God bless London buses!

sorella

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2009/02/pro-god-buses-are-set-to-hit-streets-in.html

Warms the heart on this bitter, freezing night here..

Blessings this night as we enter our Grand Silence of Prayer through the night here.

Fanny Cradock

They should spend their money on more worthy things.

Mena

"Pro God buses" ...? You guys will accept anything into your club

PDN

The last thing we need is a Christian political party.

deadhead13

More a question of God bless who is ever is paying for the ads surely. London bus will take anybodys money.

sHnaCk

PDN wrote: »

The last thing we need is a Christian political party.

Why?
Seems like a broad and ignorant statement...

Mena

PDN wrote: »

The last thing we need is a Christian political party.

Too late: Clicky

sHnaCk wrote: »

Why?
Seems like a broad and ignorant statement...

Seemed spot on to me.

sHnaCk

Mena wrote: »

Seemed spot on to me.

Seems the end of the article was spot on too... Psalm 53.1, which reads: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

girlbiker

Why?

It does seem like a response to the atheists original idea, jumping on the band(bus) wagon. The "Christian message", or at least what got people thinking about the existace of God IMO, was the response to the "probably" in the atheists statement that undid the message they actually wanted to put across. It made them seem unsure in their beliefs.
These bible quotes on buses, they make no impact but it was the mistake on the part of the atheists with their choice of wording that actually brought the debate/issue into the public eye. I bet God planned it that way all along!

PDN

sHnaCk wrote: »

Why?
Seems like a broad and ignorant statement...

Well why not discuss it instead of throwing terms like 'ignorant' around?

I hate the idea of a Christian political party for several reasons.

1. Because a Christian political party will take stands on certain issues (eg the European Union, immigration) that do not reflect the views of all, or even most, Christians. Indeed such a political party will more likely than not be a bunch of right-wing crackpots.

2. Because political change is effected by building a coalition of all interested parties, not just those of one religion.

3. Because history demonstrates that when religion becomes joined with political power the results are rarely edifying.

I believe the cause of Christ would be much better served by Christians taking an active role in existing political parties.

Fanny Cradock

girlbiker wrote: »

Why?

It does seem like a response to the atheists original idea, jumping on the band(bus) wagon. The "Christian message", or at least what got people thinking about the existace of God IMO, was the response to the "probably" in the atheists statement that undid the message they actually wanted to put across. It made them seem unsure in their beliefs.
These bible quotes on buses, they make no impact but it was the mistake on the part of the atheists with their choice of wording that actually brought the debate/issue into the public eye. I bet God planned it that way all along!

As God is not falsifiable I would assume that they would have to put non-definite statements. It is probably why Veritas had to withdraw their Christmas ad because it was adjudged to make a claim about their merchandise that could not be substantiated.

I would much prefer if they raised money to help with Aids education in Africa (including teaching about the use of condoms) or some such. I think that Christians should be above trying to enter into a wasteful and ineffective tit-for-tat marketing campaign.

Mickeroo

girlbiker wrote: »

Why?

It does seem like a response to the atheists original idea, jumping on the band(bus) wagon. The "Christian message", or at least what got people thinking about the existace of God IMO, was the response to the "probably" in the atheists statement that undid the message they actually wanted to put across. It made them seem unsure in their beliefs.
These bible quotes on buses, they make no impact but it was the mistake on the part of the atheists with their choice of wording that actually brought the debate/issue into the public eye. I bet God planned it that way all along!

Wrong. Theres no proof of god's existence so it's highly improbable that he exists,theres plenty of proof for evolution, the big bang, how old the earth is and why things like noah's flood never happened making it more and more improbable. So their wording was spot on. Please no-body turn this into a creationist v evolution argument,i'm just responding to the above post

Also,I agree with Fanny on this one, both parties could have spent their money on something a lot more worthy.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that Christians should be above trying to enter into a wasteful and ineffective tit-for-tat marketing campaign.

I'd go along with that. I doubt that these ad campaigns are cheap, and I really don't see the benefits. Maybe I'm missing something, but on first thought, it doesn't seem like money well spent. As you say, it seems like its more tit for tat. The Atheists baited the hook, and these groups seem to have just bitten down. I used to enjoy the original Christian ads on the tube and on the buses. Just little verses etc. Nothing contentious. I think that the atheist bus thing was a response to these fairly innocuous ads, which was very petty. Now, rather than leave the atheist campaign in their pettiness, they've responded in kind it seems. I'm a little disappointed tbh.

