Church of Scotland membership slips to new low
The incoming moderator of the Church of Scotland today admitted the Kirk has not been attractive enough to encourage would-be worshippers through its doors.
Rev David Lunan made the comments as figures show Church of Scotland membership has slumped below 500,000 to a new low.
Mr Lunan, who said he was not too despondent about the statistics, partly blamed society's materialism and pointed to a lack of children attending Sunday school.
But he conceded: "I think we have not probably been as attractive as we might have been. I think there's a lot of 'same old, same old' goes on."
The figures will be presented at the Kirk's General Assembly which begins next week in Edinburgh.
A report by the Church's legal questions committee shows that there were 489,118 communicants (members) last year, down from 504,363 in 2006 and 520,940 in 2005.
The number of new members joining each year has dropped by nearly 80% since 1981.
Mr Lunan, 63, who formerly held the post of clerk to the presbytery of Glasgow, is expected to take over from the current moderator of the Assembly - Rev Sheilagh Kesting - when it gets under way.
Asked to explain the drop in membership, he said the average age of church-goers was a factor he had noticed when visiting congregations.
Speaking at a news conference in Edinburgh, he said: "You are left with impression that most people who go to church no longer have their hair colour.
"The age profile of congregations would be, I think, over 50, maybe even over 60. And the average age of the congregation I served last in the centre of Glasgow was over 70.
| I think we have not probably been as attractive as we might have been | | Rev David Lunan |
|
"Most of our worshippers I'm seeing in the west of Scotland are elderly and, of course, the numbers have dropped.
"We used to worry about there not being young people around and that's still an issue. I'm concerned that we don't have children around. There are not the children in the way that I remember as I grew up.
"Even in churches that are doing not too badly there are not large Sunday schools."
He added that "external influences", such as the variety of things people can do on a Sunday morning, meant the Kirk was not attracting as many people as before.
"You have to be fairly committed to want to be in church, because there are other options," he said.
Mr Lunan added that people were often "shielded" from asking the deeper questions of life in our modern society.
He added: "Because people are cocooned in many ways by our material benefits they're maybe not asking some of the more searching questions until later."
But on the membership figures, he insisted: "I'm not unduly despondent about that. The Church has gone through worse times than this before."
He pointed to the "imaginative" work being done in deprived areas across Scotland, as well as to the dedication of current members.
Principal clerk to the General Assembly, the Very Rev Finlay Macdonald, pointed to figures in the same report which show that over 75,000 children are involved in congregations, while a further 19,400 adults go to church but are not on the official roll.
"You can add almost another 100,000 with children and folk who attend church but who aren't registered as members," he said.
"Compared with 30 or 40 years ago, the numbers are still down but it's not as gloomy as is sometimes made out. There are a lot of good things going on."
He also pointed out that 2.1 million people identified as being Church of Scotland in the last census.
Mr Lunan was born in London and raised in Cambuslang.
The father-of-four was ordained in 1970 and worked for 12 years in Moray before being called to Renfield St Stephen's Church in Glasgow.
He developed a keen interest in charity work and went on to become clerk to the presbytery of Glasgow in 2002.
Today, he pledged to make "prayer and money" the themes for his year as moderator.
Explaining the latter, he said: "We live in a money culture - almost every decision is taken on the basis of money.
"It undermines all the other values that not only we in the Church, but the whole of society should be addressing.
"Having developed an interest in what's happening in poorer countries throughout the world, you realise that money's at the heart of the problem there.
"We in the West have decided the terms of trade which ensure that half the world starves, This cannot be right."
Mr Lunan will formally take over the honorary role on Thursday May 15, subject to the Assembly's approval.
The annual gathering will run until May 21.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Rab Jones, Glasgow on 3:27pm Thu 8 May 08
I think religion in general is slipping altogether.
The longer time progresses and the more science evolves, the less believable the Bible becomes.
Here's a few examples that are hard to believe.
* A talking snake.
* Was a woman really made from a rib?
*Noah's ark. Surely there must have been some poisonous snakes/spiders etc on that ark. Did they kill some of the animals. Did all the animals survive? It must have been a massacre with those lions and zebras together.
*With a man called Jesus claiming he's the son of God and walking on water and coming back to life. Surely he was just a modern day David Blaine. A magician. If he existed at all.
Kids these days don't "buy" the church thing. Kids and grown men go to places like Ibrox, Celtic Park, Anfield, Old Trafford to worship their "gods."
Some Christians will brag that the Bible is the best selling book worldwide.
That's because the Bible has been on sale since the days people believed in witches, thought the world was flat and the moon made of cheese.
I wonder how many copies have been sold since 1998 and compare it to the amount of Harry Potter books that have been sold.
Religion is dying.
The reason why religion it is still so strong in Middle Eastern countries is because they still live in the dark ages. They stone their women to death and hang gay people.
Whoever wrote the bible could have been responsible for the biggest prank in history, and millions fell for it, went to war for it and died for it.
Who knows.
BTW - If Adam and Eve were "created" rather than born into the world, why do most drawings give then belly buttons. To get a belly button, surely you need to have had an umbiliacal cord.
Strange.
I think religion in general is slipping altogether.
The longer time progresses and the more science evolves, the less believable the Bible becomes.
Here's a few examples that are hard to believe.
* A talking snake.
* Was a woman really made from a rib?
*Noah's ark. Surely there must have been some poisonous snakes/spiders etc on that ark. Did they kill some of the animals. Did all the animals survive? It must have been a massacre with those lions and zebras together.
*With a man called Jesus claiming he's the son of God and walking on water and coming back to life. Surely he was just a modern day David Blaine. A magician. If he existed at all.
Kids these days don't "buy" the church thing. Kids and grown men go to places like Ibrox, Celtic Park, Anfield, Old Trafford to worship their "gods."
Some Christians will brag that the Bible is the best selling book worldwide.
That's because the Bible has been on sale since the days people believed in witches, thought the world was flat and the moon made of cheese.
I wonder how many copies have been sold since 1998 and compare it to the amount of Harry Potter books that have been sold.
Religion is dying.
The reason why religion it is still so strong in Middle Eastern countries is because they still live in the dark ages. They stone their women to death and hang gay people.
