment' or 'outreach' going on here in
> Rochdale: HTB are starting a 'branch' - I'm both excited and concerned.
> (I haven't been in touch yet). They are trying to concentrate on
> under-40's (at least for the start up) and that sounds good - for it's
> needed for the future generations - but I think we need a 'balanced
> church'.

Excellent.

Some years ago I met someone involved with a particular new church down
in Cardiff. After several years of fund-raising they finally had enough
money to build their own church building, but the pastor persuaded them
to build a gym instead, on the basis that men were unlikely to enter a
church but highly likely to enter a gym.

And so it proved. The gym was a resounding success, both as a place of
exercise and an opportunity for witnessing and now there is a splendid
(and rather larger than planned) church next door to the gym with a
goodly number of man in the congregation.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/10/2021 16:31, Jason wrote:

> The vicar told us that virtually everyone from the
> non-host church simply used the opportunity for a Sunday lie-in.....

I'm afraid that that was our experience here as well, though there was a
degree of luke-warmness on the part of the clergy as well. A few
enthusiasts from every church turned up, but if the event had been more
enthusiastically promoted and given the equivalent of a three-line whip,
things might have been different.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/10/2021 16:58, Mike Davis wrote:

> In short, the ministers are concerned about numbers (as above) and that
> also has ramifications for their own calling.

I'm glad they realise it! But of course, it is not just the ministers
who need to take action. It is every single member, witnessing to family
and neighbours, inviting them to church, engaging in leaflet
distribution, coming up with ideas for attracting people, and so on.

The *whole* church needs to catch the vision for evangelism.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/10/2021 16:39, Jason wrote:

> If the miracles were not of value in pointing people to God then I don't
> think he would have wasted any time doing so many. I doubt that every
> miracle was accompanied by "full gospel" sermon....

If you read the gospels, you will find that in most cases the sermon
preceded the miracle rather than followed it. However there was also the
"go and sin no more" in a large number of cases.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/10/2021 17:00, Mike Davis wrote:

> Perhaps, but a number ask, "Why do you do this?" and that's the opening
> to explain the Gospel message.

Provided there are those ready and able to deal with such questions,
fine. In far too many cases, however, the volunteers are all busy
clearing the tables, washing the dishes, putting the chairs away, and
even if someone wants to ask the question, there is no one from who he
can do so!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/10/2021 17:08, Jason wrote:

> I think that's more difficult to assess. If a bunch of people leave
> because they want an "upbeat pop music band" style of thing, I'm not sure
> that the answer is to throw away your pipe organ straight away.....

I hope the pipe organ would never be thrown away. However a) the
organist can be encouraged to turn the tempo up; b) at least one modern
hymn in every service; c) encourage others with musical ability to get
involved. Drums and guitars go surprisingly well with a pipe organ ...

> I think that's a little overstated; and if you are questioning
> "experience and feelings" as a basis for their religion, I would also
> question "intellect". Jesus asks we come like little children, not
> Mastermind contestants or theologians.

Unfortunately I have met many lovely charismatics who are members of
church A, then a year or so later I meet them again as members of church
B. When asked why, it is never a doctrinal disagreement, rarely a
personal conflict, almost always "It wasn't exciting any more".

The new church has a better drummer, the preacher has a different way of
presenting, etc.

> I may have misunderstood, but I read that paragraph as a *positive*
> thing, not something sad. If a church had been formed that years down
> the line had exactly the same membership as it had at the beginning I'd
> think that "sad"!

Well, I agree with that. But what I would like is that the original 50
were still there but now very much a minority in the large and thriving
congretation.

> Yes indeed. I've very much enjoyed "going" to visiting churches this
> way, ones where I used to live, ones where I know people, ones that
> simply interest me from all over the world. Praise God for it, and it
> has a very low "barrier to entry" for the wider non-Christian public.

Just out of interest, how do you advertise the Zoom meetings without
laying yourself open to trolling and disruption?

