Quiiting Christianity but not Christ
Robert Marshall
http://www.facebook.com/annericefanpage#!/annericefanpage?v=wall&story_fbid=129786343731298&ref=mf
<quote>
It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile,
disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten ...years, I've
tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
</quote>
(and here if facebook needs you to have an account to read the above)
http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/authors/anne_rice_i_quit_christianity_169196.asp?c=rss
Robert
--
Conformity means death for any community. A loyal opposition is a
necessity in any community Karol Wojtyla (1969)
Alwyn
> Anne Rice on Christianity
>
> http://www.facebook.com/annericefanpage#!/annericefanpage?v=wall&story_fbid=129786343731298&ref=mf
> <quote>
> It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile,
> disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten ...years, I've
> tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
> </quote>
I never heard of her, but I looked her up in Wikipedia.
<quote>
following the post a few hours after with
“As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of
Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse
to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I
refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I
refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and
being Christian. Amen.”
</quote>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Rice#Exit_from_Christianity>
We atheists of caurse way 'Welcome!'.
Alwyn
Phil
> Anne Rice on Christianity
>
> http://www.facebook.com/annericefanpage#!/annericefanpage?v=wall&story_fbid=129786343731298&ref=mf
> <quote>
> It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome,
> hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten
> ...years, I've
> tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing
> else. </quote>
>
>
> (and here if facebook needs you to have an account to read the above)
>
> http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/authors/anne_rice_i_quit_christianity_169196.asp?c=rss
>
> Robert
Some people really are all about ego aren't they.
Phil
Michael J Davis
That's a pretty broad range of 'Christianity' she doesn't like! Methinks
she protests too much! There's only one item there that I can associate
with her returned-to church, and I don't think it's such a big issue.
I think it's the human race she's tired of.
Mike
Fergus
> We atheists of caurse way 'Welcome!'.
I wonder why I get the picture of predators hovering on the edge of the
herd just waiting to pounce on any indication of weakness or struggle.
Fergus
Tony Gillam
Shroud and the Bayeux Tapestry. I know - he should have gone to specsavers!
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.BookOurVilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Robert Billing
You mean something like my old boarding school?
Mark Goodge
>
><quote>
>following the post a few hours after with
>“As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of
>Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay.
Of course, not all Christians are anti-gay.
> I refuse to be anti-feminist.
Not all are anti-feminist. Actually, I'd venture to suggest that most
aren't.
> I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control.
There are plenty of Christians who aren't.
>I refuse to be anti-Democrat.
If anyone really thinks that in order to be Christian you have to be
anti-Democrat, then they really have no idea what Christianity is.
>I refuse to be anti-secular humanism.
Althoug, to the extent that secular humanism positions itself as
anti-Christian, this is kind of necessary for those who are Christian.
>I refuse to be anti-science.
Oops. We're back to not understanding what Christianity is.
> I refuse to be anti-life.
It is *impossible* to be anti-life and be Christian.
> In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”
That's a bit like renouncing communism in the name of Karl Marx.
></quote>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Rice#Exit_from_Christianity>
Which actually makes it clear that what she has, in fact, rejected is a
particular denomination of Christianity, albeit one that she has previously
(and entirely mistakenly) believed to be the whole of Christianity. So
this...
>We atheists of caurse way 'Welcome!'.
...is rather inaccurate.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Alwyn
I am surprised that bidding a friendly welcome is seen to constitute
predatory 'pouncing' in certain quarters. Christianity seems to induce
paranoia in some, it seems.
Alwyn
Tim W
"Robert Marshall" <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m1tynhi...@capuchin.co.uk...
> Anne Rice on Christianity
>
Is it possible to have 'Christian' Quilting? Isn't that a bit like a
Christian teacake or Christian nailclippers?
And Anneka Rice of all people I thought she was selling anti-ageing products
now. I had no idea she had started a gospel needlework project.
Tim W
Frederick Williams
>
> Anne Rice on Christianity
>
> http://www.facebook.com/annericefanpage#!/annericefanpage?v=wall&story_fbid=129786343731298&ref=mf
> <quote>
> It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile,
> disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten ...years, I've
> tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
> </quote>
>
> (and here if facebook needs you to have an account to read the above)
>
> http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/authors/anne_rice_i_quit_christianity_169196.asp?c=rss
Why do these people find it necessary to tell the whole world what is
going on in their minds? It would make as much sense for me to announce
every day what I had for breakfast.
--
I can't go on, I'll go on.
Robert Marshall
You've obviously never seen twitter (I think I announced there what I
had for dinner one day last week - but I draw the line at tweeting
breakfast ;-))
Robert
--
if God had meant us to have women bishops, he'd have made a woman the
first apostle of the resurrection
James
"Robert Marshall" <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m1tynhi...@capuchin.co.uk...
of other denominations. In the Elim and AOG fellowships I tried, unless you
speak in tongues then you're not anointed by the Spirit, and at most 'if
lucky' a second class Christian (if at all). In the AOG fellowship I was a
part of, you were to abstain from mixing with other denominations since they
did not have 'the truth' (yes, this minister sounded like a JW). I left the
same evening where in the ministers closing prayer he thanked the Lord that
we were blessed by not being 'blinded like the Evangelicals'.
With the Elim fellowship, you were not permitted to have any views or offer
advice/join in in any ministry as these were for the founding relatives only
or those dating one.
I tried a Living Vine church and as I didn't have a large car, large house
and very prosperous, I had un-confessed sin and was being punished by God.
In their (the two I tried) opinion, God has all the money and by His own
rules, anything two ask will be granted so He MUST give you money. Oh, they
also refused entry until you filled out a form with name, address, age,
where you worked etc. Also, I would also need a pay slip so they could tell
me what my tithes would be.
For a change I went to a number of Evangelical fellowships and was hit with
gifts of the Spirit have ceased, unscriptural to behave like charismatic's
(clapping, etc) since. Charismatic's were unscriptural and one classed them
'almost' as bad as JW's.
The next Evangelical fellowship I visited had some of their 'team' have a
word since I used an incorrect Bible translation. The NIV is very unbiblical
and I would need a KJV when I attended next. When I pointed out there are
few translations I could think of that were unbiblical where they whispered
to themselves and came back with a senior deacon(?). It appeared I was too
outspoken and needed to learn humility before I would be welcome to visit
next.
The only Apostolic fellowship had members who were 60+ years of age and only
around 20 and it was more like a coffee group and had no real sermon (which
is what I needed).
Pointless mentioning the JW's as I obviously have major problems with their
doctrine and honesty (I have a vast number of WBTS material where they state
facts only years later to deny they ever said them) and a few JW's have
stormed away with their comments "you are the anti-Christ incarnated" to
which I have alweays thanked them for their blessing.
So, with so many fellowships verbally biting others, I can see why some
would feel they want out so-to-speak.
It's not something I would recommend as I personally find it makes Christian
life much harder on your own and ill-health/depression (in my case) doesn't
really help matters.
I'm anti-denominational but if really pushed would have to describe myself
as Evangelical Charismatic. I enjoy lively worship but prefer the 'pick the
bones out of that' kind or sermon. Being from a valley town in Wales, my
first minister was a typical 1920's type who'd shout the Word at you.
Maybe I expect too much also but was told by an old retired minister many
years ago while in hospital ,'a sermon should be to everyone but feel as if
it's just for you'. Not sure if that makes sense to you all though.
Maybe it's just the area I live in but I have never had a positive
experience in any fellowship I've tried. With the attitudes mentioned above,
it is just too uncompfortable for me so I no longer have any fellowship.
Doesn't change what I believe and follow what that old minister once told
me; 'if the Bible said it, I believe it and that settles it'.
I'd just like to finish by offering apologies to any fellowships who are a
part of any organisation I mentioned above (apart from the WBTS) who don't
act in the way described. It's just my personal feelings from those I have
visited in my area and I am sure there are many excellent ones around. So,
please don't be too 'hard' on this lady as she too may have had very
negative experiences with fellowships.