Whoever wrote the bible could have been responsible for the biggest prank in history, and millions fell for it, went to war for it and died for it.
Who knows.
BTW - If Adam and Eve were "created" rather than born into the world, why do most drawings give then belly buttons. To get a belly button, surely you need to have had an umbiliacal cord.
Strange.
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 3:39pm Thu 8 May 08
I would like the Church of Scotland (in which I was raised) and other established churches to remember what they are for.
There's certainly a function of 'like-minded people getting together to share praise' but, for me, the main purpose of a church - any church - is to do good work in the community and help the less-fortunate.
During my lifetime I've seen the Church of Scotland become a habit, a ritual for the smug and the self-satisfied. I have not seen an increase in the Church's work in the community.
Still, much of what I dislike about the Church of Scotland (and established churches in general) is not new. Burns captured it nicely in Holy Wullie's Prayer.
I would like the Church of Scotland (in which I was raised) and other established churches to remember what they are for.
There's certainly a function of 'like-minded people getting together to share praise' but, for me, the main purpose of a church - any church - is to do good work in the community and help the less-fortunate.
During my lifetime I've seen the Church of Scotland become a habit, a ritual for the smug and the self-satisfied. I have not seen an increase in the Church's work in the community.
Still, much of what I dislike about the Church of Scotland (and established churches in general) is not new. Burns captured it nicely in Holy Wullie's Prayer.
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 3:42pm Thu 8 May 08
The problem with organised religion in general is that the clergy, for some reason,focus on politics instead of focusing on the relevance of the tenets of their Christianity in everyday life and how that is a benfit to society. Both protestant and catholic churches are equally guilty of this focus on politcs. Also the training involved in becoming a representative of god on earth is totally inadequate, in that theology from the 17th & 18th century is still presented has relevant divinity studies,when in reality it creates a confused distant priest/minister who is ill equipped to promulgate and take forward the practical and mystical aspects of christianity. This is why a lot of people seek direct experince of divinity tghrough other froms of belief like the occult or paganism. Unless Christian churches can help a congregation to have a stronger link with god using mysticism and theurgy then , most scottish churches will cease to be relevant in Scottish culture.
The problem with organised religion in general is that the clergy, for some reason,focus on politics instead of focusing on the relevance of the tenets of their Christianity in everyday life and how that is a benfit to society. Both protestant and catholic churches are equally guilty of this focus on politcs. Also the training involved in becoming a representative of god on earth is totally inadequate, in that theology from the 17th & 18th century is still presented has relevant divinity studies,when in reality it creates a confused distant priest/minister who is ill equipped to promulgate and take forward the practical and mystical aspects of christianity. This is why a lot of people seek direct experince of divinity tghrough other froms of belief like the occult or paganism. Unless Christian churches can help a congregation to have a stronger link with god using mysticism and theurgy then , most scottish churches will cease to be relevant in Scottish culture.
Posted by: allymax, yuk on 3:59pm Thu 8 May 08
Seeing as the churgh/clergy were used as a 'enforcement' tool by the feudal land-lords of yester-year, why is it a surprise that the attendance rate of Scotish churches is 3%.
People somehow recognise now one of the the purposes of the church was a very manipulaitve process that only subjugated them to the 'laws-of-the-land' they were living on. And, divorce is only one aspect of these 'land-laws' set down by the feudal land-lord.
In the mid 18th century, during the 'clearances', the Church of Scotland went through enormous splits and fractions due to these land-lords fechtin'; people just got sick of following a church that demanded a tithe of personal expenditure towards a land-lord they hated. The church only has itself to blame for co-existing with these nasty nobles.
Will we see a resurgance of the church in Scotland? Only if the church can avoid being the poodle to the feudal master again.
Seeing as the churgh/clergy were used as a 'enforcement' tool by the feudal land-lords of yester-year, why is it a surprise that the attendance rate of Scotish churches is 3%.
People somehow recognise now one of the the purposes of the church was a very manipulaitve process that only subjugated them to the 'laws-of-the-land' they were living on. And, divorce is only one aspect of these 'land-laws' set down by the feudal land-lord.
In the mid 18th century, during the 'clearances', the Church of Scotland went through enormous splits and fractions due to these land-lords fechtin'; people just got sick of following a church that demanded a tithe of personal expenditure towards a land-lord they hated. The church only has itself to blame for co-existing with these nasty nobles.
Will we see a resurgance of the church in Scotland? Only if the church can avoid being the poodle to the feudal master again.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 4:04pm Thu 8 May 08
Since when has religion been about god? I suspect that as well as science and education making a big difference, people are beginning to realise that religion is not much different from belonging to a political party. Many people at some level very probably still believe in god but no longer see the relevance of religion to their lives.
Well except maybe to hatch, match and dispatch.
Since when has religion been about god? I suspect that as well as science and education making a big difference, people are beginning to realise that religion is not much different from belonging to a political party. Many people at some level very probably still believe in god but no longer see the relevance of religion to their lives.
Well except maybe to hatch, match and dispatch.
Posted by: Alistair, Edinburgh on 4:28pm Thu 8 May 08
Rab Jones: "Noah's ark. Surely there must have been some poisonous snakes/spiders etc on that ark."
What about the dinosaurs then? If the earth is only 6000 years old as the new earth creationists believe, at what point - and why - did God create dinosaur skeletons? Why weren't the dinosaurs on the ark - or maybe they were?
Rab Jones: "Noah's ark. Surely there must have been some poisonous snakes/spiders etc on that ark."
What about the dinosaurs then? If the earth is only 6000 years old as the new earth creationists believe, at what point - and why - did God create dinosaur skeletons? Why weren't the dinosaurs on the ark - or maybe they were?
Posted by: Paulo, Glasgow Scotland UNITED KINGDOM on 4:43pm Thu 8 May 08
There will be some seditionists appearing on this thread soon blaming Wendy for this.....
There will be some seditionists appearing on this thread soon blaming Wendy for this.....
Posted by: Rab Jones, Glasgow on 4:54pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote][bold]Alistair[/bold] wrote:
Rab Jones: "Noah's ark. Surely there must have been some poisonous snakes/spiders etc on that ark." What about the dinosaurs then? If the earth is only 6000 years old as the new earth creationists believe, at what point - and why - did God create dinosaur skeletons? Why weren't the dinosaurs on the ark - or maybe they were?[/quote] It's amazing that Noah managed to survive, getting all these poisonous, man eating, wild animals on the boat two by two.
