Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Hope on October 21, 2015, 07:00:57 AM
-
The words 'proselytism' and 'proselytise' have been used on a number of occasions over the months on this board.
Whilst there is a very precise dictionary definition of the terms I wondered how posters here understand the term.
Without trying to skew the debate, I will simply state that whilst working in the Subcontinent during the 80s and 90s, the Indian and Nepalese Governments regularly used it in a very different way to the traditional British English meaning.
Incidentally, those of you who use Twitter might be interested in the various tweets last night from the Theos think tank and it's launch of it's report - 'The Problem with Proselytism'.
-
It's often understood in a negative way, usually by unbelievers, but I don't see any reason why it should be understood in such a way. As with nearly all things there's a right way to do something and a wrong way.
-
The words 'proselytism' and 'proselytise' have been used on a number of occasions over the months on this board.
Whilst there is a very precise dictionary definition of the terms I wondered how posters here understand the term.
Without trying to skew the debate, I will simply state that whilst working in the Subcontinent during the 80s and 90s, the Indian and Nepalese Governments regularly used it in a very different way to the traditional British English meaning.
Incidentally, those of you who use Twitter might be interested in the various tweets last night from the Theos think tank and it's launch of it's report - 'The Problem with Proselytism'.
The first proselytizing religion was Buddhism....long before Christianity. They are at it even now. Then came Christianity with their missionaries and gospel teachings. St.Thomas was probably the first to begin the process in 52 CE in South India. Then came Islam with the sword and.... the muslim rule for 800 years.
Fortunately nothing much changed in India and muslims are even today only 15% and Christians only about 2%.
-
Or maybe you're just scared that you might actually be moved to convert? Maybe or maybe not but as I said, there are right ways to do things and wrong ways to do things and proselytism in that respect is no different.
-
You definitely have a beef about something. Don't let it betray some insecurity in your own position.
-
The problem with churches is that they are generally run by people. They should be run by labradors, or computers, or God. Anything but people.
-
Of course the head of the Church is Christ and the Church on earth is guided by the Holy Spirit, but of course the Church needs people to govern it so that there is order.
-
Ad O
Just a thought.
Not sure if this is your church but the Orthodox appear to have a different attitude to it.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/proselytize.aspx
In which case your church might not have the same history of it that comes with the rest of "Christianity"
Have you ever experienced it from other denominations?
If you haven't, because perhaps they see no reason to convert you, then maybe that is why you don't grasp the negativity in it.
Even the next link has a differant attitude on the subject.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/MathewesGreenProselytize.php
The first link quotes a passage from the "Panheresy of Ecumenism" and I would agree with it.
"What is the greatest expression of true love? The salvation of man in Christ. God became man in order to save mankind from the eternal death of falsehood and sin. Our Lord Jesus Christ, after the Resurrection, said to his Disciples: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded" (St Matthew 28:19-20). Not only the Holy Apostles, but their disciples, that is, the Orthodox, consider proselytism the most essential work of love In Christ: indeed, the return of heretics and other deluded people of this world to the truth of right belief and the Grace of Orthodoxy!"
-
This is a link to a newspaper cutting showing Eastern Orthodox leaders want to stop other forms of christians doing that.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19920508&id=hPgaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mEcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3178,3138053&hl=en
In this one a Greek evangelist went to prison for it.
Apparently the Orthodox Church there is protected
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/october/greek-evangelist-faces-prison-time-for-proselytizing-/?mobile=false
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error. If only they had looked to the East. Orthodoxy should be protected in Orthodox countries.
-
Proselytising, in my opinion, is a person forcing their faith down the throats of others using threats if people don't convert. That brand of 'preaching' is highly unpleasant and abusive. I think it should be illegal if aimed at kids and the vulnerable!
-
This is a link to a newspaper cutting showing Eastern Orthodox leaders want to stop other forms of christians doing that.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19920508&id=hPgaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mEcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3178,3138053&hl=en
In this one a Greek evangelist went to prison for it.
Apparently the Orthodox Church there is protected
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/october/greek-evangelist-faces-prison-time-for-proselytizing-/?mobile=false
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error. If only they had looked to the East. Orthodoxy should be protected in Orthodox countries.
I am truly glad that I am not as blinkered as you.
And no! NO! NO! i do noi agree that yours is the one true way - there is no way anyone can know if ANY religious belief is the ONE TRUE way - not even my own. It is a belief, a faith - it is NOT a fact!
In fact - your atitude to your own beliefs and to those of others are one of the reasons why so many are anti-religion.
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
-
Proselytising, in my opinion, is a person forcing their faith down the throats of others using threats if people don't convert. That brand of 'preaching' is highly unpleasant and abusive. I think it should be illegal if aimed at kids and the vulnerable!
Hi Floo, thanks for actually answering the question which so far everyone else has skirted around. However, I would disagree with your definition of the term. The Oxford dictionary defines it as the act of Converting or attempting to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another
From a Christian perspective, no human can convert another human; all they can do is introduce them to God. It is the person, in conjunction with God, who chooses to convert.
What you describe is nothing more than abuse, and should have no place in a Christian's reportoire.
Interestingly, many developing nations use the term in the following way encouraging a person to convert by offering inducements, such as food, a job or change in status
. This is how the Indian and Nepalese governments used to use the term, and the Christian missions in the countries were more than happy to accept such a ban.
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low view of to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for instance some of the rebaptisers did just that).
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).
Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).
Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.
Not at all. "Fundamentalism" is a reductionist term, reductionism being something I would reject.
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).
Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.
Not at all. "Fundamentalism" is a reductionist term, reductionism being something I would reject.
You can reject it all you like - virtually every reference you make to your beliefs show an attachment to a set of rules that are totally inflexible and that is my definition of Fundamentalist!
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).
Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.
Not at all. "Fundamentalism" is a reductionist term, reductionism being something I would reject.
You can reject it all you like - virtually every reference you make to your beliefs show an attachment to a set of rules that are totally inflexible and that is my definition of Fundamentalist!
Then you're using it incorrectly.
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).
Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.
Not at all. "Fundamentalism" is a reductionist term, reductionism being something I would reject.
You can reject it all you like - virtually every reference you make to your beliefs show an attachment to a set of rules that are totally inflexible and that is my definition of Fundamentalist!
Then you're using it incorrectly.
And your opinion of my use of the term means zip to me! You call it what you like - Orthodoxy, presumably - I call it Fundamentalism - so much more appropriate considering what a "fundament" is, and me considering that most hide-bound Christians talk out of theirs.
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).
Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.
Not at all. "Fundamentalism" is a reductionist term, reductionism being something I would reject.
You can reject it all you like - virtually every reference you make to your beliefs show an attachment to a set of rules that are totally inflexible and that is my definition of Fundamentalist!
Then you're using it incorrectly.
And your opinion of my use of the term means zip to me! You call it what you like - Orthodoxy, presumably - I call it Fundamentalism - so much more appropriate considering what a "fundament" is, and me considering that most hide-bound Christians talk out of theirs.
Then you're an idiot. Fundamentalism is about stripping the faith down to the bare minimum on which Christians should agree but you can't reduce the faith in such a way. It is there to be accepted in its entirety.
-
Then you're an idiot.
Ah-ha! Another member of the Bashful Anthony School of Debating!
-
There seems to be a down on the sharing of faith.
I actually think there are sinister underlyings in not sharing.
In Christianity there is the idea that sharing one's religion is like a begger showing other beggers trying to find food.
Not sharing one's religion in that model is therefore like not sharing the goodies.
Otherwise not sharing food betrays it's disposability.
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
This has been my argument against all sects of Christianity. They have a lot of people who, in private and in public - the proselytisers - can talk the talk with remarkable skill; what they lack is the ability to walk the walk.
As has been shown upon this forum more times than you could poke a stick at - even the street preachers, manic and otherwise, cannot admit that their beliefs are matters of faith and not fact.
Many are also, apparently incapable of following the tenets of their relgion, some pious (verbally) Christians are some of those who act in the most un-christain ways.
I am seriously glad that one of the tenets of Pagan belief is that followers are not permitted to engage in proselytism.
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
Yes People learn about things in different ways but I think there is the fact that Christianity is as big and as comprehensive a commitment as you can get.
It is so big I think that if people feel antipathy towards it they need to be asking themselves why.
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
This has been my argument against all sects of Christianity. They have a lot of people who, in private and in public - the proselytisers - can talk the talk with remarkable skill; what they lack is the ability to walk the walk.
Yes Owlswing but there is the opposite problem with paganism isn't there since the innate reluctance to talk about it on the part of pagans has led inexorably to the most common perception of pagans as people who just like dressing up and strutting about.
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
Yes People learn about things in different ways but I think there is the fact that Christianity is as big and as comprehensive a commitment as you can get.
It is so big I think that if people feel antipathy towards it they need to be asking themselves why.
Do you mean a commitment in loving God or in the lifestyle that comes with faith? Because that sounds as though you believe Christians lead a superior life to non-Christians, which manifestly isn't the case.
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
This has been my argument against all sects of Christianity. They have a lot of people who, in private and in public - the proselytisers - can talk the talk with remarkable skill; what they lack is the ability to walk the walk.
Yes Owlswing but there is the opposite problem with paganism isn't there since the innate reluctance to talk about it on the part of pagans has led inexorably to the most common perception of pagans as people who just like dressing up and strutting about.
And that post demonstrates why we don't talk about it. People have made their minds up already.
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
This has been my argument against all sects of Christianity. They have a lot of people who, in private and in public - the proselytisers - can talk the talk with remarkable skill; what they lack is the ability to walk the walk.
Yes Owlswing but there is the opposite problem with paganism isn't there since the innate reluctance to talk about it on the part of pagans has led inexorably to the most common perception of pagans as people who just like dressing up and strutting about.
As I have said, pagans do not proselytise. This does NOT mean that we do not talk bout our beliefs.
We are perfectly willing to talk about them but we do it in a different way.
We wait for someone to ask us a question about our beliefs and then we answer that question, and any foillow-up questions.
On this forum that usually results in people like you making facetious, stupid, ignorant comments and we, not surprisingly, respond by refusing to answer any more of your questions just so you and your friends can make further smart-arse comments that are not even remotely smart anything.
If you treated our beliefs with the respect that you demand for yours, you might get more positive responses.
Just becasue we are Pagans does not mean that we are straightmen/women to Christian so-called comedians.
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
Yes People learn about things in different ways but I think there is the fact that Christianity is as big and as comprehensive a commitment as you can get.
It is so big I think that if people feel antipathy towards it they need to be asking themselves why.
Do you mean a commitment in loving God or in the lifestyle that comes with faith? Because that sounds as though you believe Christians lead a superior life to non-Christians, which manifestly isn't the case.
No I mean the commitment to God. I think you'll find it's some atheists who bang on about the superiority of life in materialist countries.
I think you know that people who feel antipathetic to the commitment will use stuff like ''what about the crusades, what about Fred Phelps etc'' as an excuse to deny the felt antipathy when what they are actually resistant to is the God who is calling them........I speak as one who did this himself.
That is why I say one should explore the antipathetic feelings....as St Augustine, St Paul, The writer of Isiaih and John Bunyan and many others have done.
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
This has been my argument against all sects of Christianity. They have a lot of people who, in private and in public - the proselytisers - can talk the talk with remarkable skill; what they lack is the ability to walk the walk.
Yes Owlswing but there is the opposite problem with paganism isn't there since the innate reluctance to talk about it on the part of pagans has led inexorably to the most common perception of pagans as people who just like dressing up and strutting about.
As I have said, pagans do not proselytise. This does NOT mean that we do not talk bout our beliefs.
We are perfectly willing to talk about them but we do it in a different way.
We wait for someone to ask us a question about our beliefs and then we answer that question, and any foillow-up questions.
On this forum that usually results in people like you making facetious, stupid, ignorant comments and we, not surprisingly, respond by refusing to answer any more of your questions just so you and your friends can make further smart-arse comments that are not even remotely smart anything.
If you treated our beliefs with the respect that you demand for yours, you might get more positive responses.
Just becasue we are Pagans does not mean that we are straightmen/women to Christian so-called comedians.
Well then you have grasped my point then.....Just because you are perceived as people who dress up doesn't mean there isn't more to it.
I eagerly await answers to my questions of you without your customary abuse and secrecy.
-
What questions? Ask away.
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
Yes People learn about things in different ways but I think there is the fact that Christianity is as big and as comprehensive a commitment as you can get.
It is so big I think that if people feel antipathy towards it they need to be asking themselves why.
Do you mean a commitment in loving God or in the lifestyle that comes with faith? Because that sounds as though you believe Christians lead a superior life to non-Christians, which manifestly isn't the case.
No I mean the commitment to God. I think you'll find it's some atheists who bang on about the superiority of life in materialist countries.
I think you know that people who feel antipathetic to the commitment will use stuff like ''what about the crusades, what about Fred Phelps etc'' as an excuse to deny the felt antipathy when what they are actually resistant to is the God who is calling them........I speak as one who did this himself.
That is why I say one should explore the antipathetic feelings....as St Augustine, St Paul, The writer of Isiaih and John Bunyan and many others have done.
But I can speak as one who knocked and called and found nothing after experiencing a very deep faith. There was no resistance on my part. I would once have given anything to have a relationship with God again.
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
This has been my argument against all sects of Christianity. They have a lot of people who, in private and in public - the proselytisers - can talk the talk with remarkable skill; what they lack is the ability to walk the walk.
Yes Owlswing but there is the opposite problem with paganism isn't there since the innate reluctance to talk about it on the part of pagans has led inexorably to the most common perception of pagans as people who just like dressing up and strutting about.
As I have said, pagans do not proselytise. This does NOT mean that we do not talk bout our beliefs.
We are perfectly willing to talk about them but we do it in a different way.
We wait for someone to ask us a question about our beliefs and then we answer that question, and any foillow-up questions.
On this forum that usually results in people like you making facetious, stupid, ignorant comments and we, not surprisingly, respond by refusing to answer any more of your questions just so you and your friends can make further smart-arse comments that are not even remotely smart anything.
If you treated our beliefs with the respect that you demand for yours, you might get more positive responses.
Just becasue we are Pagans does not mean that we are straightmen/women to Christian so-called comedians.
Well then you have grasped my point then.....Just because you are perceived as people who dress up doesn't mean there isn't more to it.
I eagerly await answers to my questions of you without your customary abuse and secrecy.
There is the problem - or at least part of it - you claim that I have grasped your point.
Not so, you have, with your usual "put your opponent on the back foot" dexterity, changed the point.
I have yet to see you ask a straight point - the last time I tried to answer you fully and honestly I realised, after about six or seven questions, what your point was and challenged you on it - refusing to answer any more in a series of questions that were asked, quite obviously, to give you a hook on which to hand more of your (in your eyes) witticisms at the expoense of paganism! Result, you stopped posting on the thread, which, to me, proved I had you right.
You ask one question, I answer, you make no comment but ask another question:
On stage: What does this mean?
Me: It means this.
On stage: Yes, but what does this mean?
Me; It means this.
On stage: Yes, but what does it mean?
As I said - this is not a game I intend to play again! You have played it so often I see it in and behind anything you ask.
Sorry, but where I would answer the same opening questions that you might ask if they come from some someone elses I will not answer you and you only have yourself to blame for that!
-
But what to do when the evidence says that talking to non-believers about Jesus puts them off? Perhaps the way to bring people into your church would be through how you live and not what you say?
Yes People learn about things in different ways but I think there is the fact that Christianity is as big and as comprehensive a commitment as you can get.
It is so big I think that if people feel antipathy towards it they need to be asking themselves why.
Do you mean a commitment in loving God or in the lifestyle that comes with faith? Because that sounds as though you believe Christians lead a superior life to non-Christians, which manifestly isn't the case.
No I mean the commitment to God. I think you'll find it's some atheists who bang on about the superiority of life in materialist countries.
I think you know that people who feel antipathetic to the commitment will use stuff like ''what about the crusades, what about Fred Phelps etc'' as an excuse to deny the felt antipathy when what they are actually resistant to is the God who is calling them........I speak as one who did this himself.
That is why I say one should explore the antipathetic feelings....as St Augustine, St Paul, The writer of Isiaih and John Bunyan and many others have done.
But I can speak as one who knocked and called and found nothing after experiencing a very deep faith. There was no resistance on my part. I would once have given anything to have a relationship with God again.
Do you thus think that
a) He does not wish to have a relationship with you or
b) everything confirmed your do doubts about him?
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to. At first I thought God didn't want me. I then had to conclude that was incompatible with a loving God so I ended up no longer believing such a god existed.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to. At first I thought God didn't want me. I then had to conclude that was incompatible with a loving God so I ended up no longer believing such a god existed.
That is hardly a surprise to anyone who is not totally blinkered by believeing that god will accept anyone who truly believes in him!
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Not callous - but closed-minded.
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Make me feel I wasn't facing the worst moment of my life alone. I thought my child was dying.
-
If I may join the conversation, the help and support that we get when we believe in a God is from within ourselves. There is a higher part of us that is always listening and supporting.
There could be two problems however. One is that our mental turbulence and agitation could prevent many messages from reaching the higher self. This calls for some amount of composure and confidence even during troubled times. Second is that our destiny would already be decided and major changes may not happen....but protective and supportive help will certainly come from the higher self in any case.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Make me feel I wasn't facing the worst moment of my life alone. I thought my child was dying.
. . . and this is the god who sees every sparrow that falls, but ignores kids dying by the thousand!
-
If I may join the conversation, the help and support that we get when we believe in a God is from within ourselves. There is a higher part of us that is always listening and supporting.
There could be two problems however. One is that our mental turbulence and agitation could prevent many messages from reaching the higher self. This calls for some amount of composure and confidence even during troubled times. Second is that our destiny would already be decided and major changes may not happen....but protective and supportive help will certainly come from the higher self in any case.
You reckon - try it sometime!
When I was Christian I found that if I called on him for anything at all I only ever got an engaged signal! I have found far too many followers of religions other than Christianity and of no relgion were brought up in Christian homes and found that what they were taught did not match up with the reality.
All my three children were brought up in thneir mother's and maternal grandmother's Christian belief - my son is now probably about as complete an atheist as you could possibly imagine and both my daughters are pagan - not because I taught them to be pagans - the older daughter converted me to paganism not the other way round! When her mother divorced me (mainly becuase my salary did not match up to her spending requirements) it hit her far harder than I ever imagined and she visited the local Christian church that she had attended with her mother and me; The priest was, at that time, female and my nine-year old poured out her heart to her.
The response of this vicar of the Christian, all-loving god'd, vicar?
"Do you really consider that you are the only person in the world with problems - go home, pray, and grow up and deal with it!"
Is it any wonder she rejected her mother's religion. And she cannot be the only one who has had this kind of treatment from the Christian church or the Christian god or his representatives.
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).
Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.
Not at all. "Fundamentalism" is a reductionist term, reductionism being something I would reject.
You can reject it all you like - virtually every reference you make to your beliefs show an attachment to a set of rules that are totally inflexible and that is my definition of Fundamentalist!
Wouldn't it be great if something could be made not true just by rejecting it. I reject that I am fat. I reject that I have no musical talent. I reject that England got knocked out of the RWC early.
Fantastic, my life is already.... exactly the same. Damn.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
You're an idiot aren't you?
The answer is right there in the post, she was begging him to show up - to be there when she asked.
-
The answer is right there in the post, she was begging him to show up - to be there when she asked.
Why is OSBITO an idiot, jeremy? 'to do what' or equally 'in what way' are perfectly legit. questions to ask in such a situation. What OSB was effectively asking was in what way did Rhi - or any one else - expect God to manifest himself? In human form? As an audible voice? It reminds me of the famous analogy about the man who, on arrival at the Judgement Seat told Jesus that he had asked Jesus to rescue him from a flood situation and why he hadn't arrived.
Jesus' response was, "I arranged for plenty of warning so that you could escape before it arrived - but you ignored that; I sent a boat to rescue you, but you refused that help saying that you had asked God to rescue you; finally, I sent a rescue helicopter, but you refused that as well."
-
Fortunately nothing much changed in India and muslims are even today only 15% and Christians only about 2%.
If that's the case, why are the RSS so incensed about the 'huge numbers of conversions',Sriram?
-
There seems to be a down on the sharing of faith.
I would agree with that, OSB, but not the rest of the post. The issue is that Jesus' final instruction to his followers was to 'go out and spread the "Good news of the Kingdom of God", making disciples as you go'. In other words, the chief role of the Christian church is to evangelise: it isn't to worship, or for fellowship or even the doing of social action. It is to evangelise the world.
-
The answer is right there in the post, she was begging him to show up - to be there when she asked.
Why is OSBITO an idiot, jeremy?
Wow it must be catching. He asked a question about a post that contained the answer and now, so have you. In fact, you even quoted the bit that explains why Vlad the Polisher is an idiot.
'to do what' or equally 'in what way' are perfectly legit. questions to ask in such a situation.
As long as you don't mind looking like an idiot because the answer is already there.
What OSB was effectively asking was in what way did Rhi - or any one else - expect God to manifest himself?
No he wasn't, at least, if he was, I dispute your use of the adverb "effectively".
Jesus' response was, "I arranged for plenty of warning so that you could escape before it arrived - but you ignored that; I sent a boat to rescue you, but you refused that help saying that you had asked God to rescue you; finally, I sent a rescue helicopter, but you refused that as well."
She asked God to show up, not a man in a lifeboat.
-
Wow it must be catching. He asked a question about a post that contained the answer and now, so have you.
No, jeremy, she said that she begged him to 'show up'. That isn't an answer, it is a request. The question we are asking the answer to is - how did she expect him to 'turn up'? Did he do so and she fail to recognise him for waht he was?
As long as you don't mind looking like an idiot because the answer is already there.
Actually, part of the answer appeared in subsequent posts by Rhi - yet she still hasn't explained in what manner she hoped he would appear in?
No he wasn't, at least, if he was, I dispute your use of the adverb "effectively".
You can dispute to your heart's content, but when I have had discussions with people who have made similar comments to Rhi's they have said that they had envisaged God appearing in a given way - an audible voice, an angelic appearance, etc. and that a mundane nurse/counsellor/advisor didn't match their expectations.
She asked God to show up, not a man in a lifeboat.
'Allegory', jeremy. In other words, as Christ instructs Christians to be his hands and feet (etc.) if a person turns up in a metaphorical 'lifeboat' it doesn't mean that s/he isn't Christ responding to one's request.
-
Wow it must be catching. He asked a question about a post that contained the answer and now, so have you.
No, jeremy, she said that she begged him to 'show up'. That isn't an answer, it is a request.
Yes, and that tells us exactly what she wants him to do: to "show up".
The question we are asking the answer to is - how did she expect him to 'turn up'? Did he do so and she fail to recognise him for waht he was?
That's not the question that Vlad asked. He actually asked what she wanted God to do and she had already said "show up". Instead of haranguing me, why don't you get on at Vlad to ask the question you think he should have asked.
Actually, part of the answer appeared in subsequent posts by Rhi - yet she still hasn't explained in what manner she hoped he would appear in?
No she hasn't but then Vlad didn't ask her that question.
No he wasn't, at least, if he was, I dispute your use of the adverb "effectively".
You can dispute to your heart's content
And you have confirmed that I am correct to dispute your use of "effectively". You claim that Vlad meant a different question to the one he actually asked. If so, You should have said "ineffectively".
but when I have had discussions with people who have made similar comments to Rhi's they have said that they had envisaged God appearing in a given way
It's clear from the context her crisis of faith that she wasn't bothered about how God manifests, only that he does.
She asked God to show up, not a man in a lifeboat.
'Allegory', jeremy. In other words, as Christ instructs Christians to be his hands and feet (etc.) if a person turns up in a metaphorical 'lifeboat' it doesn't mean that s/he isn't Christ responding to one's request.
It doesn't mean it is either. In a crisis of faith you want God, not some lackey.
-
Yes, and that tells us exactly what she wants him to do: to "show up".
And 'show up' isn't a state, its a concept? How did she expect/want him to 'show up'?
That's not the question that Vlad asked. He actually asked what she wanted God to do and she had already said "show up".
Precisely, to show up for what purpose? Did she want him to show up and stand there with his hands in his pocket, sneering at her? OK that's a tad extreme, but when someone wants someone else to 'show up' one needs to know what they want that person to do. I agree that she clarifies that in later posts.
And you have confirmed that I am correct to dispute your use of "effectively". You claim that Vlad meant a different question to the one he actually asked. If so, You should have said "ineffectively".
No, I have confiirmed that Vlad asked the right question (slightly clumsily, maybe), as we needed to know why Rhi wanted him to 'show up'. Is she saying that she had absolutely no support from anyone at the time?
It's clear from the context her crisis of faith that she wasn't bothered about how God manifests, only that he does.
OK, you're having a crisis of faith, how would you expect God to manifest himself to you?
It doesn't mean it is either. In a crisis of faith you want God, not some lackey.
If I ask to be rescued from a flood, I'm going to take it that if someone appears to help that that request has been answered. As for 'lackey', Christians aren't God's lackeys; we are called to be Christ to others.
-
Yes, and that tells us exactly what she wants him to do: to "show up".
And 'show up' isn't a state, its a concept? How did she expect/want him to 'show up'?
She probably didn't care. To abuse your analogy, if you were stranded on the roof of your house with the waters rising, you wouldn't care whether the emergency services showed up in a life boat or a helicopter, would you. The important thing is that they show up.
That's not the question that Vlad asked. He actually asked what she wanted God to do and she had already said "show up".
Precisely, to show up for what purpose?
He didn't ask that question, but the answer is obvious anyway: it was to show he exists.
No, I have confiirmed that Vlad asked the right question (slightly clumsily, maybe),
He asked the wrong question as can be seen from the fact that Rhiannon had already answered it.
as we needed to know why Rhi wanted him to 'show up'. Is she saying that she had absolutely no support from anyone at the time?
If you want to know the answers to those questions, you should ask them, not some different question that she had already answered.
OK, you're having a crisis of faith, how would you expect God to manifest himself to you?
I wouldn't give a fuck how he did it as long as he did do it.
As for 'lackey', Christians aren't God's lackeys; we are called to be Christ to others.
If you are doing God's bidding, you are his lackey.
-
#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!
Nine posts that have achieved nothing!
Why?
Because a Christian is trying to justify total inaction from his god when it was requested by a troubled (at the time) Christian.
This is why Rhi is no longer Christain and why I have no time for Christians like Hope who put the blame for all their god's shortcomings on the people who have been subjected to those shortcomings..
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Not callous - but closed-minded.
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
-
#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!
Nine posts that have achieved nothing!
I don't agree. I think they have exposed the desperation of two Christians who have no answers to the challenges put to them about their god.
-
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".
-
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".
Too true.
As I have said elsehere - my gods (and goddesses) have the same frailities as do humans. The do not claim to be "loving".
They are capricious, hateful, loving, jealous, childish, stupid, arrogant and they are not all-powerful, all-seeing all-knowing. We really are "made in their image", but by them? No, not by them - they do not claim to have created the world or us.
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).
Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.
Not at all. "Fundamentalism" is a reductionist term, reductionism being something I would reject.
You can reject it all you like - virtually every reference you make to your beliefs show an attachment to a set of rules that are totally inflexible and that is my definition of Fundamentalist!
Wouldn't it be great if something could be made not true just by rejecting it. I reject that I am fat. I reject that I have no musical talent. I reject that England got knocked out of the RWC early.
Fantastic, my life is already.... exactly the same. Damn.
Funnily enough Jeremy, Although you never meant it. This post is the answer I was struggling for but wanted to give about the discussions of this post.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Make me feel I wasn't facing the worst moment of my life alone. I thought my child was dying.
. . . and this is the god who sees every sparrow that falls, but ignores kids dying by the thousand!
People do die.....that is everybody's experience and I have an experience of God.
I can deny neither.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Not callous - but closed-minded.
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
When?
When Rhi called on them? She didn't. She called on YOUR god, which, at the time, was also her god, and, surprise surprise, he proceeded to do sweet fuck all.
Then, unsiurprisingly, she dropped him!
Good on her, say I.
-
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".
So he has a beef with a divinity who turns out to be not all loving so he questions that god's existence.
But then he worships gods who are not loving............puzzling.
Even more puzzling is that he has said these Gods have given us the universe and therefore they must be responsible for his troubles and yet he chooses to worship these.
Does he believe the Christian god exists or not?
If he does he is to Owlswing, uncaring and yet Owlswing is prepared to throw his lot in with uncaring God's.
If he doesn't believe the Christian god exists then his gods are unloving and uncaring and possibly the cause of his troubles and yet he is prepared to worship them.