[Mike Davis]

Absolutely!!

[Mike Davis]

Also excellent!

[Mike Davis]

Indeed!

[Mike Davis]

Nice to agree with you yet again!! ;-)

[Jason]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:44:24 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 15/10/2021 17:08, Jason wrote:
>
>> I think that's more difficult to assess. If a bunch of people leave
>> because they want an "upbeat pop music band" style of thing, I'm not
>> sure that the answer is to throw away your pipe organ straight
>> away.....
>
> I hope the pipe organ would never be thrown away. However a) the
> organist can be encouraged to turn the tempo up; b) at least one modern
> hymn in every service; c) encourage others with musical ability to get
> involved. Drums and guitars go surprisingly well with a pipe organ ...

:-) Yes, I agree, one would really have to try harder to worship if the
music is dreary or out-of-tune. There's no harm at all in mixing it up a
bit and modernising, as long as you take care not to throw the baby out
with the bathwater and only feature boppy songs released no more than six
months ago.....

>> I think that's a little overstated; and if you are questioning
>> "experience and feelings" as a basis for their religion, I would also
>> question "intellect". Jesus asks we come like little children, not
>> Mastermind contestants or theologians.
>
> Unfortunately I have met many lovely charismatics who are members of
> church A, then a year or so later I meet them again as members of church
> B. When asked why, it is never a doctrinal disagreement, rarely a
> personal conflict, almost always "It wasn't exciting any more".
>
> The new church has a better drummer, the preacher has a different way of
> presenting, etc.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, I can imagine that being true.
That said, maybe some people need a change from time-to-time to thrive,
and perhaps attending different churches, worshipping in different ways
etc helps their walk with God? A church I used to attend took this
approach with house groups: every so many years they were all mixed and
re-formed in an attempt to introduce some freshness and help people get
to know others in the church.

>> I may have misunderstood, but I read that paragraph as a *positive*
>> thing, not something sad. If a church had been formed that years down
>> the line had exactly the same membership as it had at the beginning I'd
>> think that "sad"!
>
> Well, I agree with that. But what I would like is that the original 50
> were still there but now very much a minority in the large and thriving
> congretation.

Perhaps most of that 50 are already on their way exercising their churchp-
planting gifts as part of their calling to form new congregations? There
may be another dozen by now!!

>> Yes indeed. I've very much enjoyed "going" to visiting churches this
>> way, ones where I used to live, ones where I know people, ones that
>> simply interest me from all over the world. Praise God for it, and it
>> has a very low "barrier to entry" for the wider non-Christian public.
>
> Just out of interest, how do you advertise the Zoom meetings without
> laying yourself open to trolling and disruption?

Youtube-type links are obviously a free-for-all that anyone can attend,
where they can leave comments if they wish but not interrupt the
meeting. Likewise Facebook, where you can join in anonymously or have
more interaction of you have an account. Commonly, I think, Zoom links
are not advertised more widely than the in-house church literature, so
interested people would need to be given the information by a regular or
contact the church: they are not secret but neither are they widely
published. Of course the 'host' can easily throw people out! I haven't
heard of zoom meetings going awry since the very early days of the
lockdown, and even then I know of no trouble personally.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 17/10/2021 15:45, Jason wrote:

> :-) Yes, I agree, one would really have to try harder to worship if the
> music is dreary or out-of-tune. There's no harm at all in mixing it up a
> bit and modernising, as long as you take care not to throw the baby out
> with the bathwater and only feature boppy songs released no more than six
> months ago.....

I do so agree!

> Yes, I understand what you're saying, I can imagine that being true.
> That said, maybe some people need a change from time-to-time to thrive,
> and perhaps attending different churches, worshipping in different ways
> etc helps their walk with God? A church I used to attend took this
> approach with house groups: every so many years they were all mixed and
> re-formed in an attempt to introduce some freshness and help people get
> to know others in the church.