The people who wrote the Bible didn't really think this through did they? Maybe they thought that no one would have the gall to question the Holy Bible.
At the end of the day, with Islam, Christianity etc. Only one of these religions can be right. If any of them are right.
Alistair wrote:
Rab Jones: "Noah's ark. Surely there must have been some poisonous snakes/spiders etc on that ark." What about the dinosaurs then? If the earth is only 6000 years old as the new earth creationists believe, at what point - and why - did God create dinosaur skeletons? Why weren't the dinosaurs on the ark - or maybe they were?
It's amazing that Noah managed to survive, getting all these poisonous, man eating, wild animals on the boat two by two.
The people who wrote the Bible didn't really think this through did they? Maybe they thought that no one would have the gall to question the Holy Bible.
At the end of the day, with Islam, Christianity etc. Only one of these religions can be right. If any of them are right.
Posted by: jimmy williams, East Kilbride on 5:05pm Thu 8 May 08
To Rab Jones Glasgow.
What you have to remember is that the Bible was written by ordinary men who had no scietific knowledge. The Bible is not a Science Journal..
Look around at the great variety of life that exists and the vastness of space and the miracle of life and then tell me that all that happened by accident. There is no doubt that there is a creator.
The conditions that are required for life to exist on this planet was once described by an eminent scientist as throwing all the component parts of a swiss watch into the air and it falling down as a working watch.
It is man that has corrupted religion for his own ends and the sooner that we start treating each other as Jesus (who by the way officialy existed and whose exploits and death and resurection have been recorded not only in the Bible but in other documents) instructed us the sooner the ills of this world will be cured.
To Rab Jones Glasgow.
What you have to remember is that the Bible was written by ordinary men who had no scietific knowledge. The Bible is not a Science Journal..
Look around at the great variety of life that exists and the vastness of space and the miracle of life and then tell me that all that happened by accident. There is no doubt that there is a creator.
The conditions that are required for life to exist on this planet was once described by an eminent scientist as throwing all the component parts of a swiss watch into the air and it falling down as a working watch.
It is man that has corrupted religion for his own ends and the sooner that we start treating each other as Jesus (who by the way officialy existed and whose exploits and death and resurection have been recorded not only in the Bible but in other documents) instructed us the sooner the ills of this world will be cured.
Posted by: nouveauxscum, Eden on 5:08pm Thu 8 May 08
Rab wrote:
[quote]BTW - If Adam and Eve were "created" rather than born into the world, why do most drawings give then belly buttons. To get a belly button, surely you need to have had an umbiliacal cord.[/quote]
Interesting observation Rab. Also, surely all their progeny would have been in-bred morons incapable of creating a civilisation? Humanity would have been doomed before it first picked up a club.
Religion is all about control. Complete control over the masses (nae pun).
Naw, it's not Wendy Paulo - just can't put my finger on it.
Religiously dour.
Control freak.
I'm sure it will come to me. lol
Rab wrote:
BTW - If Adam and Eve were "created" rather than born into the world, why do most drawings give then belly buttons. To get a belly button, surely you need to have had an umbiliacal cord.
Interesting observation Rab. Also, surely all their progeny would have been in-bred morons incapable of creating a civilisation? Humanity would have been doomed before it first picked up a club.
Religion is all about control. Complete control over the masses (nae pun).
Naw, it's not Wendy Paulo - just can't put my finger on it.
Religiously dour.
Control freak.
I'm sure it will come to me. lol
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 5:55pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote]who by the way officialy existed and whose exploits and death and resurection have been recorded not only in the Bible but in other documents[/quote]
Can you provide links for that please?
If you're meaning Yosef Ben Matityahu aka Titus Flavius Josephus writing, then I think that you will find that the portion referring to Jesus of Nazareth is actively being challenged as forensic study has shown that the wording and grammar come from a different and later era and was very probably added by the church.
That is the only other reference other than than the bible that I know off.
who by the way officialy existed and whose exploits and death and resurection have been recorded not only in the Bible but in other documents
Can you provide links for that please?
If you're meaning Yosef Ben Matityahu aka Titus Flavius Josephus writing, then I think that you will find that the portion referring to Jesus of Nazareth is actively being challenged as forensic study has shown that the wording and grammar come from a different and later era and was very probably added by the church.
That is the only other reference other than than the bible that I know off.
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 5:55pm Thu 8 May 08
Reading the above, it becomes even more clear to me why attendance at churches is falling.
If a person can't understand that the bible is only the documentation of a relatively primitive peoples' explanation for natural phenomena then the church has no hope.
Reading the above, it becomes even more clear to me why attendance at churches is falling.
If a person can't understand that the bible is only the documentation of a relatively primitive peoples' explanation for natural phenomena then the church has no hope.
Posted by: Corrupt EU, Fife on 5:58pm Thu 8 May 08
The CoE is a member of the World Council of Churches. This is a globalist organization that seeks form a one world religion.
"Earlier this fall in Geneva, hundreds of spiritual and religious leaders met at the United Nations for a peace summit. And although all the major faiths were there, including some who claim to represent Christianity, it was clear that Jesus was not invited... Christian scholars say the Bible warns of a time when all the world will unite under a false global religious and political system." CBN.com
http://www.prisonpla
net.com/ushering_in_
the_one_world_religi
on.htm
The CoE is a member of the World Council of Churches. This is a globalist organization that seeks form a one world religion.
"Earlier this fall in Geneva, hundreds of spiritual and religious leaders met at the United Nations for a peace summit. And although all the major faiths were there, including some who claim to represent Christianity, it was clear that Jesus was not invited... Christian scholars say the Bible warns of a time when all the world will unite under a false global religious and political system." CBN.com
http://www.prisonpla
net.com/ushering_in_
the_one_world_religi
on.htm
Posted by: jimmy williams, East Kilbride on 6:11pm Thu 8 May 08
McSomeone Scotland
I would refer you to web page Blue Letter Bible mark Eastman Appendix 11.
McSomeone Scotland
I would refer you to web page Blue Letter Bible mark Eastman Appendix 11.
