Richard Dawkins says UK cinemas should screen the Lord’s Prayer

dawkins

Richard Dawkins, the vociferous critic of religion, says anyone thin-skinned enough to be offended by a church advert deserves to be offended.

The controversial atheist writer has become an unexpected backer of showing the 60-second advert featuring the Lord’s Prayer in cinemas ahead of Christmas after three major cinema chains refused to screen it before Star Wars: the Force Awakens, due for release on 18 December.

The advert he was defending is to promote a new Church of England website, JustPray.uk, which encourages people to pray. The film shows Christians, beginning with the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, saying one line of the Lord’s Prayer. The following lines are said by a diverse range of people including weightlifters, a police officer, a commuter, refugees in a support centre, schoolchildren, a mourner at a graveside and a festivalgoer.

“I still strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might ‘offend’ people. If anybody is ‘offended’ by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended,” said Dawkins, who has described himself as “a cultural Anglican”.

 

Advertisements

85 thoughts on “Richard Dawkins says UK cinemas should screen the Lord’s Prayer

  1. I clicked the link above to JustPray.uk, and was impressed by the ad. If Dawkins is happy to claim a link, even though only cultural, to the Anglican church, it is doing a good job. John Shelby Spong said –

    ” I’m like the person who said, I’m not a member of any organised religion, I’m an Anglican. There’s something profoundly wonderful about the Anglican communion, in that we’re probably the messiest most disorganised church in Christianity. The reason for that is that our church was born as the religious expression of a whole nation, and it had to be broad enough to embrace everybody within that nation. And then through the accidents of history, the United Kingdom was developed and the British Empire was developed, and the Anglican church h ad to stretch to embrace much more than just England. So there’s something sort of wonderful about it. We don’t have a Pope who is the final authority. We don’t have a bible that we invest with in errantcy, so we sort of live, we live sort of like an amoeba, we sort of stick out a pseudopod here and if it works you let it stay. But if it doesn’t we pull it back and stick another one out here, and that’s the way we make progress. But it means that our church has been able to move with the times. We had an enormous battle in our church in the United States about whether black people were part of the body of Christ. We’ve solved that battle.

    “We had an enormous struggle about whether women could be priest and bishops. We now have nine Anglican Bishops who are women in my church. We’ve solved that problem.

    “We had an enormous battle, it lasted for about 25 years, about whether gay and lesbian people could be part of this tradition. And ultimately we’ve solved that battle too. We’re on the other side of that battle.

    “I think the Christian faith is always a growing and evolving tradition. I think that’s true of all religions. I don’t think anybody founds a new church. Christianity was born in the womb of Judaism. Judaism is our mother. We ought to never spit upon our mother the way we have done in our history. But even Judaism was shaped by Egypt and Canaan and Syria and Persia. All religions are constantly going between their understanding of God and the world in which they live, and that’s all I’m trying to do. I want to keep my roots, but I want the tradition to keep growing a thousand years from now. I think that Christians who are living then will look back and see that we today were their ancestors in faith, no matter what the church looks like a thousand years from now. But I don’t think I can look forward and tell you what it’s going to be.

    “I remind people that the Christian church in the 2nd and 3rd century was under persecution in catacombs. I don’t believe for a moment they could have envisioned the great Gothic cathedrals of the 13th century as growing out of their life. And so I think you leave that up to God and you walk by faith, and you continue to evolve between your commitment and your world, and you hold these things together in tension. “

    Like

    • I remind people that the Christian church in the 2nd and 3rd century was under persecution in catacombs. I don’t believe for a moment they could have envisioned the great Gothic cathedrals of the 13th century as growing out of their life

      I am curious. Would the Christians of the 2nd and 3rd century see the Gothic cathedrals as great or a step backwards ?

      Like

      • Dom,
        God told Solomon in response to his dedicatory prayer for the Temple that the house of God would be totally destroyed if Israel would not be obedient to God’s commandments. Solomon’s temple was a marvel of architecture in the ancient world

        So much so that when the second temple was built, those who had seen the first temple cried at the fact that this temple was not as glorious as the first.

        The second temple was also destroyed because of Israel’s unbelief and rejection of the Messiah. It was Jesus who told them that their house would be left desolate, upon their rejection of Him.

        Thus imposing cathedrals are not a sign of people being right with God. But the good archbishop in question ignores this and trivialises the fact that often imposing temples, cathedrals and mosques fill a void left by a lack of true godliness.

        Incidentally the same can be said about your mosques. They are also imposing structures. Tell me Dom, do they make the worshippers better people? Do you get a better human as a result of imposing mosques?

        Like

      • Incidentally the same can be said about your mosques. They are also imposing structures.

