You've been looking in the wrong direction, the dangers are coming from the Left - read OP

I'm not enitrely sure that's true of the poster I was replying to.

The Archbishop’s hot take isn’t new, but the reason God is referred to in Christianity using the masculine pronoun He, is because he is The Father. He is not referred to as The Mother anywhere in Christianity and it would make no sense from the point of view of the scriptures to use the feminine pronoun in reference to God. It could only make sense if one were attempting to portray the Anglican Church as a progressive organisation in order to appeal to a modern audience. That seems to be what’s happening in this case where the Archbishop suggests the word ‘father’ is problematic -

“I know the word ‘father’ is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive, and for all of us who have laboured rather too much from an oppressively patriarchal grip on life,” he said.

The issue there is the earthly fathers behaviour, nothing whatsoever to do with the idea of God The Father, and only a complete numpty (or an Archbishop with issues of his own) could make that association.

He is also referred to as The Creator already.

It’s pretty new for an archbishop to have this “hot take” though, isn’t it?

Nope, it’s not at all new. The Archbishop’s take on it though, is absurd.

I can’t see their churches in Africa going for it if they’re instructed to change the words to “Our creator” in that prayer. I believe they already had issues with CofE teaching regarding homosexuality. Might be the next big break in Christianity

I don’t see why Anglican Churches in Africa specifically would have any issue referring to God as The Creator. Undoubtedly though, they would have an issue with referring to God using the feminine pronoun, and not just in Africa, but anywhere the Anglican Church exists really - some branches of the Anglican Church are of the ‘if we must then’ variety, others still reject the idea of homosexuality outright:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Anglican_Communion

There have always been liberal and conservative factions within Christianity though, with liberals hoping each time that this would be their big break.

And ‘they’ is fine in that context where one is referring to God in the third person, it’s a linguistic construct of the English language; in scriptural terms though it would make no sense, regardless of whether one is Catholic or not, it wouldn’t have any bearing on Catholic theology -

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #239 states, in reference to the Father: "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: He is God." The CCC discusses the traditional imagery and language of God as Father. It notes, however, that God is not limited to this role alone—maternal imagery are also used in the Bible. It also notes that human fatherhood only imperfectly reflects God's archetypal fatherhood. God is referred to as masculine in Catholic teaching and practice.

Though Church teaching, in line with its Doctors, holds that God has no literal sex because God possesses no body (a prerequisite of sex), classical and scriptural understanding states that God should be referred to (in most contexts) as masculine by analogy. It justifies this by pointing to God's relationship with the world as begetter of the world and revelation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God_in_Christianity

Saying that though, I’m not going to get het up about whatever way individuals refer to God, I’ll still understand what they mean, which is more important than getting my knickers in a twist about either their preferred pronouns for themselves or how they refer to others.

Waving an Antifa flag.

I've noticed a growing number of voices online who are Gay, Lesbian etc who are increasingly distancing themselves from this type of insanity and you really can't blame them.

The whole notion of LGBTQIA+ as an accurate representation of all the people who fall under it's umbrella is a nonsense.

It must be torture for normal gay or whatever orientation, people to have to endure association with this type of lunacy.

The person in that video should be prosecuted for incitement of violence and made an example of, we all know that's an unlikely outcome because punching women with the wrong opinions in the face in acceptable now.

The person in that video should be prosecuted for incitement of violence and made an example of, we all know that's an unlikely outcome because punching women with the wrong opinions in the face in acceptable now.

WE don’t all know that it’s for the reason you put forward, that they won’t be prosecuted for incitement to violence though. Another, far more plausible reason could be that it’s simply too stupid to be entertaining that no reasonable person could take it seriously. Other plausible explanations include the possibility of it’s being defended as being within the context of political speech, which is permissible under current laws in the UK,

The most likely explanation as to why the CPS wouldn’t be interested in pursuing a prosecution is because they’ve already been tipped off that “punch them in the face” is a meme, and they’d look pretty stupid taking it seriously, like, ‘Machine Gun Kelly’ levels of stupid:

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/machine-gun-kelly-punches-fan-1235367343/amp/

And as Douglas Murray says, he holds exactly the same views as gender critical women, but that he doesn't recieve anywhere near the level of abuse and threats of violence that women recieve for holding the same views. At the heart of this is misogyny.