Take care and God Bless,
James
----------------------------------------------
God believes in you, even if you don't believe in Him
Around 700 new Christian books for sale
www.ichthus-wales.co.uk/Books.pdf
John R
wrote:
>I can understand to a point. Every church I ever went to had horrid opinions
>of other denominations. In the Elim and AOG fellowships I tried, unless you
>speak in tongues then you're not anointed by the Spirit, and at most 'if
>lucky' a second class Christian (if at all). In the AOG fellowship I was a
>part of, you were to abstain from mixing with other denominations since they
>did not have 'the truth' (yes, this minister sounded like a JW). I left the
>same evening where in the ministers closing prayer he thanked the Lord that
>we were blessed by not being 'blinded like the Evangelicals'.
>With the Elim fellowship, you were not permitted to have any views or offer
>advice/join in in any ministry as these were for the founding relatives only
>or those dating one.
I have attended charasmatic free church, church of the Nazarene, CofE.
and AOG.
I have also attended pure evangelical but found the meetings lifeless,
as if they were just going through a routine. It is highly probable
that because I have experienced charasmatic worship, anything else did
seem lifeless.
celia
> I have also attended pure evangelical but found the meetings lifeless,
> as if they were just going through a routine. It is highly probable
> that because I have experienced charasmatic worship, anything else did
> seem lifeless.
Perhaps restlessness and wanting more is a Christian characteristic.
My present church has a 'we don't have sermons' policy which I find
almost as shocking as not having a service every Sunday.
Did George Herbert really appreciate, "The sweet mediocrity of our
native church"?
I can't find the source and rather suspect he just meant that it
didn't go to extremes.
At least we live in an age where a good sermon and Christian friends
can be found online.
Celia
Steve Hague
"Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pQx4o.1199$g57.604@hurricane...
Alwyn
I get the impression she still believes in God, she just has issues with
some aspects of the RC church.
Steve Hague
John R
wrote:
To me, the sermon and the worship are the two most important parts of
a service. I'm glad that you are not missing out on hearing a good
sermon though, despite having to go online for them.
Philip Gardner
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:29:41 +0100, Alwyn put finger to keyboard and typed:
> That's a bit like renouncing communism in the name of Karl Marx.
deviated a long way from its basis in Marxism, just as Christianity in
practice (with a few honorable exceptions) has deviated a long way from
its basis in the teachings of Jesus.
PhilG
Robert Marshall
>
> I get the impression she still believes in God, she just has issues
> with some aspects of the RC church. Steve Hague
I'd say she has issues with some aspects of mainstream (whatever that
means) American Christianity
I think the key phrase (for her) is 'Following Christ doesn't mean
following his followers' a sort of polar opposite - with regards to what
she takes as important - to Hicklingism
Robert Marshall
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Frederick Williams wrote:
>
>> Why do these people find it necessary to tell the whole world what is
>> going on in their minds? It would make as much sense for me to
>> announce every day what I had for breakfast.
>>
>
> You've obviously never seen twitter (I think I announced there what I
> had for dinner one day last week - but I draw the line at tweeting
> breakfast ;-))
>
Our cats, of course, have no objection to tweeting breakfast and are keen
to tell us about it.
Alwyn
> "Alwyn"<al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pQx4o.1199$g57.604@hurricane...
>
> We atheists of caurse way 'Welcome!'.
>
> some aspects of the RC church.
I think I was being playful, but one could also argue that by denouncing
her fellow Christians and dissociating herself from them, Ms Rice has
taken the first steps towards atheism.
Though Ms Rice is best acquainted with Roman Catholicism, some of the
attitudes she mentions, like being anti-Democrat and anti-science (i.e.
creationist), are more characteristic of American Evangelicism than of
RCs in general.
Alwyn
Phil
The idea that democracy is a better form of government might well disappear
should such a thing ever exist.
Phil
loiner2003
> Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> was inspired to say
>> On 30/07/2010 07:40, Robert Marshall wrote:
>>> Anne Rice on Christianity
>> following the post a few hours after with
>> "As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of
>> Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I
>> refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be
>> anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be
>> anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I
>> quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."
>> </quote>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Rice#Exit_from_Christianity>
>
> That's a pretty broad range of 'Christianity' she doesn't like!
> Methinks she protests too much! There's only one item there that I
> can associate with her returned-to church, and I don't think it's
> such a big issue.
> I think it's the human race she's tired of.
Not at all. I also refuse to be anti all those things; but unlike her, I
don't believe they are intrinsic to Christianity.
--
Rev. Eric Potts
loiner2003
> Why do these people find it necessary to tell the whole world what is
> going on in their minds? It would make as much sense for me to
> announce every day what I had for breakfast.
I agree with your main sentiment here. I have a Facebook listing but I
really get bored with those, including "friends" who feel a need to tell the
world about everyday trivia.
--
Rev. Eric Potts
loiner2003
> I can understand to a point. Every church I ever went to had horrid
> opinions of other denominations.
Have you ever been to a Methodist Church? I can't guarantee that they are
all free from the fault you mention, but it's not one I come across with any
regularity? Of course, there may be other things about us that you don't
like, but that's another matter! :-)
--
Rev. Eric Potts
Alwyn
> On 31 July, 02:54, John R<truthseeke...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps restlessness and wanting more is a Christian characteristic.
> My present church has a 'we don't have sermons' policy which I find
> almost as shocking as not having a service every Sunday.
Given the way most preachers just blather on, I'd have thought not
having a sermon would be a relief to most of the congregation.
> Did George Herbert really appreciate, "The sweet mediocrity of our
> native church"?
> I can't find the source and rather suspect he just meant that it
> didn't go to extremes.
I imagine he was referring to Aristotle's _aurea mediocritas_ or 'golden
mean'. The English word 'mediocrity' only acquired its present
pejorative meaning towards the end of the seventeenth century, decades
after the death of Herbert.
I once read that the Church of England steered a middle path without
falling into the Lake of Geneva on the one hand and the See of Rome on
the other.
Alwyn
Steve Hague
Anne Rice was an atheist for most of her life. She only re-embraced the
Catholicism of her childhood a few years ago. I know this from the foreword
to a novel she wrote about the childhood of Jesus.
Steve Hague
loiner2003
> Given the way most preachers just blather on, I'd have thought not
> having a sermon would be a relief to most of the congregation.
Since retiring (sort of) I have heard more sermons than I have given, and I
do think the overall quality of preaching (myself excluded, naturally!) is
pretty low. This might not matter for some denominations where the
sermon/homily is almost incidental to the liturgy, but it does matter for
denominations like mine where preaching is still held to be of central
importance. A good sermon can both teach and inspire, and since many
Christians today do not attend any other from of learning activity, this is
crucial.
--
Rev. Eric Potts
Alwyn
>
> Since retiring (sort of) I have heard more sermons than I have given, and I
> do think the overall quality of preaching (myself excluded, naturally!) is
> pretty low. This might not matter for some denominations where the
> sermon/homily is almost incidental to the liturgy, but it does matter for
> denominations like mine where preaching is still held to be of central
> importance.
I've been taken on occasion, by people who, no doubt, would like to see
me mend my ways, to Free Church services which have no liturgy and where
the sermon is the _pièce de résistance_. They are mostly in the form of
a hymn sandwich, e.g. hymn - prayer - hymn - more prayers - hymn -
sermon - hymn. The most remarkable I remember was a visit to a Wee Free
chapel in Inverness, where the preacher reminded the congregation not to
drink too much (in a Welsh presbyterian context, everybody is assumed to
be teetotal!) and complained about the lack of parking facilities for
churchgoers; the police, he said, should make special concessions for
the Children of God, doubtless because they were uniquely law-abiding,
apart from a few parking infractions.
> A good sermon can both teach and inspire, and since many
> Christians today do not attend any other from of learning activity, this is
> crucial.
I can't quarrel with that.
