[stratos]

$1:

Lots of Christians don't literally believe that a sentient supernatural being watches and judges us and intervenes in our daily lives. They instead believe in something that's more a "natural force" or even less real, something that is just a source of inspiration.

Then I hate to be the one to inform you and them that they are not Christians. They may say they are, they can even claim to be the best Christians in the world but they are not Christians.

For the simple fact that a Christian is a person who believes God sent his only son, Jesus, to die on the Cross for our sins and that on the 3rd day arose from the grave.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Because, if she had any ethics she`d stop taking money under false pretenses.

In what way are there "false pretenses" when she's completely open about it an in fact is a best-selling author and public speaker on this very topic?

$1:

For example. If you were a doctor....

Ohhhhhh...religious leaders, they may be comparable to a lot of things but they sure aren't doctors! Pretty much the exact opposite end of the spectrum I'd say.

An artist is probably a better comparison. It's like when your favourite musician goes in a new musical direction. You'll either continue to buy their albums or you won't. This lady's fans seem to want to keep buying her albums. Her record label however wants to drop her because they feel she's no longer a good fit for their target market demographics.

I have no comment/opinion as to which one is right or is within their rights. However, I don't think this whole story has to be cast into the tired old 'good guy-bad guy' narrative.

Good and honest people can strongly disagree with each other without one having to be declared a villain....even when one doesn't believe in a literal God in the year 2015.

[BeaverFever]

stratos stratos:

$1:

Lots of Christians don't literally believe that a sentient supernatural being watches and judges us and intervenes in our daily lives. They instead believe in something that's more a "natural force" or even less real, something that is just a source of inspiration.

Then I hate to be the one to inform you and them that they are not Christians. They may say they are, they can even claim to be the best Christians in the world but they are not Christians.

For the simple fact that a Christian is a person who believes God sent his only son, Jesus, to die on the Cross for our sins and that on the 3rd day arose from the grave.

And there are probably Christians who would say You're not Christian. Mennonites, Amish, Catholics, Quakers, etc.

Point is, religion is what people choose to make of it for themselves, it's not something that somebody else assigns to you.

[stratos]

$1:

And there are probably Christians who would say You're not Christian. Mennonites, Amish, Catholics, Quakers, etc.

Point is, religion is what people choose to make of it for themselves, it's not something that somebody else assigns to you.

So your saying that people who do not believe in Jesus as their one and only savior are Christians because they say they are? If so then you and they have a funny definition of what being a Christian is.

[BartSimpson]

stratos stratos:

For the simple fact that a Christian is a person who believes God sent his only son, Jesus, to die on the Cross for our sins and that on the 3rd day arose from the grave.

The Nicene Creed has summarized what it is to be a Christian for centuries...

$1:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And there are probably Christians who would say You're not Christian. Mennonites, Amish, Catholics, Quakers, etc.

Point is, religion is what people choose to make of it for themselves, it's not something that somebody else assigns to you.

True, but you don't call yourself a Christian when you openly reject what it means to be a Christian.

[stratos]

$1:

An artist is probably a better comparison. It's like when your favourite musician goes in a new musical direction. You'll either continue to buy their albums or you won't. This lady's fans seem to want to keep buying her albums. Her record label however wants to drop her because they feel she's no longer a good fit for their target market demographics.

I'm not going to quibble about what would be a better comparison yet following your comparison the record company is right to drop her.

"Vosper made her views clear as far back as a Sunday sermon in 2001 but her congregation stood behind her until a decision to do away with the Lord’s Prayer in 2008 prompted about 100 of the 150 members to leave. The rest backed her."

The majority have not continued to follow her but only a 1/3. So your analogy, not sure if this is the right term, about an artist being dropped by a record company shows that the record company would be doing the right thing by releasing her. She had a steady following of 150 but her musical direction got so out of touch with her fans 100 stopped listening.

[stratos]

$1:

I have no comment/opinion as to which one is right or is within their rights. However, I don't think this whole story has to be cast into the tired old 'good guy-bad guy' narrative.