I thought I was confused but realise now it must be Owlswing.
-
Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.
What would those errors be, ad_o?
An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).
Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.
Not at all. "Fundamentalism" is a reductionist term, reductionism being something I would reject.
You can reject it all you like - virtually every reference you make to your beliefs show an attachment to a set of rules that are totally inflexible and that is my definition of Fundamentalist!
Wouldn't it be great if something could be made not true just by rejecting it. I reject that I am fat. I reject that I have no musical talent. I reject that England got knocked out of the RWC early.
Fantastic, my life is already.... exactly the same. Damn.
Funnily enough Jeremy, Although you never meant it. This post is the answer I was struggling for but wanted to give about the discussions of this post.
No. Fundamentalism is by it's nature reductionist. Fact. Therefore I am not a fundamentalist because I am not a reductionist. The faith can only be accepted as a whole. Feel free to call me a maximalist but not a fundamentalist.
-
#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!
Nine posts that have achieved nothing!
I don't agree. I think they have exposed the desperation of two Christians who have no answers to the challenges put to them about their god.
No, that's merely an a priori idea in your head.
-
#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!
Nine posts that have achieved nothing!
I don't agree. I think they have exposed the desperation of two Christians who have no answers to the challenges put to them about their god.
No, that's merely an a priori idea in your head.
And the little conversation I had with you and Hope is more evidence that shows my a priori idea is correct.
-
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".
Too true.
As I have said elsehere - my gods (and goddesses) have the same frailities as do humans. The do not claim to be "loving".
They are capricious, hateful, loving, jealous, childish, stupid, arrogant and they are not all-powerful, all-seeing all-knowing. We really are "made in their image", but by them? No, not by them - they do not claim to have created the world or us.
And yet you accuse the Christian God of being exactly that to Rhiannon and applaud her decision not to worship him for those very reasons!
You did say earlier this weekend that the Gods gave us the universe.
You are getting everybody confused with your flexible theology......but mostly yourself.
-
#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!
Nine posts that have achieved nothing!
I don't agree. I think they have exposed the desperation of two Christians who have no answers to the challenges put to them about their god.
No, that's merely an a priori idea in your head.
And the little conversation I had with you and Hope is more evidence that shows my a priori idea is correct.
Well at the moment I am talking to you and Owlswing. He is confused and you seem to think that the sun shines out of your proverbial..................
And you have chosen to nail your colours to the mast of his rudderless ship........and yes I have pointed out the flaw in Owlswings argument.
-
#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!
Nine posts that have achieved nothing!
I don't agree. I think they have exposed the desperation of two Christians who have no answers to the challenges put to them about their god.
I felt that they showed the desperation of one non-Christian to make out that the Christian had no answer, but had to completely avoid the point of the Gospel in order to make his point. jeremy often seems to do this.
Let me give you a modern parallel: you phone for an ambulance, only for the fire brigade to arrive? In this particular case, the local fire brigade have a medical emergency section which has agreed to help cover some ambulance call outs on behalf of the ambulances. Has your request been answered, or not?
As for Matt's "Because a Christian is trying to justify total inaction from his god when it was requested by a troubled (at the time) Christian", does he have any evidence that there was any inaction in the case under discussion? I realise that Rhi felt that there was, but she still hasn't explained whether there was any help at all, all be it not what she expected.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
You're an idiot aren't you?
The answer is right there in the post, she was begging him to show up - to be there when she asked.
Then if he was there.....and as a Christian she must have believed he is with us always.....her beef with him must have been that he was inactive. Hence the perfectly valid question ''To DO WHAT?
It is also valid for Hope to ask in what way she wanted him to be there.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Not callous - but closed-minded.
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
When?
When Rhi called on them? She didn't. She called on YOUR god, which, at the time, was also her god, and, surprise surprise, he proceeded to do sweet fuck all.
Then, unsiurprisingly, she dropped him!
Good on her, say I.
So she dropped him in favour of god's who couldn't help her?
-
Then if he was there.....and as a Christian she must have believed he is with us always.....her beef with him must have been that he was inactive. Hence the perfectly valid question ''To DO WHAT?
It is also valid for Hope to ask in what way she wanted him to be there.
OS, stop being so logical - jeremy and Matt, and others like them, can't deal with it ;)
-
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".
So he has a beef with a divinity who turns out to be not all loving so he questions that god's existence.
But then he worships gods who are not loving............puzzling.
Even more puzzling is that he has said these Gods have given us the universe and therefore they must be responsible for his troubles and yet he chooses to worship these.
Does he believe the Christian god exists or not?
If he does he is to Owlswing, uncaring and yet Owlswing is prepared to throw his lot in with uncaring God's.
If he doesn't believe the Christian god exists then his gods are unloving and uncaring and possibly the cause of his troubles and yet he is prepared to worship them.
I thought I was confused but realise now it must be Owlswing.
I do not question your god's existence - he may well exist. What I question is those qualities that Christians claim for him.
He is, if he acted as Rhi and others claim that he has, or rather has not, he is not the god of love claimed by the Christians.
I dismiss him and follow the so-called uncaring gods and goddesses because they claim to be no more than they are, my gods (and goddesses) have the same frailities as do humans. The do not claim to be "loving".
They are capricious, hateful, loving, jealous, childish, stupid, arrogant and they are not all-powerful, all-seeing all-knowing. We really are made in the same image as them, but by them? No, not by them - they do not claim to have created the world or us.
You're confused becasue your god cannot and doies not fulfil his "promises2 to humanity, mine have made no such promises. They DO NOT LIE to gain adherents.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Not callous - but closed-minded.
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
When?
When Rhi called on them? She didn't. She called on YOUR god, which, at the time, was also her god, and, surprise surprise, he proceeded to do sweet fuck all.
Then, unsiurprisingly, she dropped him!
Good on her, say I.
So she dropped him in favour of god's who couldn't help her?
I do not think that Rhi's gods are the same as mine - she follows a Pagan path that is hers not mine. She dropped an unpleasant areshole of a god who refused her succour when her child was dying for gods that actually act in a way that she can relate to. Who they are I have no idea and have no need to find out.
As you will never understand, our gods are far more personal than your one size fits all. You can keep him - he does not fit my all.
-
Then if he was there.....and as a Christian she must have believed he is with us always.....her beef with him must have been that he was inactive. Hence the perfectly valid question ''To DO WHAT?
It is also valid for Hope to ask in what way she wanted him to be there.
OS, stop being so logical - jeremy and Matt, and others like them, can't deal with it ;)
I treat this comment with the contempt it deserves. You have been told "TO DO WHAT" several times, but because YOU cannot handle the answer . . .
-
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".
So he has a beef with a divinity who turns out to be not all loving so he questions that god's existence.
But then he worships gods who are not loving............puzzling.
Even more puzzling is that he has said these Gods have given us the universe and therefore they must be responsible for his troubles and yet he chooses to worship these.
Does he believe the Christian god exists or not?
If he does he is to Owlswing, uncaring and yet Owlswing is prepared to throw his lot in with uncaring God's.
If he doesn't believe the Christian god exists then his gods are unloving and uncaring and possibly the cause of his troubles and yet he is prepared to worship them.
I thought I was confused but realise now it must be Owlswing.
I do not question your god's existence - he may well exist. What I question is those qualities that Christians claim for him.
He is, if he acted as Rhi and others claim that he has, or rather has not, he is not the god of love claimed by the Christians.
I dismiss him and follow the so-called uncaring gods and goddesses because they claim to be no more than they are, my gods (and goddesses) have the same frailities as do humans. The do not claim to be "loving".
They are capricious, hateful, loving, jealous, childish, stupid, arrogant and they are not all-powerful, all-seeing all-knowing. We really are made in the same image as them, but by them? No, not by them - they do not claim to have created the world or us.
You're confused becasue your god cannot and doies not fulfil his "promises2 to humanity, mine have made no such promises. They DO NOT LIE to gain adherents.
There is a question in yours and to some extent Jeremy's argument and that is the primacy in you mind of Rhiannon's account.
I am not confused at all since God is with us all the time. He hasn't pretended ever to save us from everything, (after all he did not save his son/self), He has stated he will save us.
Rhiannon I would have thought would have known that as a Christian.
I have lots of questions to ask Rhiannon and would have appreciated it if you had kept a more respectful distance but have to say that what you say of the pagan Gods does raise the question if they are like what you say, why abandon one capricious god for a set of others.
-
I am not confused at all since God is with us all the time.
How many miles to the gallon does your Assertatron do?
He hasn't pretended ever to save us from everything, (after all he did not save his son/self)
Which one is it?
-
I treat this comment with the contempt it deserves. You have been told "TO DO WHAT" several times, but because YOU cannot handle the answer . . .
Oddly enough, Matt, I've been told the several different answers to 'TO DO WHAT' by a number of people on the thread, but only once by Rhi - in a post that not only appeared several posts after US's original post was made, but also hasn't made an attempt to answer my question. In fact, I'm not sure that she has even tried to answer it yet - though several others have made their own uninformed attempts to do so.
-
Which one is it?
Shaker, good to see you back again. I assume your question refers to OS's 'son/self' comment. In the NT Jesus teaches that they are one and the same, so there is no 'which one' involved.
-
Which one is it?
Shaker, good to see you back again. I assume your question refers to OS's 'son/self' comment. In the NT Jesus teaches that they are one and the same, so there is no 'which one' involved.
It's not possible for someone to be other than their own self, by definition, but what you seem to be saying is that an alleged entity is both itself and its own son at the same time.
Do you consider this a sane, rational, coherent concept?
-
And yet you accuse the Christian God of being exactly that to Rhiannon and applaud her decision not to worship him for those very reasons!
The Christian god is advertised as a loving god, the gods of Owlswing are not. You Christians have set expectations that your god seems to want to refuse to meet. Pagans don't seem to set any expectations of their gods.
-
Which one is it?
Shaker, good to see you back again. I assume your question refers to OS's 'son/self' comment. In the NT Jesus teaches that they are one and the same, so there is no 'which one' involved.
It's not possible for someone to be other than their own self, by definition, but what you seem to be saying is that an alleged entity is both itself and its own son at the same time.
Do you consider this a sane, rational, coherent concept?
The use of metaphors can be sane and rational and are here.
After all how can a particle be a wave and a probability function.....How for that matter can you or I have a wavelength or frequency.
The trouble is metaphors can be stretched or taken too literally. The sonship of Christ (God) expresses the relationship internal to God with the father (also God)
-
And yet you accuse the Christian God of being exactly that to Rhiannon and applaud her decision not to worship him for those very reasons!
The Christian god is advertised as a loving god, the gods of Owlswing are not. You Christians have set expectations that your god seems to want to refuse to meet. Pagans don't seem to set any expectations of their gods.
Ask what people think love is and you will come up with as many variations as people.
As long as we pitch our own definition of love against that of who we love then we have a relationship where the two parties are not in understanding of one another.
The Christian God has never advertised himself as someone who will save us form everything but as someone who will save us.
You seem to be left with what theologians call the Gumball machine God.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Not callous - but closed-minded.
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
When?
When Rhi called on them? She didn't. She called on YOUR god, which, at the time, was also her god, and, surprise surprise, he proceeded to do sweet fuck all.
Then, unsiurprisingly, she dropped him!
Good on her, say I.
So she dropped him in favour of god's who couldn't help her?
Don't talk shit about things you don't understand.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Not callous - but closed-minded.
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
When?
When Rhi called on them? She didn't. She called on YOUR god, which, at the time, was also her god, and, surprise surprise, he proceeded to do sweet fuck all.
Then, unsiurprisingly, she dropped him!
Good on her, say I.
So she dropped him in favour of god's who couldn't help her?
Don't talk shit about things you don't understand.
I think it's very presumptious of you to say you know what I understand or don't.
I talk about Christianity but apparently, according to you I don't understand even that.
Nobody understands what you are going on about apart from you rejected Christ.Nobody knows what that means in your case, Nobody knows why you thought you had Christ in the first place, how did you know you had Christ?
Had his presence ever been felt by you? We don't know these things because you start with the bald statement ''Christ let me down''and that only satisfies the confirmation bias of Jeremy and Owlswing.
In fact nobody can constructively engage in this because we don't know the background.
-
Hope has often talked about how the central point of Christianity is a relationship with God. That is what I believed I once had. A feeling of not being alone. A feeling that God was present. One day that feeling/presence just went. It was not long after this that one of my children had several serious health scares and this is when I called out to God so I didn't feel alone. I didn't want miracles, I didn't need medical rescue - she was in good hands - I just wanted to feel - held. As I had before in good times and bad.
To clarify, I don't think God is an arsehole. I just don't think the Christian God exists.
I didn't 'drop' God. I fought for two, three years, to hang onto my faith. It didn't happen. It wasn't what I wanted.
Things are different for me now. Better. I only need to look at the clouds and I know I'm a part of something bigger, and I feel so small. And that's ok.
-
I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.
I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''
Not callous - but closed-minded.
A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.
Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.
When?
When Rhi called on them? She didn't. She called on YOUR god, which, at the time, was also her god, and, surprise surprise, he proceeded to do sweet fuck all.
Then, unsiurprisingly, she dropped him!
Good on her, say I.
So she dropped him in favour of god's who couldn't help her?
Don't talk shit about things you don't understand.
I think it's very presumptious of you to say you know what I understand or don't.
I talk about Christianity but apparently, according to you I don't understand even that.
Nobody understands what you are going on about apart from you rejected Christ.Nobody knows what that means in your case, Nobody knows why you thought you had Christ in the first place, how did you know you had Christ?
Had his presence ever been felt by you? We don't know these things because you start with the bald statement ''Christ let me down''and that only satisfies the confirmation bias of Jeremy and Owlswing.
In fact nobody can constructively engage in this because we don't know the background.
You don't understand because you don't know what it was like for me. I didn't want to lose my faith and the anguish it caused me was enormous. The presumption is on your part when you say I 'dropped' Jesus. For your own sake I hope you don't have to go through the same.
-
Things are different for me now. Better. I only need to look at the clouds and I know I'm a part of something bigger, and I feel so small. And that's ok.
That's quite lovely :)
-
Yeah, it took a while to get here but it's good.
-
Have you heard of Paul Harrison? He has written well on pantheism - he is, or at least certainly was, the president of the World Pantheist Movement.
-
Hope has often talked about how the central point of Christianity is a relationship with God. That is what I believed I once had. A feeling of not being alone. A feeling that God was present. One day that feeling/presence just went. It was not long after this that one of my children had several serious health scares and this is when I called out to God so I didn't feel alone. I didn't want miracles, I didn't need medical rescue - she was in good hands - I just wanted to feel - held. As I had before in good times and bad.
To clarify, I don't think God is an arsehole. I just don't think the Christian God exists.
I didn't 'drop' God. I fought for two, three years, to hang onto my faith. It didn't happen. It wasn't what I wanted.
Things are different for me now. Better. I only need to look at the clouds and I know I'm a part of something bigger, and I feel so small. And that's ok.
A brilliant statement of the basis of pagan thought - to be part of just about anything that exists - not just "me" as an entity but also "me" as an intergral part of world.
-
Seems appropriate here:
Christians can do 'more harm than good' by speaking openly about their faith, a study for the Church of Englands ruling body has found.
The research for the General Synod and a coalition of other Christian groups has suggested that practising Christians who talk about their beliefs to friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God as to attract them to the faith, the Daily Telegraph reported.
Four in 10 people answering the research also said they did not think that Jesus was a 'real person who actually lived'. Some 22 per cent thought he was a 'mythical or fictional character'.
... the research also found that when non-believers were asked if a practising Christian had ever spoken to them about their faith, only 19 per cent wanted to know more.
Rt Rev Michael Hill, Bishop of Bristol, said the findings had been 'greeted with disbelief' by the Synod, whose 470 members have been sent copies of the study, called Talking Jesus.
http://goo.gl/RkuE7K
-
The Christian God has never advertised himself as someone who will save us form everything but as someone who will save us.
He failed to save Rhiannon.
The expectations aren't set by God, they are set by Christians who keep claiming that, "if you open your heart, Christ will come" or some other variation thereof.
-
The Christian God has never advertised himself as someone who will save us form everything but as someone who will save us.
He failed to save Rhiannon.
The expectations aren't set by God, they are set by Christians who keep claiming that, "if you open your heart, Christ will come" or some other variation thereof.
I didn't need saving 'from everything'. I just needed to feel I wasn't alone.
You've hit the nail, Jeremy - Christians state over and over that all you need to do is ask and God will be there. And I asked and asked and he wasn't. And according to Christians the only person to blame for that was me. I didn't notice when he was there. I had sin on my conscience. And my favourite - my faith was never real in the first place.
-
So she dropped him in favour of god's who couldn't help her?
Other gods who ALSO wouldn't help her - let's not forget your deity's failure to assist.
O.
-
The only way belief in a deity could possibly help an individual is by employing the placebo effect, imo. If you really, really believe something to be true, from time to time it can have a beneficial effect on your psyche.
-
People like Rose only take note of the ones that try ramming it down their throats. Actually that would be assault.
Paul gives us the example of how we should be sharing the gospel. Like he did on Mars Hill.
-
The only way belief in a deity could possibly help an individual is by employing the placebo effect, imo. If you really, really believe something to be true, from time to time it can have a beneficial effect on your psyche.
And what weight does your opinion hold, Floo - especially when you remember how often folk like Jim, Alien and I have shown it to be false?
-
The only way belief in a deity could possibly help an individual is by employing the placebo effect, imo. If you really, really believe something to be true, from time to time it can have a beneficial effect on your psyche.
And what weight does your opinion hold, Floo - especially when you remember how often folk like Jim, Alien and I have shown it to be false?
Where and when, specifically, with links, did these refutations take place?
-
... let's not forget your deity's failure to assist.
We only have Rhi's implication that he didn't provide help in the way that she was anticipating, O. Remember that help can arrive in different forms, and can sometimes work out to more effective in a form that we aren't anticipating.
-
... let's not forget your deity's failure to assist.
We only have Rhi's implication that he didn't provide help in the way that she was anticipating, O.
At the risk of putting words in Rhi's mouth for her, it seems fairly clear that your god didn't help her at all, that's why she ended up with different ones.
Remember that help can arrive in different forms, and can sometimes work out to more effective in a form that we aren't anticipating.
Or, to paraphrase, if nothing appears to happen, wait long enough and claim responsibility for whatever randomly happens along, but don't acknowledge the bad things in the first place. That's a robust mechanism, if ever there was one.
O.
-
The only way belief in a deity could possibly help an individual is by employing the placebo effect, imo. If you really, really believe something to be true, from time to time it can have a beneficial effect on your psyche.
And what weight does your opinion hold, Floo - especially when you remember how often folk like Jim, Alien and I have shown it to be false?
No you have not!
How many times do you have to be told - it is false only for YOU! And why? Because you WANT it to be false and that does not make it so for anyone but you and anyone who thinks like you.
-
... let's not forget your deity's failure to assist.
We only have Rhi's implication that he didn't provide help in the way that she was anticipating, O. Remember that help can arrive in different forms, and can sometimes work out to more effective in a form that we aren't anticipating.
She didn't get it in ANY form! She told you that!
Why won't you listen! Because tou don't want to have to admit that your god can be less than perfect?
-
The only way belief in a deity could possibly help an individual is by employing the placebo effect, imo. If you really, really believe something to be true, from time to time it can have a beneficial effect on your psyche.
And what weight does your opinion hold, Floo - especially when you remember how often folk like Jim, Alien and I have shown it to be false?
But you haven't that is the point. You have never managed to prove an deity exists.
-
But you haven't that is the point. You have never managed to prove an deity exists.
Didn't say that I had; I said that, over time, Jim, Alien and I have shown most of your claims (opinions) in the 'religion' field to be spurious or wrong.
-
She didn't get it in ANY form! She told you that!
Why won't you listen! Because tou don't want to have to admit that your god can be less than perfect?
Actually, no she didn't. She said that she didn't get any from God (suggesting hat she got some from another source) - which is why I asked what nature of help she was hoping to get. As I've already pointed out God helps in a variety of ways, not always in the way that we have in mind when we ask for help. We might ask for help and mean that we want a helping hand there and then, when what we get is a a bit of medical or counselling help and a long-term friend.
-
How many times do you have to be told - it is false only for YOU! And why? Because you WANT it to be false and that does not make it so for anyone but you and anyone who thinks like you.
Sorry Matt, but if Floo (or you for that matter) make a claim about a faith or anything else, as has been the case with Floo on a number of occasions, that is shown to be untrue, that doesn't automatiaclly show that it is 'falso only for me.
Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse. Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days. I realise that you have an agenda that aims to discredit Christianity, but all you do by your railing is show how limited your understanding of history is.
-
Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse. Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days.
Just because something was considered to be normal two thousand years ago does not mean it therefore wasn't abusive.
This isn't a point about religion in any way, but there is nothing inconsistent with believing that getting 12 or 13 year old girls pregnant is abusive even if it was normal two thousand years ago.
I consider slavery to be fundamentally abusive, even though it was also common place thousands of years ago.
-
But you haven't that is the point. You have never managed to prove an deity exists.
Didn't say that I had; I said that, over time, Jim, Alien and I have shown most of your claims (opinions) in the 'religion' field to be spurious or wrong.
For the second time of asking: where?
-
Actually, no she didn't. She said that she didn't get any from God (suggesting hat she got some from another source) - which is why I asked what nature of help she was hoping to get. As I've already pointed out God helps in a variety of ways, not always in the way that we have in mind when we ask for help. We might ask for help and mean that we want a helping hand there and then, when what we get is a a bit of medical or counselling help and a long-term friend.
How is "Help from God in a way not expected or foreseen" distinguishable or distinguished from "The operation of random chance without any God"? What methodology do you propose to tell the former from the latter, please?
You will chicken out of answering this question the same as you've always done, of course, but you can't say you're not given opportunities.
-
How many times do you have to be told - it is false only for YOU! And why? Because you WANT it to be false and that does not make it so for anyone but you and anyone who thinks like you.
Sorry Matt, but if Floo (or you for that matter) make a claim about a faith or anything else, as has been the case with Floo on a number of occasions, that is shown to be untrue, that doesn't automatiaclly show that it is 'falso only for me.
Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse. Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days. I realise that you have an agenda that aims to discredit Christianity, but all you do by your railing is show how limited your understanding of history is.
Hope
Let us get something straight once and for all so that I do not have to post it again.
I am ready to admit that my belief in my deities, male and female, is a matter of faith not fact.
You on the other hand will brook no argument that yours is the same! As far as you are concerned if someone calls on your god for help and doesn't get it it is because they asked in the wrong way, they asked for the wrong help, they didn't wait long enough for your god to get of his arse and give the help that was requested, or they did not ask nicely enough.
You can squirm and argue and twist the English language into multiple pretzel knots all you like, it does not change the fact the your deity is fickle at the very least.
It is why I DUMPED him for deities who do not make me promises that they will not keep, they do not offer me paradise for doing exactly what they say, or an eternity of fire and brimstone if I do not.
You can argue until you are blue in the face to the contrary but my personal experiences of your deity ensure that I do not believe a good word said for your deity.
If you want me to return to the Christian fold, I have written and pinned up a request to your deity in front of my computer, if he is all you say he is, he can see it, if he wants me to believe in him in the way that you do then he will either do what I have asked of him or he will tell me why he will not - unless he does one of these two things he is, as far as I am concerned, not worth one second more of my time.
You can say what you like in response to this post, I am not interested in your response nor that of any of your Christian cronies, I am only interested in the response of your deity and you can believe that I am not planning on holding my breath waiting for it!
-
Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse. Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days. I realise that you have an agenda that aims to discredit Christianity, but all you do by your railing is show how limited your understanding of history is.
And merely invoking "history" makes it OK?
The law of this land - possibly most lands, I'd say - holds that in spite of exceedingly rare possible examples to the contrary, a female of 12 years does not possess the capacity and competence to give informed consent to sexual intercourse, let alone childbirth, all the more so with a significantly older male with all that that entails for the possibilities of coercion, control and compulsion. There is deemed to be insufficient intellectual development for that individual to be fully aware of all possible consequences and ramifications of the act. This is based on observation (of twelve year olds) and experience (of what tends to happen if they start having sex and indeed babies).
Do you consider that the passage of two thousand years is sufficient to change this scenario? In other words, do you hold it to be the case that a twelve year old girl of the Middle East two thousand years ago was so different for some reason from a twelve year old girl from Bedford (for instance) today to make the airy, handy-wavy statement "Well, it was normal back then" to be not the statement of an immoral arsehole?
-
Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse. Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days.
Slavery was accepted then, racism was accepted then, lots of things that we now realise are not acceptable ways to behave towards other human beings.
Your god apparently took part in this. Now it might have been the human norm of the time, but isn't the deity perfect? Shouldn't it know better than that? Or is it that your god worked within the cultural norms of the time, in which case isn't that making the case that morality is not absolute but relative (and cultural)?
I realise that you have an agenda that aims to discredit Christianity, but all you do by your railing is show how limited your understanding of history is.
Christianity's past is well documented, it's a mixed bag and no-one's going to be able to complete discredit or whitewash it. However, whilst you might think this is about history and cultural appreciation of the time it's not, it's about the implications of the ridiculous claims made on behalf of your God.
O.
-
The only way belief in a deity could possibly help an individual is by employing the placebo effect, imo. If you really, really believe something to be true, from time to time it can have a beneficial effect on your psyche.
And what weight does your opinion hold, Floo - especially when you remember how often folk like Jim, Alien and I have shown it to be false?
You are becoming a parody of yourself.
-
Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse. Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days.
Slavery was accepted then, racism was accepted then, lots of things that we now realise are not acceptable ways to behave towards other human beings.
Your god apparently took part in this. Now it might have been the human norm of the time, but isn't the deity perfect? Shouldn't it know better than that? Or is it that your god worked within the cultural norms of the time, in which case isn't that making the case that morality is not absolute but relative (and cultural)?
I realise that you have an agenda that aims to discredit Christianity, but all you do by your railing is show how limited your understanding of history is.
Christianity's past is well documented, it's a mixed bag and no-one's going to be able to complete discredit or whitewash it. However, whilst you might think this is about history and cultural appreciation of the time it's not, it's about the implications of the ridiculous claims made on behalf of your God.
O.
I don't think it was an impregnation in the accepted sense. Atheists don't believe in it anyway. I don't think it's recorded how old Mary was and Shakers description of God as ''A significantly older male'' is a bit of a boggling analogy.....and an extension of ''God as a man in a white beard'' idea.
Of course an antitheist is always going to think and announce the worse.
.
-
The Christian God has never advertised himself as someone who will save us form everything but as someone who will save us.
He failed to save Rhiannon.
The expectations aren't set by God, they are set by Christians who keep claiming that, "if you open your heart, Christ will come" or some other variation thereof.
well that's an antitheists definition of Salvation.
If the expectations are set by Christians and not God we might as well give up because we are surrounded in everyday life by other peoples expectations. Mercifully God has promised that the judgers may be judged.
-
I don't think it was an impregnation in the accepted sense.
Otherwise it wouldn't have been a virgin birth, presumably?
Atheists don't believe in it anyway.
That it's a Christian belief does, though, give an opportunity to look into the psyche of religious belief and the shifting of the moral ground that it sometimes involves.
I don't think it's recorded how old Mary was and Shakers description of God as ''A significantly older male'' is a bit of a boggling analogy.....and an extension of ''God as a man in a white beard'' idea.
I agree that it doesn't specify how old Mary was, but the general consensus (from the cultural norms of the times) is that she would have been around puberty, so a young teen most likely.
Of course an antitheist is always going to think and announce the worse.
If we ever get one we'll ask them... ::)
O.
.
[/quote]
-
But you haven't that is the point. You have never managed to prove an deity exists.
Didn't say that I had; I said that, over time, Jim, Alien and I have shown most of your claims (opinions) in the 'religion' field to be spurious or wrong.
One of Floo's opinions is that God does not exist. Since the only way you could prove that false would be to prove that God does exist, are you omitting that opinion from the group you say you have proved false?
-
As I've already pointed out God helps in a variety of ways, not always in the way that we have in mind when we ask for help. We might ask for help and mean that we want a helping hand there and then, when what we get is a a bit of medical or counselling help and a long-term friend.
Well, if your god exists, it seems that, in this case, he thought it best that Rhiannon stop being a Christian and start being a pagan. Is that what you mean by a "variety of ways"?
-
As I've already pointed out God helps in a variety of ways, not always in the way that we have in mind when we ask for help. We might ask for help and mean that we want a helping hand there and then, when what we get is a a bit of medical or counselling help and a long-term friend.