Alwyn
celia
>
> I've been taken on occasion, by people who, no doubt, would like to see
> me mend my ways, to Free Church services which have no liturgy and where
> the sermon is the _pièce de résistance_. They are mostly in the form of
> a hymn sandwich, e.g. hymn - prayer - hymn - more prayers - hymn -
> sermon - hymn. The most remarkable I remember was a visit to a Wee Free
> chapel in Inverness, where the preacher reminded the congregation not to
> drink too much (in a Welsh presbyterian context, everybody is assumed to
> be teetotal!) and complained about the lack of parking facilities for
> churchgoers; the police, he said, should make special concessions for
> the Children of God, doubtless because they were uniquely law-abiding,
> apart from a few parking infractions.
>
> > A good sermon can both teach and inspire, and since many
> > Christians today do not attend any other from of learning activity, this is
> > crucial.
I've heard some memorably bad sermons in my time but for
cringeworthiness this video of the child evangelist Marjoe takes some
beating.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-178629120699935619&ei=DknNSemoOI24_AGuv4zXAg&q=Marjoe&client=firefox-a#
Discovered thanks to the evangelical preacher scandals link in ukrc
and unlikely to be quickly forgotten.
I think I must have missed out on the gene for susceptibility to
Little lord Fauntleroy curls.
Celia
Gareth McCaughan
"Fergus" wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 11:29 +0100, Alwyn wrote:
>
>> We atheists of caurse way 'Welcome!'.
>
> I wonder why I get the picture of predators hovering on the edge of the
> herd just waiting to pounce on any indication of weakness or struggle.
Unnecessary hatred and fear of atheists, perhaps?
--
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc
Alwyn
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-178629120699935619&ei=DknNSemoOI24_AGuv4zXAg&q=Marjoe&client=firefox-a#
> Discovered thanks to the evangelical preacher scandals link in ukrc
> and unlikely to be quickly forgotten.
> I think I must have missed out on the gene for susceptibility to
> Little lord Fauntleroy curls.
Were you turned off by his nose? He is rather beaky. I think a timely
nose job would have done his ministry a power of good.
Alwyn
celia
> > Discovered thanks to the evangelical preacher scandals link in ukrc
> > and unlikely to be quickly forgotten.
> > I think I must have missed out on the gene for susceptibility to
> > Little lord Fauntleroy curls.
>
> Were you turned off by his nose? He is rather beaky. I think a timely
> nose job would have done his ministry a power of good.
It was neither the nose nor the ears it was that white suit and bow
tie.
There's something creepy about a child without added dirt, it just
ain't natural.
I suspect his clone grew up to be Benny Hinn.
Celia
Gareth McCaughan
"Alwyn" wrote:
It doesn't sound as if it needed it.
Kendall Down
> Since retiring (sort of) I have heard more sermons than I have given, and I
> do think the overall quality of preaching (myself excluded, naturally!) is
> pretty low.
I know just what you mean! People who read their sermons (usually in a
monotone and without any eye-contact), people who are trite, inaccurate
or even just plain wrong (as in theologically or doctrinally). I am a
popular preacher, but I gravely suspect it is not because I am so good
but because most others are so bad!
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Kendall Down
> They are mostly in the form of
> a hymn sandwich, e.g. hymn - prayer - hymn - more prayers - hymn -
> sermon - hymn.
Given the fact that hymns are a a Protestant invention and were an
important means of spreading the Gospel, the commonly-expressed contempt
for the "hymn sandwich" type of service is somewhat misplaced.
Even from the practical point of view, having hymns is a good idea as it
involves the congregation in the praise and worship, gives them a chance
to stretch their legs and lungs before settling down to the sermon
(activity followed by rest is a technique used in primary schools, for
example), and when well done gives a sense of unity and bonding to the
disparate individuals in the congregation.
Incidentally, the typical Welsh Methodist service is:
Hymn, Scripture, Hymn, Prayer, Announcements, Offering, Hymn, Sermon,
Hymn, Benediction.
- .. -- Tim .-.
> "Fergus" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 11:29 +0100, Alwyn wrote:
>>
>>> We atheists of caurse way 'Welcome!'.
>>
>> I wonder why I get the picture of predators hovering on the edge of
>> the herd just waiting to pounce on any indication of weakness or
>> struggle.
>
> Unnecessary hatred and fear of atheists, perhaps?
Are we being accused of being 'atheophobic'?
Tim.
Robert Marshall
>
> On 01/08/2010 17:20, Alwyn wrote:
>
>> They are mostly in the form of
>> a hymn sandwich, e.g. hymn - prayer - hymn - more prayers - hymn -
>> sermon - hymn.
>
> Given the fact that hymns are a a Protestant invention and were an
> important means of spreading the Gospel, the commonly-expressed
> contempt for the "hymn sandwich" type of service is somewhat
> misplaced.
>
Though I'd guess that a large part of the reasons why this was then
appropriate was the greater level of illiteracy , easier to get words in
heads if sung rather than repeating lots of text.
> Even from the practical point of view, having hymns is a good idea as
> it involves the congregation in the praise and worship, gives them a
> chance to stretch their legs and lungs before settling down to the
> sermon (activity followed by rest is a technique used in primary
> schools, for example), and when well done gives a sense of unity and
> bonding to the disparate individuals in the congregation.
>
Variety is very useful (bring on the dancing girls I say - do I need to
signal this is not meant seriously?)
Robert
--
If God had meant us to have women bishops, he'd have made a woman the
Alwyn
>
> Given the fact that hymns are a a Protestant invention
Are they? The Catholic Church had Latin hymns many centuries before the
Reformation, and the German hymn _Es kumpt ain schiff geladen_, 'There
comes a ship laden', predates Luther by decades if not centuries. So I
think Luther took an existing form and did more with it than had been
done before.
> and were an important means of spreading the Gospel, the commonly-expressed contempt for the "hymn sandwich" type of service is somewhat misplaced.
My objection is less to the hymns themselves than to a form of service
that is boringly the same Sunday after Sunday after Sunday and makes
little or no use of liturgy.
Alwyn
John R
<sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Variety is very useful (bring on the dancing girls I say - do I need to
>signal this is not meant seriously?)
Hear Hear!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aSUMBxJpwY
although I'm guessing this would be a bit more up to date
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyvCRtYy9bA&feature=related
loiner2003
> On 01/08/2010 17:20, Alwyn wrote:
>
>> They are mostly in the form of
>> a hymn sandwich, e.g. hymn - prayer - hymn - more prayers - hymn -
>> sermon - hymn.
>
> Given the fact that hymns are a a Protestant invention
Not really. The corporate or choral recitation, chanting or singing of
poetry is found in most religions and certainly predates Christianity. What
was new, in both secular and religious life after the Renaissance and
Reformation, was the shaping of poetry, including hymns, into more or less
regular metric form, and divided into stanzas. The Prtestant churches
especially developed the use of this form as a means of devotion but also as
a means of expressing theology in an accessible and memorable way. Thus the
metrical psalms, and the work of such as Watts and Wesley were extremely
important.
They still can be, and in present situations can help to move congregational
thinking forward. So there are "ecumenical" hymns such as:
"What shall our greeting be,
Sign of our unity?
'Jesus is Lord.'
May we no more defend
Barriers he died to end:
Give me your hand, my friend -
Jesus is Lord."
Or hymns for present experience:
"When our confidence is shaken
In beliefs we thought secure;
When the spirit in its sickness
Seeks but cannot find a cure:
God is active in th tensions
Of a faith not yet mature."
There are eco-hymns:
"God in his love for us lent us this planet,
Gave it a purpose in time and in space:
Small as a spark from the fire of creation,
Cradle of life and the home of our race."
And (inter)national hymns:
"It is God who holds the nations in the hollow of his hand;
It is God whose light is shining in the darkness of the land;
It is God who builds his City on the Rock and not on sand;
May the living God be praised!"
All of those were written by the "modern Wesley", the Mthodist minister Fred
Pratt Green.
Add to that the inspiration of many (but by no means all) of what are now
called worship songs; congregational singing continues to have a huge part
to play in modern worship.