        Some of the most decorated mosques in the world are also the most empty. It is just a building. It is the people inside that make it what it is.

        Like

      • Dom and all,
        ‘the Christian church in the 2nd and 3rd century was under persecution in catacombs.’ Bishop Spong tells us.

        That’s not really accurate according to modern historians. It was simply not sensible or practical to try to hide in the catacombs back in those early centuries when they were excavated in order to bury the dead. They were not an exclusively Christian construction either. There are plenty of old pagan sites within them too.

        The catacombs were by no means secret hiding places. Everybody knew where they were. There were no assembly room areas within them. For the greater part they consisted of long narrow and unfriendly corridors. People only went there in order to bury the dead or on special occasions to pray at the last resting place of some saint or martyr. When you think about it, it becomes obvious that if you tried and managed to hide in a catacomb, you would pretty soon starve. And it would be very easy for the authorities to mount guards at the entrance places.

        As history tells us, the most effective way of avoiding the pagan authorities in times of persecution, was simply to leave town… to go into voluntary exile. There are many accounts of such an action Probably the most famous was that of Bishop Cyprian of Carthage. He made his escape, but had trouble later on after his eventual return in more peaceful times, when he had to make decisions about persons who had taken various steps to evade martyrdom. Then he was ultimately martyred himself.

        Our friend Tertullian wrote very powerfully praising and indeed recommending martyrdom, and he actually denounced any escape through exile. Interesting to note that for all his brave words on the matter, he never had to face martyrdom himself.

        I wait with interest to see if friend Alexie will make a typical point of shooting me down over the catacombs. I rather fear based on his utterances of the past, that his knowledge on such matters will have come largely from old novels like Fabiola or Quo Vadis.

        Anyway there’s lots of material on the subject. I have a number of books on the catacombs, and on my computer, many dozens of images of the art works that have survived within them.

        Cheers, Rian.

        Like

      • A few years ago, people exploring caves outside Jerusalem came across the find of a lifetime: an ancient burial cave containing the remains of a crucified man. This find is only one in a series of finds that overturns a century-old scholarly consensus.

        That consensus held that the Gospels are almost entirely proclamation and contain little, if any, real history. The remains belonged to a man who had been executed in the first century A.D., that is, from the time of Jesus.

        As Jeffrey Sheler writes in his book Is the Bible True? the skeleton confirms what the evangelists wrote about Jesus’ death and burial in several important ways.

        First, location—scholars had long doubted the biblical account of Jesus’ burial. They believed that crucified criminals were tossed in a mass grave and then devoured by wild animals. But this man, a near contemporary of Jesus, was buried in the same way the Bible says Jesus was buried.

        Then there’s the physical evidence from the skeleton. The man’s shinbones appeared to have been broken. This confirms what John wrote about the practice of Roman executioners. They would break the legs of the crucified to hasten death, something from which Jesus, already dead, was spared.

        This point is particularly noteworthy, since scholars have long dismissed the details of John’s Passion narrative as theologically motivated embellishments. Another part of John’s Gospel that archaeology has recently corroborated is the story of Jesus healing the lame man in John 5.

        John describes a five-sided pool just inside the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem where the sick came to be healed. Since no other document of antiquity—including the rest of the Bible—mentions such a place, skeptics have long argued that John simply invented the place. But as Sheler points out, when archaeologists decided to dig where John said that the pool had been located, they found a five-sided pool. What’s more, the pool contained shrines to the Greek gods of healing.

        Apparently John didn’t make up the pool after all. The dismissal of biblical texts without bothering to dig points to a dirty little secret about a lot of scholarly opinion: Much of the traditional suspicion of the biblical text can only be called a prejudice.

        That is, it’s a conclusion arrived at before one has the facts. Scholars long assumed that the Bible, like other documents of antiquity, was essentially propaganda, what theologian Rudolf Bultmann called “kerygma” or proclamation.

        But this prejudice does an injustice to biblical faith. Central to that faith are history and memory.

        Christians believe that God has acted, and continues to act, in history. For us, remembering what God has done is an act of worship—something that brings us closer to God.

        Thus, while these discoveries in the desert may come as a surprise to some skeptics, they’re no surprise to Christians. While archeology alone cannot bring a person to faith, these finds are an eloquent argument for not dismissing the truth of Scripture before at least examining the evidence, because, as we are learning every day, Jesus meant it when He said, “The very stones will cry out”.

        http://www.charismanews.com/culture/48175-jesus-words-backed-by-archaeology-the-stones-are-crying-out

        Like

      • Hello Jenny,
        I’m interested to read that I’m ‘TITLING at windmills again’. First time I’ve ever been accused of that, regardless of how it’s been spelt. Well actually I’m sort of struggling to get hold of just what you are saying about me.

