Also Jim as told i read what darwin said see previous -He could not proove he said . Also so he said to think of an eye being formed by chance was absurd . Can you not see that Jim ? An eye more complex than a camera that was designed/created ?

God bless you dear Jim

John

Its your view that your entitled to have ie; That i am inarticulate .

Only when i spoke on a radio show recently , there were people saying the opposite . So again its where a person get’s ones standards to measure from and to judge, and to your opinion.

My standard is the word of God

God Bless you

The opposite is true . And i could write your letter to you ! I pray God will open your mind to the truth before it’s too late .

My points are very clear Jim ,and the way i express them . They get straight to the point without waffling and padding sentences

You mention other contributers forgeting that some agree with me .
Although im not really trying to score points Jim , i genuinely believe eternal life is at stake for you and jugement for those that alter Gods word. Some might Like the Ostrich put ones head in the sand .This however will not stop the Leopard from eating it.

I sincerly pray that minds will be opened Jim

I dont think you could explain my last letter, of how Trillions of creatures (Allegedly from evolution) form out of nothing into something without a grand designer.

And that on this planet with trillions of creatures they are all mostly male and female perfectly matched for each other to reproduce [ these cannot come be chance ,no matter how many yaers you throw on it]

Genesis 1 v 27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him ; male and female created he them.

We all have views Jim thats the whole point of this blog even .However when it comes to standards , i base mine on the Holy written word of God [Which i do not expect you to believe ]

There is a story of two men walking by the ship yard . One said to the other “See that ship over there ?, That for no reason at all came together from nothing for something .First the iron for some unknown reason came off the the ocean floor , then over another 10 million years rivets apeared to keep it together , then a tornado brought three funnels into being – all the correct size and for a purpose and function.
Then ove a trillion years wooden decks perfectly cut and varnished fell into place , at the same time portholes then an engine [which without any precision would not work at all] then over another million years glass for windows , flag poles, and last , but not least, a captain to guide the ship “!

The other man looked at him and said “Have you lost your mind “? That had a designer and builders behind it

He replied, “Well that’s what you believe with athiest evolution”!

Well i will not insult your intelligence ( Unlike dawkins)

Pray God opens your eyes dear special Jim

John

Ps im learning things at a vast rate

I really don’t mind what you believe, but a number of the contributors to this thread have sincerely tried to at least open your mind to other views. They are not necessarily asking you to change; just to understand their point of view.

Your responses do not appear to demonstrate that you have really understood their posts. On the contrary, you appear to choose instead to erect a thick wall of dogma and wishful thinking around your view of the World, and to close your ears to anything that appears to threaten this.

As I said in my previous post, it’s very hard to have a rational dialogue with you because of the incoherence of your posts. Let me define incoherence so that we are both clear exactly what I mean: “lacking in clarity or organsation; unable to express oneself clearly; inarticulate.” I am not referring to the validity of your arguments, but your way of expressing them.

Regarding Evolution: If you will not open your mind to anything that does not support your closed views, then I suspect I am wasting my time trying to explain why you harbour so many false assumptions about Evolution. I can also easily prove why Evolution is in no way comparable to a religion, but I think it would be pointless, as you are clearly not willing to acknowledge any views which are at variance to those you hold

So, as you say, there we have it. I hope we have all learned something. I know I have.

1. I’m not insulting at all. I just [Like Jesus & John the the baptist ]do not beat about the bush . Knowing that eternal consequences are at stake ( See the blind man parable i last wrote) ie; If you love the blind man you would say something or at least try to warn that the drop was ahead ! And so with love and boldness, i say it Jim

2.If you read way back . Iwas insulted for touching a nerve i believe in the feminist logic [ Evolution is another issue ]
My mind is well open to logic . I have many books on my bookshelf.
You say my views are incoherant . Where do you find the standard to to judge my view incoherant to say yours ,or feminism is’nt etc etc?
I’ve seen some very well written letters including Sophies’ part of talking about near death expriences and the many testamonies of it . Where we disagree is as a Christian ;you believe every word to be of God , but not to pick and mix .

3. Have you not seen the last 50 years ? It is the rights of every single creed Inc Gays, Women, Schoolchildren . But hey what about the rights of the unborn child[ human]? And the rights of men to have the child ? And not abort it ,if e wanted to bring the child up?
What about the rights of a man to see his children after seperation etc etc

You know Jim we have the rights of everything , except men ! And im standing in that gap . I know a lot about thhe pyhsicological problems today, ie ;Women becoming macho and un lady like and men mixed up !

The problem lies in not reasoning together . nb( Not War ) the word of God says “Let us reason together “.
Although you are not a christian dear Jim, you maybe not understand that it’s wrong to agree to differ . Thats why the Christian Church which agrees to that ,has so many schisms ( from our point of view)

Ps Evolution is a religion because no one was there at the big bang , or when all the millions of male and female species (Perfectly matched to each other )suddenly crawled out of the water at the same time ,And nothing decided to have a [miracle of ] womb , and nothing decide that the male species in trillions of species would have a sperm to make more offspring !!!!??

Now you need faith to believe that 5*%!¬£$))”"^)

So it is a religion .for those who do not want to believe in a Master designer God
So as thet can do what they want

I appriciate your reply Jim

God bless you my friend

John

1. You write in a way which can only be read as insulting to many people who share your faith, however different their interpretation; and then you declare that you “say this with Love” as if that excuses you. It does not.

2. The reason why those who do not hold your views stop debating with you is not because of the strength of your argument. It is because your views are incoherent, and because you will not open your mind to any alternative view, no matter how well argued.

In this kind of debate there may be a meeting of minds or there may be confirmation of an existing position. There are no winners, and the only losers are those who do not learn anything from the debate.

P.S. Evolution is NOT a religion, and atheists have no need to use evolution to disprove God.

As a reminder this has not worked for the last 40 odd years, and will never work.

Thank God for men with back bone [ That have not been feminised ].

Men whose role model was Jesus – who loved with a passion [ sinners , prostitutes etc]and yet was strong when he needed to be ; see the the temple clearance !

In the beginning God created and he saw that it was GOOD .

Q; What part of this do you not understand ?

there is time for huminists and seculists , but who betide those who twist God’s word for their own agenda[ who say they are Christian !

I say this with Love .

eg; What woould you say if you seen a blind person walking towards the end of a cliff with a 500 metre drop ?

Would you say

[a] I love you lets agree to differ ?

]b] Please do not go that way because you will die?

Love in Christ

John

And it is because grace is free it can reach us. How free is the sun in sending forth its enlightening, warming beams; how free the clouds in discharging their watery treasures; how free the dew in falling from the face of heaven; how free the wind in blowing where it listeth. Now these are scriptural types and representatives of the free grace of God. It shines as freely as the sun; drops as freely as the rain; falls as freely as the dew; and blows as freely as the wind. But not in grace as in nature to all men. I mean not that; but all to whom it comes it comes freely. And whenever it so comes it communicates precious things with it. As the sun lights and warms, as the rain fertilises, as the dew softens, as the wind invigorates, so it is with the grace of God which comes out of the fulness of Christ. It enlightens the understanding, warms the heart, fertilises the soul, softens the spirit, and invigorates the whole new man of grace. And all this grace does freely, without charge or cost, without money or price, wanting nothing, asking nothing from us but a kindly return. The best debt to a benefactor is the debt of gratitude; the best return of kindness is the return of love; the best acknowledgment of a favour is good words and suitable deeds. The best thanks which the earth can give to the sun, rain, dew, and wind of heaven is to be fruitful—to manifest by the goodness of the crops, the goodness of what falls from heaven upon it. So it is in grace: “Whoso offereth praise returns for grace.glorifieth me” (Psalm 50:23). A believing, loving heart, a prayerful, thankful lip, and a holy, godly life are the best returns for grace.

J.C. Philpot – 1802-1869

I would point at your dis respect to me .[ ie clueless -insult]You say im wrong , then admit that you are not a authority to science [Sounds like blind faith here]

I would point out that evolution is a religion for athiests trying to prove God a myth, so they can do what they want . [and some christians in the past not having answers.]

There are two scientists in the Church where i worship both have now rejected evolution .

Do not think that if 60% believe something then this must be true !? i see your type all the the time thinking you are so clever , anyone who disagrees is insulted , insteaed of reasoning

Iwould point out that the fossil of the dino was not feathers but folds of skin. And the same dna as fingernails

However this still would not be valid as a missing link ,as there are trillions of species here right now [ some have died off and not evolved]
these are also WELL FORMED/DESIGNED species for there environment— not a missing link . Again you miss the main point ! There should be if it is true millions of missing links -right now !

On vestigial organs ie; The so called tail bone on a human .There are 9 muscles that attach to this bone -so it is not a vestigial !

Some believe that the whale had a pelvis ,thinking it was once a land animal ? This is proven to be an anchor point for muscles on the whale , without such they cannot re -produce.

If there was such a thing as vestigial organs ,is’nt losing something the opposite of evolution? [appendix]

You say you won’t go on . Thats because you can’t
You say i am clueless about science ? Do you know me?

Science and the word of God go hand in hand. There are many scientists of the the past and now who were great inventors who believed in creation too. [Although you would look for faults in these brilliant men , knowing there is faults in every body -even saint richard dawkins!

If there was in the past a world wide [as said in the Bible]flood , you would expect to see many fossils trapped in lime stone and sandstone

And what do you see ? many fossils trapped in limestone and sandstone.

The word science means something you can observe and measure .
Evolution cannot ,as it happened in the past . Each scientist argues over the dating methods . Once a living mollusc was carbon dated to millions of years old , but it was still alive !

I do not reject DNA [Where do you get that idea fron?] i endorse it . My God designed it as the blue print for life and design.

The word of God says ‘ Created each to there kind ‘ from all seeds [includind the human seed] You see inside the acorn is the blue print for the Oak tree , which has always been an oak tree , and never an Elm tree !

You my dear woman are dis respecting the word of God , by calling it a myth and also believing God was ignorant and did’nt know what he was doing from the start ![ In the beginning God Created the world]
And darwin only had an idea only, as the word Theo’ry comes from the word God = Theos [Greek] means also ‘behold’

Yes check out www answers in genisis.org [as this not the subject]

On the subject of divorce ; Its te last 50 years of feminism that ties in with that . Remember they actively encourage that as well as the murder of unborn human beings.

On the subject of helping each other out , that is no problem for me . But when it comes to the word of God then the man must according to scripture be the priest of the house.

Have you not noticed the adverts now [ inspired the the women into media courses available for feminists etc] Most of them show men to be completely weak and pathetic.

Well i hope your proud of yourself feminists ?[ Germane Greer etc] ; from you is bourne the male hoodie , knife crimes , shootings etc

Thet should be encouraged to be the bread winner , instead of this garbage of women into construction etc

I am a gentleman and respect true ladies , but pray for the laddettes

I Realise you have been brought up in this liberal teaching from the way you talk .May God show you his word of truth

Love in Christ

John

The theory has been tested and found wanting in many areas. But it is so much part of the atheistic world-view that they refuse even to acknowledge that other scientists differ.

‘A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.’

Indeed. But evolution is not observable, given the long timespan it requires if it is true. So it is a matter of forensic science, not observable science. It is a matter of seeing how it might explain the evidence. It offers many plausible explanations, but it also fails to account for many others.

‘Any scientific theory must be based on a careful, rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.’

Absolutely. I’m glad you point that out. It is often neglected by those who insist evolution is a fact.

‘A fact is something supported by unmistakeable evidence. Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn’t change the facts themselves.’

Indeed.

‘Theories may be good, bad, or so-so. They may be well established by the facts, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to the peer review process.’

Indeed.

‘The peer review process means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the information and publish their conclusions.’

True.

‘Creationists refuse to subject their “theories” to peer reviews, because they know they don’t fit the facts.’

Creationists found that their material was not accepted, not for scientific reasons, but for ideological ones. They mostly peer-review among their own scientists now. but some of their stuff does get through secular peer-review, if it is disguised enough.

‘Creation scientists are not scientists.’

Really, Sophie, you ought to check the facts before you make such outlandish claims. A quick google would through up many world-class scientists who are creationists.

‘They are Biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their religious beliefs.’

Maybe that is because they have not found anything contrary to their beliefs.

‘There’s a college in Texas handing out Creationist science degrees. As these aren’t accepted by any other educational establishment they’re completely useless, apart from teaching people Creationism.’

Maybe so – but there are world-recognised colleges where creationists graduate from. Indeed, Kurt Wise earned his Ph.D. under evolutionist Stephen Gould:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/fossils.asp

‘Anyone taught Creationism as science will be unable to follow careers in science or medicine, and will have issues in many other workplaces too.’

Nonsense. Creationism holds to all of know science. It differs on the interpretation of material evidence, but not on anything observable. I know several such scientists in the UK – Andy McIntosh, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_McIntosh_(professor)

‘Creationism should only be practiced by consenting adults in private. It has no place in schools or in the Church of England.’

I note your desire to suppress dissent. But it should not surprise you to know that Creationism was the historic view of the Christian Church, including Anglicanism. That they have long ago abandoned this Biblical doctrine is no surprise, as they hardly have any beliefs left.

‘For Ian Major to write: “‘Test all things’ should be the rule for self-respecting humanity” in this context is laughable and only reveals just how poorly equipped Ian is to deal with the issues he raises.’

It seems from the above that it is you who haven’t done your homework. Feel free to disagree with Creationism, but at least get your facts right.

No, Sophie, it is a statement of the reality I see before me. I’m a member of an Evangelical church and have fellowship with dozens of other such churches nearby. The divorce rate among believers is very small. The divorce rate among my unbelieving neighbours is much larger.

‘Always, always go back to the source. If you’d bothered to check the link you’d have seen that, as I’d expect, the people who did the poll took care to define these groups. What Gallup called “Born-Again” were not easy-believers. They defined them specifically as religious conservatives. What I’d call fundamentalists. Like you.’