Not a bad idea.

> Perhaps most of that 50 are already on their way exercising their churchp-
> planting gifts as part of their calling to form new congregations? There
> may be another dozen by now!!

If that were so, I would be delighted.

> Youtube-type links are obviously a free-for-all that anyone can attend,
> where they can leave comments if they wish but not interrupt the
> meeting. Likewise Facebook, where you can join in anonymously or have
> more interaction of you have an account. Commonly, I think, Zoom links
> are not advertised more widely than the in-house church literature, so
> interested people would need to be given the information by a regular or
> contact the church: they are not secret but neither are they widely
> published. Of course the 'host' can easily throw people out! I haven't
> heard of zoom meetings going awry since the very early days of the
> lockdown, and even then I know of no trouble personally.

Thanks. I suspected as much, which is a shame. The trolls spoil it for
everyone.

[Adam Funk]

Although you don't want to fuel the accusation that atheists &
agnostics sometimes make that Christians are just in it for the reward
at the end.


--
Well, I just said that Jesus and I were both Jewish and that neither
of us ever had a job, we never had a home, we never married and we
traveled around the countryside irritating people.
--- Kinky Friedman

[Kendall K. Down]

On 18/10/2021 18:52, Adam Funk wrote:

> Although you don't want to fuel the accusation that atheists &
> agnostics sometimes make that Christians are just in it for the reward
> at the end.

I hope I am not a Christian *just* for the reward at the end, but
nevertheless, I am looking forward to that happy ending.

[Mike Davis]

On 18/10/2021 18:52, Adam Funk wrote:

Excellent response! (I wasn't going to say that, anyway!)

My own favourite question, when addressing groups where there's a
proportion on non-Christians, is:

"Have you ever regretted doing something that's had lasting effects?"

[Jason]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:52:27 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:

> Although you don't want to fuel the accusation that atheists & agnostics
> sometimes make that Christians are just in it for the reward at the end.

I think this is a very good point, and one which probably has a many-
layered answer. For example, suppose there was no "reward at the end",
that when we die, that's it. It would be interesting to see how fervent
the church would then be. How would the "good news" then be packaged??

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/10/2021 18:11, Jason wrote:

> I think this is a very good point, and one which probably has a many-
> layered answer. For example, suppose there was no "reward at the end",
> that when we die, that's it. It would be interesting to see how fervent
> the church would then be. How would the "good news" then be packaged??

One of my professors caused a stir by stating in a sermon that we should
be willing to serve God, even if we knew that we were going to be denied
heaven. He was prone to exaggeration for dramatic effect, but I think
his point was a valid one.

During St Louis' disastrous crusade in north Africa it is reported that
a mad woman wandered the army camp carrying a blazing torch and a bucket
of water. When challenged she replied that she wanted to burn heaven and
extinguish hell so that men would serve God from love alone. Methinks
she wasn't as mad as rumour had it - she was a theologian.

[Peter]

Mark Goodge wrote:
> It's all gone a bit quiet round here. Have I missed the rapture or
> something?
>
> Mark
>

Do the rules of engagement forbid me from starting threads?

--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

[Jason]

I think both of your above examples are very valid points with a great
deal of truth in them: I can imagine that this is exactly how we are
supposed to view the situation. I do wonder though how well we as a
church (though perhaps I should only speak for myself; maybe others are
much more holy than I) would manage to see things that way.

I guess if we have our eternal reward in the back of our minds will there
not always be mixed motives?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/10/2021 12:22, Jason wrote:

> I guess if we have our eternal reward in the back of our minds will there
> not always be mixed motives?

Hmmmm. It depends on how largely the reward figures in your mind. But I
don't see how the reward (or the punishment) can be entirely eliminated.
They are both facts and the wise person will bear them in mind.

I suppose it is similar to work. If you enjoy your work, then your
monthly salary is a bonus but you would do some of it as a volunteer
even if you were not employed to do it. There are, I believe,
unfortunates who hate their work and only do it for the money. I feel
sorry for them.