        Is there really any harm in repeating old news? And for that matter, in view of the fact that the line quoted read – ‘the Christian Church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries was under persecution IN the catacombs’, that is simply an incorrect statement in the way it is phrased, and since no-one fixed it, I assumed that there are probably a few people around here who didnt know the facts.

        In any case Jenny, I did quote more than just one matter there. Did you actually know ALL the things I said there as ‘old news’? Did you know about Bishop Cyprian? Hm? Surely that is interesting? But it strikes me that if it had been a Christian poster detailing that bit of information, then I cant believe that you would have pulled me up about it, would you? Come clean now.

        If it was my little mention of friend Alexie that you were shooting at, then of course you are probably not aware of the number of times he and I have crossed swords for over three years. Look, I can easily excuse Bryan for his comment that I am ‘blatantly anti-Christian’ as being an ongoing honest mistake, as it would seem that his definitions are rather biased however sincere on the subject. But Alexie showed himself up as blatantly dishonest and cowardly a few weeks back, when we discussed Gnosticism. I really did expect better of him. He seems to get some perverted sort of pleasure in shooting me down at every opportunity. I’ve no doubt that he would be a powerful and well-resourced preacher. But he’s hopeless as a Christian Apologist.

        Cheers, Rian

        Like

      • “That’s old news Rian. You are titling at windmills again”
        🙂
        “I wait with interest to see if friend Alexie will make a typical point of shooting me down over the catacombs.”

        When you stop using less than scholarly works you will use stop shooting yourself in the foot.

        “Alexie showed himself up as blatantly dishonest and cowardly a few weeks back”.

        ahh! Name calling. You must miss me.

        “But he’s hopeless as a Christian Apologist.”

        You are such a sad character. You should try fishing as a sport.

        Like

      • “Yeah it’s that passive aggressive thing that Rian uses”

        Too true. Friend to coward within a few sentences.
        He hangs onto stuff too. I think of the song from Frozen, Let it go, Let it go….

        Like

      • Hi Dom,
        Thanks for your comment there. I guess it must amuse you as it does me to read through many of the very partisan criticisms that get tossed about on the blog. Approved Christians can do no wrong, while dissenters of any kind cop all the flack, – and delivered you know with such glee.

        Technically I suppose that you are in a marginally better classification here than I am. You at least belong to one of the prime World Religions, while I follow some of the most despised and rejected philosophical schools. In the process too, of course, you as a Muslim believe in one God, – a personal God. And that must allow some leeway. On the other hand, as a partial follower of Gnosticism, I must by definition be a Dualist, and a believer in this world being evil, etc etc. Really funny just how they can get things wrong.

        Looking back on my three and a half years on this blog, I can recall several major things I put forward that were never even answered, let alone refuted by anyone, simply because they were self evident.

        I’m not really sure just what scholarly books I’m supposed to be reading instead of the skeptical literature I’m believed to have been studying. Ah well,

        Again Cheers old friend. I always read your posts with interest, and at all times respecting your dignity and integrity.
        Rian.

        Like

      • Hypocrisy anyone!

        “cop all the flack, – and delivered you know with such glee.”

        I am pretty sure you dish out your tonnes worth.

        I seem to remember you called a certain awesome person a coward, amongst other words.

        No use whining about it or crying when you dish it out so often.

        Like

      • Bryan,

        You asserted that I had not admitted I was wrong over the
        story of the Thief on the Cross.

        Firstly I find it very unlikely, though I cant recall seeing anything directly on the topic, that a couple of crucified persons in the early stages of suffering would be in any fit state to engage in a reasoned discussion, such as is described there. They would be finding it terribly difficult to breathe and to speak identifiable words loud enough to be understood. Keeping in mind the fact that the ‘crosses’ would be some couple of yards apart, the possibility is slim. With the agony they would be going through, they would at most be gasping, moaning and crying. That anyone nearby on the ground would possibly hear them would also be unlikely
        .
        Now I was not proven wrong about the matter in our discussion the other week. I simply disputed your Christian suggestion that the words “Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom’ could be literally meaning ‘I accept you as my Saviour, and please take me with you into your kingdom’. That interpretation is not FACT, it is DOCTRINAL. The possibility too that any warlike Insurgent like this ‘good’ thief could in any way prematurely grasp the Christian type of theological implications of ‘spiritual’ salvation for heaven, rather than the common Jewish concept of it which dealt with a warrior Messiah whose favour meant that one would be on the winning side in the eventual necessary conflict with the hated Romans, seems very slim.