Maybe the concept of conservative is different than mine. It certainly is when applied to many ‘fundamentalists’ I see on American TV. Those folk just take up and put down what bits of the Bible suit them at the time. A bit like you are suggesting is the proper procedure regarding the NT doctrine on woman’s role.

‘The Creationists, the patriarchs, the literal believers I find so repellent: they have a significantly higher divorce rate than liberals like me.’

Not the ones I know. I’m open to correction, but all I have seen is the easy-believers, not those one would historically call conservative.

‘And atheist marriages are even less likely to break down.’

Again, I’m compelled to trust the evidence before my eyes than Barna. But I suppose it could be my definition of ‘atheist’. I understand by that anyone who says there is no God/gods, rather than those who make a big issue of it (like Dawkins, for example).

It would be interesting to check out the marriages of famous atheists and see how they fared. The several I checked just now show no such fidelity as Barna suggested.

‘As my husband used to say: “Answer that and stay fashionable.” And you can’t.’

I’m open to explanations why my experience is so contrary. Is Northern Ireland radically different from the USA in this matter?

‘Secondly, and here you have hugely offended, get your sticky little hands off my marriage. To try re-writing my life to suggest that my happy marriage is proof that in some unconscious way I must have been observing my ordained female role is beyond disgraceful.’

You suggested your happy relationship was a ‘natural’ thing – I pointed to the Christian doctrine of common grace and our intrinsic knowledge of what’s right. You need to take it up with the Bible.

‘My husband, a passionate feminist and liberal, hated men with your sort of views and loathed the sort of Christianity you represent: the need to dominate based on fear, the greedy clinging to historic gender privilege. We were a team, a joyful equal team, something your twisted paradigm can’t begin to match or even, from what’s be written here, properly imagine.’

You impute fear and greed to what I identify with respect and selflessness. Your misrepresentation of Christian doctrine does not make it any the less true. but exactly what your marriage was I admit I don’t know. That is known fully to God alone.

First there’s the divorce rate. If Christians have a higher rate of divorce than atheists then, yet again, they must be the wrong sort of Christians. Do you not see this as a recurring motif? If you don’t like something, it’s always because others are doing it wrong. There’s a word for this. Actually, it’s more than a word. It’s a diagnosis.

You write: “many who profess to be ‘born again’ Christians actually behave little differently than unbelievers. I suggest that most of this is because they ARE unbelievers. The culture of easy-believism has swamped much of Evangelical Christianity in the USA. ”

Always, always go back to the source. If you’d bothered to check the link you’d have seen that, as I’d expect, the people who did the poll took care to define these groups. What Gallup called “Born-Again” were not easy-believers. They defined them specifically as religious conservatives. What I’d call fundamentalists. Like you.

The Creationists, the patriarchs, the literal believers I find so repellent: they have a significantly higher divorce rate than liberals like me. And atheist marriages are even less likely to break down. As my husband used to say: “Answer that and stay fashionable.” And you can’t.

Secondly, and here you have hugely offended, get your sticky little hands off my marriage. To try re-writing my life to suggest that my happy marriage is proof that in some unconscious way I must have been observing my ordained female role is beyond disgraceful.

My husband, a passionate feminist and liberal, hated men with your sort of views and loathed the sort of Christianity you represent: the need to dominate based on fear, the greedy clinging to historic gender privilege. We were a team, a joyful equal team, something your twisted paradigm can’t begin to match or even, from what’s be written here, properly imagine.

Criticism isn’t relevant in terms of scientific theory. You don’t criticise a scientific theory. If you think it’s wrong you test it. The theory of evolution has, so far, been valid. It meets the facts. The point about scientific theory is that if facts challenge the theory it is the theory that will change, not the facts.

A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful, rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something supported by unmistakeable evidence. Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn’t change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or so-so. They may be well established by the facts, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to the peer review process.

The peer review process means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their “theories” to peer reviews, because they know they don’t fit the facts. Creation scientists are not scientists. They are Biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their religious beliefs.

There’s a college in Texas handing out Creationist science degrees. As these aren’t accepted by any other educational establishment they’re completely useless, apart from teaching people Creationism.

Anyone taught Creationism as science will be unable to follow careers in science or medicine, and will have issues in many other workplaces too.

Creationism should only be practiced by consenting adults in private. It has no place in schools or in the Church of England.

For Ian Major to write: “‘Test all things’ should be the rule for self-respecting humanity” in this context is laughable and only reveals just how poorly equipped Ian is to deal with the issues he raises.

The word theory used scientifically means something very specific: a hypothesis that is capable of repeated factual testing. Anyone, anywhere should be able to test the same facts and get the same result. Any fact which proves incompatible with a scientific theory causes damage to the theory. *Not* to the fact.

The holes in your scientific education are far too large for me to try to fill here. You don’t want them filled and I’m not qualified. All I can say is that the errors you think you’ve found aren’t errors at all.

You write: “Well now nearly 200 years since not one intermediate skeleton has been found!”

That’s not true. A dinosaur with feathers featured in the news only last month. I saw it in The Times but it was international. This isn’t the first intermediate by any means. The pigments found in the reptile/bird’s feathers were chemically the same as those in the feathers of birds today which means they can work out what it must have looked like.

http://io9.com/5465268/new-research-reveals-dinosaur-coloration-for-the-first-time/gallery/

Intermediates abound! Has no one ever told you about your appendix? There’s an intermediate stage right in front of you! It’s a vestigial remnant of a function now obsolete. Actually a number of features in human beings are still evolving, but I won’t go on.

DNA, discovered long after Darwin, reinforces the validity of evolution as a theory. He didn’t invent evolution, he just described the process. DNA reveals that you and I share genes not only with primates but with invertebrates and plants. Scientists today accept evolution in much the same way they accept gravity. So far it fits all the facts – a long time and every fact. If at any point it didn’t – if *any* fact showed it to be in error – the scientists will ditch the theory. Not the facts.

DNA based science is providing data on the speed and exact nature of evolution in species. For example, American scientists have discovered through DNA that “the polar bear is an evolutionarily young species that split off from brown bears some 150,000 years ago and evolved extremely rapidly.”

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/245996/experts-say-polar-bears-descended-browns

If you reject evolution, you have to reject DNA and all its related science. Ignore evolution and Creationism is still scientific nonsense. Geology, carbon dating, much of physics, astronomy, all of biology and of course the whole fossil record: none of these is compatible with literal Creationism.

The Swedish botanist you quote has been dead for more than 50 years but lingers on because he’s one of the only 20tj century Creationist scientists. He also believed that:

“at various periods in geological time, violent revolutions have destroyed all the earth’s biota, only to have living forms reconstituted by a sudden coming together of organic molecules to form gametes possessing the capability of developing into some highly complex form such as a pine tree, and elephant, or a man.”

Look up the crazy old coot here: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Nils_Heribert_Nilsson

I suppose there may be a few Creationist scientists outside Creationist institutions. However it’s a belief that can only be maintained by those whose work doesn’t involve anything to do with biology or time in the sense of geology or astronomy.

Certain aspects of inorganic chemistry, I suppose, might just be feasible, though nothing related to fossil fuels. Mechanics, I suppose. Outside these narrow parameters, a belief in Creationism is incompatible with professional standards.

There are, however, many scientists who are Christians, who see no conflict between a belief in God and the facts, and who respect a lovely old myth when they see one. We owe to ourselves and everyone else to point out that it is possible to be both rational and a Christian.

There’s nothing wrong with myths. Everyone’s got them. The work of anthropologists and archaeologists reveals that Creation myths are common in primitive societies. Early people (and isolated tribes even now) invented stories to explain their world, themselves and their lives. These myths are sometimes bizarre, often beautiful.

The Bible provides our culture’s creation myth and, as such, has been the inspiration for much creative work: art, poetry, music. But it’s myth.

Well, it is evolution’s problem in reality. It’s all very well wanting to hold to the theory of evolution is isolation from the big picture, but credibility demands some explanation as to how evolution could have began. I appreciate this gap in the story does not exclude the theory as such – for all science has gaps in understanding. We expect those gaps to be filled by future knowledge – but the gap may be there because the theory is false. And this gap – abiogenesis – is an immense one.

It is also coupled with the problem of billions of years of supposed increase in specified complexity, contrary to what we expect from entropy.

Criticism of evolution is a minority position among scientists – but the sad thing is the attempt by the scientific establishment to pretend their is no dissent. Opposing arguments are written of as ‘non-science’, despite being argued on the science level by scientists just as qualified to speak as those among the evolutionists. It would be good for society to have a lot less trust in establishments, the scientific one included. ‘Test all things’ should be the rule for self-respecting humanity.

You are right – virtuous behaviour comes naturally to us all, a lot of the time. Kindness, love, respect, etc. are found in us in various degrees; some of us naturally have in in greater amounts. Not only the God- fearing know instinctively what is right and wrong.

That’s because God made us all and our conscience witnesses to that fact, and His grace keeps us from being as wicked as we might be.

Your love and mutual trust kept you from disrespecting your husband, no doubt. Love fulfils the law, as the Scripture tells us. That is, even without us being conscious of the specifics of our duty, if we LOVE one another we will not go far wrong in the details.

But we cannot rely on loving one another all the time. We are sinners by nature and can so easily fool ourselves that we are doing good when in fact we are being selfish or otherwise foolish. Like the speed signs and the fines if we ignore them, we need specific instructions about how to relate to one another and warnings about the dangers of not doing so. The Bible gives us God’s instruction on the matter. He tells us how the man and wife are to relate. If we think we know better and put that into action, we will be sorry. If we acknowledge the Author and put it into practice we can expect great blessing. Even if we don’t want to acknowledge the advice, but generally live by it, we can benefit from it practically. I’m glad you had such a happy experience.

The Psalmist was clearly possessed of light, for he says, “God is the Lord, which hath shewed us light.” He was evidently, then, possessed of light; and this light was in him as “the light of life.” This light had shone into his heart; the rays and beams of divine truth had penetrated into his conscience. He carried about with him a light which had come from God; in this light he saw light, and in this light he discerned everything which the light manifested. Thus by this internal light he knew what was good and what was evil, what was sweet and what was bitter, what was true and what was false, what was spiritual and what was natural. He did not say, This light came from creature exertion, this light was the produce of my own wisdom, this light was nature transmuted by some action of my own will, and thus gradually rose into existence from long and assiduous cultivation. But he ascribes the whole of that light which he possessed unto God the Lord, as the sole Author and the only Giver of it. Now, if God the Lord has ever shewed you and me the same light which he shewed his servant of old, we carry about with us more or less a solemn conviction that we have received this light from him. There will, indeed, be many clouds of darkness to cover it; there will often be doubts and fears, hovering like mists and fogs over our souls, whether the light which we have received be from God or not. But in solemn moments when the Lord is pleased a little to revive his work, at times and seasons when he condescends to draw forth the affections of our hearts unto himself, to bring us into his presence, to hide us in some measure in the hollow of his hand, and give us access unto himself; at such moments and seasons we carry about with us, in spite of all our unbelief, in spite of all the suggestions of the enemy, in spite of all doubts, fears, and suspicions that rise from the depths of the carnal mind, in spite of all these counter-workings and underminings, we carry about with us at these times a solemn conviction that we have light, and that this light we have received from God. And why so? Because we can look back to a time when we walked in no such light, when we felt no such light, when everything spiritual and heavenly was dark to us, and we were dark to them.

Read the dance again;

One person and gentle guidance and skill from the OTHER

PS;Sorry for capital letters

We are sorry if capital letters offend your female sensitivity .You are however welcome to use capital letters if you think you are making a point? We will not be OFFENDED Try to read what is said, instead of going on about capital letters ?

Sounds like you too GM have a pick and mix bible ?

Jesus said . ” Stop sinning or something worse could happen to you” and
And REPENT for the end is near Mathew 4 v 17
Hey St Luke was a doctor and he mentions women a lot [ my mothers favourite]

God night and God bless

It seems you,like others ,have what we call feminist glasses – Where any excuse will be made up whether reading Gods Holy word or not . You cannot see the truth for your stained glasses .
Its the same with evolution glasses eg; Some friends of mine said that my problem was that i did’nt read what Darwin said ? So i read what darwin said , and did you you know that he i said [page49 vol2, 6th edition the origin of species] ,Icannot prove my theory [ idea] when i look around and see well [proper ] formed creatures . Why is nature not in confusion? [ THIS IS THE SAME TODAY] he then said the answer lies in the imperfect fossil record ! He asked why do we not find the intermediate skeletons imbedded in the crust of the earth ?
Well now nearly 200 years since not one intermediate skelelon has been found ! [NB ; With all the modern drilling methods and all the excavations to the earths core = not one . However IF EVOLUTION WAS TRUE THERE WOULD BE THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS of intermediate skeletons found by now ! Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen !
Now then lets look at what prof n. Heribert Nilson of Lund University, Sweden says [ he has studied evolution for over 40 years and has commented on the problem of missing links] ” It is not even possible to make even a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil record materail is now so incomplete, that the lack of transitional seriescannot be explained by the scarcity of materail . The deficiences are real, they will never be filled.

If you are a believer ? then the word says in the BEGINNING God CREATED ! NOT ! IN THE BEGINNING I DID’NT KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING You know the God i believe in is so intellegent and powerful that he could create all this in 7 seconds if he wished

This is however another subject ; Back to feminism . Men and women always will be different [ as women always declare !] and are suited in certain roles . In fact all the heroines of women i can admire are those that care , besides my late Nan , My Mother , Forence nightingale, Mother teresa , And many fine ladies that helped to open up wash houses for the poor.

ps; Istate again that Galatians Ch3 Does not mean that there is no such thing as male or female , but read in context it is about salvation through faith [ Coming from Abraham etc] we are out of the Jewish ritual law and into Faith inChrist for eternal life – no matter who you are slave or free male or female, Jew or Gentile

Ps ; I am a good dancer

Just a quickie for tonight, before I head out to work.