There are others - American chain gangs, for example - who only do it to
escape punishment. I don't feel sorry for them, though I would not wish
to be in that situation myself.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/10/2021 21:51, Peter wrote:

> Do the rules of engagement forbid me from starting threads?

At one time there was a rule that people outside the UK could not start
threads. Since Mark took over that rule has been quietly abandoned.

That means that anyone can start a thread. I don't know what software
you use but, for example, in Thunderbird there is a pen symbol and the
word "Write" at the top of the page. Click on that, enter a subject, and
then write your post. It will appear as a new thread.

[Peter]

Thank you. Somewhere there must be a n.g. charter. Could you direct me
to it, please?

> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>
>
>
>

[Mike Davis]

On 20/10/2021 20:57, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 12:22, Jason wrote:
>
>> I guess if we have our eternal reward in the back of our minds will there
>> not always be mixed motives?
>
> Hmmmm. It depends on how largely the reward figures in your mind. But I
> don't see how the reward (or the punishment) can be entirely eliminated.
> They are both facts and the wise person will bear them in mind.
>
> I suppose it is similar to work. If you enjoy your work, then your
> monthly salary is a bonus but you would do some of it as a volunteer
> even if you were not employed to do it. There are, I believe,
> unfortunates who hate their work and only do it for the money. I feel
> sorry for them.

But surely the idea of 'reward' leads on to thinking of salvation by
works? We do what we do for love of God and entrust ourselves to His hands.

>
> There are others - American chain gangs, for example - who only do it to
> escape punishment. I don't feel sorry for them, though I would not wish
> to be in that situation myself.

M

[Madhu]

* Peter <skpus6$1cte$1...@gioia.aioe.org> :
Wrote on Wed, 20 Oct 2021 21:40:34 +0100:

> Thank you. Somewhere there must be a n.g. charter. Could you direct
> me to it, please?

every message posted has an X-Charter Message Header, a line which says

X-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html

There must be a "view headers" function in your newsreader client


[There are a lot of othe headers, some spam related. like

X-Mythic-Source-External:
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score:
X-Spam-Status:
X-BlackCat-To:

The X-Spam-Status had me intrigued for a bit: Every message has number
assigned to it, EXCEPT the messages from Jason which always had a spam
score of 0. How could jason do that? I imagined Jason was doing some
advanced "haxx" to avoid the spam score, but I realised he is still on
manual, and manually approved messages don't have a spam score.
]

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-10-19, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 18/10/2021 18:52, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2021-10-15, Mike Davis wrote:
>>
>>> .. I was listening to a talk yesterday on evangelisation by someone who
>>> suggested that, instead of asking people where they are going on
>>> holidays next year, we ought to ask, "Where are you going when you die?"!!
>>
>> Although you don't want to fuel the accusation that atheists &
>> agnostics sometimes make that Christians are just in it for the reward
>> at the end.
>
> Excellent response! (I wasn't going to say that, anyway!)
>
> My own favourite question, when addressing groups where there's a
> proportion on non-Christians, is:
>
> "Have you ever regretted doing something that's had lasting effects?"

That's a mean question to ask anyone (including me)!


--
Civilization is a race between catastrophe and
education. --- H G Wells

[Peter]

Madhu wrote:
> * Peter <skpus6$1cte$1...@gioia.aioe.org> :
> Wrote on Wed, 20 Oct 2021 21:40:34 +0100:
>
>> Thank you. Somewhere there must be a n.g. charter. Could you direct
>> me to it, please?
>
> every message posted has an X-Charter Message Header, a line which says
>
> X-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html

Thank you. For reasons that I cannot now recall, I thought that I was
forbidden from initiating threads. It seems I imagined it.