It's absolutely disgusting and it never gets called out enough. At most, what typically gets said is "yes, it's wrong, can we move on now please?" -- and utterly disingenuous dismissal.

Well as I’m sure you’re already aware, Douglas is as well-known a shìt-stirrer in those circles as Andrew Doyle, and if Douglas were actually serious about keeping a small notebook of cases where men scream their virtues on social media, he would have to write himself and Andrew up for a citation:

It may be said that there are not yet enough entrants to diagnose this trend, but I would say that from Louis CK to Sam Kriss and Morgan Spurlock, it is worth keeping an eye on. Normal, regular men, do not need to try to scream their virtue on social media or anywhere else. Normal, regular women happen to notice that there is something slightly off about the sort of man who does.

So perhaps I can invite people to join me in keeping a small notebook on these cases. Next time a man talks about the importance of cancelling men, just sit back and set your watch.

https://unherd.com/2019/11/beware-the-creepy-male-feminist/

Do you feel that this is representative of the left?

Not really what I was asking, but still answers the question.

Perhaps you need to be more specific in your questioning if you feel those answers weren't what you anticipated.

You could at least try to keep your narrative straight rather than hopping around like a hen on a hot griddle when anyone attempts to have a reasonable discussion with you about what you’re arguing should be regarded as someone who should be made an example of because of what you declare is something that can and should be appropriated at face value; an element of the Left, but you’re not saying they are a threat, or a danger coming from the Left, but they should be prosecuted for incitement of violence.

And you argue that the reason we all know they won’t be prosecuted for incitement of violence is because punching women with the wrong opinions in the face is acceptable now, and it’s an element of the Left that ends up being more influential than it should because everyone is afraid to call them out.

I didn’t make excuses for anyone, I provided you with alternative and more reasonable and rational explanations as to why people aren’t interested in entertaining idiots like that. Because they regard those people as idiots, nothing whatsoever to do with their political beliefs or characteristics, everything to do with the fact that they’ve assessed their opinions as not worth getting their knickers in a twist about, because it’s just silly, absurd and not worth entertaining.

How can you possibly know that much of the left are equally appalled by this as you’re claiming to be? They don’t appear to have expressed any interest either way, let alone offered an opinion on it.

It’s not any way alarming that anyone at that rally would come out with a statement like that and be applauded for it. They didn’t receive applause in any case for saying women should be attacked, they specifically referred to TERFs - Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminists, a term coined to distinguish between Feminists who are inclusive of people who are transgender in their Feminist philosophy, and those Feminists who are opposed to including people who are transgender in their Feminist philosophy.

It was originally conceived as a benign descriptor, and became weaponised over time to the point it’s at now where it is used in a derogatory manner to refer to Radical Feminists who argue against the inclusion of people who are transgender in Feminist ideology. They are often also opposed to the inclusion of men in Feminist philosophy, something which Emma Watson found out when she attempted to promote the He4She campaign as a Hunan Rights centred approach to Feminism which included advocating Feminism for men. That went down about as well as could be expected 🙄

My "ire" if you wish to describe it that way is people not knowing the difference between moderate and far and creating posts like this in order to portry them as left-wing threats when in fact it's just digs at the left. I'm don't requent the right-wing thread, so I don't know if it happens there or not, but I do see threats from the right as lies and exaggerated claims in order to scaremonger - and that most certainly is not just the far.

Back on topic, either you see this as a threat (even thuogh you accept it's mostly fringe) or you just want to go on about an anti-left rant - which is why I asked and still expect an answer: why did you post it if you accept it's not representative of the left?

I've been here with you before: you can't articulate what it is you're specifcially scared of so you just target everything.