        In any case Bryan, I was simply NOT proven wrong in regards to facts. I specifically hold a different and legitimate interpretation of a Scriptural quote. To ‘admit I was wrong’ as you would have wanted, I would clearly be needing to become Christian myself, wouldn’t I? And in the process, I would have to be a Christian who accepts Scriptural inerrancy.

        Similarly I was not wrong in disputing the meaning in the text of the Book of Job since I was accurately describing the literal meaning of the text there and such subtleties as you were hinting at require Christian belief and faith. And similarly my hypothetical Gnostic interpretation of the discussion about the sad death of Lazarus would not be ‘ridiculous’ in the eyes of Gnostic and Mystery School theorists. For Christians you are right. it just has to be ridiculous, of course.

        So again think about it.
        Rian.

        Like

    • “I remind people that the Christian church in the 2nd and 3rd century was under persecution in catacombs.”

      Still being persecuted all over the world.

      Like

      • With the edict of Milan, promulgated by the emperors Constantine and Licinius in February 313, the Christians were no longer persecuted. They were free to profess their faith, to have places of worship and to build churches both inside and outside the city, and to buy plots of land, without fear of confiscation. Nevertheless, the catacombs continued to function as regular cemeteries until the beginning of the fifth century, when the Church returned to bury exclusively above ground or in the basilicas dedicated to important martyrs.

        Like

      • Well Alexie and Bryan are scoffing at my use of terms Dishonest and coward.; So let me refresh your minds.

         Rian on October 25, 2015 at 17:22 said:
        Interesting to notice that many of these early Gnostics were upsetting the orthodox faithful, by allowing women (just imagine!) to preach, to prophesy and to administer the Eucharist. (shudder!) Very democratic!

         alexie on October 25, 2015 at 18:56 said:
        “interesting to notice that many of these early Gnostics were upsetting the orthodox faithful, by allowing women (just imagine!) to preach, to prophesy and to administer the Eucharist. (shudder!) Very democratic!”
        Wrong again. You have been wrong a lot lately

         Rian on October 27, 2015 at 21:22 said:
        Goodness me, Alexie, Just where have you learnt your history from? Let me just enlighten you with details from early Christians.
        Tertullian objected to the participation of ‘those women among the heretics who shared with men positions of authority. They teach, they engage in discussion, they exorcise; they cure.’ Tertullian even suspect that they might even baptise, which suggested that some of these women act as Bishops as well. All initiates men and women equally participated in the drawing of lots to determine just who would act in the various offices of the church for that occasion. This riled the orthodox, who insisted that only a church with Bishops, Priests and Deacons could be authentic and godly.
        Then Tertullian stated about the acts of Gnostic women… ‘These heretical women – how audacious they are! They have no modesty; they are bold enough to teach, to engage in argument.’
        So I wasn’t wrong at all, was I Alexie? Neither was I wrong the other day about brilliant minds in the Gnostic camp. It was in Tertullian’s ‘Adversus Valentinianus’ that he makes the point that even his enemies admitted that Valentinus was a brilliant and fluent man.. So is it too much to expect or ask for some sort of apology from you about claiming I’m just so wrong all the time?? Hm?

        Next posting, I went on to state that Alexie was obviously embarrassed at getting something wrong and deliberately avoided a correction or an apology..

         alexie on October 31, 2015 at 20:01 said:
        Seriously?
        “It is very noticeable that you have discretely kept quiet (from embarrassment I presume), since I pointed out the quotes from Tertullian about those same Gnostics to back up my claims.”
        Are you serious? Like much of your “facts” I ignore them. Just because I do not respond does not mean by default you are correct. Far from it. Can I remind you of your own comments about no certainty, only doubts. You cannot be certain about what you wrote so why are you so certain of being right?
        —————————————————————
        I repeat. Alexie is being deliberately evasive there in claiming that I get my facts wrong. I quoted directly from Tertullian, who Alexie himself proceeded a day or two later to quote from himself. He is being dishonest and evasive in claiming that he ignores my facts, while it is always clearly obvious that in replying frequently and contemptuously to my postings, he is NOT ignoring anything I write.