> There must be a "view headers" function in your newsreader client
>
>
> [There are a lot of othe headers, some spam related. like
>
> X-Mythic-Source-External:
> X-BlackCat-Spam-Score:
> X-Spam-Status:
> X-BlackCat-To:
>
> The X-Spam-Status had me intrigued for a bit: Every message has number
> assigned to it, EXCEPT the messages from Jason which always had a spam
> score of 0. How could jason do that? I imagined Jason was doing some
> advanced "haxx" to avoid the spam score, but I realised he is still on
> manual, and manually approved messages don't have a spam score.
> ]
>
>

[Mike Davis]

On 21/10/2021 16:50, Peter wrote:
> Madhu wrote:
>> * Peter <skpus6$1cte$1...@gioia.aioe.org> :
>> Wrote on Wed, 20 Oct 2021 21:40:34 +0100:
>>
>>> Thank you.  Somewhere there must be a n.g. charter.  Could you direct
>>> me to it, please?
>>
>> every message posted has an X-Charter Message Header, a line which says
>>
>>    X-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html
>
> Thank you.  For reasons that I cannot now recall, I thought that I was
> forbidden from initiating threads.  It seems I imagined it.

Good! You've been around a long time - so we look forward to hearing
points that you want to bring forward.

Blessings

Mike

[Jason]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 21:52:36 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 20/10/2021 20:57, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> On 20/10/2021 12:22, Jason wrote:
>>
>>> I guess if we have our eternal reward in the back of our minds will
>>> there not always be mixed motives?
>>
>> Hmmmm. It depends on how largely the reward figures in your mind. But I
>> don't see how the reward (or the punishment) can be entirely
>> eliminated.
>> They are both facts and the wise person will bear them in mind.
>>
>> I suppose it is similar to work. If you enjoy your work, then your
>> monthly salary is a bonus but you would do some of it as a volunteer
>> even if you were not employed to do it. There are, I believe,
>> unfortunates who hate their work and only do it for the money. I feel
>> sorry for them.
>
> But surely the idea of 'reward' leads on to thinking of salvation by
> works? We do what we do for love of God and entrust ourselves to His
> hands.

That's exactly what I had in mind when writing my previous comment. I
agree with those (idealistic?) paragraphs that Kendall posted, but I do
wonder how well I (to name the only example I can speak for) would manage
in my walk with God if the 'reward' element were to be completely erased
from Christianity? I agree 100% with the principle that "God should be
praised for who he is and not for what we can get out of it", but from my
sample of 1 (me) I'm not sure how well I would live up to that......

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/10/2021 21:52, Mike Davis wrote:

> But surely the idea of 'reward' leads on to thinking of salvation by
> works? We do what we do for love of God and entrust ourselves to His hands.

But seeing as there *is* a reward, we cannot *not* think of it. However
we can "examine ourselves" and try to discern whether we are serving God
from mercenary motives or pure ones.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/10/2021 13:09, Jason wrote:

> That's exactly what I had in mind when writing my previous comment. I
> agree with those (idealistic?) paragraphs that Kendall posted, but I do
> wonder how well I (to name the only example I can speak for) would manage
> in my walk with God if the 'reward' element were to be completely erased
> from Christianity? I agree 100% with the principle that "God should be
> praised for who he is and not for what we can get out of it", but from my
> sample of 1 (me) I'm not sure how well I would live up to that......

I am confident that God is well aware of our common weaknesses and that
if the prospect of reward was entirely deleterious to spiritual life, He
would have kept reward hidden (or largely hidden).

In fact God commonly uses both incentives and disincentives to prompt us
along the right path, with the intention - I believe - that as we come
to know Him we will love Him for Himself alone.

Rather like someone who marries for money but then gradually falls in
love with the person, after which the money becomes irrelevant.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/10/2021 21:40, Peter wrote:

> Thank you.  Somewhere there must be a n.g. charter.  Could you direct me
> to it, please?

There is - but no, I have no idea where it is. There may be someone else
on the group who can give you that information.