Posted by: Ian, Dalbeattie on 6:16pm Thu 8 May 08
It is always surprising how many people who normally would never go into a church are willing to attend funeral services in church. As someone once said "there are no aetheists in a foxhole" ( For those of you who are too young to know what a foxhole is, it refers to the trenches in WW1 )
It is always surprising how many people who normally would never go into a church are willing to attend funeral services in church. As someone once said "there are no aetheists in a foxhole" ( For those of you who are too young to know what a foxhole is, it refers to the trenches in WW1 )
Posted by: cammfow, Glasgow on 6:30pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote][bold]Paulo[/bold] wrote:
There will be some seditionists appearing on this thread soon blaming Wendy for this.....[/quote] It is her fault.. that fizzog on FMQ's today was enough to put anybody of everything including religion.... ;-)
nouveauxscum wrote.
"surely all their progeny would have been in-bred morons incapable of creating a civilisation"?
It seems to me they are still trying... ;-)
Paulo wrote:
There will be some seditionists appearing on this thread soon blaming Wendy for this.....
It is her fault.. that fizzog on FMQ's today was enough to put anybody of everything including religion.... ;-)
nouveauxscum wrote.
"surely all their progeny would have been in-bred morons incapable of creating a civilisation"?
It seems to me they are still trying... ;-)
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 6:55pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote][bold]jimmy williams[/bold] wrote:
McSomeone Scotland I would refer you to web page Blue Letter Bible mark Eastman Appendix 11.[/quote] Sorry Jimmy, you'll have to do a lot better than that.
All of those claims to jesus of nazareth cannot be verified as all of them can be put down to translation. You have to remember that the church was one of the main employers of scribes and intellects and what and how they wanted articles translated was how it was done.
By the by, Jesus was a very popular name in Palestine at that time. I believe that a Rabbi, called Jesus did exist and he railed against the state of the Jewish religion, which at that time was as corrupt as the catholic church was to become. It was about wealth, political power and excluded the poor, the disabled and the sick as they were copnsidered unclean. Jesus himself did not start the christian religion, that was started by a drunken roman tax collector and thug, called Paul of Tarsus.
The catholic church that exists today is the result of the Council of Nicea, when Constantine wanted to create one imperial religion that would unite the empire and is an amalgam of Sol Invictus(roman), Mithraism,(Persian & Roman Legion) Judaism, Greek beliefs and Northern European paganism. Prior to this there were many gospels but one which we now know as the bible was created to fit the new religion.
Have a read of: The Enuma Elish , the Mesopotamian creation epic.
http://www.sacred-te
xts.com/ane/enuma.ht
m
Hint. Judaism started it's life in Mesopotamia, in the city of Ur, just north of today's Basra.
There are other worth reading too.
Epic of Gilgamesh, Sumerian Epic of creation
Mahabharatta Indian/Hindu epic of creation
Popol Vuh Mayan epic of creation
Ian, Dalbeattie
[quote]"there are no aetheists in a foxhole"[/quote]
That's not true, it's a nice little story that has absolutely no basis, especially as much of today's athiesm can be traced back to the horror of the Western Front where men stopped believing in god.
[quote]( For those of you who are too young to know what a foxhole is, it refers to the trenches in WW1 )[/quote]
Actually WW2 when the war was more mobile and fluid. WW! was a static trench war.
jimmy williams wrote:
McSomeone Scotland I would refer you to web page Blue Letter Bible mark Eastman Appendix 11.
Sorry Jimmy, you'll have to do a lot better than that.
All of those claims to jesus of nazareth cannot be verified as all of them can be put down to translation. You have to remember that the church was one of the main employers of scribes and intellects and what and how they wanted articles translated was how it was done.
By the by, Jesus was a very popular name in Palestine at that time. I believe that a Rabbi, called Jesus did exist and he railed against the state of the Jewish religion, which at that time was as corrupt as the catholic church was to become. It was about wealth, political power and excluded the poor, the disabled and the sick as they were copnsidered unclean. Jesus himself did not start the christian religion, that was started by a drunken roman tax collector and thug, called Paul of Tarsus.
The catholic church that exists today is the result of the Council of Nicea, when Constantine wanted to create one imperial religion that would unite the empire and is an amalgam of Sol Invictus(roman), Mithraism,(Persian & Roman Legion) Judaism, Greek beliefs and Northern European paganism. Prior to this there were many gospels but one which we now know as the bible was created to fit the new religion.
Have a read of: The Enuma Elish , the Mesopotamian creation epic.
http://www.sacred-te
xts.com/ane/enuma.ht
m
Hint. Judaism started it's life in Mesopotamia, in the city of Ur, just north of today's Basra.
There are other worth reading too.
Epic of Gilgamesh, Sumerian Epic of creation
Mahabharatta Indian/Hindu epic of creation
Popol Vuh Mayan epic of creation
Ian, Dalbeattie
"there are no aetheists in a foxhole"
That's not true, it's a nice little story that has absolutely no basis, especially as much of today's athiesm can be traced back to the horror of the Western Front where men stopped believing in god.
( For those of you who are too young to know what a foxhole is, it refers to the trenches in WW1 )
Actually WW2 when the war was more mobile and fluid. WW! was a static trench war.
Posted by: Bruce, Ayrshire on 7:21pm Thu 8 May 08
Corrupt EU, Fife
Ad hominen attack, the only way people can win an argument they feel has been lost. Why not discuss the points that Mr Blackley raised, or indeed, the more pointed and less hard to answer points of Mr Jones at post #1? If you can not take part in a debate except to attack the sexuality of someone then you only do your church (presuming you are an active member) a total dis-service.
God, if he exists, made us all, he constructed the DNA if you believe he is the Creator. So by throwing your attempted 'slur' you in actual fact denigrate your God as 'imperfect.'
(The quotaton marks are deliberate incidentally.)
I await your considered reply.
Corrupt EU, Fife
Ad hominen attack, the only way people can win an argument they feel has been lost. Why not discuss the points that Mr Blackley raised, or indeed, the more pointed and less hard to answer points of Mr Jones at post #1? If you can not take part in a debate except to attack the sexuality of someone then you only do your church (presuming you are an active member) a total dis-service.
