 Having never before organized a vote-by-Internet, we overlooked just how many of you would respond – and how enthusiastically. But in preparing the voting form we omitted a place for your name and email address. If your comment appears below or on our first page of responses, and you'd like to identify yourself, simply hit this and tell us who you are, where you're from, and which comment is yours. Tune in tomorrow for a third page of responses.  The man has a point. The 'Ship' has a serious problem. If you are unfortunate enough to have had a sense of humour bypass operation, you can take things on the site seriously. Doing this can lead to severe spiritual trauma.For example, a friend to whom I sent the URL read the HTB 'Beta' article and was in the process of writing an indignant letter when I gently suggested he read other material on the site, and perhaps even the poem, and revise his view. Perhaps material here should be graded with 'Balaam's Ass' marks to indicate the degree of seriousness with which it should be treated by unfortunates still on the waiting list to have their SOH bypass operation reversed? On balance, I'd like to keep the title as it is, please, as I *have* read the poem – Simon Phipps, Southampton. Who does this guy think he is? I'm sure the Apostle Paul was fond of a joke! Time he woke up and smelt the coffee! Christians aren't behaving like Christians and that's why SOF exists, to point out the stupid extremes some folk go to! – Fiona-Jane Brown, Aberdeen, Scotland.
That guy needs to get a grip... I think it is downright healthy to do just what your web page does. My problem with his entire statement is found in this sentence: 'I would like to bring you to remembrance that we are suppose to build up the Church and not destroy it.'I wonder what Jesus would have said on the day he cleaned out the temple, if someone would have said this to him. I wonder what someone like Luther would have said about this. My other concern for this poor soul is that Christianity is not a new legalism, where we are supposed to do this new thing and not supposed to do this other thing. I feel that this mag builds up the church more than many of the sugary-sweet psychobabble that you find in the church today. And whatever happened to testing everything? I now have yet another reason to pray for the church in this world... Ted Tschopp. Ooh, an Elder of the Church AND a Webmaster! I seem to remember Jesus himself made copious use of whimsy and sarcasm, particularly against those who in his day would have signed themselves 'an elder of the church'.If you really want to, by all means follow David's advice and become a boring, staid, verse-quoting magazine – but you won't be Ship of Fools, and we'll all unsubscribe, and everyone will be sad. From another Elder of the Church. P.S. I've added you to MY church's webpage! – Colin Saxelby. It is always a precarious tightrope walk when using satire (as Jonathan Swift did), and not sarcasm (as the Piranha brothers did) to warn, exhort, edify, or simply comment on how weird and wild is the Body of Christ. I think the secular commentator was closer to the truth than Parsons when she mused that Ship of Fools had 'ulterior motives'.* You hold Jesus Christ in honor, and any church foolishness that dishonors Christ is fair game. Right on, Ship of Fools! – Faith McDonnell, Washington DC, USA.[* The 'secular commentator' was Ali, of Ali's Infinitely Weird Zone, who commented about SOF: 'But is this well-written Emag really just a cunning plot to tricking the ungodly into their camp...?'] I suspect that David Parsons would not approve either of the liberal catholic Anglican tradition of questioning and questing faith which is, I suspect, where much of the magazine's readership comes from. But he sadly misunderstands the intensity of commitment, and self-assurance, that makes it possible.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... You didn't make this up yourselves, did you? He actually wrote 'unable to find any social, moral or redeeming value'? In cold blood? And what's the problem with sarcasm? Does *anybody* read the Bible these days? Take Job: 30+ chapters of non-stop sarcasm. Then God gets a word in, and things get even *more* sarcastic.
I agree with the letter. I think more could be accomplished for the kingdom of God by a different presentation and name. The facts are good, but not only is the presentation hard to understand, but it is very sarcastic. We need to teach in humility and love. Thanks.
We (the Church) must not take ourselves too seriously. After all, the great majority in the world don't! You are doing a great job. Let's try to get non-Christians looking at your site. They might be saved.
Stick with the chosen name, at least it suggests reading it might be FUN (oh no! I used the f-word, I'll be forever damned!). As for sarcasm, the worst offender was some Near-Eastern Preacher who talked of camels going through needles' eyes and other images.Actually, if you want a biblical quote, how about 1 Corinthians 15:19? 'We are of all men most miserable.' Or have they already claimed that one? Top of Page | Final Batch of Responses | Archive | Ship of Fools Central © Ship of Fools 1998 |