> Incidentally, the typical Welsh Methodist service is:
>
> Hymn, Scripture, Hymn, Prayer, Announcements, Offering, Hymn, Sermon,
> Hymn, Benediction.
I imagine you are referring there to the (rapidly declining) Welsh only
speaking churches. Similar patterns may be found in other metodist churches,
true, but in my lifetime there has been major changes. The sermon as the
climax is no longer the norm in Methodism generally. The basic pattern now
tends to be: Approach; Word; Response. Thus the sermon sits in mid-service.
After it comes, usually, some means of response, either in prayers such as
intercession, or in communion. We still have four or five hymns, often, but
they are probably carefully chosen to fit that apptern and move the service
onwards, by enabling the congregation to do its part at that particular
point in the service. (I will admit that not all preachers have this fully
worked out, but that is at least the intention.)
It is also increasingly common, under charismatic influence, for preachers
to break away from all of this for at least part of the service. Of course,
this may mean a whole series of worship songs, one after the other.......!
--
Rev. Eric Potts
loiner2003
> My objection is less to the hymns themselves than to a form of service
> that is boringly the same Sunday after Sunday after Sunday and makes
> little or no use of liturgy.
How ironic. After all, those churches which have a fixed liturgy are accused
by Methodists of being boringly the same Sunday after Sunday after Sunday!
And things are continually changing. In most Methodist churches, for
example, the communion service - held at least once a month - follows an
ordered liturgy, though one with options for variety. Not all ministers will
use the full liturgy (though I do do that myself) but almost all will use a
set liturgy from after the service of the Word, ie eucharistic prayer and
onwards.
Other Free Church denominations have moved in a similar direction, though
not all at the same pace.
Time was when most Methodists would have objected to a "book service". Today
very many value and relish it, if not every Sunday. And I recall a Roman
Catholic priest and colleague expressing delight when he read the latest
Methodist Worship Book. Similarly, one of my local Anglican colleagues, when
presiding at the bi-monthly joint communion with us, often prefers to use
the Methodist liturgy ahead of what he is supposed to be using, namely the
liturgy of the Scottish Epicopal Church!
And in one church a few years back I was asked once why I had opted to use
only a part of the liturgy at Communion. I said that it was because I felt
some time constraint and the alternative was to omit one or more hymns. The
reply was, "Then please omit a hymn in future!" Of course, that was a church
which had re-ordered its sanctuary area to make the communion table the
centrepiece, rather than the pulpit, and which delighted to display seasonal
colours in cloths on the Table, pulpit and lectern.
--
Rev. Eric Potts
Kendall Down
> Variety is very useful (bring on the dancing girls I say - do I need to
> signal this is not meant seriously?)
The local Baptist church used to have dancing girls - sorry, "Worship in
Movement Group" - and very nice they were too.
Kendall Down
>> Given the fact that hymns are a a Protestant invention
> Are they? The Catholic Church had Latin hymns many centuries before the
> Reformation, and the German hymn _Es kumpt ain schiff geladen_, 'There
> comes a ship laden', predates Luther by decades if not centuries. So I
> think Luther took an existing form and did more with it than had been
> done before.
But were they for congregational singing? My understanding is that the
choir sang or chanted, the congregation just stood and watched. (I
believe the Orthodox church had more congregational participation.)
> My objection is less to the hymns themselves than to a form of service
> that is boringly the same Sunday after Sunday after Sunday and makes
> little or no use of liturgy.
Er - the liturgy isn't the same Sunday after Sunday after Sunday? You
haven't been reading your BCP lately[1].
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Note 1: And yes, I do know that they have different Collects from time
to time and process round the altar widdershins on high days and holy
days, but Protestants ring the changes from time to time as well.
Kendall Down
>> Given the fact that hymns are a a Protestant invention
> Not really. The corporate or choral recitation, chanting or singing of
> poetry is found in most religions and certainly predates Christianity. What
> was new, in both secular and religious life after the Renaissance and
> Reformation, was the shaping of poetry, including hymns, into more or less
> regular metric form, and divided into stanzas. The Prtestant churches
> especially developed the use of this form as a means of devotion but also as
> a means of expressing theology in an accessible and memorable way. Thus the
> metrical psalms, and the work of such as Watts and Wesley were extremely
> important.
I think you've just proved my point.
> I imagine you are referring there to the (rapidly declining) Welsh only
> speaking churches.
Yes, they're the ones I'm most familiar with. The same pattern, by the
way, is followed in Welsh Presbyterian, Welsh Congregational and Welsh
Baptist chapels.
> Similar patterns may be found in other metodist churches,
> true, but in my lifetime there has been major changes. The sermon as the
> climax is no longer the norm in Methodism generally.
Ichabod.
> It is also increasingly common, under charismatic influence, for preachers
> to break away from all of this for at least part of the service. Of course,
> this may mean a whole series of worship songs, one after the other.......!
Yuck.
John R
wrote:
One mans meat.....
I actually preferred a block of, say 20 minutes, of praise and worship
to God, rather than one hymn at a time over the course of the service.
Phil
One hymn doesnt last 20 minutes -so if you dont like it there is hope
Phil
Gareth McCaughan
Dunno. Are you, like Fergus, assailed by irrelevant images of predators
waiting to pounce whenever an atheist says something encouraging to
someone who's having trouble with Christianity?
- .. -- Tim .-.
Not at all. I deem doubt to be an important part of faith. Often, "having
trouble" with Christianity leads to a better understanding of it, since what
the person may be having trouble with is the version of it they have been
taught.
Tim.
- .. -- Tim .-.
I know of some that *seem* to...
Tim.
Fergus
> "Fergus" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 11:29 +0100, Alwyn wrote:
> >
> >> We atheists of caurse way 'Welcome!'.
> >
> > I wonder why I get the picture of predators hovering on the edge of the
> > herd just waiting to pounce on any indication of weakness or struggle.
>
> Unnecessary hatred and fear of atheists, perhaps?
>
I have no hatred of atheists but it bothers me when they muddy the
waters for genuine seekers and then go on to imply that, of course the
path of faith is not clear.
Maybe I'm getting the wrong message but I see more attempts to browbeat
than to seek the truth by many atheists. Yes, I know the same can be
said of many evangelists and it's not good in either case.
Fergus
Fergus
>
> Not at all. I deem doubt to be an important part of faith. Often, "having
> trouble" with Christianity leads to a better understanding of it, since what
> the person may be having trouble with is the version of it they have been
> taught.
Maybe that's what was behind my imagery. We all have doubts from time to
time - maybe that is true of atheists as well, I wouldn't know. However
when others see those doubts there can be different responses. Ideally
the hearer would help the seeker to work through those doubts and come
to a fuller understanding. On the other hand the hearer might say
something like "of course you are having doubts, it's all a load of
codswallop anyway - give it up and be welcome into the fold of
unbelief!".
It's the latter which bothers me. Particularly in a group where the
topic is Christianity.
Fergus
John R
<fergusc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 2010-08-01 at 18:03 +0100, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> "Fergus" wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 11:29 +0100, Alwyn wrote:
>> >
>> >> We atheists of caurse way 'Welcome!'.
>> >
>> > I wonder why I get the picture of predators hovering on the edge of the
>> > herd just waiting to pounce on any indication of weakness or struggle.
>>
>> Unnecessary hatred and fear of atheists, perhaps?
>>
>
>I have no hatred of atheists but it bothers me when they muddy the
>waters for genuine seekers and then go on to imply that, of course the
>path of faith is not clear.
It isn't!
>Maybe I'm getting the wrong message but I see more attempts to browbeat
>than to seek the truth by many atheists. Yes, I know the same can be
>said of many evangelists and it's not good in either case.
What you saw was a throwaway remark from Alwyn saying "welcome". It
wasn't even related to anyone on here.
None of the atheists on here have attempted to browbeat me into
letting go of Christianity, despite knowing that it is fragile to say
the least.
A person is an atheist because they have no evidence that God exists.
A person is a Christian because they have faith that God exists, but
there is no evidence that He does.