‘Instead I will confine myself to quoting paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote:
“Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”’

Stephen confused himself in the quote. He rightly says facts and theories are different things. And that theories seek to interpret the facts. But he then makes the jump to say evolution is a fact, when it is only a theory to explain the facts. We see fossils; we see geologic stratification; we see modification of life (finch’s beaks changing over time) – and the evolutionist says evolution accounts for all this. The creationist sees the same facts, and says Biblical creation accounts for all this. Both are theories that may turn out to be factual, but they cannot scientifically be called facts.

Jesus treated them as equals, not to Himself (for he is God) but to every man. For ALL have sinned. So Jesus called them to repentance, to leave their life of sin and follow Him. He did not say they were OK as they were:
‘Matthew 9:10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
12 When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”’

That is what real Christians today seek to do – to point sinners to Christ who alone can save them from their sin and its eternal consequences. We give the same call he did – to repent and believe in Him.

I did not claim religious people had a marked difference than unbelievers. I claimed true Christians do. Note I say true Christians, those who actually believe in the God of the Bible and seek to obey His words. They have the motivation not to run after a newer model or to get dissatisfied with their lot. They do not have the excuse, ‘we just fell out of love and I have found love somewhere else’. They have the commandment of God to love their wife, without excuse.

Sophie rightly points to Barna’s research in the USA, which shows that many who profess to be ‘born again’ Christians actually behave little differently than unbelievers. I suggest that most of this is because they ARE unbelievers. The culture of easy-believism has swamped much of Evangelical Christianity in the USA. Psychological techniques have gained professions of faith, but no actual change of heart. Jesus is a fire-insurance against hell, and a lottery ticket for health & wealth. This is not the historic Evangelical faith. So no wonder many of its adherents feel free to betray their spouses and/or jump ship when the going gets tough.

Sadly, I admit that some true believers are among them. We are not immune to sin, as the record of the churches in the New Testament reveals. But the difference is this: sin is confronted, the sinning Christian called to repentance – and if they fail to do so, they are cast out. So true Christians do not lightly commit adultery and/or divorce.
From my own observation – I have been a Christian for about 43 years – I personally know of no Christian couple who just decided to call it a day. I know of two Christians who divorced against the will of their Christian spouse, claiming adultery against them, but that being denied.

I know of several other Christian couples who divorced on the occasion of undisputed adultery. Mostly those guilty spouses have given no indication that their profession was real in the first place.

I know of some Christian couples who have survived the adultery of one of them. Repentance was met by forgiveness and reconciliation.

‘If not then this is an unsubstantiated assumption, and is insulting to non-believers. I could equally argue, with some justification, that conscientious atheists have at least as strong a moral compass as those who take their morality from a book.’

Of course they could have strong moral beliefs on faithfulness in marriage. Quite what they would base that on, I don’t know. But is that the case in real life? Have not the leading atheists been rather up for ‘freedom within our relationship’? Do we see adultery or divorce because of boredom being condemned as immoral? I’m asking that in genuine ignorance, for I am not familiar with the moral codes of Humanism.

‘A book which includes instructions which are often only directly relevant to the time and in the society in which they were written.’

Some of the laws were indeed just for the time/situation, as the Old Covenant was temporary. The New Covenant which replaced it gives laws that do not change.

‘Whilst on the subject let me declare my position on this: Most reasonable humans, religious or not, would not promote adultery. It is so incredibly destructive and unkind to those who suffer as a result. I do not need religion to work that out. It’s obvious from a practical point of view.’

I agree that most ordinary folk know instinctively that adultery is bad. But many today seem to have the caveat that it is less bad that a ‘loveless’ marriage. So having lost interest in your wife, you feel justified in ‘finding love’ in someone new. ‘All very sad, of course, but one has to make the best of life and all that.’

‘Divorce is a different matter. If the concept is abused, I agree divorce is indefensible. However, there are cases where it is the least worst option. I think back to the time, for example, when divorce was, from a practical point of view, impossible for most women – women who often had to remain with an abusive or philandering man for the rest of their loveless lives. Was this a better state of affairs than than that pertaining now, where women are sufficiently independent to take back control of their lives?’

I have no problem with divorce on just grounds. The Evangelical church has generally taken that position. But the common idea of ‘no blame’ divorce, of just walking away from a boring marriage – that is a grave sin.

‘I think you confuse cause and effect. If there is an established hierarchy with separate roles for men and women, which is actively encouraged by religious doctrine, then it is surely not surprising that men frequently become selfish and women seek to regain some of the control they have lost – and are often seen as controlling because of that?’

Take any godless society and see what role women have. It is almost always they who get the dog-end. If the oppression is not codified in law, as it is in some false religions, then it is still the reality – the woman is impregnated, the man leaves and continues his affairs while the woman raises the kids on her own. Repeat several times, and get a snapshot of modern society.

Men are naturally prone to selfishness; women to seek control in the relationship. Where the man is not the selfish brute, the woman becomes the hen-pecker. How different from the Christian model of loving leader and respectful companion.

‘We often see this extended to the workplace. It still annoys me that if a woman is assertive at work, and forcefully states her point of vew, she is criticised as bossy, or any number of less polite nicknames. If a man behaves in precisely the same way, he is applauded as a decisive and no-nonsense leader.’

I agree, that is deplorable. It is due to the failure to separate the relevant jurisdictions. Work is not the family or the church. A woman is not under a man as her head, nor is she reflecting the headship of Christ.

‘My point is that this widespread belief in the separateness of the roles of men and women, actively encouraged by the Church, is not only misguided and outdated. It is plain unjust, and unfairly discriminates against around half of all humankind.’

As I point out above, the separate role of woman is only in the family and church. No where does God say the woman is to have a subservient role in the outside world.

‘I have to say it: Sophie – You are most welcome to join our growing band of Humanists. You can keep all the practical morality, and ditch the superstition and institutionalised misogyny. It’s an incredibly liberating experience.’

Yes, if Sophie feels that one can pick and choose which commandments of God one keeps, and which can be discarded as merely man’s opinion, then there is no reason to cling to Christian forms. Humanism has the principle of identifying one’s own morality.

I am a Creationist and believe it because of God-given Faith (Hebrews 11:3, 2 Peter 3:5) Wonderful to know that the Creator is also the Saviour – John 1: 1-3.

Millions may well support the ordination of women, but does Scripture justify such belief? The term ‘Bible believing Christians’ is not new – maybe some circles employ it whilst others don’t!

We obviously disagree and happily we can do so without being disagreeable.

Like many Christians I strongly disapprove of the Catholic church . Tickles me that you write as though you’re unaware that there are major legitimate differences of theological opinion. To suggest there’s only one way to interpret the Bible is entirely disingenuous.

Love this new phrase “Bible believing Christians” – comes up all over. As opposed to what? Does this mean you’re a Creationist?

Millions of Christians support the ordination of women. Get over it. If we’re wrong no doubt we’ll hear about it later. For those who don’t like it there are still plenty of denominations in which there aren’t any female clergy. Many mansions – there are indeed.

Forgive me, but if you look back you’ll realise you joined this debate very late and I’ve been through this entire argument once already. I don’t expect we’ll ever agree but then, we don’t have to. Genuine difference doesn’t mean we have to fight. Let’s just be different. You in your small corner and I in mine.

I did mean the Roman Catholic Institution. Catholicism comes into the discussion not because of its stance regarding women but because Bible believing Christians disregard any ‘Authority’ other than that of Scripture and Rome has throughout history pontificated its own teaching alongside Scripture.

As for Angus MacLeay (and his like) defecting to Rome, there is as much chance of that as there was of those Reformers’ who were martyred for their faith doing so who believed that salvation was by faith ALONE (not shouting, just emphasising) through Christ ALONE, on the basis of Scripture ALONE . In the CofE there are some Ministers who ‘swear allegiance’ to the 39 Article of Religion and seek to abide by them. Others ‘swear’ and believe, act and preach contrary to them.

Philip, I’m sure you don’t mean any harm but typing in capitals online conveys SHOUTING which gives an aggressive or unbalanced tone. Emphasis *can* be achieved in other ways.

Another way to put this might be “Experience has taught me that sermons hostile to mainstream Church of England belief can be relied on offend or exasperate many parishioners.”

Your dancing analogy reminds me of the old joke: “Why does Fred Astaire get all the praise? Ginger Rogers does exactly the same, only backwards in high heels!”

There’s a big difference between what someone uses to supports their position and where they get the original idea from. As I’ve said before in this debate, a huge range of beliefs, both reputable and unsavoury, have found justification in Scripture.

As his church is a “feeder” church for the best local schools, the church is packed with young families. A captive audience, to some extent.

I wouldn’t put up with Rev MacLeay for access to a good school but I’m afraid many parents will. Whether those who attend for this reason pay any attention to his sermons is another matter. However it’s been reported that his attitude to women has made long-standing church stalwarts feel obliged to worship elsewhere, which seems sad.

I wonder how many would attend if school places were no longer in this church’s gift?

So to me, he treated probably what could be say societies misfits (back then) as like equals – he didn’t look down on them – so why is the dude who wrote the article look down on women?
In my probably very basic way, what i am trying to say is that if Christians of today want to be like/aspire to be like Jesus who treated “misfits” in society as equals, then why cannot the people who like follow jesus do the same.

I hope that makes sense!

We know that there are things that we don’t understand today.
My point is that we also know there are things that we once thought we would never comprehend, that today we do. There is every reason to assume that humans will continue this process of discovery until our eventual disappearance.

I would also submit that you have undersold the theory of evolution, and oversold other theories which lend weight to you argument. To forensically pick your argument apart would require me to wrap a wet towel around my head to stop it overheating, so I will not attempt the feat here.

Instead I will confine myself to quoting paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote:

“Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”

Thanks for the reply on our grandparents understanding.

You imply that at some future date we will understand how such almost infinite complexity we observe can be accounted for by time and chance.

What I’m saying is that the great insights we have over our grandparents have not shown us anything in that direction. On the contrary, the ‘simple cell’ which evolutionists in Darwin’s time could envisage being evolved by time and chance has been shown to be magnitudes of order more complex. The problem for evolution is to explain how things move from a relatively simple form – a non-organic molecule – to even the simplest life-form today. It means billions of years of increasing order, specified complexity – something Entropy tells us cannot happen. The complex over time becomes less so. And the only source of energy available to counter it is radiation from the sun. And we all know what radiation + time equals.

Where to start? In terms of our understanding of the physical World: the knowledge we’ve gained from advances in quantum mechanics, and our understanding of the nature of the Universe; advances in our understanding of molecular biology, and the origins of life; the development of computer technology that enables us to “see” things previously invisible to us; advances in communications technology – which have enabled us to advance from carrier pigeons to mobile phones.
In fact, when my Grandfather was born there were no cars; and humans being able to fly across Oceans was science fiction. There were learned professors who “proved” that it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound, in conflict with others who thought that it was possible but that the human body was not able to withstand the effects. I could fill pages more with examples, but hope this short list answers the point of your question.

Having looked into it, it seems I’m wrong. Or least it’s more complicated than that. It’s not at all what I expected.

Divorce rates in the US among conservative Christians are significantly higher than for other all faith groups, and much higher than for atheists and agnostics.

Here are the figures for the US (UK stuff below):

Non-denominational Christians (small groups; independents) 34%
Jews 30%
Born Again Christians 27%
Mormons 24%
Other Christians (average) 24%
Catholics 21%
Atheists and agnostics 21%

Of course there’s a big difference between “those with no religion” and atheists or agnostics. A lot of thought, for a start. Someone like you who clearly pays so much attention to ethics can’t be compared to those think it’s a county near London. The UK statistics below give a divorce rate of 43% for “those with no religion”, as compared to 21% for “atheists and agnostics” shown above.

George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:

“While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6592/future-marriage-part-iii.aspx

While middle of the road Christians in the UK have a lower divorce rate (and a better quality of life) than those with no religion, the other religions have far lower divorce rates than Christianity.

“Hindus and Sikhs are the least likely to be divorced, separated or re-married. This pattern was the same across most age groups in Great Britain in 2001. For example, among 45 to 54 year olds, one in ten Sikhs (10 per cent) and Hindus (11 per cent) who had ever been married described their current marital status as divorced, separated or re-married. This compares with 17 per cent of Muslims, 34 per cent of Christians and 43 per cent of those with no religion in the same age group.”

I think there’s a big difference between UK Christians and US Christians. I’ll do a bit more ferreting,

My fidelity to my husband was entirely based on love for him and our mutual trust. I wouldn’t have wanted anything to damage that. It wasn’t anything to do with religion but maybe this was because it was easy. Seems to me being virtuous comes naturally a lot of time: if you’re passionately attached to your husband marital fidelity requires no effort at all. And it was lovely, when we faced his death together, to know that we’d kept our promises.

Those who live by the sword, etc.

In regard to your comment:
‘N.B. It’s not helpful to tell us that the word of God is the final authority when none here follows every word of the Bible literally. Not even you. You’d end up in Broadmoor if you did. There’s a link here that illustrates this rather amusingly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ziECzNKhM&feature=player_embedded).’

Very interesting video. I’m amazed that the bishop couldn’t think of an apt reply, as it really is school-boy theology.

The reason all the Levitical commands don’t apply to use today is that we are not Israelites living in the land and under the Law of Moses. The laws about executing blasphemers, witches, etc. were civil laws for the nation. Just as we have laws about punishing thieves, speeders, murderers, etc. If one moves to another part of the world, many of those laws will not apply.

Christ came and set up the New Covenant, fulfilling and abolishing the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. With it went all the civil and ceremonial laws. We are now under no commandment to execute blasphemers or to not eat pork.

But the moral laws remain: to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and your neighbour as yourself.

Simple really.

I return – again – to comparisons with other power relationships which were justified by Scripture at various times in history. Slavery, colonialism, racism. I’m sure there were happy peasants under the feudal system. With a caring, responsible overlord a peasant might do well. Doesn’t mean we now consider the feudal system as a model of human harmony.

Any system that relies entirely on the virtue of those who hold power and is not accountable to outsiders tends to end in abuse. Look at the horrors perpetrated by the Catholic Church in Ireland. These share features with domestic abuse,

You do not address the particular problem of marriage: its secret, domestic nature. Similar in some ways to the unenviable position of children abused by priests. When abuse can be so readily hidden, even cloaked as virtue, it is far harder for victims to receive justice or escape.