        He is certainly being cowardly in hiding behind bluster when he fails as he did in this case to acknowledge that I HAD BEEN PERFCTLY CORRECT when I quoted from Tertullian. But Alexie must never be proven wrong by a non-believer. So was I right or wasn’t I? It is ironic that you Bryan have accused me of not admitting I was wrong (using the Gospel account of the Thief on the Cross to demonstrate it) But you are failing to follow through by reproaching Alexie when he has been demonstrably wrong.

        again, think about it.
        Cheers Rian

        Like

      • Bringing it all up again does not change the fact you are incorrect. Long winded replies also does not make you correct. People not wanting to reply does not make you correct. If we replied to everything you wrote we would be online a lot longer than we want to. You quote tertle again but I have no idea what you quoted. I may not even have read your post. Did you think of that? I often, as do others, simply move on to other posts by Bryan.
        You are so intense about wanting to be proven correct. Mind you, to be correct in your eyes is about bringing down the Christian faith. You are gnostic and hence not Christian with a strong bias against Christianity and on more than one occasion have been found out using less than scholarly history. You also believe truth is somewhat relative but try prove yourself absolute in your truth. You are a cauldron of emotion, irony and contradiction and you wonder why I may not respond. I will also not latch onto your bait as you try to sucker me/others into your muddy and never ending obsessions. Now you are trying to manipulate Bryan into your crusade. he is far too smart for that.
        I will simply finish with the words of Bryan.
        “After a hard week I don’t really want to hear an on-and-on-and-on repeat of your conjectures and supposed justifications for your baseless anti-Christian theories. I don’t think anyone else does either.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • The catacombs were underground rooms and passageways that served as mausoleums in which the ancient Romans buried their dead. When the persecutions began and intensified under Nero, the Christians found that they could retreat into these labyrinthine networks of tunnels to escape the notice or pursuit of Roman soldiers or citizens wishing to turn them in to the authorities. The Early Church developed a vast support network and series of hiding places based on the catacombs. Meanwhile, the use of a public mausoleum as a hiding place caused wild rumors about Christian rituals and practice to spread amongst the Romans. Some Romans believed that the Christians sacrificed their children and performed bizarre, secret worship rituals at midnight. Another rumor was that the Christians drank human blood. This may have come from a misinterpretation of Jesus’ command: “Behold, This is my blood. Take ye and drink in remembrance of Me.”

      Today, the Catacombs attract visitors from all over the world. The Christian Church spread throughout the world largely as a result of the persecutions by the Romans. The faithful come to see the places where the early ssaints gathered and the students of history to marvel at the sheer extent of these massive underground galleries and chambers.

      Like

      • Some Romans believed that the Christians sacrificed their children and performed bizarre, secret worship rituals at midnight. Another rumor was that the Christians drank human blood.

        Did they have FOX news back then too ?

        Like

      • Very true Marc. The tourism is immense. The walls are covered with the evidence of what you have stated above.

        Like

    • Bryan, old friend/mate whatever,

      You have just not thought clearly about my use of ‘Friend Alexie’, you know. If that is a sign of aggression of any variety, then think about this. I’ve observed you on any number of occasions tossing heavy criticisms and indeed unfortunate names at certain folk on this blog, and in the process have popped in the odd ‘old mate’ presumably to show your attitude of Christian charity towards them, old mate.

      My use of the word ‘friend’ is not really all that peculiar or sinister. It is an old fashioned way of referring respectfully to a third party in the midst of a discussion. The person is a colleague, – one who is well known to both parties, and probably some sort of friend to the second person in the discussion. In any case, what is to stop me from actually making a genuine friend out of someone who happens to be something of a coward? I would have to say that every single one of my dearest friends has some unfortunate besetting sin just as I myself do. Doesn’t stop me from liking/loving them, does it? I am a bit surprised at your obliviousness about the usage issue, in view of you ‘being a ruler in Journalism and not knowing these things.’ (misquote there from John’s Gospel)

      And tell me, whenever you write a formal letter to someone, do you fail to open with ‘DEAR Mr Bloggs or DEAR Mrs Smith’, regardless of what your own personal feelings might be about them?? The word Dear sounds much much more close and matey than ‘friend’ could ever be. Hmm? Hmm?

      Just one other thing there. Whenever someone is accusing another of ‘passive aggression’, you will usually find that that other is being heavily or unfairly attacked or oppressed by the accuser. And as well, to toss round the term is something of a passive aggressive action in itself, tossed about all too easily when the accused person is daring to resist or self-defend against the aggressor.

      I guess that one reason you feel obliged to accuse me of passive aggression is because I write very carefully worded postings in a very steady rational and impassive tone. I dont impulsively toss around emotional and irrelevant insults the way some do. If I use a detrimental term against someone, I do it calmly frankly and simply. I’m not just getting some insult out of my system.

      Bryan, I’m sure that you are a nice old chap, and I feel you and I would get on well in person, but you do often remain sadly biased and partisan when dealing on the blog with Christian/dissenter debates.

      Think about it.
      Rian

      Like

      • I guess that one reason you feel obliged to accuse me of passive aggression is because I write very carefully worded postings in a very steady rational and impassive tone.

        No. Hardly rational or impassive Rian. Just conjecture and tedious bombastic lecturing without evidence.

