To be worried my sister is doing the Alpha course?

[Southtrainer]

Just for a bit of context. My family is and always has been agnostic and left wing. My sister (early thirties) recently met a new partner who comes from a very religious evangelical Christian family. Their relationship surprised us all thinking there was be such a gulf that they wouldn’t stay together long but recently my brother told me my sister is doing the Alpha course and he was concerned she might have some pressure on her to convert to their religion. I’d this right? I’ve never had any experience of this course or religion. I’m worried. Thanks for any info or experiences x

@paws17 Genesis 2 vs 18 - 25 is a good starting point and then Ephesians 5 vs 21 - 33.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Well that sounds sexist as fuck.

What about same-sex couples? Who should they submit to?

@Grumpyoldpersonwithcats

Not quite true! Roman historians Tacitus and Josephus both record John the Baptist and Jesus in their historical (and not Christain) writings along with the whole of the eye witness accounts from the New Testament.

Tacitus and Josephus were both born after the assumed death of Jesus. So not exactly first hand accounts.
And to take the NT as 'gospel' proof of Jesus' existence (see what I did there?) Is rather like marking your own homework.

It is interesting that people demand "first-hand" accounts of thing that are already very well documented in history & literature (by contempories) that happened only 2000 years ago as proof of their occurrence but don't question anything that Prof Brian Cox has to say about "The Big Bang" and the origins of our universe, even though, as far as we know, he wasn't actually alive 13.8 billion years ago...

Now I am agnostic, but have only recently been exploring faith, so I probably cannot comment on C of E policy.

However, I don't understand why you are worried.

A lot of people find faith, ( of any perspective), adds great peace, meaning and fulfillment to their lives. Certainly, I find the idea there is a higher power than us mere mortals greatly comforting. Your sister may or may not convert to christianity, but if she finds peace, meaning, hope and fulfillment within the C of E, ( which is th enational religion, hardly a fringe religous sect), then I don't see why you would be worried. The C of E are not going to tell your sister to cut off contact with family, give all her earnings to them etc.

I also don't see the issues with her boyfriend being a creationist. Whilst I, ( and tbh 99% of the flly practicing Christians I know), do not believe the creation story is literal, I don't see why it would be harmful or a "red flag," for her boyfriend to take it literally. None of us know for certain how the world was created, and so I don't understand why her boyfriend believing what is actually a rather nice part of the bible is literal would be concerning ?

As for homophobic, well many people of many faith's, ( be that Jewish, Sikh, Muslim, Hindu , Catholic), believe that gay sex/ gay msrriage is wrong. I do not share these views, ( I am adhemently in favour of gay marriage), but have friends of different religions who truly believe this.Obviously if they were going around actively harassing gay people that would be completely wrong, but I just couldn't get upset that my sister's partner has sincerely held views about gay sex being against his religion, and goes about his buissiness quietly.

Also,if christianity was that homophobic, would that many mainstream U.K churches allow gay marriage:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40190204

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36756387

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57658161

www.quaker.org.uk/about-quakers/our-history/marriage-equality

[quote ElectricDeChocobo]**@paws17* Genesis 2 vs 18 - 25 is a good starting point and then Ephesians 5 vs 21 - 33. *

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Well that sounds sexist as fuck.

What about same-sex couples? Who should they submit to?[/quote]
@ElectricDeChocobo - Now read on to verses 25 - 33 in Ephesians 5 - It's funny how people always get offended before they read the rest of that passage. Notice that there are only 3 verses in that passage addressed to wives and 9 to husbands, which is a true measure of who the passage is really intended to speak to most loudly, of course - proving that God really isn't sexist or patriarchal.

Your point about same-sex couples is very interesting. God doesn't say anything in the bible about how they should conduct their marriage relationships. I wonder why that is...

It is interesting that people demand "first-hand" accounts of thing that are already very well documented in history & literature (by contempories)

How are they 'well-documented'? And it's less that anyone is demanding 'first hand' accounts than that it's deeply frustrating pointing out to a certain kind of Bible-basher that a book written by believers many years after the events it purports to describe doesn't really have any evidentiary value of anything other than the existence of early Christians. (And that Paul had issues.)

But yeah, I don't get if the guy doesn't believe in gay marriage why that would mean he would be a bad partner for your sister ? Obviously if he was being violent/ smashing up gay clubs, but why having a sincerely held religous belief, ( that albeit most of us don't agree with), would make him that bad in the grand scheme of things.