Well, if your god exists, it seems that, in this case, he thought it best that Rhiannon stop being a Christian and start being a pagan. Is that what you mean by a "variety of ways"?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Christian proselytism ...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article4602163.ece
"Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people did not want to know more about Jesus Christ after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
The survey of more than 2,500 adults discovered 42 per cent felt glad they did not share their friends faith after talking with them and 30 per cent felt more negative towards Jesus.
The stark findings will challenge the church, which is wrestling with the problem of declining and ageing congregations, with a quarter of churches in England having a weekly attendance of fewer than 16 worshippers.
The study, Talking Jesus: Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and evangelism in England, was commissioned by the Church of England and faith groups the Evangelical Alliance and Hope."
-
Christian proselytism ...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article4602163.ece
"Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people did not want to know more about Jesus Christ after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
The survey of more than 2,500 adults discovered 42 per cent felt glad they did not share their friends faith after talking with them and 30 per cent felt more negative towards Jesus.
The stark findings will challenge the church, which is wrestling with the problem of declining and ageing congregations, with a quarter of churches in England having a weekly attendance of fewer than 16 worshippers.
The study, Talking Jesus: Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and evangelism in England, was commissioned by the Church of England and faith groups the Evangelical Alliance and Hope."
It merely demonstrates that the ego does not want to be challenged with any view which suggests it is not as ''in the pink'' as it would like to view itself.
-
It demonstrates that a hearteningly large number of people have a low bullshit threshold.
-
It demonstrates that a hearteningly large number of people have a low bullshit threshold.
Did you realise that these are British people though Shakey.
-
Of course. I'd expect nothing less ;)
-
Christian proselytism ...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article4602163.ece
"Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people did not want to know more about Jesus Christ after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
The survey of more than 2,500 adults discovered 42 per cent felt glad they did not share their friends faith after talking with them and 30 per cent felt more negative towards Jesus.
The stark findings will challenge the church, which is wrestling with the problem of declining and ageing congregations, with a quarter of churches in England having a weekly attendance of fewer than 16 worshippers.
The study, Talking Jesus: Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and evangelism in England, was commissioned by the Church of England and faith groups the Evangelical Alliance and Hope."
It merely demonstrates that the ego does not want to be challenged with any view which suggests it is not as ''in the pink'' as it would like to view itself.
Do you have any idea how egotistical that sounds?
-
Christian proselytism ...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article4602163.ece
"Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people did not want to know more about Jesus Christ after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
The survey of more than 2,500 adults discovered 42 per cent felt glad they did not share their friends faith after talking with them and 30 per cent felt more negative towards Jesus.
The stark findings will challenge the church, which is wrestling with the problem of declining and ageing congregations, with a quarter of churches in England having a weekly attendance of fewer than 16 worshippers.
The study, Talking Jesus: Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and evangelism in England, was commissioned by the Church of England and faith groups the Evangelical Alliance and Hope."
It merely demonstrates that the ego does not want to be challenged with any view which suggests it is not as ''in the pink'' as it would like to view itself.
Do you have any idea how egotistical that sounds?
Of course he doesn't!
He cannot see just how much his views on Christianity are those that are driving people to reject it.
He is one of those to whom the comments Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people did not want to know more about Jesus Christ after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
.
It is regrettable that he cannot see this and that this negative reaction also applies equally to some posters on this forum!
Hope and Sassy should also take note of this!
-
It's not their views on Christianity that put me off. It's what that does to their views of others.
-
It merely demonstrates that the ego does not want to be challenged with any view which suggests it is not as ''in the pink'' as it would like to view itself.
No, it's pretty much the same reaction we get to any hard-sales pitch - if I'm interested in your product it's not like it's hard to find out where to get it, until I do that leave me alone.
O.
-
Christian proselytism ...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article4602163.ece
"Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people did not want to know more about Jesus Christ after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
The survey of more than 2,500 adults discovered 42 per cent felt glad they did not share their friends faith after talking with them and 30 per cent felt more negative towards Jesus.
The stark findings will challenge the church, which is wrestling with the problem of declining and ageing congregations, with a quarter of churches in England having a weekly attendance of fewer than 16 worshippers.
The study, Talking Jesus: Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and evangelism in England, was commissioned by the Church of England and faith groups the Evangelical Alliance and Hope."
Interestingly, Udayana, Friendship Evangelism also sits very high on the list of reasons why people become Christians (not sure whether this is the case for other faiths, tho.)
Statistics
When researchers asked new converts, "What was the major influence in leading you to Christ and the Church?", they responded:
Church advertising 2%
The preacher 6%
Organized evangelism programs 6%
Friends and relatives 86%
[Adapted from "Evangelism: The Why and How" by Elmer L. Towns, in Church Growth State of the Art, C. Peter Wagner, ed. (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1988), p. 53. ]
I realise that the source is quite old, but the figures are supported by the experience of my own church and many others I know of.
-
Christian proselytism ...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article4602163.ece
"Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people did not want to know more about Jesus Christ after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
The survey of more than 2,500 adults discovered 42 per cent felt glad they did not share their friends faith after talking with them and 30 per cent felt more negative towards Jesus.
The stark findings will challenge the church, which is wrestling with the problem of declining and ageing congregations, with a quarter of churches in England having a weekly attendance of fewer than 16 worshippers.
The study, Talking Jesus: Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and evangelism in England, was commissioned by the Church of England and faith groups the Evangelical Alliance and Hope."
Interestingly, Udayana, Friendship Evangelism also sits very high on the list of reasons why people become Christians (not sure whether this is the case for other faiths, tho.)
Statistics
When researchers asked new converts, "What was the major influence in leading you to Christ and the Church?", they responded:
Church advertising 2%
The preacher 6%
Organized evangelism programs 6%
Friends and relatives 86%
[Adapted from "Evangelism: The Why and How" by Elmer L. Towns, in Church Growth State of the Art, C. Peter Wagner, ed. (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1988), p. 53. ]
I realise that the source is quite old, but the figures are supported by the experience of my own church and many others I know of.
Statistically, though, you're measuring from a different set. Yes, 86% of people who are in the church may have arrived through friends and family, but that's the set that have already taken to the church.
If you want to attract more you need to be targetting your efforts in the areas where more current unresponsive people will respond - that means you need the percentages from the general populace.
As an aside, I wonder how much of that 86% is made up of people who moved congregations from one sect to another, rather than new adherents to Christianity?
O.
-
Statistics
When researchers asked new converts, "What was the major influence in leading you to Christ and the Church?", they responded:
Church advertising 2%
The preacher 6%
Organized evangelism programs 6%
Friends and relatives 86%
[Adapted from "Evangelism: The Why and How" by Elmer L. Towns, in Church Growth State of the Art, C. Peter Wagner, ed. (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1988), p. 53. ]
I realise that the source is quite old, but the figures are supported by the experience of my own church and many others I know of.
[/quote]
Talk about a biased source!
Hope
The figures quoted were from a survey carried out by the Christian Church!
The lengths to which you will go to defend the indefensible are truly breathtaking.
-
The late Russian Orthodox Church's Patriarch Alexiy II seemed to have done a good recruiting job after decades of repression under communism. The Russian Orthodox Church now claims nearly 70% of Russia's population (about 100 million people) as members .
-
I think if the Church was suppressed here (including music and art, even the churches themselves) there would be a surge in support. Like it it not it's a part of our national identity.
-
But will that continue? Over the coming decades I strongly suspect not. The vast bulk of the population (by a very long way) is utterly apathetic toward religion, the younger generations even more so. By the time that those who are now teenagers are middle aged (or older) will the British social/cultural landscape still see the Church as part of that identity? I don't see it. There was a report last week (or thereabouts) where (IIRC) 4 out of 10 didn't regard Jesus as a historically real figure*. On the strength of all evidence these trends run only one way.
* To be sure, the matter isn't a done deal beyond all and any dispute, whatever some may say.
-
I really don't know. Certainly in my rural part of the country it's a big deal still and it will be a while before that changes.
-
I really don't know. Certainly in my rural part of the country it's a big deal still and it will be a while before that changes.
In rural areas especially it is, frankly, the elderly keeping the churches open. What we know though is the well-attested phenomenon in sociology of cohort replacement. (Simple definition: old people die and young people come along in their place). The younger generations are simply not stepping in to fill the gaps left by the now deceased.
-
I really don't know. Certainly in my rural part of the country it's a big deal still and it will be a while before that changes.
In rural areas especially it is, frankly, the elderly keeping the churches open. What we know though is the well-attested phenomenon in sociology of cohort replacement. (Simple definition: old people die and young people come along in their place). The younger generations are simply not stepping in to fill the gaps left by the now deceased.
Our local Baptist chapel has this issue, the Anglican Church not so much. Mostly because people find it a way of meeting nice families for their kids to hang out with.
But I'm not really talking so much about churchgoing for religion. I'm talking about the culture - I'm sure we all know atheists who attend choral music programmes in church, admire church architecture and religious art. I even know someone who attend carol services every Christmas just because. I think if this kind of cultural Christianity was suppressed, as it was in Russia, there would be a groundswell of support. It's not about religion, but identity and expression.
-
I really don't know. Certainly in my rural part of the country it's a big deal still and it will be a while before that changes.
In rural areas especially it is, frankly, the elderly keeping the churches open. What we know though is the well-attested phenomenon in sociology of cohort replacement. (Simple definition: old people die and young people come along in their place). The younger generations are simply not stepping in to fill the gaps left by the now deceased.
Our local Baptist chapel has this issue, the Anglican Church not so much. Mostly because people find it a way of meeting nice families for their kids to hang out with.
But I'm not really talking so much about churchgoing for religion. I'm talking about the culture - I'm sure we all know atheists who attend choral music programmes in church, admire church architecture and religious art. I even know someone who attend carol services every Christmas just because. I think if this kind of cultural Christianity was suppressed, as it was in Russia, there would be a groundswell of support. It's not about religion, but identity and expression.
Absolutely, best not to validate it with prohibition, better to just let it fade apathetically away. The architecture will still be there, the history and artistry, and all the anachronistic philosophy can be used to populate characters in popular fantasy works.
O.
-
Statistically, though, you're measuring from a different set. Yes, 86% of people who are in the church may have arrived through friends and family, but that's the set that have already taken to the church.
A criticism that can be equally applied to Udayana's figures, as they were - iirc - exclusive of believers.
If you want to attract more you need to be targetting your efforts in the areas where more current unresponsive people will respond - that means you need the percentages from the general populace.
As an aside, I wonder how much of that 86% is made up of people who moved congregations from one sect to another, rather than new adherents to Christianity?
Can't speak for the Orthodox or Catholics - and none of the stats I know of include the Catholics simply because they don't share their figures with the rest of Christendom - all the stats I know of ONLY refer to new adherents. Yes, they would include conversion from JW or Mormonism, but they are seen as being different faiths both by the Church and the law. Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans and other Protestant denominations regard transfers from one to another as just that, not new conversions.
-
Personally I think a lot of it will be reinterpreted. There's a lot in religious myth that is illuminating once we get away from the need for 'history' and 'proof'. Religious art too has a great deal to teach us about ourselves.
The buildings are a problem though. What do we do with the redundant medieval churches? They can't all be coffee shops and community hubs. Making them all private residences sweeps away the right of the public to visit them. That isn't going to be popular either.
-
I'm talking about the culture - I'm sure we all know atheists who attend choral music programmes in church, admire church architecture and religious art.
Yup that's right.
I am one of those people - on Wednesday and Thursday I'll be practicing with my choir (secular, but largely perform sacred music) in two different churches in preparation for a concert on Saturday in one of the churches.
The musical heritage (and indeed this is maintained with new choral pieces being written today) is exceptionally rich and I would't want to see it lost whatsoever. But you don't need to believe to enjoy singing sacred music. And actually increasingly sacred choral music is being kept alive by secular choirs rather than by traditional church choirs signing as part of worship. In fact many churches seem to have actively turned their backs on their traditional choral heritage in favour of (often excruciating) folk/rock type offerings, beloved by the happy clappies which is typically bereft of any genuine musical quality.
-
Our local Baptist chapel has this issue, the Anglican Church not so much. Mostly because people find it a way of meeting nice families for their kids to hang out with.
Interestingly, that seems to be bucking the national trend, Rhi. OK, the Baptist congregation may be a fairly 'high' Baptist one, and the Anglican a fairly evangelical one.
Peter Brierley's Christian Research group are finding that the congregations that are fading fastest are the non-evangelical (and in the CoE, the Anglo-Catholic) ones. In other words the ones who have a high proportion of cultural, rather than religious attendees.
But I'm not really talking so much about churchgoing for religion. I'm talking about the culture - I'm sure we all know atheists who attend choral music programmes in church, admire church architecture and religious art. I even know someone who attend carol services every Christmas just because. I think if this kind of cultural Christianity was suppressed, as it was in Russia, there would be a groundswell of support. It's not about religion, but identity and expression.
I would disagree it would be a groundswell of support. From where I stand and from what I've seen happen, it tends to be that the non-cultural members are released from the constraints often imposed by the often middle-class 'what can I get out if this place' members that stop many churches actually doing what Christ asked his followers to do - care for the sick, feed the poor, support the disadvantaged, and share the gospel, etc. I've attended churches where the 'culturals' regularly voted against anything that smacked of social action and of reaching out to, and including, the needy and disadvantaged.
-
A criticism that can be equally applied to Udayana's figures, as they were - iirc - exclusive of believers.
Possibly - probably, even - but not definitively so. Certainly I can imagine that perfectly devout Hindus, Muslims or Anglicans could be unhappy at overt proselytising from their Catholic friends, for instance.
Can't speak for the Orthodox or Catholics - and none of the stats I know of include the Catholics simply because they don't share their figures with the rest of Christendom - all the stats I know of ONLY refer to new adherents. Yes, they would include conversion from JW or Mormonism, but they are seen as being different faiths both by the Church and the law.
Genuinely, here, I wasn't aware that the law made a judgement on what was a Christian faith and what wasn't, do you have a reference source I could look at regarding that?
O.
-
Statistically, though, you're measuring from a different set. Yes, 86% of people who are in the church may have arrived through friends and family, but that's the set that have already taken to the church.
A criticism that can be equally applied to Udayana's figures, as they were - iirc - exclusive of believers.
...
The "Talking Jesus" survey was supposedly from a representative sample. It was conducted by an organisation trying to find the best ways to evangelise Christianity.
"This piece of research has been conducted with the hope and prayer that it will
be a major catalyst for effective and focused evangelism in the decades to come. "
http://www.talkingjesus.org/research/upload/Perceptions-of-Jesus-Christians-and-Evangelism-Executive-Summary.pdf
-
That's faith for you ::)
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
After all, anyone not already involved but wanting to find out more isn't exactly going to struggle to find a point of contact, which I'd imagine is about as easy as checking out where the local golf clubs are.
-
I'm talking about the culture - I'm sure we all know atheists who attend choral music programmes in church, admire church architecture and religious art.
Is that 'cultural religion'? Not in my book. Cultural religion is religion that is church (mosque/temple)-centric and seeks to create a social club atmosphere that imposes restrictions on who can come in/partake - 'no poor people here, only middle class'; 'no unmarried couples, gays, paedophiles or whatever', ... . The Church in Wales congregation in our village is very much like that, to the extent that reference to Biblical teaching used to be few and far between.
After all, Jesus' primary teaching wasn't primarily about worshipping him or meeting together one day a week in a particular building: nor was it primarily to heal people or help the poor. The prime focus of his teaching - and the last instruction - was 'to go out and preach the gospel, making disciples as you go'.
The longer these folk are around, the quicker the church will shrivel.
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.
-
I'm talking about the culture - I'm sure we all know atheists who attend choral music programmes in church, admire church architecture and religious art.
Yup that's right.
I am one of those people - on Wednesday and Thursday I'll be practicing with my choir (secular, but largely perform sacred music) in two different churches in preparation for a concert on Saturday in one of the churches.
The musical heritage (and indeed this is maintained with new choral pieces being written today) is exceptionally rich and I would't want to see it lost whatsoever. But you don't need to believe to enjoy singing sacred music. And actually increasingly sacred choral music is being kept alive by secular choirs rather than by traditional church choirs signing as part of worship. In fact many churches seem to have actively turned their backs on their traditional choral heritage in favour of (often excruciating) folk/rock type offerings, beloved by the happy clappies which is typically bereft of any genuine musical quality.
Indeed. And I strong,y suspect that the suppression of their own musical and artistic heritage, coupled with the loss of identity as part of the USSR, is what has driven many Russians to the Russian Orthodox Church. I think we'd see the same support here because we too understand the value of our culture.
The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.
-
The "Talking Jesus" survey was supposedly from a representative sample. It was conducted by an organisation trying to find the best ways to evangelise Christianity.
"This piece of research has been conducted with the hope and prayer that it will
be a major catalyst for effective and focused evangelism in the decades to come. "
http://www.talkingjesus.org/research/upload/Perceptions-of-Jesus-Christians-and-Evangelism-Executive-Summary.pdf
Precisely, Udayana, it was looking at the best way to reach non-believers. After all, with the exception of ultra-fundamentalists, Christians don't try to 'evangelise' other Christians. One doesn't 'evangelise Christianity'; one evangelises people. You can have a perfectly good representative sample of any sub-group - one doesn't need the whole population to provide that.
By the way, if you look at the introduction, you will notice that there was second, separate, survey carried out amongst some 1500 practising Christians. Whilst the original survey was carried out on a balanced group of 2500-odd it would, in the circumstances, seem odd to include Christians in the first one as well as it could provide a skewed outcome. I assume the second survey was designed as some sort of control group.
-
The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters.
Again a slight misunderstanding, Rhi. It has also come from a third quarter - younger members of the congregation who grew up with first rock, then disco, then more modern forms of music, including World music. Your points are perfectly legit. but probably have a lesser impact than you like to think.
Remember that Church music has always been in flux. The Wesleys' hymns used styles of music that were popular at the time; many of the hymns written by Moody and Sankey are set to music borrowed from the music-halls of the time.
By the way, trying to be 'more relevant' to the young was bound to fail, because it never matcjhed the music of the youth - it was always the music of the 20- and 30 year-olds, not youth.
-
Precisely, Udayana, it was looking at the best way to reach non-believers.
Start offering something believable, perhaps?
-
The "Talking Jesus" survey was supposedly from a representative sample. It was conducted by an organisation trying to find the best ways to evangelise Christianity.
"This piece of research has been conducted with the hope and prayer that it will
be a major catalyst for effective and focused evangelism in the decades to come. "
http://www.talkingjesus.org/research/upload/Perceptions-of-Jesus-Christians-and-Evangelism-Executive-Summary.pdf
Precisely, Udayana, it was looking at the best way to reach non-believers. After all, with the exception of ultra-fundamentalists, Christians don't try to 'evangelise' other Christians. One doesn't 'evangelise Christianity'; one evangelises people. You can have a perfectly good representative sample of any sub-group - one doesn't need the whole population to provide that.
By the way, if you look at the introduction, you will notice that there was second, separate, survey carried out amongst some 1500 practising Christians. Whilst the original survey was carried out on a balanced group of 2500-odd it would, in the circumstances, seem odd to include Christians in the first one as well as it could provide a skewed outcome. I assume the second survey was designed as some sort of control group.
It wasn't a sample of non-Christians but supposed to be nationally representative. 57% self-identified as Christians (with 9% practicing). To look at some aspects in depth they had the additional survey of practicing Christians.
Anyway, it's somewhat moot at this point.
I had two women call this morning. "Ah" they said when I opened the front door, one started pulling on a corner of "Good news" (?) . "err no ... thanks" I said. Another "Ah" and off they went.
-
But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.
You are almost certainly right, but oh how short sighted.
Sure restoring a church organ is a huge cost (but often now that can be subsidised through various charitable foundations), but actually even if you don't have the original organ a decent quality modern electric instrument costs perhaps £1k and may need amplifying (some already include sufficient amplification for most churches), but that's a single instrument. Of course traditional choirs don't need amplifying at all - they are capable of filling a church with music and of course many churches are designed to naturally amplify that sound through natural resonance.
So we've replaced that with excruciating 'folk/rock' groups involving loads of instruments that individually need amplifying and also singers who couldn't fill a shed with sound, let alone a church and need amplifying too. And what happens - the churches end up needing complex PA systems to deal with their new approach to music. I know of a number of local churches that have spent literally tens of thousands on such PA systems.
-
Precisely, Udayana, it was looking at the best way to reach non-believers.
Start offering something believable, perhaps?
Apparently the number of hits on the Dawkins websites is declining.
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
After all, anyone not already involved but wanting to find out more isn't exactly going to struggle to find a point of contact, which I'd imagine is about as easy as checking out where the local golf clubs are.
Do you know I imagine you as Gordon as a cross between Alex Salmond and Bruce Forsyth. I bet you have got Bruce's political acumen and Alex's twinkle toes.
-
Christian proselytism ...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article4602163.ece
"Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people did not want to know more about Jesus Christ after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
The survey of more than 2,500 adults discovered 42 per cent felt glad they did not share their friends faith after talking with them and 30 per cent felt more negative towards Jesus.
The stark findings will challenge the church, which is wrestling with the problem of declining and ageing congregations, with a quarter of churches in England having a weekly attendance of fewer than 16 worshippers.
The study, Talking Jesus: Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and evangelism in England, was commissioned by the Church of England and faith groups the Evangelical Alliance and Hope."
It merely demonstrates that the ego does not want to be challenged with any view which suggests it is not as ''in the pink'' as it would like to view itself.
Do you have any idea how egotistical that sounds?
To you maybe, but I can assure you there is no space for the ego when it's your ego which is being challenged..........
I don't think you actually get What the call to repentance entails.
-
Precisely, Udayana, it was looking at the best way to reach non-believers.
Start offering something believable, perhaps?
Apparently the number of hits on the Dawkins websites is declining.
1. No idea.
2. Says who or what?
3. I understand that your obsession with the man is overwhelming to the extent that you have to drag him into everything, but what does this have to do with the discussion?
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.
That rather makes it sound like a Pyramid Scheme...
O.
-
Of course. I'd expect nothing less ;)
Yes we know there is a gargantuan shitfeast on five year cycle.
-
Of course. I'd expect nothing less ;)
Yes we know there is a gargantuan shitfeast on five year cycle.
What on earth are you on about?
-
Precisely, Udayana, it was looking at the best way to reach non-believers.
Start offering something believable, perhaps?
Apparently the number of hits on the Dawkins websites is declining.
1. No idea.
2. Says who or what?
3. I understand that your obsession with the man is overwhelming to the extent that you have to drag him into everything, but what does this have to do with the discussion?
We are talking about organised forms of worship and their declining success in spreading the word. The RDF fits that model surely?
-
We are talking about organised forms of worship and their declining success in spreading the word. The RDF fits that model surely?
The only person who seems to see him as a figure of worship, Vlad, is you, adding him to Satan and Jesus in your monotheistic pantheon.
Perhaps traffic on his site is down - nothing on his site suggests it, but then I can imagine they wouldn't advertise the fact - maybe that's because the people that were going to learn either already have, or have realised that they never will?
O.
-
We are talking about organised forms of worship and their declining success in spreading the word. The RDF fits that model surely?
The only person who seems to see him as a figure of worship, Vlad, is you, adding him to Satan and Jesus in your monotheistic pantheon.
Perhaps traffic on his site is down - nothing on his site suggests it, but then I can imagine they wouldn't advertise the fact - maybe that's because the people that were going to learn either already have, or have realised that they never will?
O.
Nah mate, apparently when the great man turned up at the BBC to read his few lines for a Dr Who special one young actress reported her party were emotionally overcome by his presence and that she nearly fainted. It was in Radio Times passim.
-
Do you know I imagine you as Gordon as a cross between Alex Salmond and Bruce Forsyth. I bet you have got Bruce's political acumen and Alex's twinkle toes.
I'll take that as a complement, Vlad.
To get into character(s), I'm guessing that you've noticed how easily I can soft-shoe shimmie around the steaming jobbies (Scottish word for 'turd') that you leave all over the Forum :)
-
Nah mate, apparently when the great man turned up at the BBC to read his few lines for a Dr Who special one young actress reported her party were emotionally overcome by his presence and that she nearly fainted. It was in Radio Times passim.
I can't help but think that you protest a little too much... you're secretly a Dawkins fan-boy, aren't you...
O.
-
Do you know I imagine you as Gordon as a cross between Alex Salmond and Bruce Forsyth. I bet you have got Bruce's political acumen and Alex's twinkle toes.
I'll take that as a complement, Vlad.
To get into character(s), I'm guessing that you've noticed how easily I can soft-shoe shimmie around the steaming jobbies (Scottish word for 'turd') that you leave all over the Forum :)
Come off it Gordy, You're famous for your deepfried antitheist Toelies.
-
What do you call it when Gordon's arguments come underfire?
Battered Keich.
-
What do you call it when Gordon's arguments come underfire?
Battered Keich.
Depends on who they come under fire from - in this instance I'd call it 'an insight into a delusional attention-whore's fevered rantings, equal parts cringingly embarressing, desperately sad and slightly lacking, unusually, in references to popular evolutionary scientists'...
Not as pithy as your answer, I'll grant you.
O.
-
Possibly - probably, even - but not definitively so. Certainly I can imagine that perfectly devout Hindus, Muslims or Anglicans could be unhappy at overt proselytising from their Catholic friends, for instance.
Must say I've never met an Anglican, or Protestant for that matter, who has been unhappy at overt proselytising from Catholics - they usually simply argue back. As for Muslims and Hindus, when were they believers in the sense I use the word - ie followers of Christ?
Genuinely, here, I wasn't aware that the law made a judgement on what was a Christian faith and what wasn't, do you have a reference source I could look at regarding that?
Sorry, O, I was working on outdated info., which I should have remembered changed in 2012. Until then all churches/
Christian places of worship were 'excepted' in terms of charity status and some other tax issues, and came under the auspices of their denominational organisation - the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Church of England, etc..
In 2012, each congregation (unless they had an annual income of less than £5K had to register individually). The JWs and Mormons have never had that 'exception' ruling, something that they have been frustrated by.
The only way I have sourced this is by trawling though the Charities Commission site.
-
attention-whore
Attention-whore?
.................Like it!
-
I had two women call this morning. "Ah" they said when I opened the front door, one started pulling on a corner of "Good news" (?) . "err no ... thanks" I said. Another "Ah" and off they went.
If 'Good News' possibly JWs.
-
That rather makes it sound like a Pyramid Scheme...
OK, pehaps you could explain your joke. My brain is somewhat slower than usual at present.
-
Must say I've never met an Anglican, or Protestant for that matter, who has been unhappy at overt proselytising from Catholics - they usually simply argue back.
I could imagine the situation, but I freely admit I don't know of any occasions it's happened.
As for Muslims and Hindus, when were they believers in the sense I use the word - ie followers of Christ?
It's entirely possible the writers of the report meant it in that sense as well - I was merely pointing out that it wasn't explicit from the elements reported.
Sorry, O, I was working on outdated info., which I should have remembered changed in 2012. Until then all churches/
Christian places of worship were 'excepted' in terms of charity status and some other tax issues, and came under the auspices of their denominational organisation - the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Church of England, etc..
In 2012, each congregation (unless they had an annual income of less than £5K had to register individually). The JWs and Mormons have never had that 'exception' ruling, something that they have been frustrated by.
The only way I have sourced this is by trawling though the Charities Commission site.
Oh, OK. I knew there were some 'controversial' rulings by the Charity Commission, but I also recall some ruling (I think to do with the Scientologists and a wedding, if memory serves) where the courts set the precedent that charity commission status didn't determine what was a 'real' religion and what wasn't - I'll see if I can dig it up.
O.
-
That rather makes it sound like a Pyramid Scheme...
OK, pehaps you could explain your joke. My brain is somewhat slower than usual at present.
Pyramid schemes are systems where there isn't really a product, as such, people are simply paid to recruit more people, and the fee those people pay to join is split between the person that inducts them, the person that inducted them and so on...
I appreciate money isn't (necessarily - see 'Scientologists'!) changing hands, but as a concept, if the church only exists to recruit members to the church... what's the point?
O.
-
What do you call it when Gordon's arguments come underfire?
Battered Keich.
When its from you, Vlad, I'd say 'sadly laughable' is a better fit.
btw what does 'Toelies' mean? Is this the secret password for members of the RD Appreciation Society?
-
The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters.
Again a slight misunderstanding, Rhi. It has also come from a third quarter - younger members of the congregation who grew up with first rock, then disco, then more modern forms of music, including World music. Your points are perfectly legit. but probably have a lesser impact than you like to think.