Fanny Cradock

Mickeroo wrote: »

Wrong. Theres no proof of god's existence so it's highly improbable that he exists,theres plenty of proof for evolution, the big bang, how old the earth is and why things like noah's flood never happened making it more and more improbable. So their wording was spot on. Please no-body turn this into a creationist v evolution argument,i'm just responding to the above post

Also,I agree with Fanny on this one, both parties could have spent their money on something a lot more worthy.

You need to familiarise yourself with the meaning of the word 'proof' when discussing scientific theories. There is no proof of evolution, the big bang or how old the earth is. So the onus is not on theists to prove God's existence - such a thing is not possible, especially if we consider the Christian understang of God being external to creation - all we can do is provide evidence and let people decide the answer based on that and their personal experience.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You need to familiarise yourself with the meaning of the word 'proof' when discussing scientific theories. There is no proof of evolution, the big bang or how old the earth is. So the onus is not on theists to prove God's existence - such a thing is not possible, especially if we consider the Christian understang of God being external to creation - all we can do is provide evidence and let people decide the answer based on that and their personal experience.

my bad,should have said "overwhelming evidence" not "proof".

toiletduck

sorella wrote: »

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2009/02/pro-god-buses-are-set-to-hit-streets-in.html

Warms the heart on this bitter, freezing night here..

Can't see how it would for your average Christian. Seems to be just a recruitment drive by the Christian Party....

Bougeoir

I think that's stupid as well as Richard Dawkin's campaign. If you believe in God, good for you, if you don't, good for you, if you're unsure equally good for you. People can decide for themselves what they want to believe in and what's true for them. I think it's wrong that religious groups and political parties think they can decide for people or convince them as well as some atheist lobby groups. I have my own beliefs and don't go around trying to irritate people into believing in them because I really don't care and it feel it's a personal thing and should be kept at that.

philologos

I'm not so sure if they should spend money on other things as opposed to things at home. Surely there is a Christian mission at home in secular Europe as well as abroad.

Zombrex

Personally I think it is great. It is what the original campaign was trying to do, get a debate going in the public consciousness.

Thought possibly

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

is not the best quote to pick (I know "fool" is not used in the same context as we would use it in modern times, but how many people are going to understand that).

MatthewVII

I think their choice of wording ("There definitely is a God") is rather poor and displays a certain arrogance and self-importance. I certainly don't see this attitude winning over any swing votes.

Fanny Cradock

Mickeroo wrote: »

my bad,should have said "overwhelming evidence" not "proof".

I've yet to encounter this overwhelming evidence.

Húrin

These campaigns are disastrous:

The Bible does, however, say "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.' (Proverbs 26:5). Our party's bus advertising campaign, which says "There is definitely a God. So join the Christian party and enjoy your life", does just that – it answers the foolishness of the atheist and humanist ad...

But the Christian party's campaign has another purpose. We are preparing for elections – the European Elections in June this year.

(The Guardian)

This Hargreaves guy appears more like a charlatan than anything else. His campaign is tainting all Christians with his deranged little party. Worse, it positively says that Christianity is a political party to join, when it is in fact an opportunity to love Jesus. I really object to that.

The BBC concluded by saying that the group, with a mandate to distribute the Bible internationally, has chosen the message from Psalm 53.1, which reads: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

Which will be read simply as, "atheists are idiots." Great argument guys. Witty too

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that Christians should be above trying to enter into a wasteful and ineffective tit-for-tat marketing campaign.

Definitely, but the 'Christian party' is not.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd go along with that. I doubt that these ad campaigns are cheap

They're about £140,000.

Burgo

Húrin wrote: »

They're about £25,000.

So thats where the donation money goes !

Sangre

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As God is not falsifiable I would assume that they would have to put non-definite statements. It is probably why Veritas had to withdraw their Christmas ad because it was adjudged to make a claim about their merchandise that could not be substantiated.

Its because under Irish law, 'No advertisement shall be broadcast which is directed towards any religious or political end or which has any relation to an industrial dispute.' Nothing to do with the truth or falsifiability of the statement. A leftover from the Troubles.

GA361

PDN wrote: »

3. Because history demonstrates that when religion becomes joined with political power the results are rarely edifying.

Whoa,Stall de ball there sham.
Lets take a look at Hitler and Stalin.
Both of those men tried to exterminate religion and they both killed any clergy who opposed them(as well as being responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of other people)
BUT,Before either of those two gentlemen rose to power,there was a religious influence in the runnings of the country(For Germany The Catholic Centre Party and for Russia the Tsarist regime) and the Countries were in far better shape then.So a completely secular gov ain't always the best.I for one,am comforted that the Catholic Church had a 'special place' in Irish society up until we joined the EU.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As God is not falsifiable I would assume that they would have to put non-definite statements. It is probably why Veritas had to withdraw their Christmas ad because it was adjudged to make a claim about their merchandise that could not be substantiated.