        Passive/aggressive? Yep. You’ve used it so often now you refuse to recognise it. Look up the definition friend Rian.

        After a hard week I don’t really want to hear an on-and-on-and-on repeat of your conjectures and supposed justifications for your baseless anti-Christian theories. I don’t think anyone else does either.

        As Alexie said: We’ve been there before. LET IT GO…. unless you have something relevant to say.

        Like

      • “I dont impulsively toss around emotional and irrelevant insults the way some do.”

        Like calling someone a coward. Or is it only you who decides what is irrelevant?

        Like

      • Oh yes, you also called someone dishonest hopeless as a Christian Apologist.

        ahh, the hypocrisy!

        “I’m not just getting some insult out of my system.”

        The words you the say something else!

        Plus, instead of letting things go you bring them up time and time again. usually through a reply to someone else instead of directly to the person you are aiming at.

        Victim mentality.

        You should try fishing as a sport.

        Like

      • Actually I don’t see it as trivial at all. However there is a right way and a wrong way to go about praying.

        Tell me are you aware of the fact that there is a wrong way to pray or do you just believe that it is a trivial matter in learning how to do it properly?

        Like

      • Funny you should ask davinci. You keep getting it wrong don’t you?

        I go back to Jesus’ words. Can you do better?:

        “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

        9 “This, then, is how you should pray:

        “‘Our Father in heaven,
        hallowed be your name,

        10
        your kingdom come,
        your will be done,
        on earth as it is in heaven.

        11
        Give us today our daily bread.

        12
        And forgive us our debts,
        as we also have forgiven our debtors.

        13
        And lead us not into temptation,[a]
        but deliver us from the evil one.[b]’

        14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

        Like

      • Pride is so dangerous. It is the same with charity. It should be given in secret unless you are trying to encourage others to give.

        Like

      • davinci:

        “However there is a right way and a wrong way to go about praying.”

        And as the only perfectly “reformed” Christian posting on this blog, you are the only one able to lecture others about the “right way” to go about it. Of course, if that were true, a proven liar with racist tendencies would qualify as a perfectly reformed Christian.

        Like

      • Yep! I can do better. The Bible tells us that our faith is built on the foundations laid by Jesus Christ, apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20).

        Which means that to reject what the apostles and prophets have said about prayer is to reject what Jesus had said Himself.

        I ask you again, are you aware that there is a right and a wrong way to pray?

        Like

      • Proven Liar?

        At 2015/07/09 at 17:27 I wrote:
        “After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.”

        Which you and Bryan twisted to say:
        “After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, I_ _____ ___ ____ ____ ____ ___ __ __ sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.”

        A bit of censoring here, a bit of censoring there, and anyone can be made to look like a liar and a hypocrite.

        But I bet Bryan will censor this statement as well in order to make me look like a hypocrite.

        Like

      • No, you weren’t censored nor were your own words twisted. As has been said before Vladimir, your own words condemn you.

        “After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.”

        To even consider such a thing – or to admit it would have been easy for you to sympathise with the ideology of the KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks, is despicable.It is WRONG,WRONG,WRONG.

        Like

      • davinci:

        “Proven Liar?”

        You sure are. Here’s my favourite lie:

        “I don’t even recall using the words KKK or make any reference to KKK to support it in any shape or form.” davinci July 17, 2015 at 11:53

        “A bit of censoring here, a bit of censoring there, and anyone can be made to look like a liar and a hypocrite.”

        Sure. But you were quoted verbatim, as the record shows. So the reason you look like a liar and a hypocrite is because of your lies and hypocrisy.

        Like

      • “To even consider such a thing – or to admit it would have been easy for you to sympathise with the ideology of the KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks, is despicable.It is WRONG,WRONG,WRONG.”

        It has been explained to you and Stu, that the words “It would have been easy for me to…” was my way of saying I was tempted (which I overcame anyway). You and Stu decided to ignore what I am saying, because I was unwittingly revealing your personal sins.

        Which brings into question your genuineness as a Christian, and Faithworks as a genuine Christian Website.

        You constantly fail to understand that Jesus was also tempted, yet without sin.

        According to the comment you just made, Jesus was wrong, wrong, wrong because doubt in His relationship to God was brought for His consideration through being tempted.

        According to the comment you just made, Jesus was wrong, wrong, wrong jumping off the roof was brought for His consideration through being tempted.

        According to your logic, Jesus was wrong, wrong, wrong, because world conquest was brought to Him for consideration through being tempted.

        It should not surprise me that both you and Stu have come to this conclusion.

        Stu is a non-believer who cannot appreciate spiritual things. So anything he has to comment on, is utter balderdash.