Remember that Church music has always been in flux. The Wesleys' hymns used styles of music that were popular at the time; many of the hymns written by Moody and Sankey are set to music borrowed from the music-halls of the time.
By the way, trying to be 'more relevant' to the young was bound to fail, because it never matcjhed the music of the youth - it was always the music of the 20- and 30 year-olds, not youth.
My point is that in the past music created as 'sacred' music - in other words designed to be used in worship gained (and still retains) a much wider appreciation. So you can think of countless examples from Haydn masses, through Faure requiem to work by Howells etc etc that even today people who have no religion, never worship still want to hear and see performed due to the phenomenal inherent quality of the music.
Where are the examples today - certainly not in 'modern' church music. Give me an example of any christian folk/rock type composers who compose music to be used in modern worship who would be able to attract a complete audience of non religious people who want to hear their music simply because it is so good. I think you will struggle.
Actually modern composers of 'sacred' music that are still able to attract a completely secular audience tend still to be working within the framework of classic choral - good examples being Rutter, Chilcott and Lauridsen all of whom will be being performed by secular choral societies to secular audiences week in week out. And non religious people will pay to hear them, or to buy their CDs.
-
A lot of U2's stuff references the Bible, but whether it counts as 'sacred' or not is a moot point.
-
From today's METRO newspaper:
It's one of the most religious nations on the planet - but there are signs the US is losing its faith in the power of prayer.
The share of those who say they believe in God slipped to 89 per cent last year from 92 per cent on 2007, a poll found.
And the trend is more evident in young adults - they are less likely to pray daily, at 39 per cent, compared with their grandparents at 67 per cent.
Anti-science 'rhetoric' could be turning young people away from religion, the Pew Research Centre study said.
-
A lot of U2's stuff references the Bible, but whether it counts as 'sacred' or not is a moot point.
No - it isn't designed to be used in worship, which was the point. Also don't forget that U2 aren't a christian band as, although they include a number of christian they also include Adam Clayton, who is an atheist (or at least was when they produced anything of note ;)).
So I'm talking about modern music being written that is designed to be used as part of worship. As far as I'm aware none of the folk/rock type stuff has sufficient quality for a non religious, secular audience simply to want to go and hear it performed - it really is only bearable if you are a worshiping christian.
There are two exception (actually these aren't folk/rock). First, of course choral music - for example Lauridsen is one of the most popular and most performed modern composers in the USA. Also think perhaps Tavener who died recently. The other exception is gospel music.
-
The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.
You don't need an organ. In the Orthodox tradition instruments aren't used. The beauty of chant is that with a little training it can be sung by almost anyone who isn't tone deaf. Whilst the complex polyphonic and orchestral pieces are without a doubt beautiful, I would nevertheless question their use as liturgical music. Once you need highly trained professional musicians the music, in my opinion, ceases to be liturgical and becomes performance.
-
So I'm talking about modern music being written that is designed to be used as part of worship. As far as I'm aware none of the folk/rock type stuff has sufficient quality for a non religious, secular audience simply to want to go and hear it performed - it really is only bearable if you are a worshiping christian.
Modern Christian music reminds me of an episode of Southpark where Cartman starts a Christian rock band. They take love songs and replace the word "baby" with "Jesus". That really sums up modern Christian music. If I went into a church that played stuff like that I'd walk straight back out.
-
The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.
You don't need an organ. In the Orthodox tradition instruments aren't used. The beauty of chant is that with a little training it can be sung by almost anyone who isn't tone deaf. Whilst the complex polyphonic and orchestral pieces are without a doubt beautiful, I would nevertheless question their use as liturgical music. Once you need highly trained professional musicians the music, in my opinion, ceases to be liturgical and becomes performance.
That's true - there is plenty of sacred choral music that is unaccompanied.
I think you are being a little narrow in your questioning of the use of more complex music within a liturgical setting. It may not be part of the tradition within an orthodox setting, but certainly is elsewhere in christianity. And I would also challenge your dichotomy of liturgical vs performance. I think there is a middle way, where music is there to support contemplative reflection. In that case the congregation aren't involved in the sense of actually singing, but are in the sense that their contemplation is enhanced by the music. This is different to a pure performance and audience situation where the perfumers are active and the audience passive.
-
So I'm talking about modern music being written that is designed to be used as part of worship. As far as I'm aware none of the folk/rock type stuff has sufficient quality for a non religious, secular audience simply to want to go and hear it performed - it really is only bearable if you are a worshiping christian.
Modern Christian music reminds me of an episode of Southpark where Cartman starts a Christian rock band. They take love songs and replace the word "baby" with "Jesus". That really sums up modern Christian music. If I went into a church that played stuff like that I'd walk straight back out.
Agree - I think much of it is really poor music with about as much sophistication and majesty as a nursery rhyme. It seems to take advantage of both a captive audience and also one that feels unable to criticise if the music is 'christian'. Given the astonishingly rich history of liturgical music in many, many forms that was groundbreaking of its time and remains relevant and enduring (from Gregorian chant, through baroque era masses, through the romantic/modernism boundary of Faure to gospel music) it really is almost tragic that modern music for worship (outside those areas I mentioned) is so devoid of quality and influence.
-
The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.
You don't need an organ. In the Orthodox tradition instruments aren't used. The beauty of chant is that with a little training it can be sung by almost anyone who isn't tone deaf. Whilst the complex polyphonic and orchestral pieces are without a doubt beautiful, I would nevertheless question their use as liturgical music. Once you need highly trained professional musicians the music, in my opinion, ceases to be liturgical and becomes performance.
That's true - there is plenty of sacred choral music that is unaccompanied.
I think you are being a little narrow in your questioning of the use of more complex music within a liturgical setting. It may not be part of the tradition within an orthodox setting, but certainly is elsewhere in christianity. And I would also challenge your dichotomy of liturgical vs performance. I think there is a middle way, where music is there to support contemplative reflection. In that case the congregation aren't involved in the sense of actually singing, but are in the sense that their contemplation is enhanced by the music. This is different to a pure performance and audience situation where the perfumers are active and the audience passive.
I sometimes attended services at the church at the Barbican that featured choral music in this way. But it's well beyond the resources of most parish churches to do, because few have enough people with the skills to teach and sing it well. In fact we do have a local choir who perform at special church occasions, and lovely though they are, it'd be better if they didn't.
-
So I'm talking about modern music being written that is designed to be used as part of worship. As far as I'm aware none of the folk/rock type stuff has sufficient quality for a non religious, secular audience simply to want to go and hear it performed - it really is only bearable if you are a worshiping christian.
Modern Christian music reminds me of an episode of Southpark where Cartman starts a Christian rock band. They take love songs and replace the word "baby" with "Jesus". That really sums up modern Christian music. If I went into a church that played stuff like that I'd walk straight back out.
Agree - I think much of it is really poor music with about as much sophistication and majesty as a nursery rhyme. It seems to take advantage of both a captive audience and also one that feels unable to criticise if the music is 'christian'. Given the astonishingly rich history of liturgical music in many, many forms that was groundbreaking of its time and remains relevant and enduring (from Gregorian chant, through baroque era masses, through the romantic/modernism boundary of Faure to gospel music) it really is almost tragic that modern music for worship (outside those areas I mentioned) is so devoid of quality and influence.
I wonder how much this has to do with the rise of the Evangelical wing of the churches? Everything is very simplified. I used to be good friends with the couple that ran the Baptist chapel here until they left to take up a post in the West Country, and they didn't get any of the pomp that the Anglicans went in for - they used to laugh at the 'dressing up', for example. I don't think choral music fits in that view of worship.
-
The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.
You don't need an organ. In the Orthodox tradition instruments aren't used. The beauty of chant is that with a little training it can be sung by almost anyone who isn't tone deaf. Whilst the complex polyphonic and orchestral pieces are without a doubt beautiful, I would nevertheless question their use as liturgical music. Once you need highly trained professional musicians the music, in my opinion, ceases to be liturgical and becomes performance.
I very much like chant. But the Anglican churches that I used to attend have some very historic hymns that they shouldn't have to lose.
-
The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.
You don't need an organ. In the Orthodox tradition instruments aren't used. The beauty of chant is that with a little training it can be sung by almost anyone who isn't tone deaf. Whilst the complex polyphonic and orchestral pieces are without a doubt beautiful, I would nevertheless question their use as liturgical music. Once you need highly trained professional musicians the music, in my opinion, ceases to be liturgical and becomes performance.
I very much like chant. But the Anglican churches that I used to attend have some very historic hymns that they shouldn't have to lose.
That's right - there is a really strong heritage of iconic Anglican hymns and anthems, largely from the peaks years on the Victorian age. These have quality, influence and longevity that the current folk/rock junk can only dream of. And actually one of the great points about them is that the basic melodies are very simple, so easy to learn and sing for the congregation, but the choir and organ provide great musical texture, colour and quality that the average Joe in the congregation singing along must feel they are much better musically than they actually are given the wonderful sound created overall.
Did a concert specifically of these earlier this year - hymns and anthems, and I bet their instant recognition factor is really high. Some are even sung at rugby matches!!
-
See, I actually like folk music. And whatever modern hymns are, they bear little or no resemblance to folk. Maybe the stuff from John Bell comes closest.
I suspect that the singing of those great hymns at rugby matches reflects the fact that many of the fans would have had an Anglican education with regular services in chapel, at least in the not too distant past. And again it comes back to this point of cultural rather than religious Christian identity.
-
See, I actually like folk music. And whatever modern hymns are, they bear little or no resemblance to folk.
I love good folk music too, which is perhaps one of the reasons why I can't abide the christian folk group approach which seems to turn fantastic music into something quite excruciating, more often than not with an 'everyone's invited' inclusivity agenda meaning that the musical quality is dire. Sure folk music has a strong heritage of the everyone pitches in in the pub music, but often that's just a bit of fun or involved some excellent musicianship or both.
-
Indeed. :)
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.
They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.
-
I find sacred harp singing quite interesting. Musically it is incredibly simplistic but the effect is one of inclusivity and resounding feelings of participation and unity. Its seems to be not so much about the ideas contained within the hymns but the act of singing together itself, as an expression of the church community.
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.
They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.
It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.
They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.
It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.
That's right.
And of course the opposite can often be the case. We all know the judgemental christian types who are constantly 'bigging themselves up' about their involvement in the church and going on about the importance of getting involved in religion, yet are the most mean spirited and judgemental people going.
Not suggesting that is an image of all christians - that would be non-sense there are loads that do what Rhiannon says - simply live a 'good' life, but sadly there are plenty who take delight in ramming their religion down your throat while at the same time being the worst possible advert for christianity.
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.
They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.
It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.
I have found that on the occasions I have really managed to get in tune with God, my actions/behaviour have stood out from that of others and I have been asked what it is that is making me do that. That is as much evangelism as the subsequent explanation of my faith - a combination that has more often than not drawn those I'm associating with at the time to ask further questions about God and what he can do for the individual(s) asking the questions.
It is interesting that the way Jesus worked was by using a miracle or telling a parable and then drawing a teaching point from it.
To pop back to Gordon's original question about why Christians bother doing evangelism, evangelism isn't simply talking to people - and never has been.
The comment - "Go out and preach the gospel, only using words where necessary" - has long been attributed to St Francis of Assisi. At the churches I've been associated with, the majority prefer to use the former rather than the latter - at least initially.
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.
They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.
It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.
I think good deeds are obvious if they help others in a way which isn't patronising.
-
... but sadly there are plenty who take delight in ramming their religion down your throat while at the same time being the worst possible advert for christianity.
Ironically, I found the equivalent in regard to the issue of homosexual relationships. On a previous board I was a member of, there were several gay and pro-gay members. One of the latter became a firm friend of mine and we used to attend the Christian music and arts festival - Greenbelt - together until he died a couple of years ago. On and off the board, we debated the rights and wrongs of the matter, in a sensible, reasonable and honest way, and I was beginning to come round to his point of view. Unfortunately, at the same time, the gay and the othe pro-gay members spent all their time being abusive to & dismissive and misrepresentive of me and the others on the board who shared my viewpoint. To a degree that stopped by moving all the way towards them - why would I want to think in the same way as people whose only form of argument was abuse and uncritical dismissal. Sadly, I have found similar behaviour from a few here - in the same way that some here have expressed their distrust of Christians behaving the same way.
Is a tendency to become abusive when we hold strong opinions simply human nature?
-
I think good deeds are obvious if they help others in a way which isn't patronising.
Without disagreeing with you, Floo, I believe that one can sometimes face a problem in knowing whether an approach is patronising - a person's feeling of being patronised often depends on their previous experiences, and often it can take a long time for the person seeking to provide help to fully understand the impacts of those experiences.
In a way, that is why friendship evangelism can be so effective - it is only initiated once one has got to know someone well and understood their hang-ups. It is also possibly why the survey that was being referred to earlier on the thread may not actually refer to friendship evangelism - when I read it, it didn't seem to be talking about what I have always understood as FE.
-
I think good deeds are obvious if they help others in a way which isn't patronising.
Without disagreeing with you, Floo, I believe that one can sometimes face a problem in knowing whether an approach is patronising - a person's feeling of being patronised often depends on their previous experiences, and often it can take a long time for the person seeking to provide help to fully understand the impacts of those experiences.
In a way, that is why friendship evangelism can be so effective - it is only initiated once one has got to know someone well and understood their hang-ups. It is also possibly why the survey that was being referred to earlier on the thread may not actually refer to friendship evangelism - when I read it, it didn't seem to be talking about what I have always understood as FE.
What on earth is friendship evangelism? If it means befriending someone so they will convert, seems unpleasantly sneaky to me.
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.
They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.
It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.
That's right.
And of course the opposite can often be the case. We all know the judgemental christian types who are constantly 'bigging themselves up' about their involvement in the church and going on about the importance of getting involved in religion, yet are the most mean spirited and judgemental people going.
Not suggesting that is an image of all christians - that would be non-sense there are loads that do what Rhiannon says - simply live a 'good' life, but sadly there are plenty who take delight in ramming their religion down your throat while at the same time being the worst possible advert for christianity.
And this doesn't just apply to Christianity, but people from every path, or philosophical POV.
-
I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.
They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.
They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.
It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.
That's right.
And of course the opposite can often be the case. We all know the judgemental christian types who are constantly 'bigging themselves up' about their involvement in the church and going on about the importance of getting involved in religion, yet are the most mean spirited and judgemental people going.
Not suggesting that is an image of all christians - that would be non-sense there are loads that do what Rhiannon says - simply live a 'good' life, but sadly there are plenty who take delight in ramming their religion down your throat while at the same time being the worst possible advert for christianity.
And this doesn't just apply to Christianity, but people from every path, or none.
Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.
-
What on earth is friendship evangelism? If it means befriending someone so they will convert, seems unpleasantly sneaky to me.
Its what one does when one is with a friend or group of friends, and theoretically needn't have anything to do with religion, Floo. As you know, I'm involved wit Tools with a Mission. I often ask people whether they would be interested in getting involved in some way. I'm quite happy to ask someone whether they'd be interested in becomig a donor (perhaps of the parental toolkit that has been lying around unused in the shed for some years) with very little previous knowledge of the person. Asking whether they'd be interesting in being involved as a collector or a refurbisher/sorter tends to take me longer because I want to get to know where their interests lie.
-
Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.
Is that so, PD? Jesus was the ultimate exponent of 'proselytism'; how often did he talk to people about the Kingdom of God who hadn't already chosen to seek him out and listen to his teaching?
-
Ironically, I found the equivalent in regard to the issue of homosexual relationships. On a previous board I was a member of, there were several gay and pro-gay members. One of the latter became a firm friend of mine and we used to attend the Christian music and arts festival - Greenbelt - together until he died a couple of years ago. On and off the board, we debated the rights and wrongs of the matter
What are the supposed "wrongs" of homosexuality according to you?
Oh, sorry, I forgot: you can't tell us, can you?
-
What are the supposed "wrongs" of homosexuality according to you?
Oh, sorry, I forgot: you can't tell us, can you?
No, I'm not going to tell you on this thread.
-
As you know, I'm involved wit Tools with a Mission.
How apt.
-
What are the supposed "wrongs" of homosexuality according to you?
Oh, sorry, I forgot: you can't tell us, can you?
No, I'm not going to tell you on this thread.
You haven't told anybody on any thread.
-
Ironically, I found the equivalent in regard to the issue of homosexual relationships. On a previous board I was a member of, there were several gay and pro-gay members. One of the latter became a firm friend of mine and we used to attend the Christian music and arts festival - Greenbelt - together until he died a couple of years ago. On and off the board, we debated the rights and wrongs of the matter
What are the supposed "wrongs" of homosexuality according to you?
Oh, sorry, I forgot: you can't tell us, can you?
Exactly what are the 'wrongs' of homosexuality? There are no more right or wrongs than there are for being a heterosexual, it is just a matter of the skin you are in.
-
Exactly what are the 'wrongs' of homosexuality? There are no more right or wrongs than there are for being a heterosexual, it is just a matter of the skin you are in.
Hope claimed to have two A4 pages of notes on the matter somewhere; they are yet to materialise, amazingly enough.
-
Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.
Is that so, PD? Jesus was the ultimate exponent of 'proselytism'; how often did he talk to people about the Kingdom of God who hadn't already chosen to seek him out and listen to his teaching?
Then you need to talk to the people who sometimes knock on my door. I don't remember ever asking them to come.
And I thought (and you confirmed earlier in this thread) that proselytism was about converting people with other religions (or presumably none) rather than 'preaching to the converted', who of course would be the only ones that you would know had already chosen to 'seek him out'.
If someone comes up to a complete stranger as part of proselytism how can they have a clue whether that person is receptive until after they have intruded on them.
-
I have found that on the occasions I have really managed to get in tune with God, my actions/behaviour have stood out from that of others and I have been asked what it is that is making me do that.
Clearly humility isn't your strong point though.
-
On and off the board, we debated the rights and wrongs of the matter, in a sensible, reasonable and honest way, and I was beginning to come round to his point of view. Unfortunately, at the same time, the gay and the othe pro-gay members spent all their time being abusive to & dismissive and misrepresentive of me and the others on the board who shared my viewpoint. To a degree that stopped by moving all the way towards them - why would I want to think in the same way as people whose only form of argument was abuse and uncritical dismissal.
So your approach to issues such as homosexuality are based not on a consideration of the facts of the issue but on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet.
I would suggest that you are perhaps using the wrong method and medium to come to a balanced view on such topics.
-
We don't fully know what his view is, balanced or otherwise. He refuses to say.
For four or five months in my experience alone.
-
What on earth is friendship evangelism? If it means befriending someone so they will convert, seems unpleasantly sneaky to me.
Its what one does when one is with a friend or group of friends, and theoretically needn't have anything to do with religion, Floo. As you know, I'm involved wit Tools with a Mission. I often ask people whether they would be interested in getting involved in some way. I'm quite happy to ask someone whether they'd be interested in becomig a donor (perhaps of the parental toolkit that has been lying around unused in the shed for some years) with very little previous knowledge of the person. Asking whether they'd be interesting in being involved as a collector or a refurbisher/sorter tends to take me longer because I want to get to know where their interests lie.
But I don't see why that is anything other than asking others to get involved in a good cause, which of course people of all religions and none are doing all the time.
But if there is a back-door agenda additionally to suck them into your religion, well (as Floo puts it) that's a bit sneaky.
And actuality there is an issue here. Many people are quite rightly suspicious of 'hidden agendas' that exist all over the place and of course why a lot of people steer clear of getting involved in religious linked charities and activities. And thats for two reasons - first the one you talk of, the hidden agenda of conversion. But the other is simply that you don't wish to give an agenda you don't agree with (in this case religion, but it could just as well be a political party) the opportunity to promote itself through your endeavours.
So a good example in another context. Some years ago I was heavily involved in a non political campaign to save our local library. Although many of the leading people were actually members of a variety of political parties (Labour, Green, LibDem) we took the decision to make sure the campaign wasn't affiliated with any of them. Frustratingly the local LibDem councillors (who did bugger all) jumped on the bandwagon, and so the work we were doing was instantly seen as part of the plan to get a LibDem councillor re-elected (including all over their campaigning literature).
Very frustrating and why people can be wary of a hidden agenda.
-
... but sadly there are plenty who take delight in ramming their religion down your throat while at the same time being the worst possible advert for christianity.
Ironically, I found the equivalent in regard to the issue of homosexual relationships. On a previous board I was a member of, there were several gay and pro-gay members. One of the latter became a firm friend of mine and we used to attend the Christian music and arts festival - Greenbelt - together until he died a couple of years ago. On and off the board, we debated the rights and wrongs of the matter, in a sensible, reasonable and honest way, and I was beginning to come round to his point of view. Unfortunately, at the same time, the gay and the othe pro-gay members spent all their time being abusive to & dismissive and misrepresentive of me and the others on the board who shared my viewpoint. To a degree that stopped by moving all the way towards them - why would I want to think in the same way as people whose only form of argument was abuse and uncritical dismissal. Sadly, I have found similar behaviour from a few here - in the same way that some here have expressed their distrust of Christians behaving the same way.
Is a tendency to become abusive when we hold strong opinions simply human nature?
But I think you are missing the point.
If you chose to go onto a message board, by definition you are asking to be involved in a debate - for others to give you their opinion and for you to give yours. That's the nature of this board and I image of the one you talk about.
That's not what I am talking about - rather people who, uninvited, start pontificating at the drop of a hat without any indication from the person being preached at that they wish to engage in that kind of conversation.
-
Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.
Is that so, PD? Jesus was the ultimate exponent of 'proselytism'; how often did he talk to people about the Kingdom of God who hadn't already chosen to seek him out and listen to his teaching?
We are not talking here about people who seek out the proselytes, we are talking about proselytes who seek out people.
-
Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.
Is that so, PD? Jesus was the ultimate exponent of 'proselytism'; how often did he talk to people about the Kingdom of God who hadn't already chosen to seek him out and listen to his teaching?
We are not talking here about people who seek out the proselytes, we are talking about proselytes who seek out people.
Exactly - if someone walks into a church and asks the vicar to talk to him about christianity that's absolutely fine of course.
However, to my mind, if someone unannounced and uninvited 'cold-calls' you by knocking on your door expecting to talk about god, without any indication that you wish to discuss god (or even that you wish to discuss god now) that's the same as any other kind of cold calling and is flat out wrong. It is intrusive and requires the 'victim' of the cold calling to try to extract themselves from the situation which was not wanted and not invited.
Now in most cases a polite (or not so polite) 'no thank you' is sufficient, but there are of course many vulnerable people around who may be taken in particularly if the proselytiser is well trained and experienced (as they often are) and may feel the only way to get rid of them is to agree to something they don't really want to.
-
However, to my mind, if someone unannounced and uninvited 'cold-calls' you by knocking on your door expecting to talk about god, without any indication that you wish to discuss god (or even that you wish to discuss god now) that's the same as any other kind of cold calling and is flat out wrong. It is intrusive and requires the 'victim' of the cold calling to try to extract themselves from the situation which was not wanted and not invited.
And where, in that approach, is there anything to do with friendship, PD? I appreciate that there are a number of groupings - not all Christian (nor necessarily religious) - who might knock on your door and try to 'convert' you to their way of thinking, but I'm not sure that that could be deemed as 'friendship' evangelism in any circumstance.
Sorry, just reread the post, and I think I've missed my own point!! My point, that first Matt and then you responded to, was that Jesus modelled the best way of doing things, which hisn followers should tryn to emulate. I wasn't saying that some hadn't.
-
So your approach to issues such as homosexuality are based not on a consideration of the facts of the issue but on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet.
I would suggest that you are perhaps using the wrong method and medium to come to a balanced view on such topics.
Is virtual discussion of issues less valid than face2face, Trent? As I pointed out, I took part in both virtual and face2face discussion, and had been involved in the latter long before the internet became publically available.
-
So your approach to issues such as homosexuality are based not on a consideration of the facts of the issue but on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet.
I would suggest that you are perhaps using the wrong method and medium to come to a balanced view on such topics.
Is virtual discussion of issues less valid than face2face, Trent? As I pointed out, I took part in both virtual and face2face discussion, and had been involved in the latter long before the internet became publically available.
Yeah, yeah, yeah!
As usual your experiences transcend those of all us ordinary mortals!
-
So your approach to issues such as homosexuality are based not on a consideration of the facts of the issue but on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet.
I would suggest that you are perhaps using the wrong method and medium to come to a balanced view on such topics.
Is virtual discussion of issues less valid than face2face, Trent? As I pointed out, I took part in both virtual and face2face discussion, and had been involved in the latter long before the internet became publically available.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Some people you meet on line are not in my experience necessarily balanced in their approach to issues, furthermore the 'at one remove' feature of the internet means that some posters say things that they would never say in real life to a persons face, therefore there is a tendency to exaggeration, lies, hyperbole and insults.
Whilst some of these may have a place in discourse occasionally, I am not convinced that in the long term they are condusive to a sensible discussion.
-
Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.
Is that so, PD? Jesus was the ultimate exponent of 'proselytism'; how often did he talk to people about the Kingdom of God who hadn't already chosen to seek him out and listen to his teaching?
We are not talking here about people who seek out the proselytes, we are talking about proselytes who seek out people.
Exactly - if someone walks into a church and asks the vicar to talk to him about christianity that's absolutely fine of course.
However, to my mind, if someone unannounced and uninvited 'cold-calls' you by knocking on your door expecting to talk about god, without any indication that you wish to discuss god (or even that you wish to discuss god now) that's the same as any other kind of cold calling and is flat out wrong. It is intrusive and requires the 'victim' of the cold calling to try to extract themselves from the situation which was not wanted and not invited.
Now in most cases a polite (or not so polite) 'no thank you' is sufficient, but there are of course many vulnerable people around who may be taken in particularly if the proselytiser is well trained and experienced (as they often are) and may feel the only way to get rid of them is to agree to something they don't really want to.
As you say if a person seeks out a believer to talk about their faith NO PROBLEM. It is the uninvited believer who wants to proselytise to the uninterested, which is a problem.
-
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Some people you meet on line are not in my experience necessarily balanced in their approach to issues, furthermore the 'at one remove' feature of the internet means that some posters say things that they would never say in real life to a persons face, therefore there is a tendency to exaggeration, lies, hyperbole and insults.
Whilst some of these may have a place in discourse occasionally, I am not convinced that in the long term they are condusive to a sensible discussion.
And I'm not convinced that your argument matches what I posted. At no point did I say that I had based 'your approach to issues such as homosexuality ... on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet'.
For one thing, I pointed out that I knew the guy I referred to in real life as well as on the internet. I accept that I could also have mentioned that several of the board's members met up on 2 or 3 occasions - in the same way that some of our Scottish brethren here do.
I have now been involved in this particular debate on one level or another for nigh-on 30 years. The internet has been a minimal part of that involvement.
-
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Some people you meet on line are not in my experience necessarily balanced in their approach to issues, furthermore the 'at one remove' feature of the internet means that some posters say things that they would never say in real life to a persons face, therefore there is a tendency to exaggeration, lies, hyperbole and insults.
Whilst some of these may have a place in discourse occasionally, I am not convinced that in the long term they are condusive to a sensible discussion.
And I'm not convinced that your argument matches what I posted. At no point did I say that I had based 'your approach to issues such as homosexuality ... on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet'.
For one thing, I pointed out that I knew the guy I referred to in real life as well as on the internet. I accept that I could also have mentioned that several of the board's members met up on 2 or 3 occasions - in the same way that some of our Scottish brethren here do.
I have now been involved in this particular debate on one level or another for nigh-on 30 years. The internet has been a minimal part of that involvement.
Just going by what you posted:
Unfortunately, at the same time, the gay and the othe pro-gay members spent all their time being abusive to & dismissive and misrepresentive of me and the others on the board who shared my viewpoint. To a degree that stopped by moving all the way towards them - why would I want to think in the same way as people whose only form of argument was abuse and uncritical dismissal.
If that wasn't your emotional response - I apologise, but it sounded like it to me.
Let's take another example, just because anti-abortionists are in some cases raving loons - do you then disregard the case for the anti-abortionist cause because those particular people are very clearly abusive and in some cases murderous.
-
As you say if a person seeks out a believer to talk about their faith NO PROBLEM. It is the uninvited believer who wants to proselytise to the uninterested, which is a problem.
It would be interesting to discover what proportion of evangelism/proselytism is done in the former way and what proportion in the latter. At the same, I see nothing wrong with sharing one's faith with people you know well and whose level of interest one would already know. I have been asked about my faith by non-Christian friends as a result of both angina attack earlier this year and following my stroke 10 days ago.