Try "There definitely is a God; so join the Christian Party and enjoy your life" apparently... I can see another ASA challenge there.

AtomicHorror

GA361 wrote: »

Whoa,Stall de ball there sham.
Lets take a look at Hitler and Stalin.
Both of those men tried to exterminate religion and they both killed any clergy who opposed them(as well as being responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of other people)

Oh for goodness sake not this recycled crap again.

-Secularism is not the same thing as state atheism. Many Christians, including conservatives such as PDN here, support secularism.
-Hitler did not try to eliminate religion, he considered Christianity to be important and beneficial for the German people although he was himself of questionable faith. He made no effort to purge that faith. Where were the millions of Christians in concentration camps? Aside from some Jehovas Witnesses, there wasn't anyone in there on the basis of Christian faith.
-Stalin tried to eliminate all sources of moral authority aside from the state and was doing so with the intention of instigating a quasi-religious love of Russia itself.

GA361 wrote: »

BUT,Before either of those two gentlemen rose to power,there was a religious influence in the runnings of the country(For Germany The Catholic Centre Party and for Russia the Tsarist regime) and the Countries were in far better shape then.

Sure, in far better shape than when the countries were under the control of insane dictators in a time of war. Hardly surprising is it? How do the secular states now compare with the pre-war states?

GA361 wrote: »

So a completely secular gov ain't always the best.

You'll need more evidence than the tired old Hitler and Stalin line to back that up. Not even comparable even if it were true.

GA361 wrote: »

I for one,am comforted that the Catholic Church had a 'special place' in Irish society up until we joined the EU.

Couldn't disagree more. The extent of their influence put them in a near untouchable position in our society which a surprising number of members promptly abused horribly.

Burgo

Two pages till godwins law strikes,impressive.

AtomicHorror

Burgo wrote: »

Two pages till godwins law strikes,impressive.

Yep. Infuriating and inevitable.

Fanny Cradock

OK, lets drop all the talk dictators. GA361, there are a couple of topics that pop up here quite often, so people get mightily peeved if they are inserted into a post.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've yet to encounter this overwhelming evidence.

Maybe it's just crossed wires but, regardless of whether or not there is or isn't evidence for God, it should be acknowledged that there is very powerful evidence for the big bang, evolution, and the improbability of a global flood.

The "Christian message", or at least what got people thinking about the existace of God IMO, was the response to the "probably" in the atheists statement that undid the message they actually wanted to put across. It made them seem unsure in their beliefs.

These bible quotes on buses, they make no impact but it was the mistake on the part of the atheists with their choice of wording that actually brought the debate/issue into the public eye.

How on earth did "probably" undo the atheist message/belief? Atheists believe that there is probably no God, and that's what they put on the buses.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've yet to encounter this overwhelming evidence.

leaving cert geography.

Fanny Cradock

Yeah, I did that, but I'm not sure what it has to do with debunking God. You should definitely look up theistic evolution before you answer.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

Maybe it's just crossed wires but, regardless of whether or not there is or isn't evidence for God, it should be acknowledged that there is very powerful evidence for the big bang, evolution, and the improbability of a global flood.

Crossed wire it is. I reject neither the big bang nor evolution and my I'm not sure that I have to subscribe to a global flood to believe in the Ark story.

Morbert wrote: »

How on earth did "probably" undo the atheist message/belief? Atheists believe that there is probably no God, and that's what they put on the buses.

Just in case you think otherwise - you weren't actually quoting me when you replied above.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just in case you think otherwise - you weren't actually quoting me when you replied above.

Sorry; forgot to state who I was quoting. It was girlbiker.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, I did that, but I'm not sure what it has to do with debunking God. You should definitely look up theistic evolution before you answer.

you also said you had yet to see evidence of how old the earth is,hence leaving cert geography.


I know what theistic evolution is,but to accept that you have to acknowledge the evidence that exists for evolution in much the same way the roman catholic church did. If you haven't seen the evidence it's because you don't want to see it. It is there. Try visiting a museum.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Crossed wire it is. I reject neither the big bang nor evolution and my I'm not sure that I have to subscribe to a global flood to believe in the Ark story.

apologies, i rebuke my previous post.

Húrin

I don't think this thread needs any rubbish about evolution, Noah's flood, or evidence for/against the existence of God.

PDN

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think this thread needs any rubbish about evolution, Noah's flood, or evidence for/against the existence of God.

Amen to that!

