Who is God?

And what about The preferential option for the poor, the great rallying cry of Liberation Theology?

Vampire while it is true that there have always been some power hungry nutters who have used a religion to further their own worldly ambitions, I'm not sure your take on the medieval church is strictly accurate. There's a lot in the OT about Justice and Righteousness and a great deal in the NT about equality 'He has put down the mighty from their seat and has exalted the humble and weak' for example. When Christians acted on this, you got popular liberation movements from the the Peasants' Revolt through the anti-slavery movement to Civil Rights in the US. Not all equally successful, but they tried. And often got zapped for trying.

I second that when

Thanks for clarifying Anagram. Your post read ambiguously, but it's not fair to leap to the wrong conclusion. Maybe there is something in us all being reminded how to post politely

Another example of someone's post being misinterpreted, when.
By 'regular member' I include all of us who regularly post, as opposed to a completely new poster whose post is obviously malicious or is in fact advertising. I'm not quite sure what you mean by unfair play between GNHQ and regular members. Why would I be implying that? Am I not a regular member?

The second paragraph of your post would seem to bear out my point that few posts included in discussions or even arguments are, in fact, deleted.

Anagram can you clarify what you mean about it seeming rare for GNHQ to delete a regular member's post, please? We don't want more arguments because of a misunderstanding, and at the moment your post looks as though you are implying some unfair play between GNHQ and regular members. Is that what you are saying? If it is, I would want to be part of a corporate request for this to be investigated, as I am sure would other Gransnetters. Thanks.

It's more likely that regular members have learned from experience how to phrase their comments so as not to breach forum etiquette.

Yes, but still no need to apologise. People who take offence when a view is expressed that they don't like are the ones who need to toughen up and stop it. I bet they'd take offence if I said I took offence at someone saying Jesus was the son of god. You cannot win, or discuss meaningfully, with people who take offence when you disagree with their views. That, of course, is the idea – close down discussion. Censorship.

Was it the 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' post? If so, in retrospect it might have been wiser to quote your source at the time!

alison

Um, nanadog, why do you feel the need to apologise for quoting Douglas
Adams? [completely puzzled emoticon]

I agree with Bags everyone is entitled to their opinion but not to attribute opinions, which have not been written, to other people. I have not critiscised any beliefs, I have not said there is merit is suffering in silence, I have not said that it is wrong to say that one has done good works but all of these seem to have been suggested as my views! None of you knows my opinion about faith, or lack of it, but some of you seem to have made assumptions.

I do think it is a shame, and harmful to GN, to be unkind to others just because they have a different opinion to one's own. It is especially unpleasant if it is done as a deliberate act. I do hope that is not the case but it does feel like it to me.

I have no objection whatsoever to someone mentioning something they have done, why should I? However, when the same good deed/kindness/generous act is mentioned time and time again it does become somewhat wearing.

I apologise to all those who found my quote from Douglas Adams offensive. I especially apologise to JO for daring to question the belief in a god thereby causing all this bitterness and aggression, as she states so clearly.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Hope I have that correct its years since I studied Latin.

Although I have to say, it seems very rare for GNHQ to delete a regular member's post.

That's exactly my view in a nutshell, bags.

Making offensive comments, wrongful or personal accusations or suggestions that are illegal are not on, and this is covered by forum etiquette. We can complain/report posts, and GNHQ will delete such posts.

Respect bags

I've gathered from my reading of this thread today that putting belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden alongside belief in other imaginary figures (gods, for example) is seen as offensive to some people. I've taken that on board. I have no intention, ever, of offending people when I state what I think. There is now a problem. If I want to avoid people taking offence at what I believe, I can't actually say what I believe. Hmmm. There is a way round this problem though. If people decide not to take offence because someone else believes something that they think is wrong, just as I (and no doubt many others) have decided to do, then there won't be a problem. Neither will there be any censorship.

If anyone wants to think that my view about all imaginary beings is ridiculous and not worthy of respect, please go ahead. I will not be offended. Why should I be? It makes no difference to my belief, nor to me. It is just something I might note in passing: xyz thinks this belief of mine is bullshit. Fine. No problem. xyz's thinking that, or saying it, is not offensive or insulting. I accept that how one says things can make a difference, but I also think it's worth making allowances – not everyone is a brilliant writer, especially in the heat of the moment during an online discussion.

In short, once again, it's not wrong to say what you think. It's not wrong or offensive to say that a belief or and idea or an argument is stupid, if that's what you think. Some ideas are stupid. The thing is to say why you think they are stupid and then people can say why they think you are wrong, and so forth, to and fro. Holding a stupid idea does not make the person holding it stupid and nobody has said that it does.

And I say it too Gramps

It's a very nice poem.

Alison said thanks for sharing it And Soop

I did read your post. I chose to call you by a silly sounding name.

Sorry.

Gramps - I have avoided this thread because I have little interest in the topic. I was moved to respond to your post late last night but too tired to write coherently. You have 'bared your soul' to us - not in an attempt to evangilise but rather to explain what has helped you through life, in the hope that it might be useful to others. Whilst the thread has been (insert word of your choice) you came back calmly, attempting to draw some concensus from the debacle. I am saddened that no one has responded to your second post and just wanted to say that you are not to blame for any animosity that has been generated. You have been a perfect Gentleman - RESPECT

At no point have I ever been unpleasant to anyone.

Gramps called me 'vampy' and I politely asked him not to which he kindly agreed to. Either you did not read that post or you have chosen to call me a name which you know I dislike.

I have never commented on your faith. I have no idea if you are a 'good' Christian or not. In fact I have no idea what constitutes being a 'good' Christian.

The thread is entitled 'Who is God?' and I have given my views on the nature of God. To me God is an insecure, egocentric bully who pretends to be all caring but actually leaves the vast majority of humanity in varying states of suffering.

Other people are entitled to their opinions. They might see Him as a wonderful being. It's a personal choice which I have no problem with. Each of us sees God in our own way.

It seems you take offence where none is intended.

Lilygran!

Like your suggestion, MiceElf. On the other hand, there are lots of people fighting the cause on Ship of Fools and not so many on Gransnet. It was the weirdly consensual nature of the 'religion and spirituality' threads that first caused me to put finger to virtual keyboard.

I never said I was a good christian.

That was to "vampy"