The full scale of domestic violence is still hidden through shame and fear. If society and the church assert female subordination they are compounding this.

Your comparison of marriage to an army platoon sharing comradeship but needing leadership makes no sense to me. Marriage isn’t a group activity. Marriage seldom involves snap decisions.If we were polygamists your analogy might make more sense. Read an amazing book on that recently.

To me marriage resembles two people setting out, hand in hand, on a journey of discovery. The idea that they’d agree one of them will always be the leader before they depart is totally bizarre. Who’d think it necessary to travel in those circumstances? Master and servant is the only arrangement I can think of. If one of them was paying for the whole thing it might make sense.

I have extensive experience of happy Christian marriages at very close quarters. There’s not been a divorce in my family. My parents are still alive and my siblings have all been married for at least 20 years. These families are church goers, with church weddings, baptism, etc. Of the four, in two the wives are the main breadwinner, two have the more conventional set-up.

In none of these relationships does the idea of male headship feature. I don’t think it’s even been considered. These couples are partners, just as my husband and I were. When I told my father about this discussion, he joked: “Of course I’ve always made the big decisions: what the Government’s doing wrong, what we should do about climate change. Your mother looks after the little ones: like where we live.”

I’m sorry, Ian, but you’re doing that “real Christians agree with me because if they don’t agree with me they aren’t real Christians” thing again. It makes debate a bit pointless.

You write: “You misunderstand the Christian concept of the Scriptures. They are not a mixture of truth and error, of God’s word and man’s opinion. ALL they assert is infallibly true. This is what Christ and the apostles taught about the Bible, and this is the historic position of the Church. That many calling themselves Christian no longer believe this is not a proof it is wrong, but that they are wrong. They are denying the faith.”

By your definition most of the Church of England aren’t Christians. Ian, we’re not singing from the same hymn sheet here, we’re not even in the same building.

And it doesn’t help playing a sort of trumps with quotes from the Bible. I know: we both use quotes. All I’m saying is that it’s not a tactic that gets us anywhere.

Because no one here takes the Bible literally. We just differ on which bits we prefer. For example, it tickles me that the Christian right in America get steamed up over Creationism but reserve the right to get divorced as many times as they fancy.

Me, I don’t believe souls have a sex, or a skin colour or a sexual preference, let alone that Jesus wanted male dominance or female subordination in any sphere. If a married couple is one flesh then how can one predominate over the other?

I have my view, you have yours and let’s leave it at that. Let’s just be grateful we’re not married.

You mention evolution in the context of the Church and the Nation. I can understand the relevance to the Church, but not that to the nation. Could you explain?

You said:
“The Christian has it as a command from God, and it is a test of his sincerity before God. The unbeliever, when pressed, has little resources for persevering, as the awful prevalence of adultery and divorce reveal.”

Do you have any empirical evidence to demonstrate that unbelievers are more prone to divorce and adultery than religious people? If not then this is an unsubstantiated assumption, and is insulting to non-believers. I could equally argue, with some justification, that conscientious atheists have at least as strong a moral compass as those who take their morality from a book. A book which includes instructions which are often only directly relevant to the time and in the society in which they were written.

Whilst on the subject let me declare my position on this: Most reasonable humans, religious or not, would not promote adultery. It is so incredibly destructive and unkind to those who suffer as a result. I do not need religion to work that out. It’s obvious from a practical point of view.

Divorce is a different matter. If the concept is abused, I agree divorce is indefensible. However, there are cases where it is the least worst option. I think back to the time, for example, when divorce was, from a practical point of view, impossible for most women – women who often had to remain with an abusive or philandering man for the rest of their loveless lives. Was this a better state of affairs than than that pertaining now, where women are sufficiently independent to take back control of their lives?

You said:
“God qualifies him, and her, in their respective roles. When they ignore that, trouble is guaranteed. Men are prone to selfishness, women to control, in my experience.”

I think you confuse cause and effect. If there is an established hierarchy with separate roles for men and women, which is actively encouraged by religious doctrine, then it is surely not surprising that men frequently become selfish and women seek to regain some of the control they have lost – and are often seen as controlling because of that?

We often see this extended to the workplace. It still annoys me that if a woman is assertive at work, and forcefully states her point of vew, she is criticised as bossy, or any number of less polite nicknames. If a man behaves in precisely the same way, he is applauded as a decisive and no-nonsense leader.
My point is that this widespread belief in the separateness of the roles of men and women, actively encouraged by the Church, is not only misguided and outdated. It is plain unjust, and unfairly discriminates against around half of all humankind.

I have to say it: Sophie – You are most welcome to join our growing band of Humanists. You can keep all the practical morality, and ditch the superstition and institutionalised misogyny. It’s an incredibly liberating experience.

‘God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit
and in truth’ John Ch 4 v 24.

Once again I invite all on this blog to come along and here Monty Wight address the two meetings of the United Protestant Council in St John’s Wood Baptist Church, this
coming Saturday 6th March at 1pm. The topic is Evolution:
In the Church and In the Nation. It would be good to meet
up with some of you at this, God Willing. Nearest tube stn
is St John’s Wood.

Thanks for the considered response.

‘Had Jesus said only what his contemporaries did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We best decipher the New Testament by ignoring the bits which simply parrot contemporary mores and concentrate on the parts which differ. Thus Timothy’s “Shut up, woman, and do what you’re told” is exactly what any man of his time would have said, including the many who’d never heard of Jesus and advances us nothing .’

You misunderstand the Christian concept of the Scriptures. They are not a mixture of truth and error, of God’s word and man’s opinion. ALL they assert is infallibly true. This is what Christ and the apostles taught about the Bible, and this is the historic position of the Church. That many calling themselves Christian no longer believe this is not a proof it is wrong, but that they are wrong. They are denying the faith.

I appreciate an unbeliever holding that the Bible is the work of man and thus not infallible, but he/she will admit that the Bible presents itself as the infallible word of God.

‘Look instead at the liberating message of: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

This was totally revolutionary then, and we still haven’t caught up with it. This, the parable of the Good Samaritan and Christ’s reminder to “Love your neighbor as yourself” provides a strong warning against bigotry, racism and sexism.’

It sure does, and the Christian heartily agrees. But marriage on the Christ/Church model is not sexist, any more than is providing folic acid to women and not to men. It is a recognition of actual difference – in the marriage case the difference created by God at Creation.

‘Patriarchal oppression. has a long and dishonourable history both in and outside the church.’

True. As has enforced celibacy. And the persecution of dissidents. but does that prove celibacy is wrong in itself, or that all dissent is to be ignored? No, celibacy is a good thing for those gifted for it. And the unrepentant heretic is to be excluded from the fellowship.

‘Those who support the misguided idea of Christian marriage as resembling the relationship between Christ and his Church stress the love expressed within this inequality, but this is no more than cosmetic surgery to the ugly face of patriarchal oppression.’

That is your allegation – but it does not stand up as a truth, for there are many happy and fulfilled marriages built on it. It is was oppressive, it would be so in all circumstances. And those who oppress their wives flatly contradict the model. We can’t blame the model for those who violate it.

‘To quote from a woman who tried Ian Major’s “loving leadership”: “Did Jesus come to set people free, or put them in neat little “role” categories and shut the prison doors?” (http://nolongerquivering.com/category/the-god-factor-thoughts-on-patriarchal-teachings/)‘

Freedom is doing God’s will. The abusive husband is not doing that, and God will punish him for it. I note the lady said: ‘If the marriage has any problem at all, it is probably yours. After all, that’s what your husband keeps telling you. The books join with his voice. In a very real sense, your husband becomes your god, a mediator between the woman and God.’ That shows she clearly misunderstood the model. If you see your husband abusing you, not being the lover as Christ is, then you have a wake-up call. It should make you doubt his assessment of who is to blame when things go wrong.

‘Ian writes: “The Biblical model is not domination, but loving leadership. That there are those who abuse it does not invalidate the idea, any more than unfaithful spouses invalidate the idea of marriage.”

I would assert that model is itself abusive. It cannot be otherwise. If a woman is to consider her husband in the role of Christ then even to question the slightest of his decisions is unthinkable. Instant obedience to his every request is the only response. His behaviour will always be beyond reproach.’

This is also a misunderstanding of the model. The model shows the two roles -loving headship and respectful companion. It does not mean the man is omniscient, omnipotent, or any of the other things Christ is. Man remains fallible. So the good wife will, respectfully, point out where she thinks her husband is mistaken or herself come up with better suggestions.

‘The man’s role is as Saviour. He is enjoined to love his wife but as he is not only the recipient but also the arbitrator, corruption is intrinsic.’

Not intrinsic, for it is a betrayal of the model. It is a danger in the marriage, certainly. Just as him meeting other women in work is a danger to his faithfulness. But we do not shut ourselves up in caves to avoid temptation. Just be vigilant.

‘This isn’t a marriage, it’s a psychological nightmare at the least and potentially a lot worse. For it is among those who fervently promote this idea of marriage that we find those who justify the chastisement by Christ of his rebellious Church. Those who favour misogynist quotes they find in the Bible seldom stop at one.’

Again, it is to miss the point of the model. The husband is not God. The husband’s discipline of an erring wife will not be inflicting sickness or death, but loving rebuke. Her response to an erring husband will be a respectful rebuke. Why? Because he is subject to error, not like Christ.

The model is for marriage roles; it does not transform the husband into Christ. He is a sinner who needs rebuke from time to time – the way that is given by his wife is part of the model – respectfully. But he is not beyond rebuke, as Christ is.

‘The claim that a Christian wife is repaid for lifelong obedience by the willingness of her husband to give up his life for her prompts the immediate objection that this is only what most ordinary, equal husbands and wives (and other family members) are just as prepared to do for each other.’

It is indeed common to human nature – to some degree. The Christian has it as a command from God however, and it is a test of his sincerity before God. The unbeliever, when pressed, has little resources for persevering, as the awful prevalence of adultery and divorce reveal.

‘A relationship in which one adult *always* gets their own way and has total control over the other, whether as slave, prisoner or wife, is inherently corrupt. The infantilising of the submissive wife, the sense of unearned entitlement to privilege: these can only create manipulativeness and self-hatred, not to mention wrecking the couple’s erotic life. Ask any psychologist.’

A loving husband will not generate those failings. Let me say it again – It is a violation of the model. Don’t blame the model for those who abuse it.

‘For what possible reason would an independent mature man seek to provide lifelong loving leadership to an independent mature women? Why would she require it?’

Because it is a marriage – not two separate people doing their own thing. Two joined as one. So a leadership role is needed for optimum functioning. And it is how God made man and woman for each other.

‘Similarly why should an independent mature woman benefit from the loving leadership of an independent mature man throughout her life? What qualifies him? (Anatomy is not a justification for leadership.)’

God qualifies him, and her, in their respective roles. When they ignore that, trouble is guaranteed. Men are prone to selfishness, women to control, in my experience.

‘In equal relationships we share our strengths and weaknesses, respect each other’s skills, and take turns helping each other through tough times. Each is called on to the maximum, as adults and partners, parents and lovers. She loses her job and he is a tower of strength. His father dies and she supports him while he mourns. Roles are fluid.’

None of that is against the model. You have an insufficient view of what is meant. Remember the wider information on marriage given in the Bible – Eve was created as a helper suitable to Adam. Not even as a separate creation, but one made out of his flesh and bone:
‘Genesis 2: 23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’

‘Can one member of a couple ever be undoubtedly better equipped to lead in *all* circumstances on *every* occasion throughout the *whole* of a couple’s life together? Because that’s what we’re asked to believe.

No, not unless perhaps there were such severe disparity in intellect and ability between two people that a marriage between them would itself seem bizarre.

There’s certainly no evidence to believe that Christian husbands are particularly fit to lead. Or vice versa, though the fact that male prisoners outnumber female eight to one might raise some questions as to which sex is best equipped to provide a moral lead these days.’

You mistake the leadership role for natural abilities in decision-making. That is not what is being modelled. Certainly it would be better for a woman to chose a husband who could be relied on to make the best choices – but the leadership role is one of respect, not of ability. Our parents might not be better than us in financial planning and many other matters, but we as teenagers would be right to respect their leadership role. We are free to show them better suggestions, but not to shout them down and insist on our better way.

‘Men are statistically less stable than women, and worse behaved. The divorce rate isn’t down to disappointed husbands let down by delinquent wives. Quite the opposite. It is men who are responsible for more than 90% of the adultery cited in divorce. More than a quarter of divorces cite male violence.’

I completely agree. Men naturally incline to selfishness. It is a key part of our sinful nature. That’s one more reason to insist on the model, the whole model, being right.

In the equality model modern society pushes, men will always be more equal than women. They can so easily just walk away. They can so easily behave as the animals, sleeping with as many as they can get away with.

‘The Reverend MacLeay should perhaps have addressed himself to his gentlemen parishioners, advising them to up their game.’

Insisting on the Biblical model is the best way of doing so.

‘Those who came after Christ sometimes took the safe option over conduct, backing the status quo. The last thing early Christians could afford was chit chat about unconventional relationships between the sexes. This would have given rise to a reputation for sexual immorality which would have damaged the nascent movement, perhaps fatally. It is also important to remember that Paul was not Jesus and many of those who’ve studied the Bible far more deeply than I have noticed the quirks of its authors. I have heard Paul’s contribution described as “patchy” and he could be a misogynist. Paul was doing his best, but Jesus had far higher hopes for us.’

You are reading into the Bible what is not there. The deniers of the Bible like to make a difference between Christ and Paul and Peter – but none exists. The honest commentator on the Bible, be he believer or not, will say so. The Bible portrays the apostolic commandments as much God’s commandments as Christ’s own words.

And the relationships the apostles commanded were not safe options for their day. For example, the acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles as fully-fledged Christians caused massive hostility and persecution.