God, if he exists, made us all, he constructed the DNA if you believe he is the Creator. So by throwing your attempted 'slur' you in actual fact denigrate your God as 'imperfect.'
(The quotaton marks are deliberate incidentally.)
I await your considered reply.
Posted by: Watson, Irvine on 7:24pm Thu 8 May 08
Organized religion is a form of control and a means of making money.
Organized religion is a form of control and a means of making money.
Posted by: Bruce, Ayrshire on 7:36pm Thu 8 May 08
Like Rab Jones I too have many questions about religion, and I understand it is an emotive subject, as it touches on the very essence of life and death (from a human perspective)
I used to be 100% in total and complete belief in the bible as the Word and the Truth. But as I have grown older I have realised, to my utter dismay, it is anything but. It is inconsistent. It depends on people 'accepting' the word as written, and not in historical context. It even lies. Or at best people assume what the leaders of the churches wish them to assume be and do nothing to correct them. (The author of Revelations being the best example)
How can truth be of a set of disparate texts all written by various identities be accepted as One Truth? It is preposterous in the extreme. And there is little, if any, evidence Jesus of Nazareth existed except in the fertile imaginations of writers generations after his death. None of the Gospels were written by the Apostles themselves, but the church NEVER tells anyone that. Instead, you simply are expected to accept they were from a point of ignorance.
Perhaps acceptable when no-one except the clergy could read or write... but now?
Like Rab Jones I too have many questions about religion, and I understand it is an emotive subject, as it touches on the very essence of life and death (from a human perspective)
I used to be 100% in total and complete belief in the bible as the Word and the Truth. But as I have grown older I have realised, to my utter dismay, it is anything but. It is inconsistent. It depends on people 'accepting' the word as written, and not in historical context. It even lies. Or at best people assume what the leaders of the churches wish them to assume be and do nothing to correct them. (The author of Revelations being the best example)
How can truth be of a set of disparate texts all written by various identities be accepted as One Truth? It is preposterous in the extreme. And there is little, if any, evidence Jesus of Nazareth existed except in the fertile imaginations of writers generations after his death. None of the Gospels were written by the Apostles themselves, but the church NEVER tells anyone that. Instead, you simply are expected to accept they were from a point of ignorance.
Perhaps acceptable when no-one except the clergy could read or write... but now?
Posted by: allymax, yuk on 7:45pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote][bold]Bruce[/bold] wrote:
Corrupt EU, Fife Ad hominen attack, the only way people can win an argument they feel has been lost. Why not discuss the points that Mr Blackley raised, or indeed, the more pointed and less hard to answer points of Mr Jones at post #1? If you can not take part in a debate except to attack the sexuality of someone then you only do your church (presuming you are an active member) a total dis-service. God, if he exists, made us all, he constructed the DNA if you believe he is the Creator. So by throwing your attempted 'slur' you in actual fact denigrate your God as 'imperfect.' (The quotaton marks are deliberate incidentally.) I await your considered reply.[/quote] 'Bruce', if you notice carefully what JBlackley wrote, he neither argues for or against anything! He states that he is the primogeniture knowledge of all things biblical. Is this the kind of debating you request?
He said, "Reading the above, it becomes even more clear to me why attendance at churches is falling."
If a person can't understand that the bible is only the documentation of a relatively primitive peoples' explanation for natural phenomena then the church has no hope."
Bruce wrote:
Corrupt EU, Fife Ad hominen attack, the only way people can win an argument they feel has been lost. Why not discuss the points that Mr Blackley raised, or indeed, the more pointed and less hard to answer points of Mr Jones at post #1? If you can not take part in a debate except to attack the sexuality of someone then you only do your church (presuming you are an active member) a total dis-service. God, if he exists, made us all, he constructed the DNA if you believe he is the Creator. So by throwing your attempted 'slur' you in actual fact denigrate your God as 'imperfect.' (The quotaton marks are deliberate incidentally.) I await your considered reply.
'Bruce', if you notice carefully what JBlackley wrote, he neither argues for or against anything! He states that he is the primogeniture knowledge of all things biblical. Is this the kind of debating you request?
He said, "Reading the above, it becomes even more clear to me why attendance at churches is falling."
If a person can't understand that the bible is only the documentation of a relatively primitive peoples' explanation for natural phenomena then the church has no hope."
Posted by: allymax, yuk on 7:45pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote][bold]Bruce[/bold] wrote:
Corrupt EU, Fife Ad hominen attack, the only way people can win an argument they feel has been lost. Why not discuss the points that Mr Blackley raised, or indeed, the more pointed and less hard to answer points of Mr Jones at post #1? If you can not take part in a debate except to attack the sexuality of someone then you only do your church (presuming you are an active member) a total dis-service. God, if he exists, made us all, he constructed the DNA if you believe he is the Creator. So by throwing your attempted 'slur' you in actual fact denigrate your God as 'imperfect.' (The quotaton marks are deliberate incidentally.) I await your considered reply.[/quote] 'Bruce', if you notice carefully what JBlackley wrote, he neither argues for or against anything! He states that he is the primogeniture knowledge of all things biblical. Is this the kind of debating you request?
He said, "Reading the above, it becomes even more clear to me why attendance at churches is falling."
If a person can't understand that the bible is only the documentation of a relatively primitive peoples' explanation for natural phenomena then the church has no hope."
Bruce wrote:
Corrupt EU, Fife Ad hominen attack, the only way people can win an argument they feel has been lost. Why not discuss the points that Mr Blackley raised, or indeed, the more pointed and less hard to answer points of Mr Jones at post #1? If you can not take part in a debate except to attack the sexuality of someone then you only do your church (presuming you are an active member) a total dis-service. God, if he exists, made us all, he constructed the DNA if you believe he is the Creator. So by throwing your attempted 'slur' you in actual fact denigrate your God as 'imperfect.' (The quotaton marks are deliberate incidentally.) I await your considered reply.
'Bruce', if you notice carefully what JBlackley wrote, he neither argues for or against anything! He states that he is the primogeniture knowledge of all things biblical. Is this the kind of debating you request?
He said, "Reading the above, it becomes even more clear to me why attendance at churches is falling."
If a person can't understand that the bible is only the documentation of a relatively primitive peoples' explanation for natural phenomena then the church has no hope."