@ElectricDeChocobo - Now read on to verses 25 - 33 in Ephesians 5 - It's funny how people always get offended before they read the rest of that passage. Notice that there are only 3 verses in that passage addressed to wives and 9 to husbands, which is a true measure of who the passage is really intended to speak to most loudly, of course - proving that God really isn't sexist or patriarchal.

I did read the rest of the passage. It still says that husbands should submit to their wives, which is as sexist as it comes.

Your point about same-sex couples is very interesting. God doesn't say anything in the bible about how they should conduct their marriage relationships. I wonder why that is...

Could it be because the bible is homophobic?

[quote silvercosmopolitian]Now I am agnostic, but have only recently been exploring faith, so I probably cannot comment on C of E policy.

However, I don't understand why you are worried.

A lot of people find faith, ( of any perspective), adds great peace, meaning and fulfillment to their lives. Certainly, I find the idea there is a higher power than us mere mortals greatly comforting. Your sister may or may not convert to christianity, but if she finds peace, meaning, hope and fulfillment within the C of E, ( which is th enational religion, hardly a fringe religous sect), then I don't see why you would be worried. The C of E are not going to tell your sister to cut off contact with family, give all her earnings to them etc.

I also don't see the issues with her boyfriend being a creationist. Whilst I, ( and tbh 99% of the flly practicing Christians I know), do not believe the creation story is literal, I don't see why it would be harmful or a "red flag," for her boyfriend to take it literally. None of us know for certain how the world was created, and so I don't understand why her boyfriend believing what is actually a rather nice part of the bible is literal would be concerning ?

As for homophobic, well many people of many faith's, ( be that Jewish, Sikh, Muslim, Hindu , Catholic), believe that gay sex/ gay msrriage is wrong. I do not share these views, ( I am adhemently in favour of gay marriage), but have friends of different religions who truly believe this.Obviously if they were going around actively harassing gay people that would be completely wrong, but I just couldn't get upset that my sister's partner has sincerely held views about gay sex being against his religion, and goes about his buissiness quietly.

Also,if christianity was that homophobic, would that many mainstream U.K churches allow gay marriage:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40190204

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36756387

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57658161

www.quaker.org.uk/about-quakers/our-history/marriage-equality[/quote]
You really don't see the fact that OP's sister goes quiet when her boyfriend enters the room and has ditched her gay friends as a red flag?

His family's values sound disturbing.

It's that that would make me worry for her getting into a serious relationship with him, marrying him etc.

@silvercosmopolitian

But yeah, I don't get if the guy doesn't believe in gay marriage why that would mean he would be a bad partner for your sister ? Obviously if he was being violent/ smashing up gay clubs, but why having a sincerely held religous belief, ( that albeit most of us don't agree with), would make him that bad in the grand scheme of things.

Why does its 'sincerity' make it any less morally repugnant? People 'sincerely' believe all kinds of rotten things.

It is interesting that people demand "first-hand" accounts of thing that are already very well documented in history & literature (by contempories) that happened only 2000 years ago as proof of their occurrence but don't question anything that Prof Brian Cox has to say about "The Big Bang" and the origins of our universe, even though, as far as we know, he wasn't actually alive 13.8 billion years ago...

Much of Brian Cox has to say about the big bang are theories or based on science what we know and he will admit that.

There is no evidence of Jesus at all.

It's a course that you go on so you can ask questions and make your own decision on Christianity!

It's not a cult!

There is clear historical proof a man called Jesus existed. Whether you believe he was the son of God is another matter but that’s no. argument whatsoever.

There is clear historical proof a man called Jesus existed
I"m afraid there really isn't. Just a relatively small collection of documents (mostly with a definite bias) dating from years after his (alleged) death.
On the balance of probability you might say it is likely that a man called Jesus existed. But if he did, I think he's been misquoted.

@Corbally

It is interesting that people demand "first-hand" accounts of thing that are already very well documented in history & literature (by contempories)

How are they 'well-documented'? And it's less that anyone is demanding 'first hand' accounts than that it's deeply frustrating pointing out to a certain kind of Bible-basher that a book written by believers many years after the events it purports to describe doesn't really have any evidentiary value of anything other than the existence of early Christians. (And that Paul had issues.)

You are aware that the bible is actually a collection of 66 different books, written in several different languages, over a period of around 1500 years by around 40 different authors, living on 3 different continents?