‘Jesus, being infinitely wise, made a point of not telling us how to be married, even when he had prime time exposure at a wedding. All you need are those vital ethical principles that underpin how we should treat anyone. Dignity. Human rights. Charity. Empathy. Not “Shut up, woman, or I’ll hit you.”’

Jesus appointed His apostles to give us the fuller message. But He did indeed tell us something about marriage Himself, for example:
‘Matthew 19: 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who madethem at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” ‘

I was referring to previous remarks, but why should you have remember what I’ve written? I’d drawn attention to the link between a belief that male authority is divinely ordained and domestic violence against both women and children.

Equality’s equality. That’s all there is to say. But a belief in male predominance lends itself to extremism. For if it’s God’s will that women submit to their husbands, how then can the same woman manage men at work? If a wife must obey, just how far is her husband entitled to go to enforce submission? Some believe women should not enter public life at all. Question follows question and, as I have written before, the history of male dominance is not one to inspire confidence. Extremists have more in common with radical Muslims than Christians.

Although I’m middle aged I’ve only come across the idea of wifely obedience in historical novels. Never in the church. But it seems it’s being revived. We see it among Christian fundamentalists in America and, in a milder form, in Sevenoaks. I find this alarming.

N.B. It’s not helpful to tell us that the word of God is the final authority when none here follows every word of the Bible literally. Not even you. You’d end up in Broadmoor if you did. There’s a link here that illustrates this rather amusingly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ziECzNKhM&feature=player_embedded).

I’ve checked it for bad language and couldn’t spot any.

Accepted as the word of God .not the word of man !

Colossians 1v25
A sevant of the commision GOD GAVE ME.

2PETER 3V2

Comanded by OUR LORD

Acts 9 v 15;

Jesus said Paul was HIS CHOSEN INSTRUMENT TO CARRY HIS NAME TO THE GENTILES

The WOrd of God is te final authority

Bear in mind that our Lords patience means Salvation, just as our dear brother Paul wrote you with the wisdom God gave him . He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which igorant and unstable people distort , as they do other scriptures, to their own distruction.
and 2 Timothy 4v 3;
For a time will come when men will not put up with sound doctine. Instead, to suit their own desires,thet will gater around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.4 They will turn their ears awat from the truthand turn asideto myths.

Thank you DM . You echo the truth of what a lot of people whom i help out have said about me . ps Would have loved to have been at the sermon ,but live over 100 miles away and heard afterwards . Bless you

I pray God blesses you all to understand the greatest instruction manual.

Sophie , dont make up things ie No one here at all is sayimg anything about beating the other up [ you must be scraping the bottom of the barrel] Be careful dear woman

Love

John

The Bible is clear therefore you must A] Repent. There first must be an admission that you have been living as your own master, worshipping the wrong things, violating God’s loving laws. “Repentance” means you ask forgiveness and turn from that stance with a willingness to live for and center on him.

B]Believe. Faith is transferring your trust from your own efforts to the efforts of Christ. You were relying on other things to make you acceptable, but now you consciously begin relying on what Jesus did for your acceptance with God. All you need is nothing. If you think, “God owes me something for all my efforts,” you are still on the outside.

“To be carnally-minded is death; but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace.”—Romans 8:6

Look instead at the liberating message of: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

This was totally revolutionary then, and we still haven’t caught up with it. This, the parable of the Good Samaritan and Christ’s reminder to “Love your neighbor as yourself” provides a strong warning against bigotry, racism and sexism.

Patriarchal oppression. has a long and dishonourable history both in and outside the church. Those who support the misguided idea of Christian marriage as resembling the relationship between Christ and his Church stress the love expressed within this inequality, but this is no more than cosmetic surgery to the ugly face of patriarchal oppression.

To quote from a woman who tried Ian Major’s “loving leadership”: “Did Jesus come to set people free, or put them in neat little “role” categories and shut the prison doors?” (http://nolongerquivering.com/category/the-god-factor-thoughts-on-patriarchal-teachings/)

Ian writes: “The Biblical model is not domination, but loving leadership. That there are those who abuse it does not invalidate the idea, any more than unfaithful spouses invalidate the idea of marriage.”

I would assert that model is itself abusive. It cannot be otherwise. If a woman is to consider her husband in the role of Christ then even to question the slightest of his decisions is unthinkable. Instant obedience to his every request is the only response. His behaviour will always be beyond reproach. The man’s role is as Saviour. He is enjoined to love his wife but as he is not only the recipient but also the arbitrator, corruption is intrinsic.

This isn’t a marriage, it’s a psychological nightmare at the least and potentially a lot worse. For it is among those who fervently promote this idea of marriage that we find those who justify the chastisement by Christ of his rebellious Church. Those who favour misogynist quotes they find in the Bible seldom stop at one.

The claim that a Christian wife is repaid for lifelong obedience by the willingness of her husband to give up his life for her prompts the immediate objection that this is only what most ordinary, equal husbands and wives (and other family members) are just as prepared to do for each other.

A relationship in which one adult *always* gets their own way and has total control over the other, whether as slave, prisoner or wife, is inherently corrupt. The infantilising of the submissive wife, the sense of unearned entitlement to privilege: these can only create manipulativeness and self-hatred, not to mention wrecking the couple’s erotic life. Ask any psychologist.

For what possible reason would an independent mature man seek to provide lifelong loving leadership to an independent mature women? Why would she require it?

Similarly why should an independent mature woman benefit from the loving leadership of an independent mature man throughout her life? What qualifies him? (Anatomy is not a justification for leadership.)

In equal relationships we share our strengths and weaknesses, respect each other’s skills, and take turns helping each other through tough times. Each is called on to the maximum, as adults and partners, parents and lovers. She loses her job and he is a tower of strength. His father dies and she supports him while he mourns. Roles are fluid.

Can one member of a couple ever be undoubtedly better equipped to lead in *all* circumstances on *every* occasion throughout the *whole* of a couple’s life together? Because that’s what we’re asked to believe.

No, not unless perhaps there were such severe disparity in intellect and ability between two people that a marriage between them would itself seem bizarre.

There’s certainly no evidence to believe that Christian husbands are particularly fit to lead. Or vice versa, though the fact that male prisoners outnumber female eight to one might raise some questions as to which sex is best equipped to provide a moral lead these days.

Men are statistically less stable than women, and worse behaved. The divorce rate isn’t down to disappointed husbands let down by delinquent wives. Quite the opposite. It is men who are responsible for more than 90% of the adultery cited in divorce. More than a quarter of divorces cite male violence. The Reverend MacLeay should perhaps have addressed himself to his gentlemen parishioners, advising them to up their game.

Those who came after Christ sometimes took the safe option over conduct, backing the status quo. The last thing early Christians could afford was chit chat about unconventional relationships between the sexes. This would have given rise to a reputation for sexual immorality which would have damaged the nascent movement, perhaps fatally. It is also important to remember that Paul was not Jesus and many of those who’ve studied the Bible far more deeply than I have noticed the quirks of its authors. I have heard Paul’s contribution described as “patchy” and he could be a misogynist. Paul was doing his best, but Jesus had far higher hopes for us.

Jesus, being infinitely wise, made a point of not telling us how to be married, even when he had prime time exposure at a wedding. All you need are those vital ethical principles that underpin how we should treat anyone. Dignity. Human rights. Charity. Empathy. Not “Shut up, woman, or I’ll hit you.”

Again you misunderstand . I repeat the last 40 years of feminism HAS NOT WORKED ! Ok ? And if you read my earlier posts [As this must be done with all of of us] You would have seen that I also mentioned the house prices are crazy for a young couple . However this does not get away from intellect free zone of feminism .
I need to tell you my dear Mother whom i love dearly once caused a stike for equal pay and for proper heating in the office she worked in ,in the 50′s . However she has now seen how paththetic feminism is now and totally rejects it as a new baptised Christian [and before] . She has seen her sons and grandsons suffer and the results of break ups also the confusing doctines of feminism . Did it once have a point ?Ithink they were right over the porn of woman [ of which now though they go in for the money and are not concerned, ie; Jordan etc] I dont see them complaining about the disgraceful behavior of young and old women on the streets of a night in some Towns and Cities ;- Tatoos . fighting like cowboys , wretching, choosing to sleep with how many men they want [Inc abroad]
While schools are being shut down because of lack of British children [as i mention previous]
The other thing you do not understand is the psyshologic on young males and females too! [xenia warrior princess , buffy the vampire slayer ] Due to the feminist brain drain and their involment in the media . Also mant teachers are speaking out against the amount of female teachers in schools -instead of a fair balance.
I now come back to he God breathed word ! In the beginning God created them male and female [ To compliment each other. not to be at war for the head -which is male in a loving Christian elationship] incidentally God has NOT reversed this order at al Not in Galatians chapter 3 Either . as this is saying that it does not matter what you are for having Faith and for Salvation ie; Male Female Slave Free Black white etc
Also if you would have read ,i do not come form an afluent area . One girl i met had her fourth daughter to 4 different Fathers [ her choice] I asked her why? She said she was after a 4 bedroom house !!! Again iurge you to order a copy of the book ‘ Save the males-why its good for a woman to care’ written by a very intellegent and caring Lady .That would be good for you – As if it comes form a male you automatically assume an ulterior motive . You will see that some feminists actually encourage divorce and abortion -Yes come on sister s Lets screw up families and murder the souls of future human beings!!!
Now if you truly are a Christian woman you should -out of the love of God [All bible written by God] submit to your husband . Time is passing life comes full circle ,its starting to change – all people are starting to see the feminism has had its day and is utterly brain dead
We should love one another [ And do not give sata na chance] and compliment each other

Love inChrist Jesus our saviour . Who rose from the dead to defeat death and to give Eternal life to all who repent and believe and are baptised Acts 2 v 38

I agree that we may choose compassion for practical evolutionary reasons. But those reasons qualify me equally to enslave and exterminate competitors when it suits. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

So we cannot logically believe our morality is other than individual to our circumstances – the strong may well have better reasons for destroying any competitors before they get too strong. Or have equally strong reasons to kill a man and take his productive wife.

Nothing in your meta-narrative makes you moral and him immoral. That distinction is only in your mind, not in reality.

‘I think it depends how you define pointless. Experience indicates that if I live a fruitful, productive, worthwhile life I will contribute to leaving the World in a better way for my descendents.’

I agree. But how is that any more significant than you living for yourself and leaving them in poverty and strife? You presuppose their welfare is good and their suffering is bad. They are equal in the sight of a universe in which ‘there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.’ ( R. Dawkins).

‘I would accept that this does not appear to be rational behaviour, but I would submit that it satisfies our fundamental need to feel that we matter, when much of what we experience indicates that we do not.’

Excellent. You have accepted the overarching reality (if materialism is true) – that there is no significance to existence – and see that our invention of morality is to deny that reality, as it is too hopeless for most humans to live with. It makes any actual belief in a morality irrational.

‘Religion requires a belief in the supernatural. By extension your argument would imply that of all humanity, only agnostics are non-religious, (and arguably not even them), which make the word religion pretty meaningless.’

I agree – it depends on how one defines religion:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

It just seems to me that having all the trappings of theistic religion but not the theos hardly justifies one in denying it is a religion.

‘You say it is all about feelings; not about the logic that flows from materialism. ‘

I mean the logic of the main premise (material is all there is), not the logic of doing good so that I feel good or achieve a desired goal. Feelings/desire drives the logical choice on the local level – but if we step back and ask ourselves why should I do this in light of the big picture, then our reason can overide our feelings and logically justify total amorality.

‘then society breaks down.’

The rational atheistic observer says,” So?” Why should we care about society if we personally can avoid the fall-out?

‘Regarding “objective morality” – I use it in the sense of a moral view shared by most humans in a society, and one which becomes accepted as correct in the same way as a scientific theory is accepted as correct.’

But that is not objective morality – just because a majority adopt it, does not make it true. If the majority held it good to enslave all non-whites, that would not make it true, objectively good. Nor does it if they hold all men are created equal. If it is merely their opinion, it is subjective not objective. Objective mean it is good or bad no matter how many agree.

‘so I agree that materialism in itself does not “recognize” morality, but materialism is but a part of being a Humanist.’

Excellent. You are seeing that Humanism is not the logical outworking of its first principle, but a subjective attempt to give us meaning/significance.

‘I have already argued why I dispute your logic for the existence of God. Equally I dispute that I have “faith” that there is no God. There is a huge difference between your stance that: “It is the certain knowledge, imparted by God, of His reality” – and my stance, which remains, “I cannot disprove God any more than I can disprove the existence of fairies, but on the basis of material evidence, the significantly most likely answer is that there is no God.”’

Yes, now that you clarified the matter (you do not hold that there is no God, just that you find no evidence for Him), I accept yours is not a faith statement.

‘Furthermore, if there is an omnipotent God, then nothing I can do will make any difference.’

WRONG! If you turn to Him in repentance and follow Him, then you will be pardoned and become a child of God. Eternal life is a total difference to eternal death.

‘Therefore I choose to live my life as if there is no God. Is that not more rational than your stance?’

Not at all , for the reason above. Yours is only rational if there is no God. If there is, the rational thing to do is be reconciled to Him. He has provided the sure means – the atonement of Christ – and calls you personally to come:
‘Acts 20:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”’

‘But in cosmic terms, no, my life does not matter any more than that of a housefly. And it does not worry me that it does not matter. Wanting it to matter, and assuming because of this that there “must” be more to life is not logical.’

I of course assert that your life has actual meaning, without depending on how you or anyone else values it.

But my point was to show that inventing a meaning and living by it, if there is actually no meaning, is irrational and no grounds for commending or condemning any behaviour.

What things (our grandparents didn’t know about) are you referring to, Jim?

I’m not sure I understand your comment that the problem [with materialism] comes when one tries to say bits of this material are more important than others. Do you mean that there is no rational way to favour one mode of behaviour over another, because with no supernatural source of morality we have no way to discriminate the good from the bad?

I think there IS rationality in our desire to treat our fellow humans well rather than oppressing them, and I think we CAN determine good from evil WITHOUT God. Even if we were to agree that, in your words; “if materialism is true, both actions are equally insignificant”, it does not affect our ability to tell one from the other, and to favour one from the other, for practical evolutionary reasons.