Perhaps a little more respect for their POV might not go amiss.
Remember it is (allegedly) the Holy Spirit who convicts, and unless He
does, how can you expect a person to believe?
John R
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>John R wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:54:08 +0100, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/08/2010 11:21, loiner2003 wrote:
>>
>>>> It is also increasingly common, under charismatic influence, for
>>>> preachers to break away from all of this for at least part of the
>>>> service. Of course, this may mean a whole series of worship songs,
>>>> one after the other.......!
>>>
>>> Yuck.
>>
>> One mans meat.....
>>
>> I actually preferred a block of, say 20 minutes, of praise and worship
>> to God, rather than one hymn at a time over the course of the service.
Whilst my last church did tend to repeat the same song several times I
am hearking back to my early Christian days where I attended a lovely
fellowship that would sing the same song through two or three times
then move straight into another. From what I recall it was two blocks
probably of 10 minutes though, not one.
Phil
bollocks!
A person may be an atheist for many reasons.
There is plenty of evidence, atheists discount it.
Phil
Alwyn
>
> There is plenty of evidence, atheists discount it.
There is plenty of evidence for Santa Claus, adults discount it.
Alwyn
Adam Funk
> On 31/07/2010 05:28, celia wrote:
>> Did George Herbert really appreciate, "The sweet mediocrity of our
>> native church"?
>> I can't find the source and rather suspect he just meant that it
>> didn't go to extremes.
>
> I imagine he was referring to Aristotle's _aurea mediocritas_ or 'golden
> mean'. The English word 'mediocrity' only acquired its present
> pejorative meaning towards the end of the seventeenth century, decades
> after the death of Herbert.
>
> I once read that the Church of England steered a middle path without
> falling into the Lake of Geneva on the one hand and the See of Rome on
> the other.
The "She on the hills"/"She in the valley" comparison comes from
Herbert's "The British Church".
http://www.ccel.org/h/herbert/temple/British.html
--
The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.
[Thomas Jefferson]
Phil
Not all atheist are idiots - but you folks do try hard to convince me
otherwise.
What kind of a saddo spends time debating with people who believe in Father
Christmas? And yet you made that comparison....
Now why don't you go and fuck yourself rather than wasting time when you
could be out enjoying what is left of your short little life before you find
out what a major fuck up you made of it?
I suppose I should care what happens to you but I figure if you want to
stand in the shit and say it doesn't smell that is your choice.
Phil
John R
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 03/08/2010 11:07, Phil wrote:
>>>
>>> There is plenty of evidence, atheists discount it.
>Now why don't you go and fuck yourself rather than wasting time when you
>could be out enjoying what is left of your short little life before you find
>out what a major fuck up you made of it?
>
>I suppose I should care what happens to you but I figure if you want to
>stand in the shit and say it doesn't smell that is your choice.
Yet you yourself was an atheist until one day.................
celia
Sorry Phil, I know you are having a difficult time at the moment but
the above must count as abuse so it's a week on manual moderation.
Celia
Phil
I used to shit in my pants as well - but that doesn't make it the smart or
right thing to do....
Phil
Phil
Just exactly where did I cross the line?
I insulted atheists as a group, people who debate whether santa exist, etc
etc
Nope cant see it
Don't be sorry - just explain it to me
Phil
John R
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>John R wrote:
>> Yet you yourself was an atheist until one day.................
>
>I used to shit in my pants as well - but that doesn't make it the smart or
>right thing to do....
My understanding is that those not in Christ only become believers
when God has opened their eyes to the Truth.
So if the Truth has not been revealed to them, how can they
understand?
To paraphrase 1 Corinthians 6:11
You also was an atheist; but you were washed, but you were sanctified,
but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in
the Spirit of our God
Surely it's better to spread that Grace rather than telling Alwyn to
"go f*** himself"?
Matthew Vernon
> >> Now why don't you go and fuck yourself rather than wasting time when
> >> you could be out enjoying what is left of your short little life
> >> before you find out what a major fuck up you made of it?
> Just exactly where did I cross the line?
I read the quoted text above as aimed at Alwyn. TBPH, even if it
wasn't off-charter, it's far from the tone we should be using here...
Matthew
--
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out
of my hand". John 10 27-28
http://www.pick.ucam.org/
Phil
Let me make it very clear - I find most of the atheists that I encounter to
be smug patronising twats. Alwyn's comment re Santa Claus merely showed him
in that light.
If he chooses to hold that attitude then that is his look out.
I cannot give him grace - and quite frankly he doesn't want it. If God
chooses to save him then all well and good. If not he is without excuse so
say the scriptures.
Phil
Phil
> "Phil" <philip....@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>>>> Now why don't you go and fuck yourself rather than wasting time
>>>> when you could be out enjoying what is left of your short little
>>>> life before you find out what a major fuck up you made of it?
>
>> Just exactly where did I cross the line?
>
> I read the quoted text above as aimed at Alwyn. TBPH, even if it
> wasn't off-charter, it's far from the tone we should be using here...
>
> Matthew
Dear Matthew
Whilst I appreciate your response for what it is I wasn't aware that there
was "a tone that we should be using".
Could you explain why the tone that you would like is better than the other
tones that you don't?
Phil
Alwyn
>
> Let me make it very clear - I find most of the atheists that I encounter to
> be smug patronising twats.
Nice of you to say so!
> Alwyn's comment re Santa Claus merely showed him
> in that light.
I spoke the truth. In fact there is a lot more evidence for Santa Claus
than there is for God. Santa can be seen in various stores around
Christmas time, in church halls and in press advertisements, not to
speak of the internet. On the other hand, your own scriptures concede
that nobody has seen God.
Alwyn
Matthew Vernon
> Whilst I appreciate your response for what it is I wasn't aware that there
> was "a tone that we should be using".
>
> Could you explain why the tone that you would like is better than the other
> tones that you don't?
IME, Christians should aim to be at the very least civil to each
other, so I would advocate being civil to everyone in this ng - it
leads, in my view, to a more pleasant atmosphere.
loiner2003
> On 02/08/2010 11:21, loiner2003 wrote:
>> true, but in my lifetime there has been major changes. The sermon as
>> the climax is no longer the norm in Methodism generally.
>
> Ichabod.
>
You do take my point, I hope, that moving the sermon to mid-service does not
reduce its importance for us. It is, I think, a reflection of the fact that
regular Sunday worship is primarily for those who already are Christian, to
some degree, to spend time with God and to develop their faith. The pattern
is derived from the ancient liturgy, but on most Sundays does not include
the eucharist but ofers some other means of response by the worshipper. The
sermon at the end scenario is more appropriate for an evangelical rally
where the response expected is to an altar call.
--
Rev. Eric Potts
- .. -- Tim .-.
When I was younger, I tried to convince myself of the atheist view, but
found I couldn't. I realised that deep down I *do* believe in God, even
though I cannot define God. However, it was a time of shifting my beliefs
onto a less literal and more symbolic understanding of scripture and the
meanings of traditional Christianity. It later turned out to be my first
steps toward Anglo-Catholicism, with its emphasis on symbols and sacraments
rather than a cerebral and literal approach to scripture. An earthly shadow
of heavenly mysteries and glories, that are far above our understanding or
definition.
Basically, I took what I found I really believe, and then found ways that I
could express it within traditional Christianity. At a basic level, I
believe the Universe to be a consequence of sentience, rather than sentience
being a 'happy accident' arising out of the physical Universe. Since only
sentience can give the Universe meaning (a totally unobserved Universe would
be an irrelevance) it is my belief that the Universe exists both *for*
sentience, and *because* of sentience. Viewed from a symbolic perspective,
that is entirely consistent with Christian theology.
However, it is well known that I do not accept notions of 'Infallibility' in
either scriptures or church leaders. Rather, I centre on the Biblical
emphasis on Love, since being sentient is what it means to be 'Made in God's
Image', and our duty as sentient creatures is to try to make the world a
better place for sentience to enjoy. That's sort-of it, as far as I'm
concerned. An approach which makes my faith strong, since (1) I tried not
believing, and found I couldn't, and (2) It doesn't matter that much to me
if people say that the Bible has many errors and contradictions, since I
accept it has anyway, and it doesn't matter to my approach, which as I said
is more symbolic and less literal.