Actually I've realised that I know one of the Christian Party's key members very well - she very nearly got elected to the Scottish Assembly. Although we are friends, and agree on lots of theological stuff, we disagree on just about everything political.

sorella

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but my reading of the Forum Rules is that statements like this are not allowed? eg "there is no God"?

Mickeroo wrote: »

Wrong. Theres no proof of god's existence so it's highly improbable that he exists,theres plenty of proof for evolution, the big bang, how old the earth is and why things like noah's flood never happened making it more and more improbable. So their wording was spot on. Please no-body turn this into a creationist v evolution argument,i'm just responding to the above post

Also,I agree with Fanny on this one, both parties could have spent their money on something a lot more worthy.

sorella

Well, so could many others; eg building costly churches when there are so many empty ones around......

Their freedom. Their choice.

And a drop in the ocean where waste is concerned.

The old saying.'Why should the devil have all the best tunes?"

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They should spend their money on more worthy things.

sorella

Please. lighten up, you guys.:P

Mickeroo wrote: »

you also said you had yet to see evidence of how old the earth is,hence leaving cert geography.


I know what theistic evolution is,but to accept that you have to acknowledge the evidence that exists for evolution in much the same way the roman catholic church did. If you haven't seen the evidence it's because you don't want to see it. It is there. Try visiting a museum.

The Mad Hatter

sorella wrote: »

The old saying.'Why should the devil have all the best tunes?"

'This is broadly true, but Heaven has the best choreographers.' - Terry Pratchett and\or Neil Gaiman

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think this thread needs any rubbish about evolution, Noah's flood, or evidence for/against the existence of God.

I agree,which i said in my first post on the thread.

sorella wrote: »

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but my reading of the Forum Rules is that statements like this are not allowed? eg "there is no God"?

I didn't say that,and neither did the bus

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

Amen to that!

Actually I've realised that I know one of the Christian Party's key members very well - she very nearly got elected to the Scottish Assembly. Although we are friends, and agree on lots of theological stuff, we disagree on just about everything political.

Right-wing nut?

Why do you think that people who draw their values from the same source, and have similar theological views, often have such opposite political views? I thought values informed politics?

I too have a friend like this, though he isn't a member of any strange parties.

sorella

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

'This is broadly true, but Heaven has the best choreographers.' - Terry Pratchett and\or Neil Gaiman

GA361

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Oh for goodness sake not this recycled crap again.

-Secularism is not the same thing as state atheism. Many Christians, including conservatives such as PDN here, support secularism.
-Hitler did not try to eliminate religion, he considered Christianity to be important and beneficial for the German people although he was himself of questionable faith. He made no effort to purge that faith. Where were the millions of Christians in concentration camps? Aside from some Jehovas Witnesses, there wasn't anyone in there on the basis of Christian faith.
-Stalin tried to eliminate all sources of moral authority aside from the state and was doing so with the intention of instigating a quasi-religious love of Russia itself.




Sure, in far better shape than when the countries were under the control of insane dictators in a time of war. Hardly surprising is it? How do the secular states now compare with the pre-war states?



You'll need more evidence than the tired old Hitler and Stalin line to back that up. Not even comparable even if it were true.



Couldn't disagree more. The extent of their influence put them in a near untouchable position in our society which a surprising number of members promptly abused horribly.

Ah will ya get your facts straight.Hitler did indeed try to purge other religions,like Catholicism and Protestantism etc,but most notoriously of all, Judaism(Six million Jews murdered. . . don't know hoe you forgot about that).And yes,there were many Christian as well as Jewish spiritual leaders in concentration camps.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, lets drop all the talk dictators. GA361, there are a couple of topics that pop up here quite often, so people get mightily peeved if they are inserted into a post.

Just needed to prove my point.

sink

GA361 wrote: »

Ah will ya get your facts straight.Hitler did indeed try to purge other religions,like Catholicism and Protestantism etc,but most notoriously of all, Judaism(Six million Jews murdered. . . don't know hoe you forgot about that).And yes,there were many Christian as well as Jewish spiritual leaders in concentration camps.

Hitler did not try to purge other religions he tried to dominate and control them. Any church member who disagreed with the Nazis policies like anyone in any other area of society (Universities, Military etc), was removed from power and possibly sent to concentration camps or simply executed. He did not indiscriminately target anyone of religious faith, only those who opposed him.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005206

Fanny Cradock

OK, any more mention of Hitler, evolution, creationism or the price of beans will see the posted deleted and people involved dragged behind the school bike shed for a beating.

sink

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, any more mention of Hitler, evolution, creationism or the price of beans will see the posted deleted and people involved dragged behind the school bike shed for a beating.

How very Christian of you. :P