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 8:10pm Thu 8 May 08
The problem for the C of S is they do not interfere in peoples lives. They do not pontificate to people like the Islamists and Papists. I would have thought that such a Church could flourish. Obviously not. It would seem that humans like to be told what to do. Therefore bigotry,predjudice, murder and mayhem follow. As history has shown.[bold]bold[/bold]
The problem for the C of S is they do not interfere in peoples lives. They do not pontificate to people like the Islamists and Papists. I would have thought that such a Church could flourish. Obviously not. It would seem that humans like to be told what to do. Therefore bigotry,predjudice, murder and mayhem follow. As history has shown.
Posted by: Bruce, Ayrshire on 8:18pm Thu 8 May 08
Allymax, I do not see why you put my name in quotes ,that is my name!
To address what you say, Mr Blackley DID make some points, none of which were addressed by Corrupt EU. And indeed the Bible was written for people who could neither read nor write (well, in our relative timescale of civilisation) and was written largely in languages they would not understand anyway, and were spoken out in Latin to ensure they understood nothing at all except the way the clergy explained it to them.
This is why poster no1 has hit the nail on the head. With more and more scientific evidence of a world so different from the one the Book of Truth speaks of, it is understandable that people feel less inclined to go sit listening to nonsensical 'history' whilst ignoring their own qualms and being all pious about it.
Allymax, I do not see why you put my name in quotes ,that is my name!
To address what you say, Mr Blackley DID make some points, none of which were addressed by Corrupt EU. And indeed the Bible was written for people who could neither read nor write (well, in our relative timescale of civilisation) and was written largely in languages they would not understand anyway, and were spoken out in Latin to ensure they understood nothing at all except the way the clergy explained it to them.
This is why poster no1 has hit the nail on the head. With more and more scientific evidence of a world so different from the one the Book of Truth speaks of, it is understandable that people feel less inclined to go sit listening to nonsensical 'history' whilst ignoring their own qualms and being all pious about it.
Posted by: Exiled Aussie, Banff on 8:29pm Thu 8 May 08
Relieved as I am at all the [bold]TARTAN TORY[/bold] channels here apparently blocked at present, nonetheless some of us who support the beneficial Union would like to says so - and [bold]LOUDLY[/bold] !
I posted here a few days ago the info that LP supporters had sought to have a motion discussed at last autumns' LP Annual Conference seeking an earl-08 referendum on our constitutional position. Alas, we didnt get to the starting gate, ostensibly on "too late" arguments.
Now we learn that Wendy thought similarly last August and it seems ridiculous that she is being pilloried both within and outwith the Party for now voicing her view that the sooner we test the Nats on their fundamental "principles" the sooner we can get on with improving the lot of both Scotand and the rest of the UK.
PS Q. Aside from the [bold]TARTAN TORY[/bold] budget, how many Bills has this much-vaunted adminstration brought before Parliament ?
A. bold]ZERO[/bold] - like in[bold] NOWT[/bold] !
Relieved as I am at all the TARTAN TORY channels here apparently blocked at present, nonetheless some of us who support the beneficial Union would like to says so - and LOUDLY !
I posted here a few days ago the info that LP supporters had sought to have a motion discussed at last autumns' LP Annual Conference seeking an earl-08 referendum on our constitutional position. Alas, we didnt get to the starting gate, ostensibly on "too late" arguments.
Now we learn that Wendy thought similarly last August and it seems ridiculous that she is being pilloried both within and outwith the Party for now voicing her view that the sooner we test the Nats on their fundamental "principles" the sooner we can get on with improving the lot of both Scotand and the rest of the UK.
PS Q. Aside from the TARTAN TORY budget, how many Bills has this much-vaunted adminstration brought before Parliament ?
A. bold]ZERO - like in NOWT !
Posted by: sam, greenock on 8:35pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote][bold]jimmy williams[/bold] wrote:
To Rab Jones Glasgow. What you have to remember is that the Bible was written by ordinary men who had no scietific knowledge. The Bible is not a Science Journal.. Look around at the great variety of life that exists and the vastness of space and the miracle of life and then tell me that all that happened by accident. There is no doubt that there is a creator. The conditions that are required for life to exist on this planet was once described by an eminent scientist as throwing all the component parts of a swiss watch into the air and it falling down as a working watch. It is man that has corrupted religion for his own ends and the sooner that we start treating each other as Jesus (who by the way officialy existed and whose exploits and death and resurection have been recorded not only in the Bible but in other documents) instructed us the sooner the ills of this world will be cured.[/quote] ha ha ha, you jest shirley?
[quote]It is man that has corrupted religion for his own ends and the sooner that we start treating each other as Jesus (who by the way officialy existed and whose exploits and death and resurection have been recorded not only in the Bible but in other documents)[/quote]
Really?
Prove it?
[quote]Look around at the great variety of life that exists and the vastness of space and the miracle of life and then tell me that all that happened by accident.[/quote]
It all happened by accident - satisfied
[quote]What you have to remember is that the Bible was written by ordinary men who had no scietific knowledge.[/quote]
Most fiction is the same.
There you go all points duly answered, you can be an athiest now.
jimmy williams wrote:
To Rab Jones Glasgow. What you have to remember is that the Bible was written by ordinary men who had no scietific knowledge. The Bible is not a Science Journal.. Look around at the great variety of life that exists and the vastness of space and the miracle of life and then tell me that all that happened by accident. There is no doubt that there is a creator. The conditions that are required for life to exist on this planet was once described by an eminent scientist as throwing all the component parts of a swiss watch into the air and it falling down as a working watch. It is man that has corrupted religion for his own ends and the sooner that we start treating each other as Jesus (who by the way officialy existed and whose exploits and death and resurection have been recorded not only in the Bible but in other documents) instructed us the sooner the ills of this world will be cured.
ha ha ha, you jest shirley?
It is man that has corrupted religion for his own ends and the sooner that we start treating each other as Jesus (who by the way officialy existed and whose exploits and death and resurection have been recorded not only in the Bible but in other documents)
Really?
Prove it?
Look around at the great variety of life that exists and the vastness of space and the miracle of life and then tell me that all that happened by accident.