Tim.
Mark Goodge
>On 03/08/2010 11:07, Phil wrote:
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence, atheists discount it.
>
>There is plenty of evidence for Santa Claus, adults discount it.
They're not really equivalent, though. For a start, the reason adults
discount the evidence for Santa is because adults knowingly *invent* the
evidence for Santa, but I'm under the impression that atheists aren't
guilty of inventing the evidence for God. And, secondly, despite the tone
of his post, Phil does have a good point - nobody seriously debates the
existence of Santa with Santa-believers, so the mere fact that you're
prepared to debate the existence of God with God-believers demonstrates
that you take the arguments for God more seriously than you take the
arguments for Santa.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
- .. -- Tim .-.
>
> I spoke the truth. In fact there is a lot more evidence for Santa
> Claus than there is for God. Santa can be seen in various stores
> around Christmas time, in church halls and in press advertisements,
> not to speak of the internet. On the other hand, your own scriptures
> concede that nobody has seen God.
>
>
> Alwyn
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas
Saint Nicholas (Greek: ????? ???????? , Agios ["saint"] Nikolaos ["victory
of the people"]) (270 - 6 December 346) is the canonical and most popular
name for Nicholas of Myra, a saint andGreek[3] Bishop of Myra (Demre, in
Lycia, part of modern-day Turkey). Because of the many miracles attributed
to his intercession, he is also known as Nicholas the Wonderworker. He had a
reputation for secret gift-giving, such as putting coins in the shoes of
those who left them out for him, and thus became the model for Santa Claus,
whose English name comes from the Dutch Sinterklaas.
Thus we have a historical Santa Claus. The mythical Santa Claus of today
represents the spirit of the loving and generous acts of kindness attributed
to this individual. In a sense, then, Santa Claus *does* exist, in that
what he symbolises is this spirit of generosity, an abstract thing, but none
the less real for that.
Sentience also *does* exist, unless we are to deny our own existence. The
main difference between atheists and theists IMO is that the latter believe
that the Universe exists both for, and because of sentience, whereas the
former believe that sentience is just a lucky by-product of the physical
Universe. A totally un-observed Universe would have no meaning, it would be
an irrelevance.
I think neither view is, of itself, unreasonable. However, neither view is
provable. It remains an issue of what the individual believes in his or her
heart is the most likely. I believe sentience to be the raison d'etre for
all things. That is also the Christian viewpoint. "In the beginning
God..."
Tim.
Robert Billing
> celia wrote:
>> Sorry Phil, I know you are having a difficult time at the moment but
>> the above must count as abuse so it's a week on manual moderation.
>>
>> Celia
>
> Just exactly where did I cross the line?
"You" and "your" seem to me to carry the intention of addressing the
previous poster (who I happen to think is mistaken in his views)
personally.
As far as I can see Celia is right.
Frederick Williams
>
> [...], so the mere fact that you're
> prepared to debate the existence of God with God-believers demonstrates
> that you take the arguments for God more seriously than you take the
> arguments for Santa.
It is the _subject matter_ that is more serious (people kill in the name
of God). The _arguments_ for the existence of God are no more
serious--in the sense of deserving serious consideration--than those for
the existence of Santa Claus
--
I can't go on, I'll go on.
Adam Funk
> "Phil" <philip....@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> >> Now why don't you go and fuck yourself rather than wasting time when
>> >> you could be out enjoying what is left of your short little life
>> >> before you find out what a major fuck up you made of it?
>
>> Just exactly where did I cross the line?
>
> I read the quoted text above as aimed at Alwyn. TBPH, even if it
> wasn't off-charter, it's far from the tone we should be using here...
Thread merger with "WTF! - Vicar says Christians should swear more"...
--
"Gonzo, is that the contract from the devil?"
"No, Kermit, it's worse than that. This is the bill from special
effects."
Fergus
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:43:39 +0100, Fergus
> <fergusc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I have no hatred of atheists but it bothers me when they muddy the
> >waters for genuine seekers and then go on to imply that, of course the
> >path of faith is not clear.
>
> It isn't!
>
True, but that doesn't mean that the waters can't be muddied.
> What you saw was a throwaway remark from Alwyn saying "welcome". It
> wasn't even related to anyone on here.
>
It wasn't just that one off remark but rather the general tenor of his,
and other atheists', posts which I reacted to.
> None of the atheists on here have attempted to browbeat me into
> letting go of Christianity, despite knowing that it is fragile to say
> the least.
>
Fair enough.
> A person is an atheist because they have no evidence that God exists.
> A person is a Christian because they have faith that God exists, but
> there is no evidence that He does.
> Perhaps a little more respect for their POV might not go amiss.
I respect their POV although I disagree with it but it's the way it's
often put across that I find harder to respect. But as I mentioned
elsewhere I'd feel the same about some evangelists even if I agreed with
their message.
> Remember it is (allegedly) the Holy Spirit who convicts, and unless He
> does, how can you expect a person to believe?
Not sure I follow how that fits in.
Fergus
- .. -- Tim .-.
>>
> The _arguments_ for the existence of God are no more
> serious--in the sense of deserving serious consideration--than those
> for the existence of Santa Claus
Whereas that is your opinion, it is not one that I agree with. Perhaps it
depends on what the word "God" means to you. After all, some years ago now
I seriously considered the non-existence of God and rejected it as (IMO)
unreasonable. But I did at least give it serious consideration.
Tim.
Alwyn
> On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 10:21 +0100, John R wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:43:39 +0100, Fergus
>> <fergusc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I have no hatred of atheists but it bothers me when they muddy the
>>> waters for genuine seekers and then go on to imply that, of course the
>>> path of faith is not clear.
>>
>> It isn't!
>
> True, but that doesn't mean that the waters can't be muddied.
So what exactly do you mean by 'muddying the waters'? Oscurantism? I
would say it is not the atheists where who are guilty of that.
Alwyn
Alwyn
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:43:14 +0100, Alwyn put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>> On 03/08/2010 11:07, Phil wrote:
>>>
>>> There is plenty of evidence, atheists discount it.
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence for Santa Claus, adults discount it.
>
> They're not really equivalent, though. For a start, the reason adults
> discount the evidence for Santa is because adults knowingly *invent* the
> evidence for Santa,
Well, after I was disabused of the notion of Santa Claus, I started to
wonder if adults were lying about God as well. Eventually I came to
think that there were some adults who quite sincerely believed in God,
but only because they had been told about Him, and that ultimately, God
was just as much of a fiction as Santa Claus was, but fewer people knew.
I suppose one of the reasons for theism is that the ruling class
invented God in order to help keep people under control, as in Plato's
Royal Lie, but somehow the idea caught on and some people now believe
without being coerced from above. Exactly why this happened is something
anthropologists and psychologists of religion have yet to agree on.
> but I'm under the impression that atheists aren't
> guilty of inventing the evidence for God. And, secondly, despite the tone
> of his post, Phil does have a good point - nobody seriously debates the
> existence of Santa with Santa-believers,
Because they are children! It would be heartless to argue with them,
though I don't entirely approve of the Santa-fiction.
> so the mere fact that you're
> prepared to debate the existence of God with God-believers demonstrates
> that you take the arguments for God more seriously than you take the
> arguments for Santa.
I take the believers seriously! As I have said before, I think the
evidence for Santa Claus is much stronger than that for God. So why do
people still believe in God? It quite honestly beats me.
Alwyn
John R
<fergusc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 10:21 +0100, John R wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:43:39 +0100, Fergus
>> <fergusc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I have no hatred of atheists but it bothers me when they muddy the
>> >waters for genuine seekers and then go on to imply that, of course the
>> >path of faith is not clear.
>>
>> It isn't!
>>
>
>True, but that doesn't mean that the waters can't be muddied.