Most of the authors didn't meet the person called Jesus - and yet there are prophetic references to him and his future arrival and even more future return interlaced throughout the Old Testament. Dismissing the bible as entirely the work of "believers" may provide some with a get-out clause for their consciences but constructing such a mammoth conspiracy to deceive people over the course of a 2000 year period would be a challenge for any interest-group, even in this advanced technological age.

There is just as much reason & evidence to accept the fact that there was an historical Jesus as there is for other contemporary figures of that era (Pontius Pilate, Emperor Augustus, King Herod, etc.) Of course, it's much easier to argue that He didn't exist than face up to dealing with & responding to his numerous moral, social and relationship challenges to us all.

What about same-sex couples? Who should they submit to?

whoever identifies as a wife

There is clear historical proof a man called Jesus existed.

There really isn't even the name jesus didn't exist in that world. Everything wrote about Jesus was after his alledged death.

@paws17

Dismissing the bible as entirely the work of "believers" may provide some with a get-out clause for their consciences

Is this really what you think the motivation is for people challenging christian scripture? That they want to alleviate their conscience? That doesn't make sense. I'm an atheist. I do not believe in god, therefore my conscience is clear when it comes to any potential consequences of me as an individual not believing in god. It's of no concern to my conscience as I do not believe in god.

The way you've written on here is as if non believers are either lapsed Christians who just need to remember the right things and see what you think is 'the truth' (but is not provable as it requires faith in the absence of proof) or are people desperately fighting off beliefs in a sort of lifelong struggle between atheism and religion.

In reality, me and many others like me, don't feel this huge internal struggle you think we do. We don't believe in god and we are more than happy with it. We love and are loved, we do nice things because we want to and not because of perceived potential reward or punishments.

So no need to worry about us or our souls. Plus I don't think it's ok to tell people their relationships with the people they love are worth less just because they are the same sex.

Considering how many people on here are saying their church doesn't distinguish between gay couples and straight couples, it's staggering how few churches in real life show genuine equality (not just 'love the sinner' / 'as long as you don't act on it' etc) isn't it? You must all go to the same few churches.

@paws17
Of course, it's much easier to argue that He didn't exist than face up to dealing with & responding to his numerous moral, social and relationship challenges to us all.
Poor argument I'm afraid. What about Muhammad or Joseph Smith or Dr. Sun Myung Moo or Guru Nanak. (to name but a few). There is very good historic evidence that all the above existed (much stronger evidence than that of Jesus).
It doesn't mean I have to believe in the religions they founded either though.

@paws17

Of course, it's much easier to argue that He didn't exist than face up to dealing with & responding to his numerous moral, social and relationship challenges to us all.

Wow. It never fails to amaze me how quickly apparently christian folk turn patronising, snarky and sarcastic when challenged about things they state as fact.

Spoiler alert - lots of us manage to navigate those challenges without god being a factor.

You seem to equate being christian with working harder at life than atheists. You say atheists take the 'much easier' road.

I would argue that if anything its 'easier' to defer to a higher power instead of taking absolute responsibility for your own path in life and decisions along the way.

@EnidSpyton

Thank you - and well said. Grew up in that whole environment (spring harvest, new wine, soul survivor)..... Never did the Alpha course but wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Or ever tell anyone else to.

Now go to a CofE church which accepts me as I am and where I am at home.

For heavens’ sake @paws17, I was clearly responding to your claims of things being ‘well-documented’ by contemporaries — by which I assumed you meant the life of Jesus by Mark, given that there are no other (roughly) contemporary accounts. As regards your point about the dating of the Bible texts, did you not realise that the gospels were composed precisely so as to retrofit with the long tradition of Jewish prophecies about the coming of a Messiah? So the writers of the gospels have Jesus say and do things to fit the prophecies in Isaiah, Genesis, Psalms, Deuteronomy etc. It’s not that texts written a thousand years earlier magically foresaw Jesus — the only independent testimony that he even existed by non-believers doesn’t go into detail.

There is just as much reason & evidence to accept the fact that there was an historical Jesus as there is for other contemporary figures of that era (Pontius Pilate, Emperor Augustus, King Herod, etc.)

Wow you are grouping in people who clearly existed during this time so you think there is no evidence of Augustus and Herod even though there is things such as coins, records ect.

Dismissing the bible as entirely the work of "believers" may provide some with a get-out clause for their consciences

What is it on my conscious that I'm trying to get out of exactly?