-
As you say if a person seeks out a believer to talk about their faith NO PROBLEM. It is the uninvited believer who wants to proselytise to the uninterested, which is a problem.
It would be interesting to discover what proportion of evangelism/proselytism is done in the former way and what proportion in the latter. At the same, I see nothing wrong with sharing one's faith with people you know well and whose level of interest one would already know. I have been asked about my faith by non-Christian friends as a result of both angina attack earlier this year and following my stroke 10 days ago.
Equally you would know their level of disinterest and it is those who should be left alone not subjected to religious propaganda!
-
What do you call it when Gordon's arguments come underfire?
Battered Keich.
When its from you, Vlad, I'd say 'sadly laughable' is a better fit.
btw what does 'Toelies' mean? Is this the secret password for members of the RD Appreciation Society?
I think he means 'toley'
as in;
Whereas 'shit' may in some cases be construed as good (the classic 'this is good shit man') there is no positive derviation of toley - it is wholly negative in its connotation!
Toley is a word that is often used to greatest effect as part of a more creative insulting ramble e.g "Fuckin' useless toley prick"
http://www.odps.org/glossword/index.php?a=term&d=4&t=12069
-
As you say if a person seeks out a believer to talk about their faith NO PROBLEM. It is the uninvited believer who wants to proselytise to the uninterested, which is a problem.
It would be interesting to discover what proportion of evangelism/proselytism is done in the former way and what proportion in the latter. At the same, I see nothing wrong with sharing one's faith with people you know well and whose level of interest one would already know. I have been asked about my faith by non-Christian friends as a result of both angina attack earlier this year and following my stroke 10 days ago.
Fine they asked you about it, would you have shared your faith if they hadn't?
-
As you say if a person seeks out a believer to talk about their faith NO PROBLEM. It is the uninvited believer who wants to proselytise to the uninterested, which is a problem.
It would be interesting to discover what proportion of evangelism/proselytism is done in the former way and what proportion in the latter. At the same, I see nothing wrong with sharing one's faith with people you know well and whose level of interest one would already know. I have been asked about my faith by non-Christian friends as a result of both angina attack earlier this year and following my stroke 10 days ago.
Fine they asked you about it, would you have shared your faith if they hadn't?
Yes, of course he would! He can't help himself!
-
As you say if a person seeks out a believer to talk about their faith NO PROBLEM. It is the uninvited believer who wants to proselytise to the uninterested, which is a problem.
It would be interesting to discover what proportion of evangelism/proselytism is done in the former way and what proportion in the latter. At the same, I see nothing wrong with sharing one's faith with people you know well and whose level of interest one would already know. I have been asked about my faith by non-Christian friends as a result of both angina attack earlier this year and following my stroke 10 days ago.
Fine they asked you about it, would you have shared your faith if they hadn't?
Yes, of course he would! He can't help himself, just as he couldn't help himself reminding us of his health problems, foir which he has my sympathy and my hopes for a speedy recovery, but noot when used as a toool in an arguement.
I think that is a bit mean! :o I don't think Hope is using his health problems as intro for proselytising.
-
Yep, with Floo here, nothing in Hope's post indicates that he is using his illness as a tool in this argument. Explaining that he might struggle to reply in depth is surely reasonable?
-
Fine they asked you about it, would you have shared your faith if they hadn't?
I've known many of the folk at the railway, for instance, for 6 or 7 years. They know my religious beliefs and - if, in the course of a general conversation on Saturday (I need to go up to the shed to do some railway paperwork), one of them asks about the state of my mental health I'll quite happily say that my religious beliefs have - over the years - protected me from feeling that I'd be better off dead for instance. I use that example because I've just had the nurse from my Early Supported Discharge team come to ask me some questions, and that was one of the questions she had to ask me - and that was the answer I gave her.
-
Fine they asked you about it, would you have shared your faith if they hadn't?
I've known many of the folk at the railway, for instance, for 6 or 7 years. They know my religious beliefs and - if, in the course of a general conversation on Saturday (I need to go up to the shed to do some railway paperwork), one of them asks about the state of my mental health I'll quite happily say that my religious beliefs have - over the years - protected me from feeling that I'd be better off dead for instance. I use that example because I've just had the nurse from my Early Supported Discharge team come to ask me some questions, and that was one of the questions she had to ask me - and that was the answer I gave her.
Sure but I'm not sure that is proselytising unless you are aiming to convert people.
I regularly espouse how wonderful I think choral singing is for my general well being. I'm sure people might call me evangelical. But this is about how good it feels to me, and I freely accept and understand that there are plenty of others for whom choral singing would leave them cold or be the last thing they wanted to do. I'm not trying to convert anyone, merely telling them about how much I enjoy it.
But for it to be proselytism surely the agenda isn't merely to tell someone how important your religion is to you, but to try to convert them. That's different.
Now I guess there have been rare occasions where I have 'converted' others to choral singing - but actually this has only been when the response to me telling someone how much I enjoy it has been 'yes I used to sing, really enjoyed it too, but haven't done it for years'. To which my response has been to suggest they get back into it and to suggest there is likely to be a choir nearby. On a few occasions friends have done this, but this is always with people who have indicated their interest already.
-
Sure but I'm not sure that is proselytising unless you are aiming to convert people.
Proselytising is sharing one's faith with others, PD.
I regularly espouse how wonderful I think choral singing is for my general well being. I'm sure people might call me evangelical. But this is about how good it feels to me, and I freely accept and understand that there are plenty of others for whom choral singing would leave them cold or be the last thing they wanted to do. I'm not trying to convert anyone, merely telling them about how much I enjoy it.
The problem with this analogy is that it falls down on the universal benefits argument. As a Christian, I believe that God created humanity - and the rest of the natural world - and that he has the welfare of the whole of the natural world at heart. Would you not agree that if you had a understanding that you believed was beneficial to the whole world that you would be irresponsible not to share that?
Let's give another analogy. An ever-increasing number of medical experts are telling us that all Over 50's would benefit from a regular dose of statins. Many of the public seem to disagree - even quoting surveys and studies in support of their views. Are you saying that the medics should not cold-sell the efficacy of statins simply because some people don't want to hear the information?
But for it to be proselytism surely the agenda isn't merely to tell someone how important your religion is to you, but to try to convert them. That's different.
I think you are getting mixed up a bit. Few if any Christians believe that they can convert anyone; they believe that that is what God does in the 'privacy' of a person's soul. What they do believe is that someone has to be exposed to the Gospel before they can come to a point at which they choose to even consider conversion. I presume that you would agree with that basic way of thinking as regards choral singing and its health benefits.
-
Proselytising is sharing one's faith with others, PD.
No it isn't - to be proselytism it has to be aimed at converting the other person. Merely discussing your faith with others isn't proselytism unless there is an aim to convert the other person.
-
Would you not agree that if you had a understanding that you believed was beneficial to the whole world that you would be irresponsible not to share that?
Well given that there is no evidence to back up that claim, to suggest so would represent an extremely arrogant and presumptive point of view, effectively to presume you knew better about other's lives and what was good for them than they did.
-
Let's give another analogy. An ever-increasing number of medical experts are telling us that all Over 50's would benefit from a regular dose of statins. Many of the public seem to disagree - even quoting surveys and studies in support of their views. Are you saying that the medics should not cold-sell the efficacy of statins simply because some people don't want to hear the information?
But in the case of the medics there would be an evidence base to support their opinion and recommendations. Without that evidence based (as is the case for religion where there is no evidence) then it would be entirely wrong for medics to cold sell the purported efficacy of a treatment if there wasn't evidence to back up the claim.
And actually even in cases where there is good medical evidence I don't believe I have ever had a knock at the door, opened it to find a medic trying to cold sell the benefits of some drug to me.
-
What they do believe is that someone has to be exposed to the Gospel before they can come to a point at which they choose to even consider conversion. I presume that you would agree with that basic way of thinking as regards choral singing and its health benefits.
Sure there are parts of the world where few, if any, people have heard of christianity so there may be some 'exposure' needed. But in the UK most people are well aware that christianity exists and what its basic tenets are plus will no doubt know some christians - they are perfectly capable of choosing to pop along to a church should they choose - there is usually one just a short walk away for most of us. It costs nothing. If they don't it is because they have chosen not to.
-
But in the case of the medics there would be an evidence base to support their opinion and recommendations. Without that evidence based (as is the case for religion where there is no evidence) then it would be entirely wrong for medics to cold sell the purported efficacy of a treatment if there wasn't evidence to back up the claim.
Yes and no - that's more about your willingness to listen to their argument, given the nature of the argument. The motive on the part of the person delivering it is the same: they want to help.
And actually even in cases where there is good medical evidence I don't believe I have ever had a knock at the door, opened it to find a medic trying to cold sell the benefits of some drug to me.
That, to some extent, is because of the laws around advertising medicines in the UK (and perhaps the EU?) and the way patients interact with doctors - medical advertising in the US, for instance, is scary - not directly related to the thread, but to this issue, I'd highly recommend Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Pharma' on the state of the US pharmaceutical industry.
O.
-
I regularly espouse how wonderful I think choral singing is for my general well being. I'm sure people might call me evangelical. But this is about how good it feels to me, and I freely accept and understand that there are plenty of others for whom choral singing would leave them cold or be the last thing they wanted to do. I'm not trying to convert anyone, merely telling them about how much I enjoy it.
It's a basic human reaction. I know from plentiful direct personal experience that if I've read a particularly good book, or seen an especially good film, or heard a particularly good piece of music, I'll tell others around me in the hope that they might have the same reaction to it and derive as much pleasure from it as I've done. Surely this is the basis of the 'Music was my first love' thread, otherwise, why share links?
However. I have sufficient imagination to know that all people are different and don't respond to the same thing in the same way. There are several dedicated Terry Pratchett fans on the forum, for example, someone whose books despite repeated attempts to read quite a few of them leave me cold. I absolutely cannot see anything to enjoy in Strictly Come Dancing, X Factor or Downton Abbey, or any soap opera come to that - some of the highest rated programmes on British television, watched and enjoyed by many millions. I might think that more people's lives would be enriched and given a lifetime of delight if they listened to Sibelius, for example, andI've been known to say so; but religious proselytisiation isn't and religious proselytisers aren't like this. Given YouTube and Amazon/Kindle, anybody who might be interested in Sibelius or this book can find out for themselves - it's all out there, they don't need any pushing from me. If somebody isn't interested in the latest superb novel I've just finished, that's the end of the matter. They're not interested and that's that. I don't need telling twice. Religious proselytisers are rarely, if ever, so obliging, seeing it as their bounden duty to impart a message - in fact, a mission - that they must share come what may.
But for it to be proselytism surely the agenda isn't merely to tell someone how important your religion is to you, but to try to convert them. That's different.
Precisely.
-
I think one reason why I enthuse about my own passions is because I'd like someone to share them with, discuss them. It's very frustrating to have to internalise it all.
-
As you say if a person seeks out a believer to talk about their faith NO PROBLEM. It is the uninvited believer who wants to proselytise to the uninterested, which is a problem.
It would be interesting to discover what proportion of evangelism/proselytism is done in the former way and what proportion in the latter. At the same, I see nothing wrong with sharing one's faith with people you know well and whose level of interest one would already know. I have been asked about my faith by non-Christian friends as a result of both angina attack earlier this year and following my stroke 10 days ago.
Fine they asked you about it, would you have shared your faith if they hadn't?
Yes, of course he would! He can't help himself, just as he couldn't help himself reminding us of his health problems, foir which he has my sympathy and my hopes for a speedy recovery, but noot when used as a toool in an arguement.
I think that is a bit mean! :o I don't think Hope is using his health problems as intro for proselytising.
Post edited!
-
Yep, with Floo here, nothing in Hope's post indicates that he is using his illness as a tool in this argument. Explaining that he might struggle to reply in depth is surely reasonable?
Post edited!
-
Kudos, Owlswing.
-
Well I just can't hold back. Fasten your seat belts and take your dose of evangelist Jonathan Bell. You're welcome. (smilies)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r0Fvbi70mg
This dude is for real but I removed the second link because Mr. Nearly is missing a sense of humour. A monkey sitting on a rock stole it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCfnPaSNohc
-
Well I just can't hold back. Fasten your seat belts and take your dose of evangelist Jonathan Bell. You're welcome. (smilies)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r0Fvbi70mg
mammon worshipper. I take it that given you are punting a charged for access you will be banned as spamming?
-
No actually that guy is so unbelievable I just posted that second link to show he's for real. Sorry that you didn't actually listen to the first link. I'm not punting anything nor was i charged to click on that second link. It was free for me.
Have a nice night Mr. Nearly and have a magic cookie.
-
No actually that guy is so unbelievable I just posted that second link to show he's for real. Sorry that you didn't actually listen to the first link. I'm not punting anything nor was i charged to click on that second link. It was free for me.
Have a nice night Mr. Nearly and have a magic cookie.
I just took the link you had which was charged for. Nothing free o. It. Things work differently over net, but even then you think the word of your god is worth charging for. What a Money grabbing God you love.
-
Charged for? Who got charged?
-
Charged for? Who got charged?
Confused again? Aw, shame! Have a nice bourbon.
-
Charged for? Who got charged?
Confused again? Aw, shame! Have a nice bourbon.
Jesus fucking Christ - here we go again - that monkey must have a record-breaking case of piles by now and bourbon won't either cure or ease it!!
-
t
Charged for? Who got charged?
Confused again? Aw, shame! Have a nice bourbon.
Jesus fucking Christ - here we go again - that monkey must have a record-breaking case of piles by now and bourbon won't either cure or ease it!!
Maybe read up about irony and read who is posting? Just a suggestion?
-
t
Charged for? Who got charged?
Confused again? Aw, shame! Have a nice bourbon.
Jesus fucking Christ - here we go again - that monkey must have a record-breaking case of piles by now and bourbon won't either cure or ease it!!
Maybe read up about irony and read who is posting? Just a suggestion?
I did - hence my comment - it was about him not you and in response to your post, I don't mind "talking" to you, to him . . . no way I have learnt my lesson in that regard!
-
Nobody is charged to click on that site, so you can take a chill pill. And I can't do any more than remove the link so put on your jammies, say your prayer to Dickie Dawkins and try and get some sleep Mr. Nearly. You are awfully anal today.
Matty,
What a foul disgusting thing to write Matty. Did your parents teach you to write in such an extreme gutter style. Shame on you, 70 years old and you have no class. Christ's name is powerful as you well know. Even when people like you use His name perversely from the GUTTER.
-
Didn't say anyone was forced to pay for it, just asked why link to a pay per view site, why do you feel to the need to lie about what was said Mr Cookie?why lie about it? Wouldn't that be a sin? So why lie?
-
No Mr. Nearly, I clicked on the link, I wasn't charged to do so. I think it is you that needs to stop being so anal. Perhaps get some lessons on humour from a monkey sitting on a rock. Now have a magic cookie. (snork)
-
No Mr. Nearly, I clicked on the link, I wasn't charged to do so. I think it is you that needs to stop being so anal. Perhaps get some lessons on humour from a monkey sitting on a rock. Now have a magic cookie. (snork)
I didn't say you were charged for the clicking the link, indeed I explicitly said you were not charged but that the link took you to a site where to see the speech to you would be charged.
So why are you lying, again, about what I have said? Is your cookie fixation meaning you cannot write a post without lying?
-
No Mr. Nearly, I clicked on the link, I wasn't charged to do so. I think it is you that needs to stop being so anal. Perhaps get some lessons on humour from a monkey sitting on a rock. Now have a magic cookie. (snork)
I didn't say you were charged for the clicking the link, indeed I explicitly said you were not charged but that the link took you to a site where to see the speech to you would be charged.
So why are you lying, again, about what I have said? Is your cookie fixation meaning you cannot write a post without lying?
I get very frustrated when posters change their name.
Who is MAGIC COOKIE - given that he's posted over 6000 times he's clearly better known under a different name.
Why do people insist on changing names and how can you keep tabs on who is who.
-
Magic Cookie is Johnny Canoe et al, our charming Canadian with a fetish for biscuits.
-
I am pow wow, Mr. Canoe to you. And with all the tragedies going on in the world, pardon me if when I laugh at your little tantrum here. (smilies)
Now have a magic cookie Mr. Davey.
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/WTF/fat-guy-in-a-diaper.jpg
-
And you call yourself "Professor"
How about a name change for yourself? The Clueless Professor would go together like apple sauce on a pork chop.
-
And you call yourself "Professor"
How about a name change for yourself? The Clueless Professor would go together like apple sauce on a pork chop.
Mmm and the cookie king has his own little stampy tantrum in full Violet Elizabeth Bott style. Is your nappy full?
-
Don't be a silly Nearly. A tantrum would be you're anal fit last night. Now go put some close on, a monkey on a rock can get away with that look but it's not for you. If you won't decorate yourself, it's best to cover up.
-
Don't be a silly Nearly. A tantrum would be you're anal fit last night. Now go put some close on, a monkey on a rock can get away with that look but it's not for you. If you won't decorate yourself, it's best to cover up.
What colour is the sky in your world?
-
I am pow wow, Mr. Canoe to you. And with all the tragedies going on in the world, pardon me if when I laugh at your little tantrum here. (smilies)
Now have a magic cookie Mr. Davey.
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/WTF/fat-guy-in-a-diaper.jpg
Not a tantrum, just frustrating. I find it difficult when a new name appears that is obviously an old poster but I don't know who. Not simply aimed at you but anyone who does it. I managed to cope with Mcgill etc as all his names were linked, but canoe to powwow to magic cookie?!? I just don't get it.
-
And you call yourself "Professor"
I call myself Professor, because I am .. err ... a Professor.
Yet you always call me Mr Davey - but hey that's your prerogative.
-
Just saying that it's strange a professor couldn't figure out who MAGIC COOKIE is.
Anyways another dose of that hero of public access. (snork) I emailed the links to my sisters last night, they were crying from laughing so hard.
https://youtu.be/mxA7L7qXGGY
-
Just saying that it's strange a professor couldn't figure out who MAGIC COOKIE is.
Not really - there are quite a few here from the fruitcake end of the spectrum so sometimes difficult to differentiate.
-
Mr. Davey,
No, everybody has a unique style all their own. Maybe you have so much education you can't figure out something that is so easy, a monkey sitting on a rock would have no problem with it.
-
Mr. Davey,
No, everybody has a unique style all their own. Maybe you have so much education you can't figure out something that is so easy, a monkey sitting on a rock would have no problem with it.
All I was seeing was very brief posts from someone with a name I didn't recognise, but given their number of posts it must have been an existing poster with a name change. So, no, it wasn't obvious - although I could narrow down to a few of the more fruitcake end posters (which it turned out to be). So don't flatter yourself that your posting style is so distinctive that it can be your identity is obviously clear.
Actually I think there should be a rule that if a poster changes their name, their previous name should be indicated at least for a while.
Frankly I've never understood why posters change their name in the first place. What's that all about ???
-
Mr. Davey,
No, everybody has a unique style all their own. Maybe you have so much education you can't figure out something that is so easy, a monkey sitting on a rock would have no problem with it.
All I was seeing was very brief posts from someone with a name I didn't recognise, but given their number of posts it must have been an existing poster with a name change. So, no, it wasn't obvious - although I could narrow down to a few of the more fruitcake end posters (which it turned out to be). So don't flatter yourself that your posting style is so distinctive that it can be your identity is obviously clear.
Actually I think there should be a rule that if a poster changes their name, their previous name should be indicated at least for a while.
Frankly I've never understood why posters change their name in the first place. What's that all about ???
In my case I started on here as Matthew Hopkins - about the least likely pseudonym I could think of for a Pagan and witch.
After a while my posting style, I am told that I have one, identified me as being CMG_KCMG_GCMG tom those from the old Beeb R and E Pagan Topic, a name that I took after the Beeb records were hacked by the Recondite Revenant, who told the Beeb that I and my daughter were one and the same because we were posting from the same IP address, not really surprising as we were living in the same house!
I have since reverted to my original Beeb name that I had to 'lose' to get back onto the Beeb after the RR incident as I prefer it.
Hence why Hope and the Canadian still insist on addressing me as Matt and "dearest matty" respectively; the latter because either he really thinks that he is my friend (not ever in this lifetime) or as a wind-up to try and get me annoyed. I cannot post the nature of the only thing about him that really gets me annoyed at it would get me instantly banned and I have no intention whatsoever of giving him that satifaction.
-
Mr. Davey,
No, everybody has a unique style all their own. Maybe you have so much education you can't figure out something that is so easy, a monkey sitting on a rock would have no problem with it.
Woody why the "Magic Biscuit"?
ippy
-
Mr. Davey,
No, everybody has a unique style all their own. Maybe you have so much education you can't figure out something that is so easy, a monkey sitting on a rock would have no problem with it.
All I was seeing was very brief posts from someone with a name I didn't recognise, but given their number of posts it must have been an existing poster with a name change. So, no, it wasn't obvious - although I could narrow down to a few of the more fruitcake end posters (which it turned out to be). So don't flatter yourself that your posting style is so distinctive that it can be your identity is obviously clear.
Actually I think there should be a rule that if a poster changes their name, their previous name should be indicated at least for a while.
Frankly I've never understood why posters change their name in the first place. What's that all about ???
I quite agree - it's odd.
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
So, no Christmas cards, presents for the family and all the kiddies; no mention of anything to do with the Christian festival, or participation in it? No visits to such things as Nativities? A reminder to tell all friends, family,etc, not to send you cards or anything to do with Christmas? Could it just be that you are a hypocrite, and a pretty big one?
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
Not a Christmas tree in our home - a Yule log, yes.
My daughters and I split things along religious lines.
Yule cards and presents for the pagans on December 21 and Christmas presents and cards for those of that persuasion on December 25 and, strange thought it may seem considering soem of the comments by the Christians on this Forum, our Christian friends find this perfectly acceptable.
-
To spend so much time denying Christianity, and religion generally, and then send Christmas presents, is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy!
-
To spend so much time denying Christianity, and religion generally, and then send Christmas presents, is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy!
All right, just this once I will answer you.
I do NOT deny Christianity, which, if you bothered to actually read my posts instead of thinking, in that lump of cold porrige that you use instead of a brain, that you know what it says just because it was posted by me, you would see that what I deny is Christianity's claim to be the one true religion, based upon the one true god!
I have said it on here a thousand times - well not that many, but too many to count - as far as I am concerned everyone is entitled to their reigion of choice, or none, but I expect the same consideration from them - and it is about time the you acknowleged that, accepted it and gave me that consideration!
END OF LINE!
-
To spend so much time denying Christianity, and religion generally, and then send Christmas presents, is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy!
Why? I like celebrating the mid winter as much as the next person.
And before you go - but its called 'CHRIST-mas', I presume you don't believe anyone should celebrate Easter unless they are into pagan spring deities.
The hypocrisy here is to think that you mustn't be allowed to celebrate Christmas except in a Christian manner, but think it's OK to celebrate Easter in anything other than a pagan celebration of spring kind of manner.
-
To spend so much time denying Christianity, and religion generally, and then send Christmas presents, is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy!
Why? I like celebrating the mid winter as much as the next person.
And before you go - but its called 'CHRIST-mas', I presume you don't believe anyone should celebrate Easter unless they are into pagan spring deities.
So, you refrain from addressing any aspect of the Christian festivities? Or are you just another hypocrite?
At Easter I celebrate on specific dates, regardless of any pagan associations. Pagans can celebrate as they like, as long as they don't adhere to Christian dates and times.
-
To spend so much time denying Christianity, and religion generally, and then send Christmas presents, is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy!
Why? I like celebrating the mid winter as much as the next person.
And before you go - but its called 'CHRIST-mas', I presume you don't believe anyone should celebrate Easter unless they are into pagan spring deities.
So, you refrain from addressing any aspect of the Christian festivities? Or are you just another hypocrite?
You mean the holidays?
I understood the end of year celebrations were originally pagan and just cop-opted by christianity?
-
To spend so much time denying Christianity, and religion generally, and then send Christmas presents, is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy!
Why? I like celebrating the mid winter as much as the next person.
And before you go - but its called 'CHRIST-mas', I presume you don't believe anyone should celebrate Easter unless they are into pagan spring deities.
So, you refrain from addressing any aspect of the Christian festivities? Or are you just another hypocrite?
You mean the holidays?
I understood the end of year celebrations were originally pagan and just cop-opted by christianity?
Most of the so-called Christian Holy Days were nicked from the pagans in order to get them to accept chistianity by using the same days, oh, and, of course, building their churches on the spots where the pagans worshipped.
Duplicitous aren't (weren't) they?
-
To spend so much time denying Christianity, and religion generally, and then send Christmas presents, is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy!
Why? There's been a midwinter festival since long before anyone made up Christianity, and Christianity deliberately co-opted both the pagan festival in Europe and many of its trappings.
'Christmas' for historical and cultural reasons, is just the modern word for 'midwinter festival', and it's a cultural event as much - probably more - these days as a religious one.
If you want to bang on to Jesus on his birthday, you knock yourself out, but I'll celebrate what I want, when I want, how I want, thank you very much.
O.
-
To spend so much time denying Christianity, and religion generally, and then send Christmas presents, is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy!
Why? I like celebrating the mid winter as much as the next person.
And before you go - but its called 'CHRIST-mas', I presume you don't believe anyone should celebrate Easter unless they are into pagan spring deities.
So, you refrain from addressing any aspect of the Christian festivities? Or are you just another hypocrite?
You mean the holidays?
I understood the end of year celebrations were originally pagan and just cop-opted by christianity?
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
-
'Christmas' for historical and cultural reasons, is just the modern word for 'midwinter festival', and it's a cultural event as much - probably more - these days as a religious one.
You didn't need the 'probably' there; there's absolutely no question that for the overwhelming majority (and I don't just mean in Britain but everywhere in the world where Christmas is celebrated), Christmas is a root-and-branch secular public holiday associated purely with family time, gift-giving and over-indulgence.
Sad that something so obvious should still need to be said, but there it is.
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
Abject nonsense. Christmas is a Christian Festival now, and you hypocrites are simply clutching at straws to try and justify indulging in things Christmassy. Have the courage of your "convictions!"
-
Isn't this Christmas stuff off topic and is it just me or does the annual non Christians shouldn't celebrate Christmas thread get earlier each year?
-
So, you refrain from addressing any aspect of the Christian festivities? Or are you just another hypocrite?
I'm not the one claiming some kind of monopoly on festivals. I have no problem with people celebrating Christmas however they wish, all the way from one extreme, as a purely Christian festival (and therefore with nothing associated with the seasonal celebration), through to a purely seasonal celebration, without reference to the Christian meaning. Frankly most people celebrate in a manner that mixes the two in some proportion, and that's fine with me. You're the one who seems to have a problem with this, not me so there is no hypocrisy on my part.
At Easter I celebrate on specific dates, regardless of any pagan associations. Pagans can celebrate as they like, as long as they don't adhere to Christian dates and times.
But in the UK we call it Easter, not passion or any other such name which has a Christian connotations. So if you call it Easter, then to avoid claims of hypocrisy on your part (not mine remember as I'm relaxed about how people celebrate) then it is a pagan celebration, not a Christian one. So if non Christians are hypocrites for celebrating Christmas then non-pagans are just as hypocritical for celebrating Easter.
But I reiterate again - I don't care - celebrate as you wish - all these festivals are multifaceted, incorporating all sorts of religious and cultural influences, and also they evolve over time.
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
Abject nonsense. Christmas is a Christian Festival now, and you hypocrites are simply clutching at straws to try and justify indulging in things Christmassy. Have the courage of your "convictions!"
In which case Easter is a pagan festival and you are a hypocrite for celebrating it in any other manner than a pagan one.
-
Dearest Matty,
I don't find it strange that you do the yule thingy as well as give gifts to Christians, not strange at all since you are a witch. And the reality is I find it strange you announce to your crowds of Christian friends that you also give yule things to pagans. Oh and I called ya a witch cause ya claim to be one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WWrBPpya2w
-
Abject nonsense. Christmas is a Christian Festival now, and you hypocrites are simply clutching at straws to try and justify indulging in things Christmassy. Have the courage of your "convictions!"
I am indulging in Christmassy things, yes - trees (pagan), Yule logs (pagan), two weeks at Disney in Florida (capitalist?), ignoring the Queen's Speech (post-modernist?), eating well and spending time with my family. Those are Christmassy things, they aren't explicitly Christian things - Christmas has moved way, way beyond fairy tales about magic babies being born in stables.
O.
