Heavens above!
I wonder what the weather-watching would make of this. Two minutes into this piece to camera, 大象传媒 News 24's chief political correspondent James Landale is soaked to the bone under an unexpected deluge. Is this the judgment of God on the 大象传媒 or just a sudden shower?
Incidentally, Bishop Graham Dow continues to be too indisposed to be interviewed. Some might wonder if he is now uncharacterically nervous about defending his colourful theological claim, earlier this week, that Britain's recent floods were sent by God because of the country's alleged abandonement of biblical values. On today's programme, his official spokesman, Canon Richard Pratt, made a valiant effort to explain his boss's words against any suggestion that Graham Dow has lost the plot. Alas, he didn't appear to persuade either the Cambridge philosopher Simon Blackburn or the Church of Ireland's Bishop of Connor, Alan Abernethy.
Comments
Listened to the discussion. The Canon didn't seem to believe what he said. He sounded like he'd been kicked out by the bishop to do all the media interviews becasue the bishop was scared. Probably wise, since from I what I hear the bishop would collapse under minimal questioning.
The monkey has landed the organ grinder in the ah .... bleep! - Even deeper than he was!
He admitted that god had no hand it the floods!
No one else notice the connection with Will's previous post re 'no one fit to stand up for a god' ?
The monkey has landed the organ grinder in the ah .... bleep! - Even deeper than he was!
He took back everything his boss said.
No one else notice the connection with Will's previous post re 'no one fit to stand up for god' ?
No wonder god missed me with that meteorite, he was too busy laughing at what he had just done to James Landale. Even if you're god, it's hard to throw a strike when you are rolling on the floor or the firmament or whatever it is HE rolls on when it's just too funny. Do you think god has a sense of humor? Silly question, he made us didn't he? (I was going to say he made women but that is too politically incorrect so I'll just leave it gender neutral :-)
The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman Jim Herrick said:
"The Bishop's comments reveal a primitive, superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age.
"If he thinks these floods are the result of pro-gay laws rather than global warming, then how come far more catastrophic floods afflict homophobic nations such as Bangladesh?
"People like Graham Dow bring religion into even more disrepute with such fatuous comments.
"No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."
Why the reluctance to tackle the main issue - ie the catastrophic moral decay in our society? Perhaps it's just easier to ridicule the nearest evangelical Christian.
I ask again, if the floods were not God's punishment on our nation, what would He have to do to get our attention?
There is no general moral decay in our society - other than the rubbish spouted by evangelical belivers!
The thinking of Bishop Graham is nothing new within the Anglican Church, the Suffolk Vicar who latter became the Bishop of Liverpool J.C. RYLE, give a sermon called, , though the context in which it was originally given maybe somewhat dated today but the teachings which are taught within it are as relevant today as when it was first delivered, when applied to the subject of 鈥淣ATIONAL SINS,鈥 in light of God鈥檚 Holy Word.
Those that ridicule Bishop Graham for his comments about the recent floods have a history dating back Noah鈥檚 day and Lot鈥檚 day 鈥淛ust as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.鈥 鈥淟ikewise, just as it was in the days of Lot鈥 Those that are cynical of Gods judgement and warnings need to take heed while they still have the opportunity to do so, signs such as natural devastation are warnings from God to the ungodly to take heed, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect, just like those who didn鈥檛 expect their homes to be flooded in the middle of summer, THE UNEXPECTED HOUR. "Behold, now is the day of salvation."
The thinking of Bishop Graham is nothing new within the Anglican Church, the Suffolk Vicar who latter became the Bishop of Liverpool J.C. RYLE, give a sermon called, , though the context in which it was originally given maybe somewhat dated today but the teachings which are taught within it are as relevant today as when it was first delivered, when applied to the subject of 鈥淣ATIONAL SINS,鈥 in light of God鈥檚 Holy Word.
Those that ridicule Bishop Graham for his comments about the recent floods have a history dating back Noah鈥檚 day and Lot鈥檚 day 鈥淛ust as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.鈥 鈥淟ikewise, just as it was in the days of Lot鈥 Those that are cynical of Gods judgement and warnings need to take heed while they still have the opportunity to do so, signs such as natural devastation are warnings from God to the ungodly to take heed, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect, just like those who didn鈥檛 expect their homes to be flooded in the middle of summer. The unexpected hour "Behold, now is the day of salvation."
Philip Campbell wrote:
"I ask again, if the floods were not God's punishment on our nation, what would He have to do to get our attention?"
Well, maybe he should try doing something that doesn't have a completely natural explanation.
If you believe the bible, then he's done it before. Parting the Red Sea perhaps, or talking from a burning bush - things like that. I'm sure that an omniscient god wouldn't be short of a few ideas.