Of course. To be a Christian means going against the grain. 2000
years ago you might have been fed to the lions. :-)
If the Christian faith is true, then surely it is strong enough to
withstand criticism?
>> What you saw was a throwaway remark from Alwyn saying "welcome". It
>> wasn't even related to anyone on here.
>>
>
>It wasn't just that one off remark but rather the general tenor of his,
>and other atheists', posts which I reacted to.
Maybe it is just me, but I don't see that. Alwyn in particular I have
found to be unoffensive and polite in what he says. Of course you can
hardly expect him to agree with what a Christian believes.
They say actions speak louder than words, and the behaviour of some
Christians on here only adds fuel to their non belief.
>>A person is an atheist because they have no evidence that God exists.
>> A person is a Christian because they have faith that God exists, but
>> there is no evidence that He does.
>
>> Perhaps a little more respect for their POV might not go amiss.
>I respect their POV although I disagree with it but it's the way it's
>often put across that I find harder to respect. But as I mentioned
>elsewhere I'd feel the same about some evangelists even if I agreed with
>their message.
Like I say, I haven't noticed it myself. But if you are an atheist
then the default position is God doesn't exist. Whereas you and I
are of the belief that He does exist, I can quite happily put myself
in an atheist's shoes and nod my head in agreement.
The evidence is extremely thin, and believe me I have been looking
hard these last few months. For some insane reason, I still believe,
but as Jeff says, I could be deluded :-)
>> Remember it is (allegedly) the Holy Spirit who convicts, and unless He
>> does, how can you expect a person to believe?
>
>Not sure I follow how that fits in.
How were you saved? what was your view of Christianity prior to that?
celia
Alwyn used words that were singular rather than plural and so I
concluded that you were addressing him in an abusive manner.
Celia
John R
>I take the believers seriously! As I have said before, I think the
>evidence for Santa Claus is much stronger than that for God. So why do
>people still believe in God? It quite honestly beats me.
Well you already know of how I became a Christian. Disregarding the
actual events, which I know you are not convinced of, it was the
change in me that was radical.
I left the church that day walking on air, it was like someone had
just completely washed me inside, I had not a care in the world.
I remember talking to some work colleagues a few days later, and
telling them about this wonderful Jesus who had changed me within, and
they were looking at me gone out. And I'm thinking, this is real, why
are you looking at me gone out?
I simply cannot explain what happened there. If that wasn't God, what
was it?
Mark Goodge
>On 03/08/2010 19:10, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:43:14 +0100, Alwyn put finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>>> On 03/08/2010 11:07, Phil wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is plenty of evidence, atheists discount it.
>>>
>>> There is plenty of evidence for Santa Claus, adults discount it.
>>
>> They're not really equivalent, though. For a start, the reason adults
>> discount the evidence for Santa is because adults knowingly *invent* the
>> evidence for Santa,
>
>Well, after I was disabused of the notion of Santa Claus, I started to
>wonder if adults were lying about God as well. Eventually I came to
>think that there were some adults who quite sincerely believed in God,
>but only because they had been told about Him, and that ultimately, God
>was just as much of a fiction as Santa Claus was, but fewer people knew.
>
>I suppose one of the reasons for theism is that the ruling class
>invented God in order to help keep people under control, as in Plato's
>Royal Lie, but somehow the idea caught on and some people now believe
>without being coerced from above. Exactly why this happened is something
>anthropologists and psychologists of religion have yet to agree on.
If you want an anthropological explanation for theism, then as far as I'm
aware there's no significant disagreement over the theory that it arose as
a response to primitive peoples' attempts to explain observed phenomena
that, to them, appeared to have intelligent direction and yet were
inexplicable. That is, the idea of God(s) existed well before the concept
of the ruling class.
>> so the mere fact that you're
>> prepared to debate the existence of God with God-believers demonstrates
>> that you take the arguments for God more seriously than you take the
>> arguments for Santa.
>
>I take the believers seriously! As I have said before, I think the
>evidence for Santa Claus is much stronger than that for God. So why do
>people still believe in God? It quite honestly beats me.
The evidence for Santa is strong because we deliberately concoct it to be
strong. So is the evidence for the existence of Hercule Poirot, Sherlock
Holmes, Moby Dick and Huckleberry Finn. But, by and large, people don't
really believe things that they know to have been deliberately invented as
fiction (Dan Brown's fans and Scientologists excepted, maybe). But there's
no corresponding source of belief for God - the idea has been around long
before the concept of fiction itself.
celia
> On 03/08/2010 19:10, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:43:14 +0100, Alwyn put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
> >> On 03/08/2010 11:07, Phil wrote:
>
> >>> There is plenty of evidence, atheists discount it.
>
> >> There is plenty of evidence for Santa Claus, adults discount it.
>
> > They're not really equivalent, though. For a start, the reason adults
> > discount the evidence for Santa is because adults knowingly *invent* the
> > evidence for Santa,
>
> Well, after I was disabused of the notion of Santa Claus, I started to
> wonder if adults were lying about God as well. Eventually I came to
> think that there were some adults who quite sincerely believed in God,
> but only because they had been told about Him, and that ultimately, God
> was just as much of a fiction as Santa Claus was, but fewer people knew.
>
linked to Santa Claus.
Following the death of my parents I was severely depressed and came
close to losing my faith. I didn't want to live and with some sort of
escape from life wish decided to cross the country with two horses
using ancient trade routes following a suggestion in Gildas of a
journey from the Severn to the Thames. Needless to say I got
hopelessly lost and on one such day washed up in Little Langford in
the Wylie Valley thinking that I was in the Vale of Pewsey. Up I track
I came across a tiny medieval church dedicated to St. Nicholas of
Myra. The day had a dreamlike quality about it, the church door was
open and the sun glinted off a brass plate with my Christian name on
it. Above the door was a strange sculpture that looked Anglo-Saxon, it
showed a skirted figure holding what looked like a snake above a boar
hunting scene. Although I'd never been there before I recognised the
folklore of the Maid and Maggot. The story as I knew it was that a
maid went nutting in Grovely Wood and among the good nuts in her
basket was one with a maggot. She should have thrown away the maggoty
nut but instead she kept the maggot as a pet and as she fed it it grew
to gigantic proportions until it ate her. The villagers hunted and
killed the maggot. Grovely Wood was where my father's ashes had been
scattered.
(Cut long and traumatic back story) I realised that I had been
'feeding the maggot' and it was destroying me. Inside the church was
sunlit and smelling of roses and so very peaceful that I found that I
could pray again.
Celia
Fergus
> I suppose one of the reasons for theism is that the ruling class
> invented God in order to help keep people under control, as in Plato's
> Royal Lie, but somehow the idea caught on and some people now believe
> without being coerced from above. Exactly why this happened is something
> anthropologists and psychologists of religion have yet to agree on.
As far as I'm aware, prior to Constantine, Christianity was considered a
"religion of the slaves" and it was the lower classes who were preaching
to the ruling class. I've often heard the assertion that "the ruling
class invented God in order to help keep people under control", or
variations thereof but have seen no evidence for that being the case.
Fergus
Fergus
>
> Of course. To be a Christian means going against the grain. 2000
> years ago you might have been fed to the lions. :-)
>
I'm glad I live in a place and a time where that is not a danger!
> If the Christian faith is true, then surely it is strong enough to
> withstand criticism?
The faith can but it can be a challenge to weaker brethren. Jesus had
strong words about those who would put stumbling blocks in front of
"little ones" who believe in Him.
> >> What you saw was a throwaway remark from Alwyn saying "welcome". It
> >> wasn't even related to anyone on here.
> >>
> >
> >It wasn't just that one off remark but rather the general tenor of his,
> >and other atheists', posts which I reacted to.
>
> Maybe it is just me, but I don't see that. Alwyn in particular I have
> found to be unoffensive and polite in what he says. Of course you can
> hardly expect him to agree with what a Christian believes.
>
> They say actions speak louder than words, and the behaviour of some
> Christians on here only adds fuel to their non belief.
>
Well, yes, unfortunately.