Good and honest people can strongly disagree with each other without one having to be declared a villain....even when one doesn't believe in a literal God in the year 2015.

I am in total agreement with you here. Reading the article I did not feel that this was being done. I know you do so could you point out where you got the impression/opinion that she is being vilified? I'm just not getting that vibe from the article.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I would think that faith in the Christian God is a prerequisite for the position.

Please define the Christian God.

[sandorski]

She seems more a Deist than Atheist. As for whether she should be a United Church Minister, that's the United Church's choice to make. It seems pretty clear to me though that she doesn't meet the criteria the United Church deems as United Church Ministerial material.

[ShepherdsDog]

There is a varied interpretation of God amongst those who label themselves Christians...from the Tritarianism of the majority to Sabellianism to Monarchianism. Even between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches there is the divisive issue of filioque, which argues about the origins of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox follow the Nicene Creed as it was originally written(and later affirmed at the Council of Constantinople) having the Holy Spirit proceeding only from God the Father, while the Western Catholics later changed it have it proceeding from the Father and the Son. The Orthodox Churches believe this is a heresy.

sandorski sandorski:

She seems more a Deist than Atheist. As for whether she should be a United Church Minister, that's the United Church's choice to make. It seems pretty clear to me though that she doesn't meet the criteria the United Church deems as United Church Ministerial material.

Perhaps she would be more comfortable as a Unitarian rather than as a member of the United Church.

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Because, if she had any ethics she`d stop taking money under false pretenses.

In what way are there "false pretenses" when she's completely open about it an in fact is a best-selling author and public speaker on this very topic?

$1:

For example. If you were a doctor....

Ohhhhhh...religious leaders, they may be comparable to a lot of things but they sure aren't doctors! Pretty much the exact opposite end of the spectrum I'd say.

An artist is probably a better comparison. It's like when your favourite musician goes in a new musical direction. You'll either continue to buy their albums or you won't. This lady's fans seem to want to keep buying her albums. Her record label however wants to drop her because they feel she's no longer a good fit for their target market demographics.

I have no comment/opinion as to which one is right or is within their rights. However, I don't think this whole story has to be cast into the tired old 'good guy-bad guy' narrative.

Good and honest people can strongly disagree with each other without one having to be declared a villain....even when one doesn't believe in a literal God in the year 2015.

Nobody declared her a villain she's just unethical for trying to maintain her position as a clergyman while attempting to subvert her employers religious views. My guess is that if you were working for someone and lost 100 of 150 clients I'm pretty sure a firing would be the reward for you stellar work, so why should she get a pass?

[sandorski]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

sandorski sandorski:

She seems more a Deist than Atheist. As for whether she should be a United Church Minister, that's the United Church's choice to make. It seems pretty clear to me though that she doesn't meet the criteria the United Church deems as United Church Ministerial material.

Perhaps she would be more comfortable as a Unitarian rather than as a member of the United Church.

Anyone could be Unitarian, so I'm sure she would.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The title is misleading. Unless I missed it, nowhere does she claim to be an Atheist.

She's a Christian, she just doesn't interpret the bible literally.

It was the first sentence there bud.

$1:

An ordained United Church of Canada minister who believes in neither God nor Bible said Wednesday she is prepared to fight an unprecedented attempt to boot her from the pulpit for her beliefs.

Nope, pay close attention: Those aren't her words, they're the author's.

Lots of Christians don't literally believe that a sentient supernatural being watches and judges us and intervenes in our daily lives. They instead believe in something that's more a "natural force" or even less real, something that is just a source of inspiration.

For example, they still meditate on the "What Would Jesus Do" question without actually having to believe that Jesus was a real person.

Those are called "New Age Christians". They have their own churches.

[PluggyRug]

A ship, sailing past a remote island, spots a man who has been stranded there for several years. The captain goes ashore to rescue the man and notices three huts.
“What’s the first hut for?” he asks.
“That’s my house,” says the castaway.
“What’s the second hut for?”
“That’s my church.”
“And the third hut?”
“Oh, that?” sniffs the castaway. “That’s the church I used to go to.”