Basically the group is for the discussion of Christianity in the UK.
However that is very widely interpreted: both Islam and atheism impact
Christianity and therefore they are legitimate subjects for discussion;
events in the wider world impact Christianity in the UK and therefore
they too are legitimate subjects. Always subject to the discretion of
the moderator (Mark), but he is fairly easy going.

The one big no-no is personal abuse - which means speaking ill of an
identifiable living person. Thus while Mugabe was still alive we had to
be restrained in expressing our opinions of him; as soon as he was dead
the gloves came off!

As a general guide, beware of statements of the form "NNN is xxx". Thus
you can say "Ken Down tells lies" but you cannot say "Ken Down is a
liar". It is a pedantic distinction, but it has served well enough.

It is not actually part of the charter, but there are two actions which
we encourage for the sake of courtesy. 1. Post your reply *after* the
remark to which you are replying. 2. If you are only commenting on one
paragraph from the other person's post, snip the rest. There is nothing
more aggravating than having 999 lines of quoted text and one, single,
three word comment at the end which only refers to something in the
final paragraph!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/10/2021 03:11, Madhu wrote:

> X-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html

Thanks, Madhu.

[Jason]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:36:37 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> The one big no-no is personal abuse - which means speaking ill of an
> identifiable living person. Thus while Mugabe was still alive we had to
> be restrained in expressing our opinions of him; as soon as he was dead
> the gloves came off!

So the rule is, while someone is in a position to defend themselves, you
need to keep quiet, but when they can no longer do so, you can say what
you want about them?? I understand the reasoning but it still sounds a
little odd....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/10/2021 17:25, Jason wrote:

> So the rule is, while someone is in a position to defend themselves, you
> need to keep quiet, but when they can no longer do so, you can say what
> you want about them?? I understand the reasoning but it still sounds a
> little odd....

No, while the person is around to be offended by what is written (and to
sue for libel, if you really want to be cynical).

[Adam Funk]

That's actually how libel law works (in England & Wales, at least)!


--
In Fortran, GOD is REAL (unless declared INTEGER).

[Jason]

Yes, I take the point that if someone is not around to sue you, you can
say what you like about them with impunity. On the other hand, is this a
good (moral) basis for a Christian-centred discussion group? Is there no
place for "don't speak ill of the dead"? I'm not sure that "as soon as
he was dead the gloves came off" is quite the thing to aim for.....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/10/2021 12:55, Jason wrote:

> Yes, I take the point that if someone is not around to sue you, you can
> say what you like about them with impunity. On the other hand, is this a
> good (moral) basis for a Christian-centred discussion group? Is there no
> place for "don't speak ill of the dead"? I'm not sure that "as soon as
> he was dead the gloves came off" is quite the thing to aim for.....

I don't subscribe to the "speak ill of the dead" mantra; if he was an
evil person, say so. Death does not confer saint-hood.

[Jason]

Sainthood, no, certainly not. However, once someone has died, they are
no longer in a position to defend themselves, and (especially in this
social-media day and age) people seem to like taking a "there's no smoke
without fire" line on things, and 'tweet' ever more extravagant rumours
in the quest for 'likes' and 'retweets' (why they care I'm not sure, but
they seem to). Therefore I personally think it's better to refrain from
saying things that you wouldn't say while they were alive.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/10/2021 17:52, Jason wrote:

> Sainthood, no, certainly not. However, once someone has died, they are
> no longer in a position to defend themselves, and (especially in this
> social-media day and age) people seem to like taking a "there's no smoke
> without fire" line on things, and 'tweet' ever more extravagant rumours
> in the quest for 'likes' and 'retweets' (why they care I'm not sure, but
> they seem to). Therefore I personally think it's better to refrain from
> saying things that you wouldn't say while they were alive.

But I would say those things were it not for the laws of libel and the
fact the he can afford a better lawyer than I can. Remove that
inequality and I will say them because they are true.