> How were you saved? what was your view of Christianity prior to that?
Well, I was brought up by Christian parents although they were not
church goers so my view of Christianity has always been that of a given.
In fact I falsely believed that England was a Christian country and that
most people were therefore Christians. It was only when I went to uni
that the Gospel was described to me in a way that I understood. When
that happened it all fitted together and it was then that I made a
personal commitment. Also, the sincerity and desire of other Christian
students to live according to the teachings of Jesus was a great
attraction for me - as you said "by their fruits...". At various times
since then I have certainly questioned my beliefs but have never found a
reason to abandon them.
Fergus
Robert Billing
> As far as I'm aware, prior to Constantine, Christianity was considered a
> "religion of the slaves" and it was the lower classes who were preaching
> to the ruling class. I've often heard the assertion that "the ruling
> class invented God in order to help keep people under control", or
> variations thereof but have seen no evidence for that being the case.
Surely the idea that the ruling class invented religion is a fiction
invented to (fill in your prejudice here).
Recursion, see recursion.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:DcSdnXiNj81S9MvR...@bt.com...
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> "Fergus" wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 11:29 +0100, Alwyn wrote:
>>>
>>>> We atheists of caurse way 'Welcome!'.
>>>
>>> I wonder why I get the picture of predators hovering on the edge of
>>> the herd just waiting to pounce on any indication of weakness or
>>> struggle.
>>
>> Unnecessary hatred and fear of atheists, perhaps?
>
> Are we being accused of being 'atheophobic'?
What about those calling dangerous and lethal Anti-Christ - Liberal
Lefties......as Libephobes?
Jeff...
"Paul, a servant of God and
an apostle of Jesus Christ. I was sent to lead God's chosen people to faith
and to the knowledge of the truth that leads to a godly life." Titus 1:1
(GW)
Kendall Down
> A person is an atheist because they have no evidence that God exists.
> A person is a Christian because they have faith that God exists, but
> there is no evidence that He does.
Hmmmm. *Some* people are atheists because they have no evidence that God
exists, other people are atheists because they reject the evidence that
God exists. Some people are Christians despite having no evidence that
God exists; most, I think, have ample evidence that God exists, even
though that evidence falls short of absolute proof.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Kendall Down
> There is plenty of evidence for Santa Claus, adults discount it.
Dressing up in red suit and beard and putting the presents into a
stocking is pretty good evidence *against* the gentleman from the North
Pole. I am not aware of any comparable evidence against divine answers
to prayer.
Kendall Down
> You do take my point, I hope, that moving the sermon to mid-service does not
> reduce its importance for us. It is, I think, a reflection of the fact that
> regular Sunday worship is primarily for those who already are Christian, to
> some degree, to spend time with God and to develop their faith. The pattern
> is derived from the ancient liturgy, but on most Sundays does not include
> the eucharist but ofers some other means of response by the worshipper. The
> sermon at the end scenario is more appropriate for an evangelical rally
> where the response expected is to an altar call.
Whether or not the expected response is an altar call, a sermon which
does not call for a response of some sort is somewhat of a waste of
time. I want people to leave with the Conclusion high in their minds
where it will stay throughout the week. That is why I always attempt to
find a final hymn that will reinforce the Conclusion - something I
thought was standard practice.
Kendall Down
> I insulted atheists as a group
If that was your intention, you certainly were not clear about it.
Generally people who wish to address a class will use some expression
such as "you (pl)" to make it clear that their use of the word "you" is
not referring to the individual to whom they are responding.
Like Celia, I took your remarks to apply to Alwyn as an individual.
Kendall Down
> Now why don't you go and f
Hardly the language one expects of a Christian, Phil.
Kendall Down
> I spoke the truth. In fact there is a lot more evidence for Santa Claus
> than there is for God. Santa can be seen in various stores around
> Christmas time, in church halls and in press advertisements, not to
> speak of the internet. On the other hand, your own scriptures concede
> that nobody has seen God.
Alas for those who think that seeing is believing. I recommend the short
film on the BBC website about the use of Photoshop.
Kendall Down
> Whilst I appreciate your response for what it is I wasn't aware that there
> was "a tone that we should be using".
I think it is adequately set out in St Paul's advice to the Galatians:
"Restore such an one in the spirit of meekness".
Kendall Down
> I take the believers seriously! As I have said before, I think the
> evidence for Santa Claus is much stronger than that for God. So why do
> people still believe in God? It quite honestly beats me.
If you think that seeing a short fat man in a red suit on this corner
and a tall thin man in a red suit on that corner is "evidence" for Santa
Claus, you really are gullible and I have a well-known hotel which I am
willing to let you purchase at a reasonable price.
Alwyn
I said at the beginning of this whole sorry exchange that there is
plenty of evidence for Santa Claus, but adults discount it. Why? Because
it is not good evidence. Theists say there is plenty of evidence for
their belief. They may be right, but atheists discount it because it is
not good evidence. Faith is required for religious belief; if the
evidence were strong enough, everyone would believe and faith would not
be needed.
Alwyn
Alwyn
I think the monotheistic cult of YHWH in the Old Testament is indeed
imposed on a reluctant populate from the top down with the aim of
carving out a Jewish identity. The adoption of Christianity by the Roman
Empire was done for political reasons; the territories are easier to
rule if they all have the same religion. Similar concerns were apparent
in England in Tudor times, and a century or so later, the philosopher
John Locke write:
'Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a
God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human
society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God,
though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by
their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence
of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for
other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if
they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity
to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they
should not be tolerated.' (_Essay Concerning Toleration_)
In our own times, President George H. W. Bush said: 'I don’t know that
atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered
patriots. This is one nation under God.'
Alwyn
pg
news:1280822222.1665.15.camel@helium...
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 07:37 +0100, - .. -- Tim .-. wrote:
>
>>Not at all. I deem doubt to be an important part of faith. Often,
>>"having
>>trouble" with Christianity leads to a better understanding of it, since
>>what
>>the person may be having trouble with is the version of it they have been
>>taught.
>
>Maybe that's what was behind my imagery. We all have doubts from time to
>time - maybe that is true of atheists as well, I wouldn't know.
It should be true of all atheists. Doubt about a great number of aspects of
an alleged supernatural is precisely what underpins and encourages our lack
of belief.
>On the other hand the hearer might say
>something like "of course you are having doubts, it's all a load of
>codswallop anyway - give it up and be welcome into the fold of
>unbelief!".
Some may say that. More accurately, they might say that "of course you are
having doubts, there is a lack of convincing evidence supporting belief in a
supernatural. Become an atheist and you need only accept as viable
hypotheses those ideas that are actually backed by at least something that
could conceivably be called evidence.
>It's the latter which bothers me. Particularly in a group where the
>topic is Christianity.
If the topic is Christianity, then doubt about Christianity is perfectly
relevant.
pg
Fergus
> "Fergus" <fergusc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1280822222.1665.15.camel@helium...
> >Maybe that's what was behind my imagery. We all have doubts from time to
> >time - maybe that is true of atheists as well, I wouldn't know.
>
> It should be true of all atheists. Doubt about a great number of aspects of
> an alleged supernatural is precisely what underpins and encourages our lack
> of belief.
>
But do atheists ever have any doubts about their belief in the absence
of a God?
> >On the other hand the hearer might say
> >something like "of course you are having doubts, it's all a load of
> >codswallop anyway - give it up and be welcome into the fold of
> >unbelief!".
>
> Some may say that. More accurately, they might say that "of course you are
> having doubts, there is a lack of convincing evidence supporting belief in a
> supernatural. Become an atheist and you need only accept as viable
> hypotheses those ideas that are actually backed by at least something that
> could conceivably be called evidence.
It's not as easy as that. To be an atheist one has to explain, or
ignore, all the evidence for God's existence. Even more so if you deny
the existence of a "supernatural".
Having just re-read one of Jennifer Rees Larcombe's books in which she
describes her recovery from encephalitis I would be genuinely interested
to know how an atheist would explain what happened.
Fergus