But Bill
The Canon totally retracted the sentiments of his bishop which you appear to agree with.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to answer a few questions which I'm sure others also have?
Are the flooded areas more guilty than others?
Was everyone in flooded areas guilty or were some real believers affected as well - if so - why?
Some parts of the world are flooded every year killing hundreds - what are their crimes?
Is there moral decay or just revelation of what was always there but covered up? Has it reached the point where you can't squeeze any more dirt under the rug? When priests and other clergy sexually mollest children and their superiors shield them from arrest for their crimes by moving them around from one parish to another, was that ALWAYS going on or is it recent. We know it's at least 40 or 50 years old but it probably goes back millenia. What about the rabbi who was taken off a plane by the FBI for mollesting a young girl or another who tried to hire a hit man to kill his wife so he could take up with his mistress? I think the moral decay has always been there, it's just becoming more public these days.
"I ask again, if the floods were not God's punishment on our nation, what would He have to do to get our attention?"
Look it is so evident that God is a Blades supporter! who is fed up with snickering from Wednesday supporters!
Look...!
Bramall lane wasn't touched-explain that one!
I love you people who think that the floods are God's punishment. So if my community doesn't get flooded, is God happier with us? I think you need to use your brains a little. One major problem with seeing everything that happens as God's this or God's that is inherently that sometimes very bad things happen to very good people and sometimes very good things happen to very bad people. It's completely arbitrary, in other words, and therefore to select the things you like to attribute to God while completely ignoring the rest is theological insanity. If you'd like to attribute the floods to God, maybe you should do the same with poverty in Africa? It's God's judgment, clearly, wouldn't you say?
The sub-text of William's interview was really this;-
"There is no need for any of us to repent because God is perfectly happy with us all."
But Christ's message throughout the book of Revelation is that he would pour out one judgement after another on the runaway mankind in order to have them wake up and return to him before it was too late.
As for deciding which disaster is from God and which is not, when a tower collapsed and killed people in the gospels, Christ was asked if the people deserved it.
His answer was: "You are totally missing the point; all mankind is guilty and will be condemned unless it turns from its stubborn sinning and returns to me."
Luke 13
1There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
PB
pb
Pretty pathetic answer to all the Qs posed
quoting you
As for deciding which disaster is from God and which is not, when a tower collapsed and killed people in the gospels, Christ was asked if the people deserved it.
His answer was: "You are totally missing the point; all mankind is guilty and will be condemned unless it turns from its stubborn sinning and returns to me."
So we all swim or sink together?
Does he work on a sort of majority basis?
PB, you're making this stuff up. William DIDN'T say that at all. He said what the rest of us were thinking of a bishop who's sunk himself.
No freethinker - the weakness here is your lack of understanding of basic Christian doctrine. See Romans 3 below. The solution according to Romans is unmerited salvation through the sacrifice of Christ.
Your quarrel is with Christ's words not me.
Darwinius - please look up the definition of a subtext.
PB
Romans 3;-
10 As it is written:
鈥 There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.鈥漑b]
13 鈥 Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit鈥;[c]
鈥 The poison of asps is under their lips鈥;[d]
14 鈥 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.鈥漑e]
15 鈥 Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.鈥漑f]
18 鈥 There is no fear of God before their eyes.鈥漑g]
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
God鈥檚 Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
pb
Most of us here give absolutely no credence to quotes from old discredited tomes.
GING
I fully accept and respect your view of the bible, you have every right to take that view of it.
My only concern is that if, as William does, he looks to the Christian faith for answers about natural disasters, then I think the bible should be fairly represented.
In fact GING, I have much more respect for your position, rejecting the bible outright, than others who try to make it say what it plainly doesn't.
You have a very honest position in contrast, IMO.
sincerely
PB
Why do you think W looks to the bible for anything?
And do YOU not try to make the bible say what you want?
BTW - I would say most of us reject any real truth in the bible - other than pretty ancient folklore and some 'nice' 17th century language so quoting it in discussions here does nothing to promote your cause.
GING
The clue to the answer of your first question is in the title of this blog and the fact that Will is an ordained Presbyterian Minister.
Also, you might count the number of times SS or W&T ask Christian clergy to comment - what are Christian clergy supposed to base their views on but the bible?
Of course there is always the risk and momentum within my mind to interpret the bible in terms of what I expect it to say rather than what it actually says.
In practise I try to counter this by looking at the balance of what the entire bible says on a subject, rather than picking proof texts out of context, but I am by no means suggesting I am infallible.
Mainly I just present my findings and invite someone to give a better biblical answer than me.
Who is "most of us here"?
cheers
PB
PS I usually find people who think the bible can be quoted to make any point at all have not actually tried to study it and have good reasons for choosing this assumption.