        But you? You claim to be a Christian, yet your whole website is aimed at advocating a superficial form of Christianity, where the Word of God and the practice of Christianity are mere cultural practices, such as Richard Dawkins’ “cultural Anglicanism”.

        Like

      • davinci:

        “You and Stu decided to ignore what I am saying, because I was unwittingly revealing your personal sins.”

        You lied about even using the term “KKK”. You are no position to accuse anybody ff ignoring anything.

        “Which brings into question your genuineness as a Christian, and Faithworks as a genuine Christian Website.”

        Again, you set yourself up as the perfectly reformed Christian, judging the “genuineness” of other believers. Are you a perfect Christian, without sin, or are you a hypocrite who preaches what he doesn’t practice?

        Like

    • “But you? You claim to be a Christian”

      Let God judge the heart of a man.
      I believe Bryan to be a Christian. Maybe not a good Christian. I say that in the nicest way and include myself as not a good Christian. No one is actually good.

      Like

      • “By their fruits ye shall know them.” (Jesus Christ).

        Assuming that I sinned when I was tempted to sympathize and become a KKK member.

        What Bryan has done here is engaged in a bit of Satanism, namely:

        – God promises to cast our sins to the bottom of the sea (Micah 7:19). Bryan fishes them out again, so that again I am presented as a kkk member/sympathizer.

        – God promises blot our sins out and remember them no more (Hebrews 8:12). Bryan and Stu continuously bring out to our rememberance this “sin”.

        We have the example of Job how he was tempted to consider cursing God. Bryan interprets the book of Job through the eyes of Carl Jung and dismisses it as an allegory. Thus he misses the fact that some temptations come from external sources.

        Like

      • What Bryan has done here is engaged in a bit of Satanism

        So now I’m satanic? I guess I’ll let God judge if that’s true.

        Bryan interprets the book of Job through the eyes of Carl Jung and dismisses it as an allegory

        No I never said that.

        Assuming that I sinned when I was tempted to sympathize and become a KKK member.

        Yep. And it doesn’t bother you?

        Like

      • davinci:

        “Assuming that I sinned when I was tempted to sympathize and become a KKK member.”

        Did you sin when you lied about even using the term “KKK”? Or do you have a theological justification for lying?

        Like

  2. Sometimes prayer is viewed as a “magic” like asking santa for presents. Somehow if we do not say exactly the right things, or pray in the right position, God will not hear and answer our prayer. This is unbiblical. God does not answer our prayers based on when we pray, where we are, what position our body is in, or in what order we word our prayers. John 14:13-14 declares, “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.” According to these and many other Scriptures, God answers prayer requests based on whether they are asked according to His will and in the name of Jesus (to bring glory to Jesus).

    Prayer, simply put, is conversation with God.

    “But the tax collector stood at a distance and dared not even lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed. Instead, he beat his chest in sorrow, saying, ‘O God, be merciful to me, for I am a sinner.’ I tell you, this sinner, not the Pharisee, returned home justified before God. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Luke 18:11-14

    If anyone prays to only show that they are “men of God”. Or to boast in themselves saying look at me!

    Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

    Like

    • “I ask you again, are you aware that there is a right and a wrong way to pray?”

      Stick your neck out and tell us the wisdom you hold?

      Like

      • I’m sticking my neck out. Because I believe prayer and telepathy are linked, and we will eventually learn more about the science behind telepathy, I believe some prayers are more effective than others.

        Not in any physical way, but in being heart-felt. I believe prayers must come from the heart.

        Why would God, otherwise, believe them?

        Like

      • Hey Strewth,

        The science behind telepathy sounds quite interesting, got any links or experimental data you could share ?

        Like

      • Bubba, the effect has been known for years, such as a mother rat’s reaction when miles away her babies are killed. But no-one knew the mechanism.

        Now some progress is being made, by means of an electroencephalogram cap, studded with electrodes that can read the minute fluctuations of voltage across the brain, and is transferred wirelessly to someone with a similar cap..

        Still a long way to go. Personally I feel sure strong emotion figures in the matter.

        Like

      • Hey Strewth,

        Interesting stuffy – got any links to the experimental data ?

        The EEG cap sounds more like a massive advancement in wearable tech than any naturally occurring phenomena.

        Like

  3. “Stu is a non-believer who cannot appreciate spiritual things. So anything he has to comment on, is utter balderdash.”

    I am wondering if he is not the only one here. There may be one Christian here who could probably learn from stu?

    Like

    • “Stu is a non-believer who cannot appreciate spiritual things. So anything he has to comment on, is utter balderdash.”