-
But in the UK we call it Easter, not passion or any other such name which has a Christian connotations. So if you call it Easter, then to avoid claims of hypocrisy on your part (not mine remember as I'm relaxed about how people celebrate) then it is a pagan celebration, not a Christian one. So if non Christians are hypocrites for celebrating Christmas then non-pagans are just as hypocritical for celebrating Easter.
But I reiterate again - I don't care - celebrate as you wish - all these festivals are multifaceted, incorporating all sorts of religious and cultural influences, and also they evolve over time.
Actually, PD, Easter is not a pagan celebration and never has been. Eastrun was/is the pagan festival, and whilst I accept that the term 'Easter' is related to that name and the goddess it was in celebration of, 'Easter' as such is a Christianised form of the word. Furthermore, that is only an Anglo-Germanic link. Many other European languages have terms that derive from the Latin 'pasche' (as in Paschal), which is ultimately a cognate of the Hebrew Pesah.
In the long run, BA is talking nonsense as are you.
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
Abject nonsense. Christmas is a Christian Festival now, and you hypocrites are simply clutching at straws to try and justify indulging in things Christmassy. Have the courage of your "convictions!"
In which case Easter is a pagan festival and you are a hypocrite for celebrating it in any other manner than a pagan one.
More to the point, what day is it? Surely not Monday, named by pagans after the moon? Surely, BA, you've good, decent Christian names of the days of the week? You wouldn't be so hypocritical as to casually adopt the pagan names for days of the week when you're such an upstanding Christian, would you?
O.
-
I gather that in the olden days the Quakers used to call the days of the week First Day, Second Day etc. to avoid the use of pagan names.
They knew how to walk the walk and not be hypocrites, mind ;)
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
I wonder how BA would express his displeasure at those arguing against christianity if the word "hypocrite" was banned? He would be lost for words!
He is also a gutless coward - makes an accusation against me and then refuses to answer my rebuttal.
-
I gather that in the olden days the Quakers used to call the days of the week First Day, Second Day etc. to avoid the use of pagan names.
They knew how to walk the walk and not be hypocrites, mind ;)
And I wonder how many of the 'original' Pagans borrowed names and terminology from their predecessors? How many atheists 'hypocritically' borrow terminology from their religious predecessors? Remember that terminology is not inherently 'pagan' or 'religious' or even 'atheist'. It is cultural.
-
I gather that in the olden days the Quakers used to call the days of the week First Day, Second Day etc. to avoid the use of pagan names.
They knew how to walk the walk and not be hypocrites, mind ;)
And I wonder how many of the 'original' Pagans borrowed names and terminology from their predecessors? How many atheists 'hypocritically' borrow terminology from their religious predecessors?
No idea.
The same as you, or you'd give specific examples.
Wouldn't you?
-
I gather that in the olden days the Quakers used to call the days of the week First Day, Second Day etc. to avoid the use of pagan names.
They knew how to walk the walk and not be hypocrites, mind ;)
And I wonder how many of the 'original' Pagans borrowed names and terminology from their predecessors? How many atheists 'hypocritically' borrow terminology from their religious predecessors? Remember that terminology is not inherently 'pagan' or 'religious' or even 'atheist'. It is cultural.
I wonder how many of the 'original' Pagans borrowed names and terminology from their predecessors?
Name predecessors prior to 23,000 BC please - that is how old the oldest pagan religious artifact so far diiscovered is?
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
Abject nonsense. Christmas is a Christian Festival now, and you hypocrites are simply clutching at straws to try and justify indulging in things Christmassy. Have the courage of your "convictions!"
In which case Easter is a pagan festival and you are a hypocrite for celebrating it in any other manner than a pagan one.
More to the point, what day is it? Surely not Monday, named by pagans after the moon? Surely, BA, you've good, decent Christian names of the days of the week? You wouldn't be so hypocritical as to casually adopt the pagan names for days of the week when you're such an upstanding Christian, would you?
O.
And there is a double whammy in Easter Sunday, named after both a pagan spring deity and a sun deity. And apparently that is the most important day in the Christian calendar. I've no problem with this, but apparently there are some people who don't think that others should celebrate a festival unless they believe in the god(s) it is named after.
-
4:12pm:
Eastrun was/is the pagan festival, and whilst I accept that the term 'Easter' is related to that name and the goddess it was in celebration of, 'Easter' as such is a Christianised form of the word.
Sixteen minutes later:
Remember that terminology is not inherently 'pagan' or 'religious' or even 'atheist'. It is cultural.
Somebody's confused and I don't think it's me.
-
I gather that in the olden days the Quakers used to call the days of the week First Day, Second Day etc. to avoid the use of pagan names.
They knew how to walk the walk and not be hypocrites, mind ;)
And I wonder how many of the 'original' Pagans borrowed names and terminology from their predecessors? How many atheists 'hypocritically' borrow terminology from their religious predecessors? Remember that terminology is not inherently 'pagan' or 'religious' or even 'atheist'. It is cultural.
But we're not the ones (or at least I am not) who are claiming some kind of monopoly on a festival based on the origin of its name.
It isn't hypocrisy to celebrate Christmas as a mid-winter festival and also Easter as a spring festival (and also to be perfectly happy for others to celebrate both as Christian festivals). It is however hypocrisy to claim a monopoly on Christmas (i.e. that it must be a Christian festival) due to the origin of its name, but then happily celebrate Easter as a Christian festival, conveniently ignoring the origin of its name.
-
But in the UK we call it Easter, not passion or any other such name which has a Christian connotations. So if you call it Easter, then to avoid claims of hypocrisy on your part (not mine remember as I'm relaxed about how people celebrate) then it is a pagan celebration, not a Christian one. So if non Christians are hypocrites for celebrating Christmas then non-pagans are just as hypocritical for celebrating Easter.
But I reiterate again - I don't care - celebrate as you wish - all these festivals are multifaceted, incorporating all sorts of religious and cultural influences, and also they evolve over time.
Actually, PD, Easter is not a pagan celebration and never has been. Eastrun was/is the pagan festival, and whilst I accept that the term 'Easter' is related to that name and the goddess it was in celebration of, 'Easter' as such is a Christianised form of the word. Furthermore, that is only an Anglo-Germanic link. Many other European languages have terms that derive from the Latin 'pasche' (as in Paschal), which is ultimately a cognate of the Hebrew Pesah.
In the long run, BA is talking nonsense as are you.
Yes I'm well aware that most other countries have a term that relates to passion - and that has a clear Christian derivation, but we don't - we call the festival Easter and however you slice it, that is not derived from any Christian origin but from a pagan spring deity.
-
But in the UK we call it Easter, not passion or any other such name which has a Christian connotations. So if you call it Easter, then to avoid claims of hypocrisy on your part (not mine remember as I'm relaxed about how people celebrate) then it is a pagan celebration, not a Christian one. So if non Christians are hypocrites for celebrating Christmas then non-pagans are just as hypocritical for celebrating Easter.
But I reiterate again - I don't care - celebrate as you wish - all these festivals are multifaceted, incorporating all sorts of religious and cultural influences, and also they evolve over time.
Actually, PD, Easter is not a pagan celebration and never has been. Eastrun was/is the pagan festival, and whilst I accept that the term 'Easter' is related to that name and the goddess it was in celebration of, 'Easter' as such is a Christianised form of the word. Furthermore, that is only an Anglo-Germanic link. Many other European languages have terms that derive from the Latin 'pasche' (as in Paschal), which is ultimately a cognate of the Hebrew Pesah.
In the long run, BA is talking nonsense as are you.
The only source for a goddess called Eostre is Bede. It's not that reliable.
Eostre or Ostara is dated to the equinox. Easter is dated by the moon phases and often falls on a different day.
-
But in the UK we call it Easter, not passion or any other such name which has a Christian connotations. So if you call it Easter, then to avoid claims of hypocrisy on your part (not mine remember as I'm relaxed about how people celebrate) then it is a pagan celebration, not a Christian one. So if non Christians are hypocrites for celebrating Christmas then non-pagans are just as hypocritical for celebrating Easter.
But I reiterate again - I don't care - celebrate as you wish - all these festivals are multifaceted, incorporating all sorts of religious and cultural influences, and also they evolve over time.
Actually, PD, Easter is not a pagan celebration and never has been. Eastrun was/is the pagan festival, and whilst I accept that the term 'Easter' is related to that name and the goddess it was in celebration of, 'Easter' as such is a Christianised form of the word. Furthermore, that is only an Anglo-Germanic link. Many other European languages have terms that derive from the Latin 'pasche' (as in Paschal), which is ultimately a cognate of the Hebrew Pesah.
In the long run, BA is talking nonsense as are you.
Yes I'm well aware that most other countries have a term that relates to passion - and that has a clear Christian derivation, but we don't - we call the festival Easter and however you slice it, that is not derived from any Christian origin but from a pagan spring deity.
Yep - although I'm by no means conversant with the detail of the NT I'm fairly sure that rabbits don't feature prominently.
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
Abject nonsense. Christmas is a Christian Festival now, and you hypocrites are simply clutching at straws to try and justify indulging in things Christmassy. Have the courage of your "convictions!"
In which case Easter is a pagan festival and you are a hypocrite for celebrating it in any other manner than a pagan one.
More to the point, what day is it? Surely not Monday, named by pagans after the moon? Surely, BA, you've good, decent Christian names of the days of the week? You wouldn't be so hypocritical as to casually adopt the pagan names for days of the week when you're such an upstanding Christian, would you?
O.
"Borrowing" names is not hypocritical - fool.
-
Abject nonsense. Christmas is a Christian Festival now, and you hypocrites are simply clutching at straws to try and justify indulging in things Christmassy. Have the courage of your "convictions!"
I am indulging in Christmassy things, yes - trees (pagan), Yule logs (pagan), two weeks at Disney in Florida (capitalist?), ignoring the Queen's Speech (post-modernist?), eating well and spending time with my family. Those are Christmassy things, they aren't explicitly Christian things - Christmas has moved way, way beyond fairy tales about magic babies being born in stables.
O....
Spin it how you like: you are a hypocrite!
-
Actually the origins of the Easter bunny is a bit creepy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Bunny
But if you want to go back further as to why somebody put hares and eggs together in the first place, there's a suggestion that people used to think hares laid eggs because their forms resemble nests and people mistook the eggs of ground nesting birds for hares' eggs. Not sure how plausible that is for people living so close to the land. :-\
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
Try as hard as you like, in your little way, Christmas is Christian Festival, and you heathens cannot resist joining in because of you self-indulgance, and fear of looking ridiculous by admitting to your strange ways to others. That's the truth of it.
-
I gather that in the olden days the Quakers used to call the days of the week First Day, Second Day etc. to avoid the use of pagan names.
They knew how to walk the walk and not be hypocrites, mind ;)
And I wonder how many of the 'original' Pagans borrowed names and terminology from their predecessors? How many atheists 'hypocritically' borrow terminology from their religious predecessors? Remember that terminology is not inherently 'pagan' or 'religious' or even 'atheist'. It is cultural.
But we're not the ones (or at least I am not) who are claiming some kind of monopoly on a festival based on the origin of its name.
It isn't hypocrisy to celebrate Christmas as a mid-winter festival and also Easter as a spring festival (and also to be perfectly happy for others to celebrate both as Christian festivals). It is however hypocrisy to claim a monopoly on Christmas (i.e. that it must be a Christian festival) due to the origin of its name, but then happily celebrate Easter as a Christian festival, conveniently ignoring the origin of its name.
There is some controversy among pagans with regard to Easter; there is only one record of a goddess Eostre or Ostara and that is by the Venerable Bede.
The eggs and rabbits are fertility symbols, relating to the spring season, eggs possibly from Eostre or Ostara and the root of Oestogen. This is why many pagan eschew the name Ostara for this festival and prefer to call it the Spring Equinox.
Calling it Easter comes from the same writing by Bede.
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
I wonder how BA would express his displeasure at those arguing against christianity if the word "hypocrite" was banned? He would be lost for words!
He is also a gutless coward - makes an accusation against me and then refuses to answer my rebuttal.
How come you keep posting to and about me, when you have said, on at least two occasions, that you will not post to me again? Are you so weak-willed?
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
So, no Christmas cards, presents for the family and all the kiddies; no mention of anything to do with the Christian festival, or participation in it? No visits to such things as Nativities? A reminder to tell all friends, family,etc, not to send you cards or anything to do with Christmas? Could it just be that you are a hypocrite, and a pretty big one?
Baaah, christmas is humbug you should know that, as I said I've got a sympathetic tree that comes each year with a little model of Isaac on top and then pages of Philosophiae Naturilis principa mathematica spaced out all over, well at least Isaac did exist and did something usefull while he was here.
The paper chains with all of that maths printed all over them, time spent winding the astrolabe by candlelight, worshiping his ability to guide all of those spacial bits of Objet d'art.
You obviously haven't lived B A.
ippy
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
I wonder how BA would express his displeasure at those arguing against christianity if the word "hypocrite" was banned? He would be lost for words!
He is also a gutless coward - makes an accusation against me and then refuses to answer my rebuttal.
How come you keep posting to and about me, when you have said, on at least two occasions, that you will not post to me again? Are you so weak-willed?
No I am not weak-willed - but you seem to think that I am going to allow you you LIE aboiut me with impunity!
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
So, no Christmas cards, presents for the family and all the kiddies; no mention of anything to do with the Christian festival, or participation in it? No visits to such things as Nativities? A reminder to tell all friends, family,etc, not to send you cards or anything to do with Christmas? Could it just be that you are a hypocrite, and a pretty big one?
Baaah, christmas is humbug you should know that, as I said I've got a sympathetic tree that comes each year with a little model of Isaac on top and then pages of Philosophiae Naturilis principa mathematica spaced out all over, well at least Isaac did exist and did something usefull while he was here.
The paper chains with all of that maths printed all over them, time spent winding the astrolabe by candlelight, worshiping his ability to guide all of those spacial bits of Objet d'art.
You obviously haven't lived B A.
ippy
I celebrate Christmas as it should be, and that's living in my book. I join in to the other aspects in a token manner, because of my family.
-
Try as hard as you like, in your little way, Christmas is Christian Festival, and you heathens cannot resist joining in because of you self-indulgance, and fear of looking ridiculous by admitting to your strange ways to others. That's the truth of it.
It's painfully obvious that what's really grinding your gears is that for the overwhelming majority of people here and elsewhere, Christmas has absolutely zero to do with Christianity or indeed any other religion. Nothing whatever. It's funny that living in a large city as you do (and as I do, only I can see it) you can't see that for businesses Christmas is not so much a as the commercial opportunity of the year, far and away above and beyond anything and everything else, whereas for private individuals Christmas is a secular public holiday which spells time off work, time spent with the family, the sharing of gifts and over-indulgence in food and alcohol. Merriment in general, to put it at its simplest.
Since there are serial misrepresenters on this forum (such as Hope, principally), for the avoidance of any confusion let's be absolutely clear about what I'm saying and not saying. I'm not saying that nobody celebrates Christmas as a religious, specifically Christian festival. Some do. I'm not saying that people don't go to Midnight Mass who may never darken the doors of a church at any other time of the year. Some do. I'm not saying that churches which are almost entirely empty the rest of the year are at their busiest at Christmas. They are.
What I am saying is that these people are in a small minority; however much you may gnash your gums over it, the fact remains - and you can't deny this - that for the vast majority Christmas involves a massive shop at one of our major retailers, the buying of a great deal of special food and drink, the decoration of the house, the buying of gifts, a blow-out lunch, falling asleep semi-pissed in front of the telly on Christmas afternoon, a Boxing Day hangover, all carried out without a first let alone a second thought of Jesus, Allah, Cernunnos, Wotan or Persephone.
Don't even bother trying to deny this; you know that it's the case as well as the rest of us.
P.S. While there are several pagans on the forum, to my knowledge there are no heathens.
-
Try as hard as you like, in your little way, Christmas is Christian Festival, and you heathens cannot resist joining in because of you self-indulgance, and fear of looking ridiculous by admitting to your strange ways to others. That's the truth of it.
It's painfully obvious that what's really grinding your gears is that for the overwhelming majority of people here and elsewhere, Christmas has absolutely zero to do with Christianity or indeed any other religion. Nothing whatever. It's funny that living in a large city as you do (and as I do, only I can see it) you can't see that for businesses Christmas is not so much as the commercial opportunity of the year, whereas for private individuals, Christmas is a secular public holiday which spells time off work, time spent with the family, the sharing of gifts and over-indulgence in food and alcohol.
Since there are serial misrepresenters on this forum (such as Hope, principally), for the avoidance of any confusion let's be absolutely clear about what I'm saying and not saying. I'm not saying that nobody celebrates Christmas as a religious, specifically Christian festival. Plenty do. I'm not saying that people don't go to Midnight Mass who may never darken the doors of a church at any other time of the year. Some do. I'm not saying that churches which are almost entirely empty the rest of the year are at their busiest at Christmas. They are.
What I am saying is that these people are in a small minority; however much you may gnash your gums over it, the fact remains - and you can't deny this - that for the vast majority Christmas involves a massive shop at one of our major retailers, the buying of a great deal of special food and drink, the decoration of the house, the buying of gifts, a blow-out lunch, falling asleep semi-pissed in front of the telly on Christmas afternoon, a Boxing Day hangover, all carried out without a first let alone a second thought of Jesus, Allah, Cernunnos, Wotan or Persephone.
Don't even bother trying to deny this; you know that it's the case as well as the rest of us.
P.S. While there are several pagans on the forum, to my knowledge there are no heathens.
I don't deny all that verbosity about how people "celebrate" Christmas. The point I am trying to make is that the atheists pay lip service to the Christian aspects, cards, nativities, Christmas presents, etc, because they haven't the guts to admit to all their friends and family that they are godless.
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
Not a Christmas tree in our home - a Yule log, yes.
My daughters and I split things along religious lines.
Yule cards and presents for the pagans on December 21 and Christmas presents and cards for those of that persuasion on December 25 and, strange thought it may seem considering soem of the comments by the Christians on this Forum, our Christian friends find this perfectly acceptable.
So you ignore Newton?
ippy
-
I don't deny all that verbosity about how people "celebrate" Christmas. The point I am trying to make is that the atheists pay lip service to the Christian aspects, cards, nativities, Christmas presents, etc, because they haven't the guts to admit to all their friends and family that they are godless.
Pretty sure that the families and friends of the atheists here are perfectly well aware of their godless status; after all, they're likely to be so themselves.
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
Not a Christmas tree in our home - a Yule log, yes.
My daughters and I split things along religious lines.
Yule cards and presents for the pagans on December 21 and Christmas presents and cards for those of that persuasion on December 25 and, strange thought it may seem considering soem of the comments by the Christians on this Forum, our Christian friends find this perfectly acceptable.
So you ignore Newton?
ippy
You mean that good, religious, fellow?
-
You mean that good, religious, fellow?
You should read a biography of him, or better still, several biographies of him. While there's no doubt that he was religious, he was also in that regard an utter fruitloop crank. He was an alchemist, after all.
And you clearly have a different definition of 'good' to mine.
-
You mean that good, religious, fellow?
You should read a biography of him, or better still, several biographies of him. While there's no doubt that he was religious, he was also in that regard an utter fruitloop crank. He was an alchemist, after all.
And you clearly have a different definition of 'good' to mine.
What do you mean by "fruitloop?" He must have been some fruitloop, to arrive at the genius theories he managed!
-
What do you mean by "fruitloop?"
I mean his belief in alchemy.
I mean the amount of time he spent scouring the Bible because he held to numerological beliefs which led him to think that the Bible contained hidden coded messages which only he could decipher.
He must have been some fruitloop, to arrive at the genius theories he managed!
It's a testament yet again to the incredible power of compartmentalisation some people have.
-
I don't deny all that verbosity about how people "celebrate" Christmas. The point I am trying to make is that the atheists pay lip service to the Christian aspects, cards, nativities, Christmas presents, etc, because they haven't the guts to admit to all their friends and family that they are godless.
Pretty sure that the families and friends of the atheists here are perfectly well aware of their godless status; after all, they're likely to be so themselves.
I have friend who religiously sends out 'Happy Saturnalia' cards every year - these days the mid-winter holiday is whatever you want it to be for you, which is fine by me.
-
What do you mean by "fruitloop?"
I mean his belief in alchemy.
I mean the amount of time he spent scouring the Bible because he held to numerological beliefs which led him to think that the Bible contained hidden coded messages which only he could decipher.
He must have been some fruitloop, to arrive at the genius theories he managed!
It's a testament yet again to the incredible power of compartmentalisation some people have.
A fair try. But not convincing, I fear.
-
I have friend who religiously sends out 'Happy Saturnalia' cards every year - these days the mid-winter holiday is whatever you want it to be for you, which is fine by me.
Indeed.
-
I celebrate Christmas as it should be, and that's living in my book. I join in to the other aspects in a token manner, because of my family.
BA, what do you mean b 'as it should be'?
The Chronography of 354 AD contains early evidence of the celebration on December 25 of a Christian liturgical feast of the birth of Jesus. This was in Rome, while in Eastern Christianity the birth of Jesus was already celebrated in connection with the Epiphany on January 6. The December 25 celebration was imported into the East later: in Antioch by John Chrysostom towards the end of the 4th century, probably in 388, and in Alexandria only in the following century. Even in the West, the January 6 celebration of the nativity of Jesus seems to have continued until after 380
wikipedia
Christmas celebrations in - say the sub-continent - are very different to those here n the UK, which are different to those in - say - South America.
-
I celebrate Christmas as it should be, and that's living in my book. I join in to the other aspects in a token manner, because of my family.
BA, what do you mean b 'as it should be'?
The Chronography of 354 AD contains early evidence of the celebration on December 25 of a Christian liturgical feast of the birth of Jesus. This was in Rome, while in Eastern Christianity the birth of Jesus was already celebrated in connection with the Epiphany on January 6. The December 25 celebration was imported into the East later: in Antioch by John Chrysostom towards the end of the 4th century, probably in 388, and in Alexandria only in the following century. Even in the West, the January 6 celebration of the nativity of Jesus seems to have continued until after 380
wikipedia
Christmas celebrations in - say the sub-continent - are very different to those here n the UK, which are different to those in - say - South America.
I celebrate the birth of Our Lord Jesus: that is "as it should be."
-
Try as hard as you like, in your little way, Christmas is Christian Festival, and you heathens cannot resist joining in because of you self-indulgance, and fear of looking ridiculous by admitting to your strange ways to others. That's the truth of it.
Try as hard as you like Christianity's relevance in the UK is in decline, and whilst we choose to keep some of the historical traditions for sentimental reasons you no more own Christmas because it has 'Christ' in it than Boots owns my Wellingtons.
I don't need to worry about looking ridiculous, my ways are far from strange, and even if they were I do many, many strange things already: hell, I regularly participate in a philosophical discussion forum on-line!
O.
-
Try as hard as you like, in your little way, Christmas is Christian Festival, and you heathens cannot resist joining in because of you self-indulgance, and fear of looking ridiculous by admitting to your strange ways to others. That's the truth of it.
Try as hard as you like Christianity's relevance in the UK is in decline, and whilst we choose to keep some of the historical traditions for sentimental reasons you no more own Christmas because it has 'Christ' in it than Boots owns my Wellingtons.
I don't need to worry about looking ridiculous, my ways are far from strange, and even if they were I do many, many strange things already: hell, I regularly participate in a philosophical discussion forum on-line!
O.
Why am I not surprise? :D
-
Whether they were or not, the point is, do atheists adhere to these now generally accepted Christian days? If so, they are hypocrites. "Christianity" requires a capital letter, as it is a proper noun.
So we're not allowed to celebrate Christmas because we're not Christians, but we're not allowed to drop Christmas because the Christians will cry about it - see the recent media articles about Starbucks' choice of cups for the holiday season.
Christmas is a cultural event that has moved beyond the purely religious institution it may have once been, just as it has moved beyond the pagan festival it was before the Christians hijacked it.
Like marriage, it was there before Christians and we won't be dictated to about how we treat these civil institutions.
O.
O.
Abject nonsense. Christmas is a Christian Festival now, and you hypocrites are simply clutching at straws to try and justify indulging in things Christmassy. Have the courage of your "convictions!"
In which case Easter is a pagan festival and you are a hypocrite for celebrating it in any other manner than a pagan one.
More to the point, what day is it? Surely not Monday, named by pagans after the moon? Surely, BA, you've good, decent Christian names of the days of the week? You wouldn't be so hypocritical as to casually adopt the pagan names for days of the week when you're such an upstanding Christian, would you?
O.
"Borrowing" names is not hypocritical - fool.
When you do it, or when it's days of the week that's fine. When I do it, or when it's Christmas it isn't?
Am I a hypocrite for not following the Christian parts of Christian but following the social ones because I'm not a Christian but I am social?
Are you a hypocrite for complaining about people 'misusing' your religion's terminology, but being perfectly happy to co-opt other people's religions' terminology?
If only we could still run a poll...
O.
-
Try as hard as you like, in your little way, Christmas is Christian Festival, and you heathens cannot resist joining in because of you self-indulgance, and fear of looking ridiculous by admitting to your strange ways to others. That's the truth of it.
Try as hard as you like Christianity's relevance in the UK is in decline, and whilst we choose to keep some of the historical traditions for sentimental reasons you no more own Christmas because it has 'Christ' in it than Boots owns my Wellingtons.
I don't need to worry about looking ridiculous, my ways are far from strange, and even if they were I do many, many strange things already: hell, I regularly participate in a philosophical discussion forum on-line!
O.
Why am I not surprise? :D
Because you're incredibly credulous?
O.
-
Try as hard as you like, in your little way, Christmas is Christian Festival, and you heathens cannot resist joining in because of you self-indulgance, and fear of looking ridiculous by admitting to your strange ways to others. That's the truth of it.
Try as hard as you like Christianity's relevance in the UK is in decline, and whilst we choose to keep some of the historical traditions for sentimental reasons you no more own Christmas because it has 'Christ' in it than Boots owns my Wellingtons.
I don't need to worry about looking ridiculous, my ways are far from strange, and even if they were I do many, many strange things already: hell, I regularly participate in a philosophical discussion forum on-line!
O.
Why am I not surprise? :D
Because you're incredibly credulous?
O.
No, because I though you were quite normal; but find that I was wrong. Normal people do not do "many, many, strange things." The mind boggles!
-
No, because I though you were quite normal; but find that I was wrong. Normal people do not do "many, many, strange things." The mind boggles!
Really? How do you define 'strange'? I'd say, given how few people attend church regularlyin this country these days, that you probably do something strange about once a week.
I'm quite happy to admit to doing strange things - I've seen normal, it's pretty uninspiring.
O.
-
Try as hard as you like, in your little way, Christmas is Christian Festival, and you heathens cannot resist joining in because of you self-indulgance, and fear of looking ridiculous by admitting to your strange ways to others. That's the truth of it.
Try as hard as you like Christianity's relevance in the UK is in decline, and whilst we choose to keep some of the historical traditions for sentimental reasons you no more own Christmas because it has 'Christ' in it than Boots owns my Wellingtons.
I don't need to worry about looking ridiculous, my ways are far from strange, and even if they were I do many, many strange things already: hell, I regularly participate in a philosophical discussion forum on-line!
O.
I am not arguing on that basis - can't you follow? I am saying, for the umpteenth time, that the atheists on here are hypocritically embracing the Christian aspects of Christmas, whilst denying its veracity. Have you got that?
-
We get that you're asserting this as the case; what we're not getting is your evidence for it.
-
I am not arguing on that basis - can't you follow? I am saying, for the umpteenth time, that the atheists on here are hypocritically embracing the Christian aspects of Christmas, whilst denying its veracity. Have you got that?
No, I'm trying to see what 'Christian' aspects of Christmas it is that you think we're adopting?
O.
-
To spend so much time denying Christianity, and religion generally, and then send Christmas presents, is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy!
Can you point to the place in Scripture where we are instructed to give each other gifts on or about the Winter Solstice?
I don't think you can.
-
We get that you're asserting this as the case; what we're not getting is your evidence for it.
Oh, for goodness sake, man: read the posts. We have this same discussion each year. How come you haven't noticed the reactions?
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
Not a Christmas tree in our home - a Yule log, yes.
My daughters and I split things along religious lines.
Yule cards and presents for the pagans on December 21 and Christmas presents and cards for those of that persuasion on December 25 and, strange thought it may seem considering soem of the comments by the Christians on this Forum, our Christian friends find this perfectly acceptable.
So you ignore Newton?
ippy
You mean that good, religious, fellow?