It all happened by accident - satisfied
What you have to remember is that the Bible was written by ordinary men who had no scietific knowledge.
Most fiction is the same.
There you go all points duly answered, you can be an athiest now.
Posted by: Jwil, Lanarkshire on 8:54pm Thu 8 May 08
Religion has always tried to undermine science (even today) to promote its own biblical beliefs. Yet those that do this are not reluctant to use all the advances that science has to offer, like comfortable living, travel, adequate food supply, to name but a few.
Religion has always tried to undermine science (even today) to promote its own biblical beliefs. Yet those that do this are not reluctant to use all the advances that science has to offer, like comfortable living, travel, adequate food supply, to name but a few.
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 9:14pm Thu 8 May 08
Bruce, your points are all well-taken. As for allymax's 'attacks' - don't even acknowledge them.
I'd as soon acknowledge a crowfart.
Bruce, your points are all well-taken. As for allymax's 'attacks' - don't even acknowledge them.
I'd as soon acknowledge a crowfart.
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 9:47pm Thu 8 May 08
Sam,8:35pm. Watch out for the Holy Inquisition Sam. They are coming to take you away Ho Ho.[bold]bold[/bold]
Sam,8:35pm. Watch out for the Holy Inquisition Sam. They are coming to take you away Ho Ho.
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 12:55am Fri 9 May 08
No wonder the Kirk is full of pacifist, labour biased social owkers with a poor grip on reality being fished out the Rhu Narrowns by the ROyal Navy while protesting symoblically against Uk nuclear submarines is easy
Donald Caskie and Andrew Cunningham were true Church of Scotland heroes and would turn in their graves at the pinko's currently employed- given religious cover up I doubt if few members know who they were 1939 -1945
No wonder the Kirk is full of pacifist, labour biased social owkers with a poor grip on reality being fished out the Rhu Narrowns by the ROyal Navy while protesting symoblically against Uk nuclear submarines is easy
Donald Caskie and Andrew Cunningham were true Church of Scotland heroes and would turn in their graves at the pinko's currently employed- given religious cover up I doubt if few members know who they were 1939 -1945
Posted by: jimmy williams, East Kilbride on 1:17am Fri 9 May 08
To all the non believers above.
Life happened by accident ? Someone tell me then how man has never been able to create life from nothing. People keep asking believers in God to prove his existence. How about the non believers proving his non existence.
Likewise the people who do not believe in Jesus's claim to be the Son of God and doctrine of Heaven and Hell, prove it.
You believe what you want to but dont ridicule those who choose to believe in God and the power of the risen Christ.
To all the non believers above.
Life happened by accident ? Someone tell me then how man has never been able to create life from nothing. People keep asking believers in God to prove his existence. How about the non believers proving his non existence.
Likewise the people who do not believe in Jesus's claim to be the Son of God and doctrine of Heaven and Hell, prove it.
You believe what you want to but dont ridicule those who choose to believe in God and the power of the risen Christ.
Posted by: allymax, yuk on 1:46am Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]JBlackley[/bold] wrote:
Bruce, your points are all well-taken. As for allymax's 'attacks' - don't even acknowledge them. I'd as soon acknowledge a crowfart.[/quote] Ha! Primogeniture knbowledge of all things biblical.
I never knew a crow coulf fart; how did you find out?
Did it involve something rather sinister?
Aren't crows a sinister presence in Scotland?
'Bruce', you and JBlackley both have something in common; primogeniture knowledge on ........ anything.
I happen to think 'Corrupt EU' made a valid point, now it's your turn to explain your attacks on him!
Waiting. If you don't want to argue your relative opinion, just tell it like it is, just say you can't !
JBlackley wrote:
Bruce, your points are all well-taken. As for allymax's 'attacks' - don't even acknowledge them. I'd as soon acknowledge a crowfart.
Ha! Primogeniture knbowledge of all things biblical.
I never knew a crow coulf fart; how did you find out?
Did it involve something rather sinister?
Aren't crows a sinister presence in Scotland?
'Bruce', you and JBlackley both have something in common; primogeniture knowledge on ........ anything.
I happen to think 'Corrupt EU' made a valid point, now it's your turn to explain your attacks on him!
Waiting. If you don't want to argue your relative opinion, just tell it like it is, just say you can't !
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 9:20am Fri 9 May 08
[quote]How about the non believers proving his non existence.[/quote]
Jimmy, it's for you to prove it and not the other way around. Those who don't believe don't give a toss, so the ball is in [bold]your[/bold] court!
[quote]You believe what you want to but dont ridicule those who choose to believe in God and the power of the risen Christ.[/quote]
Then don't evangelise to the rest of us. Your beliefs are a private matter to you and of no interest to anyone else.
How about the non believers proving his non existence.
Jimmy, it's for you to prove it and not the other way around. Those who don't believe don't give a toss, so the ball is in
your court!
You believe what you want to but dont ridicule those who choose to believe in God and the power of the risen Christ.
Then don't evangelise to the rest of us. Your beliefs are a private matter to you and of no interest to anyone else.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 9:41am Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]McSomeone[/bold] wrote:
[quote]How about the non believers proving his non existence.[/quote] Jimmy, it's for you to prove it and not the other way around. Those who don't believe don't give a toss, so the ball is in [bold]your[/bold] court! [quote]You believe what you want to but dont ridicule those who choose to believe in God and the power of the risen Christ.[/quote] Then don't evangelise to the rest of us. Your beliefs are a private matter to you and of no interest to anyone else. [/quote] Well said!
McSomeone wrote:
How about the non believers proving his non existence.
Jimmy, it's for you to prove it and not the other way around. Those who don't believe don't give a toss, so the ball is in your court! You believe what you want to but dont ridicule those who choose to believe in God and the power of the risen Christ.
Then don't evangelise to the rest of us. Your beliefs are a private matter to you and of no interest to anyone else.
Well said!
Posted by: sam, greenock on 9:42am Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]Graham[/bold] wrote:
Sam,8:35pm. Watch out for the Holy Inquisition Sam. They are coming to take you away Ho Ho.[bold]bold[/bold] [/quote] Ha Ha
Am trembling in ma sannies, so am ur
Graham wrote:
Sam,8:35pm. Watch out for the Holy Inquisition Sam. They are coming to take you away Ho Ho.