You insist that, logically, if there is no God, our lives are pointless, and we are just passing chemical reactions in a vast universe. Neither the universe nor we humans has any point. The Universe just is.
I think it depends how you define pointless. Experience indicates that if I live a fruitful, productive, worthwhile life I will contribute to leaving the World in a better way for my descendents. I would agree that the Universe just is. I would also agree that on the cosmic scale my life is of no significance. I would however suggest that as thinking beings WE create meaning for ourselves, and we live by the rules that that this meaning implies. Meaning is not God given. It comes from within us, and by extension, from the society of like-minded beings in which we live.

You said that, rationally, there is no significance as to whether we do good to others or instead that we abuse them, and that most of us feel better by doing them good, but some feel better by destroying them. Furthermore, you say that Humanism cannot logically say one course is right and one wrong – they are just different.

I DO think that from a rational perspective there IS significance in whether we do good to others or abuse them. We have leant that co-operation with others benefits us. We have learnt that behaving well towards others makes them more likely to behave well towards us. We possess an evolutionary instinct at the genetic level to nurture and protect our children. We extend that same inbuilt instinct to our relationships with our wider circle of friends and associates, because we have leant that we, and probably our descendents, will benefit as a result. One could argue that anonymous altruistic behaviour falls outside this model. I would suggest that our instincts are so strong that they compel many of us to extend this behaviour to people and animals that we will never meet, but whose pain we understand and about which we feel empathy. I would accept that this does not appear to be rational behaviour, but I would submit that it satisfies our fundamental need to feel that we matter, when much of what we experience indicates that we do not.

I do not agree that I confuse emotional responses with rational reflections. Nor do I need to prove that our innate sense of right and wrong matches reality. Often it does not.

You argue that Humanism is a religion, on the grounds that Humanists hold onto a non-verifiable premise (that there is no God) and that it mandates a morality. I would dispute that this defines a religion. Religion requires a belief in the supernatural. By extension your argument would imply that of all humanity, only agnostics are non-religious, (and arguably not even them), which make the word religion pretty meaningless.

Humanists try to lead moral and fulfilled lives for logical reasons rather than just “feelings”. You say it is all about feelings; not about the logic that flows from materialism. (I’m assuming that you are using materialism in the philosophical sense.) I don’t agree. Feelings and logic are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, we can have feelings as a result of a logical decision. So, for instance, assume I decide that I must punish my child for bad behaviour. I feel bad about doing this, but experience tells me that if I do not then the child will not learn that this behaviour will not be helpful to them in later life. This feeling does not alter the logic behind the decision. Frequently one feeds off the other.

If when you use the phrase “Loving your neighbour as yourself” you use it in the same sense as “Do unto others as you would have them do to you”, then, yes we agree that this is a humanist viewpoint. And, yes, I think this model is an appropriate way for all humans to behave, because logically we all benefit.

And I am not saying it is “OK” for non-Humanists to oppress their fellow men. If within a society different people behave in fundamentally different ways, then society breaks down. That ironically is one of the practical strengths of a widespread common tribal religion. It binds people together in a common framework for living in harmony as a society. That does not make the beliefs of that religion any truer, but people go along with it as a shared statement of their view on morality and ethics.

Regarding “objective morality” – I use it in the sense of a moral view shared by most humans in a society, and one which becomes accepted as correct in the same way as a scientific theory is accepted as correct. That is to say, it is not immutable, but because it has been found to work in the past, we accept it as a given, and teach it to our children. Objective morality is a purely human attribute and within our material world. It does not come from a supernatural source.

I disagree with your premise that the morality espoused by Humanists is merely emotional, as I have tried to explain. There are logical reasons for choosing what we regard as moral. I fail to see why you believe that because it arises out an evolutionary process, morality is merely emotional.

Materialism in the philosophical sense means that matter is the only reality, and that mind and the emotions are functions of this reality, so I agree that materialism in itself does not “recognize” morality, but materialism is but a part of being a Humanist.

I have already argued why I dispute your logic for the existence of God. Equally I dispute that I have “faith” that there is no God. There is a huge difference between your stance that: “It is the certain knowledge, imparted by God, of His reality” – and my stance, which remains, “I cannot disprove God any more than I can disprove the existence of fairies, but on the basis of material evidence, the significantly most likely answer is that there is no God.”

Furthermore, if there is an omnipotent God, then nothing I can do will make any difference. Therefore I choose to live my life as if there is no God. Is that not more rational than your stance?

I do not deny that, to me, my life matters. It also matters to those who are directly affected by my existence. But in cosmic terms, no, my life does not matter any more than that of a housefly. And it does not worry me that it does not matter. Wanting it to matter, and assuming because of this that there “must” be more to life is not logical.

Raymond, I am sorry but you totally ignored what I said about Bible bashing. I consider myself a Christian but even I am finding your heavy handed approach beginning to give me mental indigestion. Will you stop using this blog as some kind of preaching platform – it is way over the top.

“Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God” (Deut. 7:9). This quality is essential to His being, without it He would not be God. For God to be unfaithful would be to act contrary to His nature, which is impossible. “If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself’ (2 Tim. 2:13). Faithfulness is one of the glorious perfections of His being. He is clothed with it: “O LORD God of hosts, who is a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee?” (Ps. 89:8). So too when God became incarnate it was said, “Righteousness shall be the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness the girdle of His reins” (Isa. 11:5).

What a word in Psalm 36:5, “Thy mercy, O LORD, is in the heavens; and Thy faithfulness unto the clouds.” Far above all finite comprehension is the unchanging faithfulness of God. Everything about God is great, vast, imcomparable. He never forgets, never fails, never falters, never forfeits His word. To every declaration of promise or prophecy the Lord has exactly adhered; every engagement of covenant or threatening He will make good, for “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Num. 23:19). Therefore does the believer exclaim, “His compassions fail not, they are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness” (Lam. 3:22-33).

Scripture abounds in illustrations of God’s faithfulness. More than 4,000 years ago He said, “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Gen. 8:22). Every year furnishes a fresh witness to God’s fulfillment of this promise. In Genesis 15 Jehovah declared unto Abraham, “thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them . . . But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again” (vv. 13-16). Centuries ran their weary course. Abraham’s descendants groaned amid the brickkilns of Egypt. Had God forgotten His promise? No, indeed. Exodus 12:41, “And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” Through Isaiah the Lord declared, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). Again centuries passed, but “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4).

God is true. His Word of promise is sure. In all His relations with His people God is faithful. He may be safely relied upon. No one ever yet really trusted Him in vain. We find this precious truth expressed almost everywhere in the Scriptures, for His people need to know that faithfulness is an essential part of the divine character. This is the basis of our confidence in Him. But it is one thing to accept the faithfulness of God as a divine truth, it is quite another to act upon it. God has given us many “exceeding great and precious promises,” but are we really counting on His fulfillment of them? Do we actually expect Him to do for us all that He has said? Are we resting with implicit assurance on these words, “He is faithful that promised” (Heb. 10:23).

There are seasons in the lives of all when it is not easy, not even for Christians, to believe that God is faithful. Our faith is sorely tried, our eyes dimmed with tears, and we can no longer trace the outworking of His love. Our ears are distracted with the noises of the world, harassed by the atheistic whisperings of Satan, and we can no longer hear the sweet accents of His still small voice. Cherished plans have been thwarted, friends on whom we relied have failed us, a professed brother or sister in Christ has betrayed us. We are staggered. We sought to be faithful to God, and now a dark cloud hides Him from us.

We find it difficult, yes, impossible, for carnal reasons to harmonize His frowning providence with His gracious promises. Ah, faltering soul, seek grace to heed Isaiah 50:10, “Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God.”

When you are tempted to doubt the faithfulness of God, cry out, “Get thee hence, Satan.” Though you cannot now harmonize God’s mysterious dealings with the avowals of His love, wait on Him for more light. In His own good time He will make it plain to you. “What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter” (John 13:7). The sequel will demonstrate that God has neither forsaken nor deceived His child. “And therefore will the LORD wait that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him” (Isa. 30:18).

“Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace,
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.
Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take,
The clouds ye so much dread,
Are rich with mercy, and shall break
In blessing o’er your head.”

“Thy testimonies which thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful” (Ps. 119:138). God has not only told us the best, but also He has not withheld the worst. He has faithfully described the ruin which the fall effected; He has faithfully diagnosed the terrible state which sin produced; He has faithfully made known His inveterate hatred of evil, and that He must punish the same; He has faithfully warned us that He is “a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). Not only does His Word abound in illustrations of His fidelity in fulfilling His promises, but also it records numerous examples of His faithfulness in making good His threatenings. Every stage of Israel’s history exemplifies that solemn fact. So it was with individuals: Pharaoh, Korah, Achan, and a host of others are many proofs. Thus it will be with you. Unless you have fled, or flee, to Christ for refuge, the everlasting burning of the lake of fire will be your certain portion. God is faithful.

God is faithful in preserving His people. “God is faithful, by whom ye are called unto the fellowship of His Son” (1 Cor. 1:9). In the previous verse a promise was made that God would confirm unto the end His own people. The apostle’s confidence in the absolute security of believers was founded not on the strength of their resolutions or ability to persevere, but on the veracity of the One who cannot lie. Since God has promised to His Son a certain people for His inheritance, to deliver them from sin and condemnation, and to become the participants of eternal life in glory, it is certain that He will not allow any of them to perish.

God is faithful in disciplining His people. He is faithful in what He withholds, no less than in what He gives. He is faithful in sending sorrow as well as in giving joy. The faithfulness of God is a truth to be confessed by us not only when we are at ease, but also when we are smarting under the sharpest rebuke. Nor must this confession be merely of our mouths, but of our hearts also. When God smites us with the rod of chastisement, it is faithfulness which wields it. To acknowledge this means that we humble ourselves before Him, own that we fully deserve His correction; and instead of murmuring, thank Him for it. God never afflicts without a reason: “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you” (1 Cor. 11:30), illustrates this principle. When His rod falls on us let us say with Daniel, “O LORD, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces” (Dan. 9:7).

“I know, O LORD, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me” (Ps. 119:75). Trouble and affliction are not only consistent with God’s love pledged in the everlasting covenant, but also they are parts of the administration of the same. God is not only faithful, notwithstanding afflictions, but faithful in sending them. “Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes: my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail” (Ps. 89:32-33). Chastening is not only reconcilable with God’s lovingkindness, but also it is the effect and expression of it. It would quiet the minds of God’s people if they would remember that His covenant love binds Him to lay on them seasonable correction. Afflictions are necessary for us: “In their affliction they will seek me early” (Hosea 5:15).

God is faithful in glorifying His people. “Faithful is he which calleth you, who also will do” (1 Thess. 5:24). The immediate reference here is to saints being “preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” God treats us not on the ground of our merits (for we have none), but for His own great name’s sake. God is constant to Himself and to His own purpose of grace “whom he called . . . them he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30). God gives a full demonstration of the constancy of His everlasting goodness toward His elect by effectually calling them out of darkness into His marvelous light. This should fully assure them of the certain continuance of it. “The foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2:19). Paul rested on the faithfulness of God when he said, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day”
(2 Tim. 1:12).

Apprehension of this blessed truth will preserve us from worry. To be full of care, to view our situation with dark forebodings, to anticipate the morrow with sad anxiety, is to reflect upon the faithfulness of God. He who has cared for His child through all the years, will not forsake him in old age. He who has heard your prayers in the past, will not refuse to supply your need in the present emergency. Rest on Job 5:19, “He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall be no evil touch thee.”

Apprehension of this truth will check our murmurings. The Lord knows what is best for each of us. One effect of resting on this truth will be to silence our petulant complainings. God is greatly honored when, under trial and chastening, we have good thoughts of Him, vindicate His wisdom and justice, and recognize His love in His rebukes.

Apprehension of this truth will breed increasing confidence in God. “Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator” (1 Pet. 4:19). The sooner we trustfully resign ourselves, and all our affairs into God’s hands, fully persuaded of His love and faithfulness, the sooner we will be satisfied with His providences and realize that “He doeth all things well.”

AW PINK – 1886-1952

——————————————————————————–

I support what Ian says, my own wife works and we share household chores. Ian is also correct re. American Fundamentalism – it is easy to bracket anyone but please do
so knowing what they believe and what they practice.

Thanks a lot

The F word was used in relation to anger if you read down. Such was totally inappropriate on this blog !

If both spouses have to work out, the husband must do his share of the work his wife had not time to do. That is the only loving thing to do. how can he love his wife as Christ loved the Church if he sits watching the TV while his wife makes the meals and does all the housework?

Nothing I or the other brethren have said suggested otherwise. Listen carefully, please: ‘Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her…So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself…let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself.’ Ephesians 5:25-33.

No space there for neglect, never mind abuse.

I’m not looking for any fight, nor have i deliberately misrepresented you. You proclaim the Christ/Church model of marriage is not good, so I asked what you meant by that – was Paul mistaken about it regards the husband/wife? Or was he mistaken about Christ’s relationship to the Church? Simple questions.

‘male domination is the last thing *anyone* should be encouraging, let alone Christians.’

The Biblical model is not domination, but loving leadership. That there are those who abuse it does not invalidate the idea, any more than unfaithful spouses invalidate the idea of marriage.

Depends what brand of fundamentalist Christianity one means. Irish Baptists? Scottish Free Presbyterians? English Brethren? Or some crazies spouting religious slogans and running harems?

‘Fundamentalist’ covers all sorts, much like ‘Evangelical’ or Christian’ does. To blanket all by the behaviour of some is totally idiotic. It’s like saying English people are snobs.

I hesitate to call myself a fundamentalist as sometimes it denotes Christians opposed to Reformed theology, and I’m a Calvinist. But if by it one means those who hold to the Bible as the infallible word of God and hold to all its basic teachings, then I’m a fundamentalist.