Well yes, where else could you go, mind you obviously the engineers of their own demise, thank goodness.
ippy
-
We get that you're asserting this as the case; what we're not getting is your evidence for it.
Oh, for goodness sake, man: read the posts.
I have, and at no point have I seen any evidence that any atheist (or adherent of any religion other than Christianity, come to that) supposedly embraces some specifically Christian aspect of Christmas. That's why I'm asking, and given your manifest reluctance to answer, I should say that such evidence doesn't exist.
We have this same discussion each year.
We have the same parade of tired old assertions with no substantiation and the same old whining, certainly.
-
We have the same parade of tired old assertions with no substantiation and the same old whining, certainly.
Shaker, don't talk yourself down so! Anyway, people know already what you're like.
-
In which case Easter is a pagan festival and you are a hypocrite for celebrating it in any other manner than a pagan one.
I'm afraid not. There's actually no evidence that Christianity co-opted a Germanic festival for what we call Easter. The name may have arisen because it happened in the Saxon month of Eostre, but, of course Latin countries call Easter something totally different. In fact, in most languages, the name for Easter derives from "Pesach", which is, of course, the real name of the Jewish festival we call Passover. Easter is co-opted from the Jews and totally logically when you consider the story.
-
In which case Easter is a pagan festival and you are a hypocrite for celebrating it in any other manner than a pagan one.
I'm afraid not. There's actually no evidence that Christianity co-opted a Germanic festival for what we call Easter. The name may have arisen because it happened in the Saxon month of Eostre, but, of course Latin countries call Easter something totally different. In fact, in most languages, the name for Easter derives from "Pesach", which is, of course, the real name of the Jewish festival we call Passover. Easter is co-opted from the Jews and totally logically when you consider the story.
Thank you, jeremy - never though I'd say that!
-
In which case Easter is a pagan festival and you are a hypocrite for celebrating it in any other manner than a pagan one.
I'm afraid not. There's actually no evidence that Christianity co-opted a Germanic festival for what we call Easter. The name may have arisen because it happened in the Saxon month of Eostre, but, of course Latin countries call Easter something totally different. In fact, in most languages, the name for Easter derives from "Pesach", which is, of course, the real name of the Jewish festival we call Passover. Easter is co-opted from the Jews and totally logically when you consider the story.
Maybe, but they ripped off the story in the first place from Mithras and Osiris, right? :)
O.
-
And where did those plagiaristic bleeders nab it from? ;)
-
Maybe, but they ripped off the story in the first place from Mithras and Osiris, right? :)
Ha. I just started Mary Beard's book SPQR and it has a chapter on Romulus. Apparently, he was born of a virgin (impregnated by Mars, a god) and when he died, he didn't die, he ascended into heaven.
These virgin birth, miraculous "death" stories seem to be two a penny in the ancient world.
-
Ha. I just started Mary Beard's book SPQR ...
Off-topic but I have to ask: I saw that on Amazon a couple of days back - worth getting hold of?
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
Not a Christmas tree in our home - a Yule log, yes.
My daughters and I split things along religious lines.
Yule cards and presents for the pagans on December 21 and Christmas presents and cards for those of that persuasion on December 25 and, strange thought it may seem considering soem of the comments by the Christians on this Forum, our Christian friends find this perfectly acceptable.
So you ignore Newton?
ippy
Sorry, Ippy, I didn't realise that this question was addressed to me!
Why, in the matter under discussion, would I want to take notice of Newton. I'm not a fisherman.
-
Dearest Matty,
I don't find it strange that you do the yule thingy as well as give gifts to Christians, not strange at all since you are a witch. And the reality is I find it strange you announce to your crowds of Christian friends that you also give yule things to pagans. Oh and I called ya a witch cause ya claim to be one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WWrBPpya2w
Why is it so strange. I don't bother to make a secret of my beliefs, can't see the point really.
I call you Cree because you say you are one;
I call you canadian because you say you are one;
I call you christian because you say you are one.
What the point of your post is I cannot understand - if it was meant to be humourous it failed, if it was intended to demonstrate your understanding of my social circle, it failed, if it was meant to show how intelligent you are - - - MAJOR FAIL!
Now go to Nanny and get her to change your nappy - sorry, diaper, powder your bum, give you back your dummy and put you back in your cot! Sleep well and, with a bit of luck, the goblins will take you during the night and deliver you to David Bowie in his castle.
-
In which case Easter is a pagan festival and you are a hypocrite for celebrating it in any other manner than a pagan one.
I'm afraid not. There's actually no evidence that Christianity co-opted a Germanic festival for what we call Easter. The name may have arisen because it happened in the Saxon month of Eostre, but, of course Latin countries call Easter something totally different. In fact, in most languages, the name for Easter derives from "Pesach", which is, of course, the real name of the Jewish festival we call Passover. Easter is co-opted from the Jews and totally logically when you consider the story.
Sorry Jeremy but you are wrong - there is evidence.
The starting point being the entirely different etymology of Easter - the term used in English and Pascha (and its derivatives), used almost everywhere else. Pascha etc clearly derives from a Jewish root (as you say), but Easter doesn't. So the question then arises to its origin and there is evidence, both direct and indirect, that it relates to a spring deity, variously referred to as Eostre, Ostara, Austro etc etc.
And there is direct evidence from Bede who refers specifically to the derivation of Easter as a term relating it to Anglo Saxon festivals during Ēosturmōnaþ (Eastro's month) in honour of the goddess. And don't forget that Bede was writing very soon after the Christianisation of Anglo Saxon England, so very close to the actual events. Indeed when Bede was born Anglo Saxon England was still ruled by a pagan worshiping King and it is likely that at the time of writing pagan festivals would still have been very much in evidence even if Christianity was taking an increasing hold. And also in terms of partiality, don't forget that Bede was a Christian so there isn't any reason why he would create 'histories' that aren't actually very favourable toward Christianity (i.e. borrowing a pagan name for their most important festival) if there wasn't truth in them.
Sure there is controversy over the writings of Bede, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence, merely that not everyone agrees on the significance of that evidence, as is pretty well always the case for historical evidence from such a long time ago.
But what we can be sure of is that there is nothing in the etymology of Easter that is remotely Christian - which is of course why most other languages uses a completely different term (e.g. Pascha, Pasches, Pasen, påske, påsk, páskar etc). Spot the odd one out.
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
Not a Christmas tree in our home - a Yule log, yes.
My daughters and I split things along religious lines.
Yule cards and presents for the pagans on December 21 and Christmas presents and cards for those of that persuasion on December 25 and, strange thought it may seem considering soem of the comments by the Christians on this Forum, our Christian friends find this perfectly acceptable.
So you ignore Newton?
ippy
Sorry, Ippy, I didn't realise that this question was addressed to me!
Why, in the matter under discussion, would I want to take notice of Newton. I'm not a fisherman.
Like it, about as serious as the question.
ippy
-
Heya iipy chops,
This is special just for you. Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUE4ZrMItI
Ta very much Woody, very seasonal, I've got a sympathetic tree up in the loft ready for the Isaac Newton's birthday celebrations on the 25-12 this year I'm looking forward to that, hope you have a good time all of the time, I wish you well.
ippy
Not a Christmas tree in our home - a Yule log, yes.
My daughters and I split things along religious lines.
Yule cards and presents for the pagans on December 21 and Christmas presents and cards for those of that persuasion on December 25 and, strange thought it may seem considering soem of the comments by the Christians on this Forum, our Christian friends find this perfectly acceptable.
So you ignore Newton?
ippy
Sorry, Ippy, I didn't realise that this question was addressed to me!
Why, in the matter under discussion, would I want to take notice of Newton. I'm not a fisherman.
Like it, about as serious as the question.
ippy
Oh! OK!
-
Dearest Matty,
I don't find it strange that you do the yule thingy as well as give gifts to Christians, not strange at all since you are a witch. And the reality is I find it strange you announce to your crowds of Christian friends that you also give yule things to pagans. Oh and I called ya a witch cause ya claim to be one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WWrBPpya2w
Why is it so strange. I don't bother to make a secret of my beliefs, can't see the point really.
I call you Cree because you say you are one;
I call you canadian because you say you are one;
I call you christian because you say you are one.
What the point of your post is I cannot understand - if it was meant to be humourous it failed, if it was intended to demonstrate your understanding of my social circle, it failed, if it was meant to show how intelligent you are - - - MAJOR FAIL!
Now go to Nanny and get her to change your nappy - sorry, diaper, powder your bum, give you back your dummy and put you back in your cot! Sleep well and, with a bit of luck, the goblins will take you during the night and deliver you to David Bowie in his castle.
Here's a guy who accuses me of belittling him and abusing him - arrant hypocrite! He also says he will ignore me: let's see.
-
Dearest Matty,
I don't find it strange that you do the yule thingy as well as give gifts to Christians, not strange at all since you are a witch. And the reality is I find it strange you announce to your crowds of Christian friends that you also give yule things to pagans. Oh and I called ya a witch cause ya claim to be one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WWrBPpya2w
Why is it so strange. I don't bother to make a secret of my beliefs, can't see the point really.
I call you Cree because you say you are one;
I call you canadian because you say you are one;
I call you christian because you say you are one.
What the point of your post is I cannot understand - if it was meant to be humourous it failed, if it was intended to demonstrate your understanding of my social circle, it failed, if it was meant to show how intelligent you are - - - MAJOR FAIL!
Now go to Nanny and get her to change your nappy - sorry, diaper, powder your bum, give you back your dummy and put you back in your cot! Sleep well and, with a bit of luck, the goblins will take you during the night and deliver you to David Bowie in his castle.
Here's a guy who accuses me of belittling him and abusing him - arrant hypocrite! He also says he will ignore me: let's see.
This only a blog forum why do you let the things said here, apparently, get to you so much?
By the way why's hypocrite the in word with you at the moment?
Take a deep breath settle down and take it easy, just because someone doesn't see eye to eye with you doesn't necessarily make them a bad person.
ippy
-
By the way why's hypocrite the in word with you at the moment?
ippy, why the concern over the use of the word? Religious people here are regularly accused of being hypocrites by folk like yourself, either by implication or by use of the word itself. I haven't seen may of them questioning the use of the word/concept; rather, they provide logical argument as to why the accusation is wrong.
-
By the way why's hypocrite the in word with you at the moment?
ippy, why the concern over the use of the word? Religious people here are regularly accused of being hypocrites by folk like yourself, either by implication or by use of the word itself. I haven't seen may of them questioning the use of the word/concept; rather, they provide logical argument as to why the accusation is wrong.
The point I take from Floo's comment is that anyone and everyone who chooses to question anything BA says is immediately designated a hypocrite. Even when he knows Sweet Fanny Adams about what he, or his target, ar talking about.
-
The point I take from Floo's comment is that anyone and everyone who chooses to question anything BA says is immediately designated a hypocrite. Even when he knows Sweet Fanny Adams about what he, or his target, ar talking about.
So, he's rather like several of the posters here, isn't he, ippy? ;)
-
By the way why's hypocrite the in word with you at the moment?
ippy, why the concern over the use of the word? Religious people here are regularly accused of being hypocrites by folk like yourself, either by implication or by use of the word itself.
It's especially fitting with those who are hypocrites, I always find.
-
By the way why's hypocrite the in word with you at the moment?
ippy, why the concern over the use of the word? Religious people here are regularly accused of being hypocrites by folk like yourself, either by implication or by use of the word itself.
It's especially fitting with those who are hypocrites, I always find.
Well, you are the expert!
-
Do tell.
-
Dearest Matty,
I don't find it strange that you do the yule thingy as well as give gifts to Christians, not strange at all since you are a witch. And the reality is I find it strange you announce to your crowds of Christian friends that you also give yule things to pagans. Oh and I called ya a witch cause ya claim to be one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WWrBPpya2w
Why is it so strange. I don't bother to make a secret of my beliefs, can't see the point really.
I call you Cree because you say you are one;
I call you canadian because you say you are one;
I call you christian because you say you are one.
What the point of your post is I cannot understand - if it was meant to be humourous it failed, if it was intended to demonstrate your understanding of my social circle, it failed, if it was meant to show how intelligent you are - - - MAJOR FAIL!
Now go to Nanny and get her to change your nappy - sorry, diaper, powder your bum, give you back your dummy and put you back in your cot! Sleep well and, with a bit of luck, the goblins will take you during the night and deliver you to David Bowie in his castle.
Here's a guy who accuses me of belittling him and abusing him - arrant hypocrite! He also says he will ignore me: let's see.
This only a blog forum why do you let the things said here, apparently, get to you so much?
By the way why's hypocrite the in word with you at the moment?
Take a deep breath settle down and take it easy, just because someone doesn't see eye to eye with you doesn't necessarily make them a bad person.
ippy
Hypocrite just happens to be applicable to the attitude atheists have to Christmas. Incidentally, I might ask you atheists why such words as, "magic," "fairies," etc, are so much the in-words with you.
I don't think you are bad people: what gives you that idea? I just think you are mis-guided, and sometimes offensive.
-
Hypocrite just happens to be applicable to the attitude atheists have to Christmas.
I can only assume you haven't been reading any of the posts here by atheists about Christmas - I thought practically every single one of them sparkingly clear and lucid, and not a scrap of hypocrisy is to be found anywhere. On the one occasion when you deigned to provide a list of what according to you are specifically Christian elements of Christmas it fell flat, embarrassingly so.
-
Hypocrite just happens to be applicable to the attitude atheists have to Christmas.
I can only assume you haven't been reading any of the posts here by atheists about Christmas - I thought practically every single one of them sparkingly clear and lucid, and not a scrap of hypocrisy is to be found anywhere. On the one occasion when you deigned to provide a list of what according to you are specifically Christian elements of Christmas it fell flat, embarrassingly so.
They fell flat, because they all, like you, ignore questions they cannot answer. So, not only hypocritical, but cowardly and evasive, too. Nothing new there.
-
They fell flat, because they all, like you, ignore questions they cannot answer. So, not only hypocritical, but cowardly and evasive, too. Nothing new there.
Which questions haven't been answered?
-
They fell flat, because they all, like you, ignore questions they cannot answer. So, not only hypocritical, but cowardly and evasive, too. Nothing new there.
Which questions haven't been answered?
Do you actually read the posts? No atheists have yet explained why they adhere to Christian practices and festivities, and those here being so vitriolic in their denunciation of religion.
-
Only you see a Victorian invention designed to get people using a new thing called the penny post as a Christian practice, to give but one example.
And given that you yesterday conceded that for the vast majority of people Christmas is a secular public holiday with no religious component whatever, why you revert to calling it a Christian festival is a mystery. It used to be; for the vast majority it isn't any more because things change over time. Perhaps that's the essence of your difficulty, I don't know.
-
Only you see a Victorian invention designed to get people using a new thing called the penny post as a Christian practice, to give but one example.
And given that you yesterday conceded that for the vast majority of people Christmas is a secular public holiday with no religious component whatever, why you revert to calling it a Christian festival is a mystery. It used to be; for the vast majority it isn't any more because things change over time. Perhaps that's the essence of your difficulty, I don't know.
I call it a Christian Festival because....well, it is!! It's all the carols and religious services and religious cards and representations, that are the clues! ::)
-
Except that the overwhelming majority of people don't think of it as such or treat it as such. Turn on the telly or go into the middle of any city or large town pretty much any time from about now onwards; that's not a Christian festival, is it?
-
Except that the overwhelming majority of people don't think of it as such or treat it as such. Turn on the telly or go into the middle of any city or large town pretty much any time from about now onwards; that's not a Christian festival, is it?
Shaker
Have you ever heard Tom Lehrer's song "A Christmas Carol"?
It would seem, from your comments, to be one that you might find enjoyable!
-
I know it. He's more cynical than I'll ever be, though :)
-
I know it. He's more cynical than I'll ever be, though :)
Cynical?
Possibly - but accurate in some of his comments.
-
By the way why's hypocrite the in word with you at the moment?
ippy, why the concern over the use of the word? Religious people here are regularly accused of being hypocrites by folk like yourself, either by implication or by use of the word itself. I haven't seen may of them questioning the use of the word/concept; rather, they provide logical argument as to why the accusation is wrong.
No concern here, it just seems to be the catchword of the moment with B A, he's throwing it about post after post I thought it might be a good idea if he calmed down a bit.
Can't say hypocrite is something that particularly comes to my mind where the majority of posts are concerned here on this forum although I'm sure hypocrite must fit some of the posts. Not sure that I've aimed or tried to plant hypocrite on anyone.
As you probably know I don't see any of the religions as a serious or credible line of thought so I can't see why anyone aiming hypocrisy in the direction of a believer is any worse than accusing them of being a believer.
ippy
Please feel free to call me whatever you like, I promise I won't complain.
-
I call it a Christian Festival because....well, it is!! It's all the carols and religious services and religious cards and representations, that are the clues! ::)
Can you explain the religious significance of a card with a picture of a robin sat on a snow covered fence with the words 'Seasons Greetings' inside. Perhaps your world is different but I am much more likely to receive cards of that type than ones with a picture of the nativity.
-
The point I take from Floo's comment is that anyone and everyone who chooses to question anything BA says is immediately designated a hypocrite. Even when he knows Sweet Fanny Adams about what he, or his target, ar talking about.
So, he's rather like several of the posters here, isn't he, ippy? ;)
Some of the posters on this forum have quite outlandish ideas that must be making the imagination bit of their brains work a considerable amount of overtime and when you add how much extra work it must take to make this world fit a rather narrow, fixed idea, I would think this makes being a hypocrite pale away, don't you think, Hope?
ippy
-
Dearest Matty,
I don't find it strange that you do the yule thingy as well as give gifts to Christians, not strange at all since you are a witch. And the reality is I find it strange you announce to your crowds of Christian friends that you also give yule things to pagans. Oh and I called ya a witch cause ya claim to be one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WWrBPpya2w
Why is it so strange. I don't bother to make a secret of my beliefs, can't see the point really.
I call you Cree because you say you are one;
I call you canadian because you say you are one;
I call you christian because you say you are one.
What the point of your post is I cannot understand - if it was meant to be humourous it failed, if it was intended to demonstrate your understanding of my social circle, it failed, if it was meant to show how intelligent you are - - - MAJOR FAIL!
Now go to Nanny and get her to change your nappy - sorry, diaper, powder your bum, give you back your dummy and put you back in your cot! Sleep well and, with a bit of luck, the goblins will take you during the night and deliver you to David Bowie in his castle.
Here's a guy who accuses me of belittling him and abusing him - arrant hypocrite! He also says he will ignore me: let's see.
This only a blog forum why do you let the things said here, apparently, get to you so much?
By the way why's hypocrite the in word with you at the moment?
Take a deep breath settle down and take it easy, just because someone doesn't see eye to eye with you doesn't necessarily make them a bad person.
ippy
Hypocrite just happens to be applicable to the attitude atheists have to Christmas. Incidentally, I might ask you atheists why such words as, "magic," "fairies," etc, are so much the in-words with you.
I don't think you are bad people: what gives you that idea? I just think you are mis-guided, and sometimes offensive.
I suppose if anyone's on a discussion forum it's automatically a place for calling a spade a spade, such as commenting on beliefs that compare so well to having a belief in fairies, magic or superstition.
We non-religious are good people and usually very good looking too and I have to admit 95% app of religious views don't offend me in the slightest so please fire away this is, as I said, a discussion forum, not that you do but don't hold back B A.
ippy
-
I call it a Christian Festival because....well, it is!! It's all the carols and religious services and religious cards and representations, that are the clues! ::)
Can you explain the religious significance of a card with a picture of a robin sat on a snow covered fence with the words 'Seasons Greetings' inside. Perhaps your world is different but I am much more likely to receive cards of that type than ones with a picture of the nativity.
If you receive or send only one card with any definite religious word or picture, then you are practising a Christmas celebration; or if you participate in any way, however small, you being hypocritical. The atheists on here denigrate religion, often in the most base manner, yet are prepared to join in the Festival which celebrates the birth of Jesus. In my book that is gross hypocrisy. What more can I say? I am repeating myself; yet still the they argue. What a bunch of fakes!
-
I suppose if anyone's on a discussion forum it's automatically a place for calling a spade a spade, such as commenting on beliefs that compare so well to having a belief in fairies, magic or superstition.
A truth impossible for religious types to appreciate.
We non-religious are good people and usually very good looking too and I have to admit 95% app of religious views don't offend me in the slightest
True ... it is about as sensible as being offended by the remarks of a very young child.
so please fire away this is, as I said, a discussion forum, not that you do but don't hold back B A.
Oh, he doesn't, he doesn't!
BA is a sure source of amusement to most people here.
-
What more can I say? I am repeating myself;
That's OK, BA! It keeps you happy and makes us laugh, so why not? ;D
-
If you receive or send only one card with any definite religious word or picture, then you are practising a Christmas celebration
I don't - all the cards I send and receive are for the most part of the kind Prof. D has mentioned; snowy fields, robins and the like - but it must have escaped your attention that while people are in control of the cards they send, they have no control over the cards they receive. I would expect to receive a religiously-themed card from a religious person, if I knew any (I don't) - the idea that to receive such a card entails that one is thereby participating in a religious practice is one of the most astoundingly stupid things I've ever heard you come out with, and that's given some stiff competition in that regard.
The atheists on here denigrate religion, often in the most base manner, yet are prepared to join in the Festival which celebrates the birth of Jesus.
That's not what they're doing though, as you well know.
If repetition bothers you, why do we have to keep repeating this same simple point over and over again even though you're intellectually hobbled to the extent that you can't take it on board?
-
If you receive or send only one card with any definite religious word or picture, then you are practising a Christmas celebration
I don't - all the cards I send and receive are for the most part of the kind Prof. D has mentioned; snowy fields, robins and the like - but it must have escaped your attention that while people are in control of the cards they send, they have no control over the cards they receive. I would expect to receive a religiously-themed card from a religious person, if I knew any (I don't) - the idea that to receive such a card entails that one is thereby participating in a religious practice is one of the most astoundingly stupid things I've ever heard you come out with, and that's given some stiff competition in that regard.
The atheists on here denigrate religion, often in the most base manner, yet are prepared to join in the Festival which celebrates the birth of Jesus.
That's not what they're doing though, as you well know.
If repetition bothers you, why do we have to keep repeating this same simple point over and over again even though you're intellectually hobbled to the extent that you can't take it on board?
Okay, I've said my piece, and stated that I am repeating things. So I'll leave it there - pity you can't; but then you don't have the courage of your convictions!
-
What is it about my convictions that I'm supposedly betraying in anything I do with regard to Christmas?
-
If repetition bothers you, why do we have to keep repeating this same simple point over and over again even though you're intellectually hobbled to the extent that you can't take it on board?
His programming doesn't permit it. ;)
-
If you receive or send only one card with any definite religious word or picture, then you are practising a Christmas celebration
I don't - all the cards I send and receive are for the most part of the kind Prof. D has mentioned; snowy fields, robins and the like - but it must have escaped your attention that while people are in control of the cards they send, they have no control over the cards they receive. I would expect to receive a religiously-themed card from a religious person, if I knew any (I don't) - the idea that to receive such a card entails that one is thereby participating in a religious practice is one of the most astoundingly stupid things I've ever heard you come out with, and that's given some stiff competition in that regard.
The atheists on here denigrate religion, often in the most base manner, yet are prepared to join in the Festival which celebrates the birth of Jesus.
That's not what they're doing though, as you well know.
If repetition bothers you, why do we have to keep repeating this same simple point over and over again even though you're intellectually hobbled to the extent that you can't take it on board?
The cards that I send relate to the person to whom I am sending them.
I can see no hypocricy in sending a Christmas styled card to Christians that I know do celebrate that festival; just as I send cards bearing Winter solstice/Yule symbolism to my Pagan friends.
I would consider sending Yule cards to my Christian friends to be hypocritical. I have stated on this forum often enough for even BA to understand (though he still refuses to do so), that I have no problem with people who believe differently to me, I only do so when they announce that their way is the only way.
Fortunately my Christian friends show me the same respect for my beliefs.
-
If repetition bothers you, why do we have to keep repeating this same simple point over and over again even though you're intellectually hobbled to the extent that you can't take it on board?
His programming doesn't permit it. ;)
Did you not read my post: I've said enough about it now. Can you stop? It seems not!
-
Can you stop? It seems not!
Just killing time while having my after-lunch cuppa!
Needling you is as good a way as any to waste time.
-
Can you stop? It seems not!
Just killing time while having my after-lunch cuppa!
Needling you is as good a way as any to waste time.
You don't needle me: you haven't the capacity to. And if all your brain can devise for you to do is a bit of infantile name-calling, then it amply justifies my view of you.
-
The cards that I send relate to the person to whom I am sending them.
I can see no hypocricy in sending a Christmas styled card to Christians that I know do celebrate that festival; just as I send cards bearing Winter solstice/Yule symbolism to my Pagan friends.
You know, I was going to say something exactly like this (except that posting on my phone is is a pain in the arse compared to on the laptop or the PC). It is, I'd have thought, a basic act of common courtesy to pitch your card to the recipient - I'd send a religiously-themed card to a religious recipient, if I had any, because it demonstrates that you've put some thought and care into what you're sending out, instead of the cookie-cutter, scattergun mass mailshot approach.
The delightful Hindu family across the road send lovely cards to the neighbours each Christmas - doubtless in BA's eyes this makes them hypocrites too.
-
Can you stop? It seems not!
Just killing time while having my after-lunch cuppa!
Needling you is as good a way as any to waste time.
You don't needle me: you haven't the capacity to. And if all your brain can devise for you to do is a bit of infantile name-calling, then it amply justifies my view of you.
Sing on, sweet bird! ;D
-
Ha. I just started Mary Beard's book SPQR ...
Off-topic but I have to ask: I saw that on Amazon a couple of days back - worth getting hold of?
Not finished it but so far it is excellent, focusing on the whole question of why Rome. Interestingly for me, she uses the Catiline conspiracy as the start to illustrate a point that shows some of the reasons why, but also as discussion of of significance on terms of the historical method of the amount of documentation that surrounds that and yet still things are unclear. (interesting because I attempted to use the very 'conspiracy' on here a couple of weeks ago to look at the second problem - no takers though)
More so than many Rome histories, at least so far, it takes a more Toynbee like approach and tries to see it holistically, rather than linear. It also emphasises that in terms of militarism or barbarity, Rome was in no way unusual. So I hope Bashful writes to her to tell her, nope they were the ISIS of their age.
-
Hypocrite just happens to be applicable to the attitude atheists have to Christmas. Incidentally, I might ask you atheists why such words as, "magic," "fairies," etc, are so much the in-words with you.
I don't think you are bad people: what gives you that idea? I just think you are mis-guided, and sometimes offensive.
I'd say accusing someone of being a hypocrite is saying that they are bad people - hypocrites espouse one thing, but do another, that's holding a double-standard and being disengenuous. It's not the worst accusation in the world, but it's not good.
In the case of Christmas, as has been shown, it's also not justified.
O.
-
Hypocrite just happens to be applicable to the attitude atheists have to Christmas. Incidentally, I might ask you atheists why such words as, "magic," "fairies," etc, are so much the in-words with you.
I don't think you are bad people: what gives you that idea? I just think you are mis-guided, and sometimes offensive.
I'd say accusing someone of being a hypocrite is saying that they are bad people - hypocrites espouse one thing, but do another, that's holding a double-standard and being disengenuous. It's not the worst accusation in the world, but it's not good.
In the case of Christmas, as has been shown, it's also not justified.
O.
Silly, and untrue. Everybody's a hypocrite at some time or other, even you, and don't deny it; and I don't think in saying that I am accusing everybody of being bad. You ought to think things through before you post, instead of the knee-jerk reaction to me because I am a theist and you want to have a "go" at me.
-
Only you see a Victorian invention designed to get people using a new thing called the penny post as a Christian practice, to give but one example.
And given that you yesterday conceded that for the vast majority of people Christmas is a secular public holiday with no religious component whatever, why you revert to calling it a Christian festival is a mystery. It used to be; for the vast majority it isn't any more because things change over time. Perhaps that's the essence of your difficulty, I don't know.
I call it a Christian Festival because....well, it is!! It's all the carols and religious services and religious cards and representations, that are the clues! ::)
That's your Christmas, not mine. I don't do carols, they bore me (and, when I sing, they pain others). I don't do religious cards, I do humourous ones. We don't do religious representations - the imagery we have tends to be wintery rather than religious.
I suspect you don't appreciate what we do for Christmas - try, rather than judging, asking?
O.