      I can appreciate “spiritual things” depending on how you define them. For example I can appreciate the beauty, cultural significance and sentiment of the Beatitudes (for example) without a belief in the supernatural. I’m more than happy to debate whether my comments are “balderdash” but davinci should at least let me make a comment on a “spiritual” thing in the first instance.

      Like

      • I mentioned before that
        “Core beliefs are so much more than ideas or ideals, they are identification and identity. Who we understand ourselves to be is formed around them. It is important for Davinci to be right, I think, even if it makes everyone else wrong. For him to be wrong would destroy his sense of self. We should not worry, just let go and let God, who has plenty time to work his wonders. God too loves Davinci.”

        The loss of core beliefs leads to a “dark night of the soul”. For some, a dark night that seems never ending. For others, a prelude to a “morning has broken” fresh faith.

        Like

      • How about Strewth,

        that davinci is just an “ugly Christian”, and I’m not talking about looks here as I’ve never met the guy. From the moment he appeared on the blog, with both guns blazing, he was telling us that he was the only true Christian here; that he was right and we were all going to Hell! Good riddance!

        Like

      • Absolutely nothing, I believe, ruins the world’s appetite for God more, than finding an unloving heart in someone who claims to be a Christian. God looks in our heart.

        Many years ago, when all I wanted was more of God, I had this most profound ‘open’ vision (where you see with eyes wide open). My Lord and Saviour appeared before me with the most loving look in His eyes. He raised His hand to His chest and pulled out His still beating heart and offered it to me. I literally fell backwards with shock. I did not understand what Jesus was saying to me. The experience really upset me……until I bravely shared it with my trusted prayer group. They all proclaimed as one, “Oh, how beautiful! The Lord wants to give you His heart in exchange for yours.”

        And if we as Christians do not allow Him to change us for the better, how on earth can we truly represent Him to the world?

        This is the hard lesson I’ve had to learn on this blog….am still learning, that it really isn’t about right and wrong, but by our capacity to love as Christ does!

        Like

      • The Lord’s been speaking (not literally) to me just now about having the heart of a servant. It’s a process…..

        HEART OF A SERVANT
        “Give me the heart of a servant,
        Tender and faithful and true
        Fill me with love, then use me,
        O Lord,
        So that the world can see You.”

        Like

      • I agree, Monica. “And if we as Christians do not allow Him to change us for the better, how on earth can we truly represent Him to the world? ”

        Change for its own sake is something to beware of, as is adamant opposition.

        Like

  4. Rain said, “There were no assembly room areas within them.(Catacombs)

    teehee wrong again. By the way I am not shooting you down. The facts are. And they were used for hiding too.

    Giovanni Battista de Rossi (archaeologist) “De Rossi continued his search of the area, and found the Chapel of the Popes in the Catacombe di San Callisto, where 14 popes were buried. He also excavated the catacomb of Thrason (1872) and of Catacomba di Priscilla (1880’s).”

    The catacombs (tunnels, rooms and crevices) were used by Jews, Pagans and Christians. The Jews were well known to use them for celebrations with the menorah, a the 7 branched candle stick. They worshiped God and reflected on their family history.

    “Cardinal Wiseman recounts a guide employed to the places of worship in the catacombs”

    The guide was blind but knew the grounds well.

    “The room on the west side of the court may have been used for the instruction of catechumens. This was the period of persecution which varied in intensity and duration from place to place. The Christians in Rome found it safer to worship in suitably appointed places near subterranean burial chambers or catacombs”. – See more at: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/christian-architecture#sthash.9TJj9DK8.dpuf

    Why? So they could hide. Feels good to be right again.

    “The Catacombs of Rome (Italian: Catacombe di Roma) are ancient catacombs, underground burial places under or near Rome, Italy, of which there are at least forty, some discovered only in recent decades. Though most famous for Christian burials, either in separate catacombs or mixed together, they began in the 2nd century, much as a response to overcrowding and shortage of land. Many scholars have written that catacombs came about to help persecuted Christians to bury their dead secretly. The soft volcanic tuff rock under Rome is highly suitable for tunneling, as it is softer when first exposed to air, hardening afterwards. Many have kilometres of tunnels, in up to four stories (or layers).

    The Christian catacombs are extremely important for the art history of early Christian art, as they contain the great majority of examples from before about 400 AD, in fresco and sculpture. The Jewish catacombs are similarly important for the study of Jewish art at this period.”

    “Many depictions of the catacombs show them as hiding places for Christian populations during times of persecution.”

    Wow, the evidence is on the walls themselves. The Italians know their stuff.

    Like

  5. “Very strange behaviour from someone who claims to be educated.”

    Tis nothing compared to the behaviour of some of those who claim to be Christian

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s