Anyone who abuses their wife or kids is a disgrace to the name of Christian. It calls into question their claim, as much as being a thief, rapist or murderer.

The Christ/Church model of Husband/Wife absolutely demands the husband love his wife and seek for her welfare in everything, as Christ does the Church. That can never cause abuse.

I really appreciate your input, Jim. But I do realise we both may have other pressing things to attend to, so do feel free to respond as you wish.

‘For now just one statement and one question for you if I may:

The statement: I cannot disprove the existence of God, any more than you can prove His existence, as I think I have said before. I discount the existence of the Christian God because my experience informs me that the evidence against so far outweighs the evidence for. If there were a truly omnipotent God it really would not matter what I believed. If I have implied at any time that I know God does not exist I apologise. That is not what I had intended to communicate’

I do agree that proof is beyond either of our abilities. From my side, it is God alone who can open the eyes of the unbeliever. He uses Christians to bring His word to the lost, but He must empower it.

Thanks for the clarification about knowing God does not exist.

‘The question: Could I ask you to summarize your “logical reasons why God exists”?’

Sure. In addition to the internal reasons I have for believing god exists (the witness of His Spirit to my spirit), there are external things that strongly suggest the existence of God:
1. The astounding complexity of life. The idea that it could have come from non-life by a continuous process over billions of years requires matter to have an inbuilt bias toward life, or the throwing of chance’s coin an infinite number of times until sentient life emerged. The first imputes magic to matter, the latter is beyond credibility – there is not enough time nor space to account for it, other than an amazing lucjy throw.

2. The magnificence of the universe as a whole. Such immensity, beauty, complexity suggest an Intelligent Creator like the god revealed in the Bible.

3. Our awareness of personhood – we feel we are more than complex chemical reactions. For persons to exist demands a Person to create them.

4. Our awareness of good and evil. We sense the spiritual world when we face extreme examples of behaviour. It seems to be driven from a source outside mankind.

I didn’t notice any foul language, if there is any. What *are* you talking about? Use * instead of key letters to clean up the words, but please provide an example.

“I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him.” Micah 7:9

It is a view of our sins against God that enables us to bear the indignation of the Lord against us and them. As long as we are left to a spirit of pride and self-righteousness, we murmur at the Lord’s dealings when his hand lies heavy upon us. But let us only truly feel what we rightly deserve: that will silence at once all murmuring. You may murmur and rebel sometimes at your hard lot in providence; but if you feel what you deserve, it will make you water with tears of repentance the hardest cross. So in grace, if you feel the weight of your sins, and mourn and sigh because you have sinned against God, you can lift up your hands sometimes with holy wonder at God’s long-suffering mercy that he has borne with you so long; that he has not smitten you to the earth, or sent your guilty soul to hell. You will see, too, that the heaviest strokes were but fatherly chastenings; that the rod was dipped in love; and that it was for your good and his glory that it was laid on. When this sense of merited indignation comes into the soul, then meekness and submission come with it, and it can say with the prophet, “I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him.” You would not escape the rod if you might. As Cowper says,

“Bastards may escape the rod,

Sunk in earthly, vain delight;

But the true-born child of God

Must not, would not if he might.”

J.C. Philpot – 1802-1869

“My question is, Where is the “Christ” in fundamentalist Christianity? I have come to the conclusion that Christ is nowhere in fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist Christianity isn’t about Christ at all. It’s about maintaining at all costs a traditional, patriarchal society in which women are subservient and the church has the ultimate authority over the people.”

http://open.salon.com/blog/hollycomesalive/2008/12/09/unlearning_the_culture_of_fundamentalist_christianity

Regarding the original topic, I reacted to an off-message sermon preached in the UK by a clergyman with strong anti-feminist beliefs. His vision of marriage is profoundly emotionally damaging and this is vividly demonstrated by what happens when it’s enthusiastically applied.

In America this view of marriage, known as Patriarchal Marriage, Quiverfull and various other names, is creating nightmares. Its proponents find themselves in criminal and civil courts: child abuse and neglect, domestic violence, and finally divorce.

Because, of course, once you buy into the idea that wives should subject themselves in all things to their husbands, this rapidly extends to the children – daughters in particular – again using the Bible as authority.

To keep their families away from those who might pollute them with ideas of equality BP believers tend to home school. Having isolated themselves, the families turn in on themselves, and become cults, with the central plank being that the man’s authority is unquestionable.

Domestic violence is an obvious result of this situation and it is not only the wives who suffer. Children have been beaten to death for disobedience. More commonly, it seems to lead to misery and psychiatric illness. Many fundamentalist women seem to enter these marriages full of devout enthusiasm and joy, only to find themselves desperately unhappy and often with health problems. In some cases it’s the effect on their children that finally convinces them to leave.

If you Google the terms I’ve mentioned you’ll find some truly horrifying stuff which spells out the almost inevitable harm done to very ordinary men by being cast in a godlike role for which they lack the intellect or the character.

On a more cheerful note, there are many blogs and sites about women and children who have escaped. There’s a good one at http://nolongerquivering.com/

Here’s a representative quote:

“When I shut off my brain and became willing to do whatever Mark said, he was delighted. Absolutely delighted. And everything changed. Everything. The first thing he did was give me a list on how I was to clean the bathroom. I had daily chores and weekly chores from him, down to minute details.

I remember the first day I followed his list. I was humiliated. It was as if I was a child again and he was the parent. I told him that, too (in a humbled and submissive way, of course) and he smiled and said, “Exactly. Your parents did a terrible job of raising you when it comes to cleaning, and now God has given you to me so that I can raise you and help you become the way you should be.”

I worked through the humiliation, swallowed my feelings (something I would do daily from there on out) and soon obeying Mark’s whims and will became the norm. There wasn’t really much choice. I mean, every time I didn’t obey Mark, even in the slightest thing, I was in rebellion against God and in league with Satan.

Plus, if Mark wasn’t there to patiently and gently correct my rebellion, my own head would do it, so fearful I was at being the rebellious woman that the prophetic word from God had warned me about. No. I loved God and because of that, I *would* obey my husband and do it cheerfully.”

Shudder… She (and her seven kids) are free now.

We may not have this nonsense here, but with two women a week dying in the UK at the hands of a partner or ex-partner, male domination is the last thing *anyone* should be encouraging, let alone Christians.

John, It is easy to blame women for the growing inadequacies of some men in society but they have to take responsibity for their own actions and behaviour. I would suggest that in some cases it is about time that they grew up and showed more consideration towards their partners as perhaps they have had their own way for too long. Yes, more is expected of men today, as they no longer have servants to run around after them as few can afford to keep servants as families did in past centuries. Even in Christ’s time many families employed servants and the wife oversaw her household – she did not do the basic work herself.

Today, due to the economic pressures of our society, few can afford to pay for help and women have to work to help to pay the mortgage to keep a roof over the heads of her family – both partners have no choice but to work in order to pay their bills. This is the hard reality of life today. Perhaps you, John, Ian and Raymond are not faced by these difficult realities of modern life. It is for basic practical reasons that both partners have to pull together in a relationship; they have little choice if the family is going to remain together and their children be given a secure and protected home in which to grow up.

Raymond, I really think that your constant throwing chunks of scripture into the discussion is not helping the situation and can be desc ribed as vexatious. Much of what is being quoted has little or nothing to do with comments prior to your post. It does sometimes seem as if you are going off at a tangent and intend to inflame the situation rather than shed helpful light on what concerns people.

I wonder what Christ would think if he was here now? Even he lost his temper at times – with the money changers in the Temple for example. I would expect he would view some of the comments as deliberately vexatious and would reprimand those concerned. Can we have a little less of the Bible thumping and a lot more humility in comments made.

As I said some posts ago, we will be judged by how we live every day and how we treat those around us, not by how often we thump the Bible . The only exception to this is the instruction to “Love your neighbour as thyself” – the greatest and most practical instruction of all, which is relevant to both Christians and non believers, as it is practical advice about daily life and getting on with our fellow human beings whoever they are and whatever they believe.

I *don’t* agree with it. I think it’s a profoundly misguided interpretation of Christ’s truth. Were Jesus among us, people promoting such nonsense could expect a kick in the pants.’

I take it you mean Paul was mistaken and in line for a kicking too? What does that do for Christianity’s source of doctrine? If the apostle was in error on this, what else may be mistaken? Do we just pick the bits we like? What if ‘love you enemies’ was merely a safe social teaching for a small minority church, but should be cast aside when we get enough power to persecute the wicked?

‘What I meant by “if you want to take the Saviour’s role in marriage, you’ve got to find a woman who’s prepared to play church” was that, as time passes, men with your views will find it increasingly difficult to find a bride. Are you sure you misunderstood?’

No, I understood fully. Your point about fewer faithful women may well be true – just as women will find fewer faithful men who will love them as Christ loved the Church. Sin brings its own consequences.

But your statement revealed a more important premise – that to achieve your idea of equality one has to get rid of Christ’s authority over the Church, and the Church’s submission to Him. You have not answered that, so I’m asking it again.

‘Women expect to enter a Christian marriage as partners now, with equal dignity and value. Most men want this too. I see it all around me.’

Quite so.

‘We’re living through a process of transition. There are still women who accept inequality, but there are fewer of them with every decade that passes. Eventually men with your ideas will find that all the women have married someone else. Those who can’t keep up will be left behind.’

If that ever comes to pass, it would be better to be left behind:
‘Proverbs 21:9 Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop,
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.’

Some ideas only work in one direction and human rights is one. Just as we’re not going to return to the days when owning slaves was acceptable, so we are watching the old beliefs about the submission of women slowly disappear forever. We see it happening within the Church, in the world, and in other faiths. And as change happens there is conflict between the past and the future. It’s what this debate is all about. But you are powerless to stop this process, and I believe you know this.’

Human rights is most expressed when humans live in accordance with God’s law. Rebellion against His way leads to dysfunctionality and oppression.

‘I find it sad that anyone can define marriage in a way that’s so limited and limiting. The submission of one partner to the other may make a good sex game, but it can never provide the blessings that come from a marriage freely entered into as loving comrades.’

Christian marriage of the Christ/church model is one of loving comrades. As with Adam & Eve in their original state. Even in this world’s affairs, loving comradeship need not imply no leader. A band of brothers in warfare may love each other to the point of giving their lives to save the other, but some will have a leadership role and some follow.

‘My own marriage gave us both such joy and although he died when our youngest child was seven, memories of our love and partnership still console me. When life is hard, I remind myself of his constant faith and confidence in my abilities and my strength.’

I’m sorry for your loss, and glad of your happy memories. The marriage set forth in Scripture does not have the wife as a silent slave, but as the skilled helper of the husband and carer and teacher of her kids. All this within the husband’s headship/wife’s submission role. They are absolutely equal before God, but each has their role in marriage and the church. Just as elders rule and deacons serve and each member has his/her own gift. We cannot say each member has the right to rule in the church. But all are equal before God.

‘Throughout this debate your attitude can be summed up by the sentence “I speak for all Christians because anyone who disagrees with me can’t, by definition, be a Christian.”’

I have never said that, nor do I believe it. Many Christians are in error, but that does not mean they are no longer Christians. Their error needs correcting, and that’s why other Christians point them back to the Word. There are of course those who deny the basics of the faith while holding on to the name, and are indeed not true Christians.

‘It’s not an argument that commands respect. And of course it isn’t true. ‘

Quite so. Glad I didn’t make it.

‘However much you dislike it, what I’m saying reflects what most Christians in the C of E believe. Similarly I know that there are still plenty of Christians in this country, especially Catholics, who would agree with your position. You know perfectly well that there is Biblical support for both our positions.’

There is plenty of supporters for both positions, but not Biblical support. You have to make bits of the Bible erroneous if your position is true. Christians who do that have lost the right to call themselves Christian. They are making up their religion as they go.

‘Equality in terms of race and sex moves us closer to Christ’s vision for us.’

Equality has nothing to do with our roles in life. We are all equal before God, but each has their role in the family and church.

‘The unhealthy view of marriage you support is gradually becoming an error Christianity has outgrown,’

It is a teaching of the Bible. When we outgrow that, we have outgrown Christ.

‘just as other evils have become history. In the past Scripture was used to justify slavery.’

It was misused, not used. Just as some today are selecting bits of the Bible that teach our equality before God and trying to make that deny our different roles in marriage and the church. We have to obey ALL God tells us, not ignore some bits.

‘It has been used by the wealthy to justify their privilege and deny the landless a vote.’

Again, using YOUR approach to the Bible, not mine. Mine warns the rich against exploitation and threatens hell-fire.

‘Using it to deny women their dignity as equal partners in marriage is a similar misuse of Christ’s message.’

No, it’s not. I can bring ALL the Bible says about our roles in marriage to the table. You have to keep out big chunks.

‘I don’t expect you’ve noticed but, however much I disagree with you, I have never said you weren’t a Christian.’

That brings me little comfort, however. I’m in there with all sorts of deniers of the Bible.

‘You are not, however, a Christian who provides a good or elevating example. Your arrogance, your intellectual dishonesty and your discourtesy to anyone who disagrees with you provide a marked contrast to Jim, a non-believer, and other posters whose faith results in uplifting insights. The mote/beam analogy deserves a bit of attention, Ian.’

If you care to point to any examples of these allegations, I will be happy to address them. But take note that holding that the Bible is always true in ALL that it asserts is not a mark of arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, or discourtesy. You will need some others grounds for your claims.

I do appreciate you are coming to this emotive subject with a presupposition that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, and so many of its teaching will seem offensive. Maybe you should ask yourself if it is my perceived failings that bother you or is it the Bible itself – that would make our dialogue clearer. Thanks.

For now just one statement and one question for you if I may:

The statement: I cannot disprove the existence of God, any more than you can prove His existence, as I think I have said before. I discount the existence of the Christian God because my experience informs me that the evidence against so far outweighs the evidence for. If there were a truly omnipotent God it really would not matter what I believed. If I have implied at any time that I know God does not exist I apologise. That is not what I had intended to communicate

The question: Could I ask you to summarize your “logical reasons why God exists”?