-
If you receive or send only one card with any definite religious word or picture, then you are practising a Christmas celebration;
If someone sends me a card with religious imagery, that's on them. If I send one with religious imagery... well, it'd be by accident, I don't choose them for that. It might be mocking religious iconography (three wise men with their camels on bricks, for instance) but I suspect you'd not considered that 'religious observance'.
or if you participate in any way, however small, you being hypocritical.
Participate in what? Midwinter celebrations? The fact that they are called 'Christmas' in most of the English speaking world doesn't give Christianity ownership of them.
The atheists on here denigrate religion, often in the most base manner, yet are prepared to join in the Festival which celebrates the birth of Jesus.
Just like the Christians historically denigrated the pagans, but stole their midwinter festival and pretended the avatar of their god emerged then.
In my book that is gross hypocrisy. What more can I say? I am repeating myself; yet still the they argue. What a bunch of fakes!
In that case I suggest you get a better book, but then that's always been the case.
O.
-
Only you see a Victorian invention designed to get people using a new thing called the penny post as a Christian practice, to give but one example.
And given that you yesterday conceded that for the vast majority of people Christmas is a secular public holiday with no religious component whatever, why you revert to calling it a Christian festival is a mystery. It used to be; for the vast majority it isn't any more because things change over time. Perhaps that's the essence of your difficulty, I don't know.
I call it a Christian Festival because....well, it is!! It's all the carols and religious services and religious cards and representations, that are the clues! ::)
That's your Christmas, not mine. I don't do carols, they bore me (and, when I sing, they pain others). I don't do religious cards, I do humourous ones. We don't do religious representations - the imagery we have tends to be wintery rather than religious.
I suspect you don't appreciate what we do for Christmas - try, rather than judging, asking?
O.
If you have never sent a Christmas card with religious overtones, never sang a carol, or wished someone "happy Christmas;' or never sent a present to family, friend or child as a Christmas present, etc, then you must be unique, or a liar. And if you have done any of those things, then you are being hypocritical in your denunciation of Jesus and Christianity. End of.
-
Silly, and untrue. Everybody's a hypocrite at some time or other, even you, and don't deny it; and I don't think in saying that I am accusing everybody of being bad. You ought to think things through before you post, instead of the knee-jerk reaction to me because I am a theist and you want to have a "go" at me.
I'm not having a knee jerk reaction to you because you're a theist, there are a number of theists of various stripes with whom I have perfectly pleasant conversations - at least in part because they don't bandy around random accusations of hypocrisy.
I don't believe in Jesus, so I'm not a Christian. I believe in winter, so I, along with the entirety of the rest of my culture, celebrate midwinter. For historical reasons that's called Christmas round here, I have no control over that.
So I celebrate cosmology in my secular way, having been bequeathed a name for it of religious origin. If you think that's hypocrisy, that's just one more concept that you fail to grasp adequately.
O.
-
Silly, and untrue. Everybody's a hypocrite at some time or other, even you, and don't deny it; and I don't think in saying that I am accusing everybody of being bad. You ought to think things through before you post, instead of the knee-jerk reaction to me because I am a theist and you want to have a "go" at me.
I'm not having a knee jerk reaction to you because you're a theist, there are a number of theists of various stripes with whom I have perfectly pleasant conversations - at least in part because they don't bandy around random accusations of hypocrisy.
I don't believe in Jesus, so I'm not a Christian. I believe in winter, so I, along with the entirety of the rest of my culture, celebrate midwinter. For historical reasons that's called Christmas round here, I have no control over that.
So I celebrate cosmology in my secular way, having been bequeathed a name for it of religious origin. If you think that's hypocrisy, that's just one more concept that you fail to grasp adequately.
O.
You, noticeably, haven't addressed anything I said, just trotted out what has become the standard mantra for atheists trying to justify their participation in Christian activities.
-
If you have never sent a Christmas card with religious overtones, never sang a carol, or wished someone "happy Christmas;' or never sent a present to family, friend or child as a Christmas present, etc, then you must be unique, or a liar. And if you have done any of those things, then you are being hypocritical in your denunciation of Jesus and Christianity. End of.
I don't send cards with religious overtones, that's not my style. I may have wished someone 'Merry Christmas', it's a common turn of phrase; it no more makes me a religious observer than the phrases 'Good God, look at that!', 'Christ on a cracker!' or 'Holy Shit!'
I send many, many presents. That's not a particularly Christian or religious thing, that's cultural - I know Muslims that give presents at Christmas, I know a Jewish guy that makes hand-made toys to give as presents. You don't own these ideas, Christianity has no proprietary claim on these behaviours. If it did, we'd all be safe going to heaven because sometimes we kneel.
O.
-
Silly, and untrue. Everybody's a hypocrite at some time or other, even you, and don't deny it; and I don't think in saying that I am accusing everybody of being bad. You ought to think things through before you post, instead of the knee-jerk reaction to me because I am a theist and you want to have a "go" at me.
I'm not having a knee jerk reaction to you because you're a theist, there are a number of theists of various stripes with whom I have perfectly pleasant conversations - at least in part because they don't bandy around random accusations of hypocrisy.
I don't believe in Jesus, so I'm not a Christian. I believe in winter, so I, along with the entirety of the rest of my culture, celebrate midwinter. For historical reasons that's called Christmas round here, I have no control over that.
So I celebrate cosmology in my secular way, having been bequeathed a name for it of religious origin. If you think that's hypocrisy, that's just one more concept that you fail to grasp adequately.
O.
You, noticeably, haven't addressed anything I said, just trotted out what has become the standard mantra for atheists trying to justify their participation in Christian activities.
Maybe that mantra has something in it you should try to understand? What you think Christmas is about isn't necessarily what everyone else thinks Christmas is about.
If I walked through a church you wouldn't presume I was a Christian, why does the fact that I live through Christmas make you presume that I think I am?
O.
-
Outrider,
"Maybe that mantra has something in it you should try to understand? What you think Christmas is about isn't necessarily what everyone else thinks Christmas is about.
If I walked through a church you wouldn't presume I was a Christian, why does the fact that I live through Christmas make you presume that I think I am?"
I think Christmas is about the celebration of Jesus' birth. Full-stop. There is no other Christian way of seeing it'
Your second point is unclear.
-
"Maybe that mantra has something in it you should try to understand? What you think Christmas is about isn't necessarily what everyone else thinks Christmas is about.
If I walked through a church you wouldn't presume I was a Christian, why does the fact that I live through Christmas make you presume that I think I am?"
I think Christmas is about the celebration of Jesus' birth. Full-stop. There is no other Christian way of seeing it'
That's fine, that's your Christmas, that's what you do with it. That's not my Christmas, at least in part because I'm not a Christian.
Your second point is unclear.
Christianity, as I understand it, isn't in the actions. I'm not a Christian because I kneel in church, I'm a Christian if I accept the idea that Jesus is real. I'm not a Christian if I try to be a good person, I'm a Christian if I try to be a good person as Jesus instructed.
The reasons you do things are what makes you a Christian, not the things that you do. I partake in Christmas celebrations for many reasons, but none of them are because I think Jesus was born then, or indeed because I think Jesus was born at all, or because I think of Jesus at all. I didn't choose to call it Christmas, just like I didn't choose to name days after Thor and Odin - I've inherited those cultural tropes, and I accept that are part of my history.
Christians never owned midwinter, never owned the concept of giving gifts, never owned the idea of celebrating with family and friends. That we call one particular time-based instance of that 'Christmas' because Christians long ago wanted to co-opt pagan midwinter festivals doesn't mean only Christians can do anything at the end of the year.
O.
-
Bashers:
Are my lovely Hindu neighbours hypocrites for sending (extremely nice, with thoughtful personal messages) cards to everyone at this end of my street at Christmas?
-
Bashers:
Are my lovely Hindu neighbours hypocrites for sending (extremely nice, with thoughtful personal messages) cards to everyone at this end of my street at Christmas?
Hindus tend to be gentle and caring people. If only they knew you better! I wonder what they would think of some of your diatribes on forums such as this?
-
Bashers:
Are my lovely Hindu neighbours hypocrites for sending (extremely nice, with thoughtful personal messages) cards to everyone at this end of my street at Christmas?
They sound like lovely people. :)
-
Hindus tend to be gentle and caring people
These certainly are.
If only they knew you better!
They've been neighbours and friends for many years.
I wonder what they would think of some of your diatribes on forums such as this?
They wouldn't give a Hanuman's*, as they're not religious.
In the meantime you appear to have forgotten to answer my question. Are they or are they not hypocrites for sending Christmas cards?
* Look it up, if need be.
-
Hindus tend to be gentle and caring people
These certainly are.
If only they knew you better!
They've been neighbours and friends for many years.
I wonder what they would think of some of your diatribes on forums such as this?
They wouldn't give a Hanuman's*, as they're not religious.
In the meantime you appear to have forgotten to answer my question. Are they or are they not hypocrites for sending Christmas cards?
* Look it up, if need be.
If they're not religious, then they are not hypocrites, since they are not pretending to be something they're not. I would take a bet, though, that they are a deal more sympathetic to others' beliefs than you are, having lived among them for many years.
-
If they're not religious, then they are not hypocrites, since they are not pretending to be something they're not.
This also goes for the atheists here, however, as explained repeatedly by various different people and perhaps best of all by Outrider in his most recent post (#408). Nobody is pretending to be anything they're not.
-
By the way B A, I hope you have a verry merry christmas and a good and prosperous new year.
ippy
-
If they're not religious, then they are not hypocrites, since they are not pretending to be something they're not.
This also goes for the atheists here, however, as explained repeatedly by various different people and perhaps best of all by Outrider in his most recent post (#408). Nobody is pretending to be anything they're not.
I'll take that as a kind thought even if you are still trying to make a point.
-
Can I just check, is everyone who uses January as the title of a month and doesn't worship Janus a hypocrite? Like those non worshipping Woden, Wednesday users?
-
And while we are at it, would someone worried about the derailing of threads, talking about what atheists do at Christmas on this thread be a hypocrite?
-
"Maybe that mantra has something in it you should try to understand? What you think Christmas is about isn't necessarily what everyone else thinks Christmas is about.
If I walked through a church you wouldn't presume I was a Christian, why does the fact that I live through Christmas make you presume that I think I am?"
I think Christmas is about the celebration of Jesus' birth. Full-stop. There is no other Christian way of seeing it'
That's fine, that's your Christmas, that's what you do with it. That's not my Christmas, at least in part because I'm not a Christian.
Your second point is unclear.
Christianity, as I understand it, isn't in the actions. I'm not a Christian because I kneel in church, I'm a Christian if I accept the idea that Jesus is real. I'm not a Christian if I try to be a good person, I'm a Christian if I try to be a good person as Jesus instructed.
That still makes Jesus merely another lawgiver IMHO.
-
That still makes Jesus merely another lawgiver IMHO.
Quite possibly, it wasn't supposed to be a complete description of the religious view(s) of Jesus, but to demonstrate that performing rituals isn't what makes someone a Christian in most understandings.
O.
-
Ha. I just started Mary Beard's book SPQR ...
Off-topic but I have to ask: I saw that on Amazon a couple of days back - worth getting hold of?
I'm not very far into it, but it is good so far.
-
The starting point being the entirely different etymology of Easter - the term used in English and Pascha (and its derivatives), used almost everywhere else. Pascha etc clearly derives from a Jewish root (as you say), but Easter doesn't. So the question then arises to its origin and there is evidence, both direct and indirect, that it relates to a spring deity, variously referred to as Eostre, Ostara, Austro etc etc.
And there is direct evidence from Bede who refers specifically to the derivation of Easter as a term relating it to Anglo Saxon festivals during Ēosturmōnaþ (Eastro's month) in honour of the goddess. And don't forget that Bede was writing very soon after the Christianisation of Anglo Saxon England, so very close to the actual events. Indeed when Bede was born Anglo Saxon England was still ruled by a pagan worshiping King and it is likely that at the time of writing pagan festivals would still have been very much in evidence even if Christianity was taking an increasing hold. And also in terms of partiality, don't forget that Bede was a Christian so there isn't any reason why he would create 'histories' that aren't actually very favourable toward Christianity (i.e. borrowing a pagan name for their most important festival) if there wasn't truth in them.
Sure there is controversy over the writings of Bede, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence, merely that not everyone agrees on the significance of that evidence, as is pretty well always the case for historical evidence from such a long time ago.
But what we can be sure of is that there is nothing in the etymology of Easter that is remotely Christian - which is of course why most other languages uses a completely different term (e.g. Pascha, Pasches, Pasen, påske, påsk, páskar etc). Spot the odd one out.
Prof, you are confused about the difference between a name and the thing. The festival is the Christian festival that clearly derives from events that are alleged to have occurred during the Jewish Pesach, hence the outrageous (to our Gregorian perspective) calculation of its date each year. There is no evidence at all that Christians appropriated any festival other than Pesach for Easter. Easter originates in the second century CE, which was a few hundred years before there were any Anglo Saxons never mind Christian ones.
The name we give it is another matter. There is mention of it, as you say, in Bede, but the connection is really that the Christian festival happened in the same month as the the festivals for Eostre (named after her). There's no evidence that Christians hijacked any of those festivals in the way they probably hijacked some Winter solstice festival. All we get from the Anglo Saxons is the name.
-
If you receive or send only one card with any definite religious word or picture, then you are practising a Christmas celebration
I don't - all the cards I send and receive are for the most part of the kind Prof. D has mentioned; snowy fields, robins and the like - but it must have escaped your attention that while people are in control of the cards they send, they have no control over the cards they receive. I would expect to receive a religiously-themed card from a religious person, if I knew any (I don't) - the idea that to receive such a card entails that one is thereby participating in a religious practice is one of the most astoundingly stupid things I've ever heard you come out with, and that's given some stiff competition in that regard.
The atheists on here denigrate religion, often in the most base manner, yet are prepared to join in the Festival which celebrates the birth of Jesus.
That's not what they're doing though, as you well know.
If repetition bothers you, why do we have to keep repeating this same simple point over and over again even though you're intellectually hobbled to the extent that you can't take it on board?
I had a christmas card from my brother in law, with a picture of father christmas laying down on a psychiatrists couch with a large cartoon bubble of his thoughts, it was a picture of FC's viewpoint while driving his sleigh in the sky, the picture was showing details of the various working parts of the rear end of two reindeer, not a pretty sight and father christmas was saying, "I can't get it off my mind", to the psychchiatristst.
I've hated my brother in law ever since he sent us that card, because I don't know how to top a card of such obvious quality, the bastard lives in NZ, it didn't occur to me at first how much he has annoyed me because I was laughing too much at the time to have worked out the implications of recieving such a card.
Off topic I know, but I thought it funny.
ippy
-
The starting point being the entirely different etymology of Easter - the term used in English and Pascha (and its derivatives), used almost everywhere else. Pascha etc clearly derives from a Jewish root (as you say), but Easter doesn't. So the question then arises to its origin and there is evidence, both direct and indirect, that it relates to a spring deity, variously referred to as Eostre, Ostara, Austro etc etc.
And there is direct evidence from Bede who refers specifically to the derivation of Easter as a term relating it to Anglo Saxon festivals during Ēosturmōnaþ (Eastro's month) in honour of the goddess. And don't forget that Bede was writing very soon after the Christianisation of Anglo Saxon England, so very close to the actual events. Indeed when Bede was born Anglo Saxon England was still ruled by a pagan worshiping King and it is likely that at the time of writing pagan festivals would still have been very much in evidence even if Christianity was taking an increasing hold. And also in terms of partiality, don't forget that Bede was a Christian so there isn't any reason why he would create 'histories' that aren't actually very favourable toward Christianity (i.e. borrowing a pagan name for their most important festival) if there wasn't truth in them.
Sure there is controversy over the writings of Bede, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence, merely that not everyone agrees on the significance of that evidence, as is pretty well always the case for historical evidence from such a long time ago.
But what we can be sure of is that there is nothing in the etymology of Easter that is remotely Christian - which is of course why most other languages uses a completely different term (e.g. Pascha, Pasches, Pasen, påske, påsk, páskar etc). Spot the odd one out.
Prof, you are confused about the difference between a name and the thing. The festival is the Christian festival that clearly derives from events that are alleged to have occurred during the Jewish Pesach, hence the outrageous (to our Gregorian perspective) calculation of its date each year. There is no evidence at all that Christians appropriated any festival other than Pesach for Easter. Easter originates in the second century CE, which was a few hundred years before there were any Anglo Saxons never mind Christian ones.
The name we give it is another matter. There is mention of it, as you say, in Bede, but the connection is really that the Christian festival happened in the same month as the the festivals for Eostre (named after her). There's no evidence that Christians hijacked any of those festivals in the way they probably hijacked some Winter solstice festival. All we get from the Anglo Saxons is the name.
This is NOT one of the Pagan "festivals" appropriated by Christianity. It cannot be because, unlike Samhain and Beltaine, it is NOT a festival at all, it is a celebration of a way-point in the year half-way between mid-Summer and mid-Winter, the Spring Equinox, one of the Quarter Days.
This is why many pagans object to it being referred to as Ostara. As has been pointed out before the only refernce to this so-called Pagan Goddess, either as Ostara or Eostre, is by Bede. The Chritians have their Easter, we Pagans have our Spring Equinox!
Peace, please.
-
My number 1 fan Matty,
What do you mean with that ridiculous "peace, please"? Your celebrations ARE open for all to post about or not, and all can write what they want. You are the last person around one should go to for answers on the pagan subjects. You were telling us there is no wiccan/pagan creation story, and the fact is there very much IS A WICCAN CREATION STORY. "peace please", No, how about you being not so all over the map.
-
You were telling us there is no wiccan/pagan creation story, and the fact is there very much IS A WICCAN CREATION STORY. "peace please", No, how about you being not so all over the map.
I'm not a pagan but as far as I'm aware the only thing that corresponds to a Wiccan creation story was written by someone not generally taken seriously or lent much credibility by many, indeed most British pagans.
-
You were telling us there is no wiccan/pagan creation story, and the fact is there very much IS A WICCAN CREATION STORY. "peace please", No, how about you being not so all over the map.
I'm not a pagan but as far as I'm aware the only thing that corresponds to a Wiccan creation story was written by someone not generally taken seriously or lent much credibility by many, indeed most British pagans.
Been busy googling again! You don't know anything about it: rather like your "grasp" of Christianity!"
-
No, it's called "having read around the subject" again. You know, books.
How would you know how much I know of paganism? You would need to have at least an equal level of knowledge to be able to tell, and it's abundantly clear that you don't.
-
No, it's called "having read around the subject" again. You know, books.
How would you know how much I know of paganism? You would need to have at least an equal level of knowledge to be able to tell, and it's abundantly clear that you don't.
You are simply trying to curry favour with the resident pagans - both of them! - by pretending to be sympatheic, whereas you are merely being pathetic! :) I'm not hoodwinked by your insincerity, and I'd be surprisedif they are, one of them at at any rate.
-
No, it's called "having read around the subject" again. You know, books.
How would you know how much I know of paganism? You would need to have at least an equal level of knowledge to be able to tell, and it's abundantly clear that you don't.
You are simply trying to curry favour with the resident pagans - both of them - by pretending to be sympatheic, whereas you are merely being pathetic! :)
You're repeating yourself, something that consistent with your rank hypocrisy you criticised Floo for earlier - you've already said this yesterday afternoon and you were wrong the first time, true to form.
-
No, it's called "having read around the subject" again. You know, books.
How would you know how much I know of paganism? You would need to have at least an equal level of knowledge to be able to tell, and it's abundantly clear that you don't.
You are simply trying to curry favour with the resident pagans - both of them - by pretending to be sympatheic, whereas you are merely being pathetic! :)
You're repeating yourself - you've already said this yesterday afternoon and you were wrong the first time, true to form.
Sometimes it's necessary to be repetitive, to accomodate the hard of understanding. :D
-
That must be why it took so many attempts yesterday to try to explain an atheist's view of Christmas, then.
-
That must be why it took so many attempts yesterday to try to explain an atheist's view of Christmas, then.
They could have saved themselves so much time - and not wasted so many of their depleted brain cells - by saying: I don't believe in Christmas. Duh: never thought of that, did you! ;D
-
That would be an exceptionally silly thing to say, as Christmas clearly exists.
-
This is NOT one of the Pagan "festivals" appropriated by Christianity. It cannot be because, unlike Samhain and Beltaine, it is NOT a festival at all, it is a celebration of a way-point in the year half-way between mid-Summer and mid-Winter, the Spring Equinox, one of the Quarter Days.
What is? I don't think anybody was claiming Easter comes from one of your modern Pagan festivals. But you're right, if it was anything to do with the equinox, it would happen on the equinox.
-
That would be an exceptionally silly thing to say, as Christmas clearly exists.
Uh? We all know that; but what's that got to do with whether you believe in celebrating it, as a Christian Festival? Atheists don't, and that's what I was saying. Gtting a bit late for you, is it? :D
-
You need to eat some meat Shaker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxSUTcUJkv4
-
That would be an exceptionally silly thing to say, as Christmas clearly exists.
Uh? We all know that; but what's that got to do with whether you believe in celebrating it, as a Christian Festival? Atheists don't, and that's what I was saying. Gtting a bit late for you, is it? :D
Not at all; I'm just wondering why yesterday, given the number of posts in which it had to be explained to you, you didn't seem to grasp the concept of atheists not celebrating Christmas as a Christian festival, yet here you are acknowledging as much.
Perhaps it's a sign that it finally sank in, in which case, excellent and I hope we can all look forward to more of the same from you, only without so many posts telling you the same thing over and over.
-
You need to eat some meat Shaker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxSUTcUJkv4
No I don't.
-
That would be an exceptionally silly thing to say, as Christmas clearly exists.
Uh? We all know that; but what's that got to do with whether you believe in celebrating it, as a Christian Festival? Atheists don't, and that's what I was saying. Gtting a bit late for you, is it? :D
Not at all; I'm just wondering why yesterday, given the number of posts in which it had to be explained to you, you didn't seem to grasp the concept of atheists not celebrating Christmas as a Christian festival, yet here you are acknowledging as much.
Perhaps it's a sign that it finally sank in, in which case, excellent and I hope we can all look forward to more of the same from you, only without so many posts telling you the same thing over and over.
Aah, there's old Shaky wondering about saying the same thing over and over - he's been doing it for donkey's years. I fear senility is creeping up on him! :)
-
I'm not wondering about me; I'm wondering about what sort of intellectual disability you have that seems to make it necessary.
-
I'm not wondering about me; I'm wondering about what sort of intellectual disability you have that seems to make it necessary.
I don't have any disabilities, or faults (apart from my modesty); oh and my weakness in continuing to read atheist posts, knowing full well that they are all repetitious tripe. :D
-
You were telling us there is no wiccan/pagan creation story, and the fact is there very much IS A WICCAN CREATION STORY. "peace please", No, how about you being not so all over the map.
I'm not a pagan but as far as I'm aware the only thing that corresponds to a Wiccan creation story was written by someone not generally taken seriously or lent much credibility by many, indeed most British pagans.
The lady's name is SilverRavenWolf - commonly referred to as Silver Raving Wolf!
She is an American Dianic (women-only) witch; she is a political agitator and a follower of the Ametican version of Wicca, rather more of the political and less of the wiccan. Over there they use the term Wiccan instead of witch as the fundamentalist Christians over there can and sometimes do make life unpleasant if you call yourself witch.
The American improved (= hoplelessly buggered about with) version bears little or no resemblance to the way in which it is practices in this country.
If you want to find out about her don't bother with Google - get her book Spiral Dance. I think that you can get it from Amazon or Foyles.
-
I don't have any disabilities, or faults
Clearly that's a matter of faith.
-
I don't have any disabilities, or faults
Clearly that's a matter of faith.
Yep, it works wonders; not that you'd know! :)
-
You were telling us there is no wiccan/pagan creation story, and the fact is there very much IS A WICCAN CREATION STORY. "peace please", No, how about you being not so all over the map.
I'm not a pagan but as far as I'm aware the only thing that corresponds to a Wiccan creation story was written by someone not generally taken seriously or lent much credibility by many, indeed most British pagans.
The lady's name is SilverRavenWolf - commonly referred to as Silver Raving Wolf!
She is an American Dianic (women-only) witch; she is a political agitator and a follower of the Ametican version of Wicca, rather more of the political and less of the wiccan. Over there they use the term Wiccan instead of witch as the fundamentalist Christians over there can and sometimes do make life unpleasant if you call yourself witch.
The American improved (= hoplelessly buggered about with) version bears little or no resemblance to the way in which it is practices in this country.
If you want to find out about her don't bother with Google - get her book Spiral Dance. I think that you can get it from Amazon or Foyles.
Spiral Dance is Starhawk from Reclaiming. Silver Ravenwolf just produces endless books of regurgitated spells for all occasions.
-
You were telling us there is no wiccan/pagan creation story, and the fact is there very much IS A WICCAN CREATION STORY. "peace please", No, how about you being not so all over the map.
I'm not a pagan but as far as I'm aware the only thing that corresponds to a Wiccan creation story was written by someone not generally taken seriously or lent much credibility by many, indeed most British pagans.
The lady's name is SilverRavenWolf - commonly referred to as Silver Raving Wolf!
She is an American Dianic (women-only) witch; she is a political agitator and a follower of the Ametican version of Wicca, rather more of the political and less of the wiccan. Over there they use the term Wiccan instead of witch as the fundamentalist Christians over there can and sometimes do make life unpleasant if you call yourself witch.
The American improved (= hoplelessly buggered about with) version bears little or no resemblance to the way in which it is practices in this country.
If you want to find out about her don't bother with Google - get her book Spiral Dance. I think that you can get it from Amazon or Foyles.
Spiral Dance is Starhawk from Reclaiming. Silver Ravenwolf just produces endless books of regurgitated spells for all occasions.
Sorry - wrong Yank witch - I knew that RavenWolf was a book machine, just added a new tiltle to her collection - Aplogies to both you and Shaker!
Starhawk and Raven Wolf both on the political activist list though.
It is getting late! Plead old age! Goodnight to all who deserve it!
-
Since our two resident pagans have both contributed to the thread this evening, would you both agree (or disagree, as the case may be) that my assessment of SRW in #426 was broadly correct, partly correct, a little correct or not at all correct?
-
If you mean does she write rubbish, yes she does.
Starhawk might not be everyone's cup of tea but her books are thorough and she has very strong eco credentials - she's come over here to teach permaculture. Ravenwolf is the witch equivalent of Doreen Virtue - she'll write anything so long as it brings in the dollars.
-
Was Starhawk the one who wrote The Pagan Book of Living and Dying?
-
Apparently she is. I haven't read it. :-\
-
I wondered - the name seemed familiar but I wasn't sure. I enjoyed that one.
-
I need to whisper this in front of Owlswing but I actually quite like her.
The Earth Path's worth a look.
-
Was Starhawk the one who wrote The Pagan Book of Living and Dying?
She was the co-writer of this one - I'm not sure who the other author was.
And I fully agree with Rhiannon's comments in #449 - unfortunately there are more than a few others in the field.
As I think I have said somewhere else on the subject - newcomers to paganism are, because everything is so personal, usually told to read everything that they can get their hands on. This has had to be amended to include the warning that some authors are to be treated with a pinch of salt.
I would, if you are interested, suggest a series of books by a lady named Kate West - most of her titles start "The Real Witch's . . . "; there are also two books by a lady named Rae Beth.
I would also recommend "The Witches Bible" by Janet and Stuart Farrar. This is NOT the same as the Christian bible - it is a combination of what was originally published as two separate books and contains a lot of useful information - Stuart farrar was a member of Alex Sanders Coven that he ran with his wife Maxine. Stuart is also the author of a boom called "What witches do" in which he tells of his early tears with the Sanders, a bit dated now, but interesting none the less.
Of course - THE best author on ten subject is Ronald Hutton - if you can get your hands on all his books on paganism they will be a most rewarding read.
-
I need to whisper this in front of Owlswing but I actually quite like her.
The Earth Path's worth a look.
It is a truism that if you sift through enough shit you sometimes find a pearl.
-
I like Karen Cater's books. Her artwork for Hedingham Fair's really good too.
-
I like Karen Cater's books. Her artwork for Hedingham Fair's really good too.
I haven't read any of hers but I agree, the art from Hedingham is usually on the "very good" side.
-
I like Karen Cater's books. Her artwork for Hedingham Fair's really good too.
I haven't read any of hers but I agree, the art from Hedingham is usually on the "very good" side.
She's written and illustrated two books that are compendiums of her own experiences in nature, folklore, myth and practical information, one on hares and one on the Tree Ogham.