Ha Ha
Am trembling in ma sannies, so am ur
Posted by: Corrupt EU, Fife on 10:14am Fri 9 May 08
So we're all agreed that athiests are in denial. They use the names of Jesus and God quite a lot for people who don't believe. Me thinks they are trying to hide from their creator, somewhat like a car thief who tries to hide from the police helicopter's heat seeking camera!
So we're all agreed that athiests are in denial. They use the names of Jesus and God quite a lot for people who don't believe. Me thinks they are trying to hide from their creator, somewhat like a car thief who tries to hide from the police helicopter's heat seeking camera!
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 11:01am Fri 9 May 08
I hardly think so as both god and jesus have become integral in the English language. People talk of Jehovah, Thor, Zeus and others gods of ancient myth but that doesn't mean that we believe in them either. All are as real and relevant as Offlar the crocodile god and Blind IO who reside at Dunmanifesting, in the Core Celestii.
I hardly think so as both god and jesus have become integral in the English language. People talk of Jehovah, Thor, Zeus and others gods of ancient myth but that doesn't mean that we believe in them either. All are as real and relevant as Offlar the crocodile god and Blind IO who reside at Dunmanifesting, in the Core Celestii.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 12:11pm Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]Corrupt EU[/bold] wrote:
So we're all agreed that athiests are in denial. They use the names of Jesus and God quite a lot for people who don't believe. Me thinks they are trying to hide from their creator, somewhat like a car thief who tries to hide from the police helicopter's heat seeking camera![/quote] Jumpin' jehosopaht9sic)
or frae Brave New World
"By the Great Ford"
Corrupt EU, methinks you need to get out more
Corrupt EU wrote:
So we're all agreed that athiests are in denial. They use the names of Jesus and God quite a lot for people who don't believe. Me thinks they are trying to hide from their creator, somewhat like a car thief who tries to hide from the police helicopter's heat seeking camera!
Jumpin' jehosopaht9sic)
or frae Brave New World
"By the Great Ford"
Corrupt EU, methinks you need to get out more
Posted by: allymax, yuk on 5:00pm Fri 9 May 08
'Bruce', here is the nearest relative point of argument JBlackey attempts on the church of Scotland thread; you know, the article!
"I would like the Church of Scotland (in which I was raised) and other established churches to remember what they are for."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, and even if I was, you wouldn't because you're both too thick, but this is not an argument for anything. It is an abstract statement of immense unclarity and preference unclassified.
'Bruce', here is the nearest relative point of argument JBlackey attempts on the church of Scotland thread; you know, the article!
"I would like the Church of Scotland (in which I was raised) and other established churches to remember what they are for."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, and even if I was, you wouldn't because you're both too thick, but this is not an argument for anything. It is an abstract statement of immense unclarity and preference unclassified.
Posted by: jimmy williams, East Kilbride on 11:35pm Fri 9 May 08
McSomeone
Prove of whether someone or something exists IS a two way process. It is as much up to you to prove the non existence of God as it is up to me to prove the existence. So dont step away from your responsibilities.
As far as evalgelising goes I am all for letting all people believe what they want, whether that is in God, Jesus, Mohammed, fairies at the bottom of the garden or whatever.
If everyone was more tolerant of each others faiths or lack of faith there would be less strife around.
Surely you will agree with me on that McSomeone.
McSomeone
Prove of whether someone or something exists IS a two way process. It is as much up to you to prove the non existence of God as it is up to me to prove the existence. So dont step away from your responsibilities.
As far as evalgelising goes I am all for letting all people believe what they want, whether that is in God, Jesus, Mohammed, fairies at the bottom of the garden or whatever.
If everyone was more tolerant of each others faiths or lack of faith there would be less strife around.
Surely you will agree with me on that McSomeone.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 8:51am Sat 10 May 08
[quote]Prove of whether someone or something exists IS a two way process. It is as much up to you to prove the non existence of God as it is up to me to prove the existence[/quote]
No it isn't, you are purposely failing to grasp the point, I don't give a toss whether your god, or any god exists. So I don't have to prove anything! You on the other hand claim that he does and that we must accept your beliefs, therefore it is entirely down to you to prove that s/he exists.
[quote]If everyone was more tolerant of each others faiths or lack of faith there would be less strife around[/quote]
Neither do I, if someone wants to believe in a mythical being then that's between them and their mythical being. I do though object to being force fed religious dogma on the basis they are saving my soul and that I must live my life as they do.
You/they are not responsible for my life or how I live it, I am. Take care of your own life because that is the life you are answerable for and no one elses.
If I'm wrong and their is a god, then I will answer for that but then I suspect that I will be judged, not on my beliefs but on the life that I lived. As I once saw quoted elsewhere:
"God will say to me, I gave you a life, what did you do with it"?
So just make sure that you can answer for your own, not someone elses!
Prove of whether someone or something exists IS a two way process. It is as much up to you to prove the non existence of God as it is up to me to prove the existence
No it isn't, you are purposely failing to grasp the point, I don't give a toss whether your god, or any god exists. So I don't have to prove anything! You on the other hand claim that he does and that we must accept your beliefs, therefore it is entirely down to you to prove that s/he exists.
If everyone was more tolerant of each others faiths or lack of faith there would be less strife around
Neither do I, if someone wants to believe in a mythical being then that's between them and their mythical being. I do though object to being force fed religious dogma on the basis they are saving my soul and that I must live my life as they do.
You/they are not responsible for my life or how I live it, I am. Take care of your own life because that is the life you are answerable for and no one elses.
If I'm wrong and their is a god, then I will answer for that but then I suspect that I will be judged, not on my beliefs but on the life that I lived. As I once saw quoted elsewhere:
"God will say to me, I gave you a life, what did you do with it"?
So just make sure that you can answer for your own, not someone elses!
Posted by: sam, greenock on 2:14pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]McSomeone[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Prove of whether someone or something exists IS a two way process. It is as much up to you to prove the non existence of God as it is up to me to prove the existence[/quote] No it isn't, you are purposely failing to grasp the point, I don't give a toss whether your god, or any god exists. So I don't have to prove anything! You on the other hand claim that he does and that we must accept your beliefs, therefore it is entirely down to you to p
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (44)