Other responses to follow….
Thanks
Jim

I’m sorry there is evident misunderstanding of what is being said. Please consider it may be you that is misunderstanding what I’m saying, and I will try to carefully follow your arguments.

I said:
I’ll just leave you with this point: humanists may well want to love their fellow-man, but if their key premise (there is no God) is true then material is ALL we are.

Jim’s response:
‘Yes, we are all just “material”. Why is that a problem from a logical perspective?’

It’s not. The problem comes when one tries to say bits of this material are more important than others.

‘The fact that there is nothing supernatural does not mean we cannot feel human emotions and behave in a “moral” way.’

Certainly. And I think this is where you make a jump in logic. It is perfectly logical to be kind to one another based on our desire to ‘feel’ good, to not resist our innate sense that this is the right thing to do . But it is not logical to think such behaviour is ACTUALLY any better than oppressing our fellow-man. If materialism is true, both actions are equally insignificant. There is no good or evil, just different behaviours.

‘Furthermore, the fact that there is no God does not make our lives pointless, as I have tried to explain.’

Logically, it does. We are just passing chemical reactions in a vast universe. Neither the universe nor ourselves has any point. It just IS.

I said:
Rationally, there is then no significance to whether we do good to others or abuse them. Most of us fell better by doing them good, but some feel better by destroying them. Humanism cannot logically say one course is right and one wrong – they are just different. The humanist has his/her preference, but that is in no way superior to anyone else’s.

Jim’s response:
‘Wrong! Utterly, utterly wrong! You recall my explanation of the mother whale’s apparently selfless act and the Group A/Group B analysis. Why can you not understand that it is perfectly possible for humans to rationally behave in a moral way without the need for a supernatural head prefect?’

Again, you confuse emotional responses with rational reflection: our innate sense of right and wrong puts emotional pressure on us to adopt this morality. We struggle with bad conscience if we do not.

But that does not prove our innate sense of right and wrong matches reality. The evolutionist holds that such senses are merely the result of natural selection – they have an evolutionary benefit. If ruthless hedonism had higher benefits, then we would feel quite differently. However, evolution has not only provided us with a built-in program for compassion, etc. – it also has given us the ability of rational SELF_REFLECTION. We can stand back from our emotional responses and examine them for what they are. We then recognise there is no actual good or evil, no actual significance to life over non-life. We rationally see that our moral feelings are just that – feelings. Not the recognition of an actual morality.

‘And indeed as we daily witness, some humans do decide to do bad things, all the time.’

Many do this against their better ‘feelings’, and have to deal with their consciences accordingly. Some seem to have very little better feelings to begin with – the evolutionist will say this is a genetic difference.

‘Indeed it could equally be argued that they behave like that precisely because there is no higher power directing their sense of morality. If we mess up our children, or those for whom we have responsibility, there are consequences!’

Only in this life, if materialism is true. Many can get away with great evil and die in luxury and contentment.

‘“Humanism” does not “say” anything. It is not a religion.’

Seems like one to me. It holds to a non-verifiable premise: there is no God, and it mandates a morality.

‘Humanists try to live moral and fulfilled lives.’

Indeed.

‘Why? Because of everything I have been saying. We know that we can feel fulfilled and satisfied with our lives if we leave the World a better place to our children. In the meantime we can try to enjoy our lives, whilst respecting our fellow humans.’

Again, all about feelings, not about the logic that flows from materialism.

‘And do not think that anyone who does not admit to belief in the supernatural is a conscientious Humanist, or even a Humanist at all. Many humans can believe in nothing beyond where their next meal is coming from. That is indeed tragic, and something that we can all agree is unacceptable.’

Quite so. But it is just as rational of them as the Humanist position, if materialism is true. So your view that it is ‘tragic’ cannot be other than your subjective feeling about it.

I said:
For the humanist to think love is superior for everyone means that they in reality do believe there is an objective morality. A morality that exists no matter how many or how few hold to it. A morality that does not originate in human thought. And so the spiritual world is revealed, a world beyond the material one.

Jim’s response:
‘Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t recall ever stating that Humanists think love is superior for everyone (what does that really mean anyway?).’

I don’t recall you saying it, but I took it from your morality that loving your neighbour as yourself was the only right thing for all people, not just Humanists. Are you saying it is OK for non-Humanists to oppress their fellow-man?

‘Assuming that one accepts the concept of an “objective morality” (and again we’d need to be clear we both had the same understanding of the term if we are to purpsue this) how on Earth do you make the huge and unsubstantiated leap to a spirit world being revealed. Now there’s a logical disconnect if ever there was one.’

The only reason an objective morality can exist is if there is something beyond the material world. Materialism can mandate no morality. Things just are. To get a morality that is true for all people at all times, one must look outside the material universe. Or do you have another source of objective morality?

‘I don’t think I will ever change your point of view, and that’s fine, but please do not assume that you are equipped to explain what Humanists believe, and from thence dismiss their belief as illogical, whilst you remain unwilling to engage in any rational analysis and logical argument that does not include God.’

That’s what I’m trying to figure out here. You present your view of humanism, I point out that its morality (mostly fine) must be merely emotional if it comes from purely evolutionary sources. I point out that materialism recognises no morality or even greater significance of one thing over another. I ask you to show where that is incorrect if you disagree.

‘The biggest divide between you and I is surely faith. Faith in a supernatural presence called God. Now, I can explain, using nothing but logic, why things are the way they are.’

But you ARE using faith as a key premise – that there is no God. You cannot know that. Especially when so many others tell you of their personal experience of God. They may be lying or deceived, but you cannot just dismiss their testimony and insist your premise is self-evident.

‘You cannot, because of this thing called faith, which is your alternative explanation.’

You mistake the nature of the Christian faith. It is not as commonly assumed, a leap in the dark. It is the certain sure knowledge, imparted by God, of His reality. And I can also give logical reasons why God exists.

‘I am not saying there is anything wrong with you holding this faith (so long as it is not used to oppress anyone), even if i do not pretend to understand it any more. But so long as you have this non-rational faith we remain on either side of a dividing wall.’

My faith is at least as rational as yours – you are the one living you life as if any of it really mattered, when your first premise makes all things equally of value. I know life matters, for my first premise insists upon it.

‘I will not presume to explain away religion. I would ask you in retrurn not to try to explain away Humanism.’

I hope I haven’t done that. I hope I have explained Humanism from both a materialistic and a Christian perspective.

Jesus the prince of peace = Matthew 21 v 12 . And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all those that bought or sold in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of those who sold doves13 AND SAID MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER ; BUT YE HAVE MADE IT A DEN OF THIEVES

AW PINK – 1886-1952

I *don’t* agree with it. I think it’s a profoundly misguided interpretation of Christ’s truth. Were Jesus among us, people promoting such nonsense could expect a kick in the pants.

What I meant by “if you want to take the Saviour’s role in marriage, you’ve got to find a woman who’s prepared to play church” was that, as time passes, men with your views will find it increasingly difficult to find a bride. Are you sure you misunderstood?

Women expect to enter a Christian marriage as partners now, with equal dignity and value. Most men want this too. I see it all around me. We’re living through a process of transition. There are still women who accept inequality, but there are fewer of them with every decade that passes. Eventually men with your ideas will find that all the women have married someone else. Those who can’t keep up will be left behind.

Some ideas only work in one direction and human rights is one. Just as we’re not going to return to the days when owning slaves was acceptable, so we are watching the old beliefs about the submission of women slowly disappear forever. We see it happening within the Church, in the world, and in other faiths. And as change happens there is conflict between the past and the future. It’s what this debate is all about. But you are powerless to stop this process, and I believe you know this.

I find it sad that anyone can define marriage in a way that’s so limited and limiting. The submission of one partner to the other may make a good sex game, but it can never provide the blessings that come from a marriage freely entered into as loving comrades.

My own marriage gave us both such joy and although he died when our youngest child was seven, memories of our love and partnership still console me. When life is hard, I remind myself of his constant faith and confidence in my abilities and my strength.

Throughout this debate your attitude can be summed up by the sentence “I speak for all Christians because anyone who disagrees with me can’t, by definition, be a Christian.”

It’s not an argument that commands respect. And of course it isn’t true. However much you dislike it, what I’m saying reflects what most Christians in the C of E believe. Similarly I know that there are still plenty of Christians in this country, especially Catholics, who would agree with your position. You know perfectly well that there is Biblical support for both our positions.

Equality in terms of race and sex moves us closer to Christ’s vision for us. The unhealthy view of marriage you support is gradually becoming an error Christianity has outgrown, just as other evils have become history. In the past Scripture was used to justify slavery. It has been used by the wealthy to justify their privilege and deny the landless a vote. Using it to deny women their dignity as equal partners in marriage is a similar misuse of Christ’s message.

I don’t expect you’ve noticed but, however much I disagree with you, I have never said you weren’t a Christian. You are not, however, a Christian who provides a good or elevating example. Your arrogance, your intellectual dishonesty and your discourtesy to anyone who disagrees with you provide a marked contrast to Jim, a non-believer, and other posters whose faith results in uplifting insights. The mote/beam analogy deserves a bit of attention, Ian.

I will try to make it as clear as I can in a short(ish) post, addressing each of your points in turn:

You said:
I’ll just leave you with this point: humanists may well want to love their fellow-man, but if their key premise (there is no God) is true then material is ALL we are.

My response:
Yes, we are all just “material”. Why is that a problem from a logical perspective?
The fact that there is nothing supernatural does not mean we cannot feel human emotions and behave in a “moral” way.
Furthermore, the fact that there is no God does not make our lives pointless, as I have tried to explain.

You said:
Rationally, there is then no significance to whether we do good to others or abuse them. Most of us fell better by doing them good, but some feel better by destroying them. Humanism cannot logically say one course is right and one wrong – they are just different. The humanist has his/her preference, but that is in no way superior to anyone else’s.

My response:
Wrong! Utterly, utterly wrong! You recall my explanation of the mother whale’s apparently selfless act and the Group A/Group B analysis. Why can you not understand that it is perfectly possible for humans to rationally behave in a moral way without the need for a supernatural head prefect?
And indeed as we daily witness, some humans do decide to do bad things, all the time. Indeed it could equally be argued that they behave like that precisely because there is no higher power directing their sense of morality. If we mess up our children, or those for whom we have responsibility, there are consequences!
“Humanism” does not “say” anything. It is not a religion. Humanists try to live moral and fulfilled lives. Why? Because of everything I have been saying. We know that we can feel fulfilled and satisfied with our lives if we leave the World a better place to our children. In the meantime we can try to enjoy our lives, whilst respecting our fellow humans.
And do not think that anyone who does not admit to belief in the supernatural is a conscientious Humanist, or even a Humanist at all. Many humans can believe in nothing beyond where their next meal is coming from. That is indeed tragic, and something that we can all agree is unacceptable.

You said:
For the humanist to think love is superior for everyone means that they in reality do believe there is an objective morality. A morality that exists no matter how many or how few hold to it. A morality that does not originate in human thought. And so the spiritual world is revealed, a world beyond the material one.

My response:
Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t recall ever stating that Humanists think love is superior for everyone (what does that really mean anyway?).
Assuming that one accepts the concept of an “objective morality” (and again we’d need to be clear we both had the same understanding of the term if we are to purpsue this) how on Earth do you make the huge and unsubstantiated leap to a spirit world being revealed. Now there’s a logical disconnect if ever there was one.

I don’t think I will ever change your point of view, and that’s fine, but please do not assume that you are equipped to explain what Humanists believe, and from thence dismiss their belief as illogical, whilst you remain unwilling to engage in any rational analysis and logical argument that does not include God.

The biggest divide between you and I is surely faith. Faith in a supernatural presence called God. Now, I can explain, using nothing but logic, why things are the way they are. You cannot, because of this thing called faith, which is your alternative explanation. I am not saying there is anything wrong with you holding this faith (so long as it is not used to oppress anyone), even if i do not pretend to understand it any more. But so long as you have this non-rational faith we remain on either side of a dividing wall.

I will not presume to explain away religion. I would ask you in retrurn not to try to explain away Humanism.

We haven’t agreed on much, Sophie, but we do on this. I’m glad you acknowledge the Christian concept of marriage is supposed to be the Saviour/church relationship: loving leadership/loving respect.

It is a pity you want to dismiss that relationship in favour of joint authority. Is it just in the marriage bond you think this desirable, or do you think the church should abandon submission to Christ in favour of joint rule?

I won’t rely in detail to your post, as you indicate you want to end it.

I’ll just leave you with this point: humanists may well want to love their fellow-man, but if their key premise (there is no God) is true then material is ALL we are.

Rationally, there is then no significance to whether we do good to others or abuse them. Most of us fell better by doing them good, but some feel better by destroying them. Humanism cannot logically say one course is right and one wrong – they are just different. The humanist has his/her preference, but that is in no way superior to anyone else’s.

For the humanist to think love is superior for everyone means that they in reality do believe there is an objective morality. A morality that exists no matter how many or how few hold to it. A morality that does not originate in human thought. And so the spiritual world is revealed, a world beyond the material one.

I also have experienced death at first hand – several times.
Having an 18yr old comrade’s head blown off by a single shot out of nowhere is an incredibly severe test (I was only 19 at the time), and it cannot but help affect one’s behaviour. I think the most profound effect on me has been to persuade me to try to root out prejudice, bigotry and tribalism wherever I find it, and to promote understanding and tolerance in its place.

I hope that readers will have understood my position, but I do not think one can “win” this kind of debate. In their own ways everyone has provided us with sincere and thoughtful insight which we value, and which helps us to become wiser.
Jim

I’ve talked many times with a doctor who’s been present at lots of deaths and believes in God largely because of it. He’s often witnessed what seem like reunions or welcomes. Occasionally the dying describe or speak to angels they see protecting them.

In his experience, horrific deaths are rare, and generally due to mental disease or inadequate symptom relief.

But then truly wicked people don’t tend to suffer from remorse or empathy, living or dying. Those who worry about the state of their souls are nearly always nice people who fret over every minor lapse.