|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Discussion thread: Credo
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
This is the place to discuss the entries in Credo.
[ 08. May 2007, 01:49: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Well that was fun and enlightening. Thanks!
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I'm impressed by the succinctness of the two who have posted so far. My first effort came in at 344 words. Clearly I have some pruning to do.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I know it sounds toady and pathetic, but I don't know that I can write something that improves the creed.
My faith feels so small and insecure that I like having something to hold onto that encapulates all I want to believe even if at that particular moment I'm not sure I can.
Again, apologies...
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I know it sounds toady and pathetic, but I don't know that I can write something that improves the creed.
Although it's completely valid (for the sake of the competition at least) to try to improve on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, it is not at all necessary. One may also try to summarize some important things the ancient Creed has left out. Or one may attempt a snapshot of what is important to one's own faith here and now. Etc. Really, there are only two conditions: 1) One can say "Credo" to what one has written (i.e., "I believe", or at least "I try to believe"...) and 2) one can write it down in 225 words or less.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, apologies...
There really is no need to apologize for anything. This is supposed to be a fun and interesting exercise for those who would like to try it - it's not a requirement!
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I have a problem. I have two personal creeds written but in order to satisfy my faith one requires marginalia and the other is extremely brief, one clause long and I am begining to doubt that (thanks Father Gregory) so I may halve its length.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
from IngoB
quote:
Although it's completely valid (for the sake of the competition at least) to try to improve on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, it is not at all necessary.
Quite so. So why did you add the filioque? Sorry, couldn't resist.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
The first word - is it to be "I" or "we" ?
"We" is more powerful. The church should be about "we" and not about "I".
But it seems less than honest to try to speak for others, when it's clear from the discussions here on the Ship how much scope for disagreement there is about all sorts of things.
The tone - lawyerly precision to be clear about exactly what's meant and not meant, or inspiring positive statement of heartfelt values ?
More difficult than you first think...
I'm tempted to put in a minimalist entry which bypasses all the issues of style:
"Love Truth"
with enough space between to leave the relationship between the two words ambiguous.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
DOD, that's a cool textual arc you set up for your creed between those first two lines and the last line. The first two lines are really great, very meta-Thomistic. I love it. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
from IngoB
quote:
Although it's completely valid (for the sake of the competition at least) to try to improve on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, it is not at all necessary.
Quite so. So why did you add the filioque? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Cos the discussion isn't to be only dictated by the Orthodox perchance?
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zealot en vacance
Shipmate
# 9795
|
Posted
One of the reasons I regard the catholic creeds as true, but clearly not an expression of the whole truth, is the failure to explicitly show love as the operative principle. Is it possible that it is this omission that has cost us persecution, crusades, auto-da-fe, add your atrocity of choice?
--------------------
He said, "Love one another".
Posts: 2014 | From: Surface of planet Earth | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Well, that was difficult but good. It's very interesting to watch different people's techniques. I'd love to hear any explanations you all have here on this thread.
For my part, I tried to stick to the format of the Nicene Creed but adapted to statements that I know I can unflinchingly assent to. I was hoping it would be something that almost all Christians could assent to, without becoming superficial and meaningless.
Good show.
(I must say, I almost ditched mine when I read Doc Tor's. I could fully assent to that one as well. Good job, sir.)
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Of course, the point of the 'original' creeds was that there were some Christians (Arians, for example) who couldn't assent to them.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
cool exercise - will undoubtedly read my attempt tomorrow and be embarassed and try again !!!
(edited to delete stupid question which is answered in the rules!!)
[ 20. September 2006, 17:32: Message edited by: noneen ]
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Of course, the point of the 'original' creeds was that there were some Christians (Arians, for example) who couldn't assent to them.
Yes, I am aware of this, in my opinion, unfortunate component of the original creed designs.
[ 20. September 2006, 19:35: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
(I must say, I almost ditched mine when I read Doc Tor's. I could fully assent to that one as well. Good job, sir.)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Well, not quite... hence the last line.
I have a sneaking admiration for Spiffy's entry. I fully expect Hillsong to be covering it next Sunday.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hild
Shipmate
# 6042
|
Posted
What a choice! What a task!
I've just read people's suggestions. I was particularly taken by two of them.
Prof Kirke - I liked yours, because it's succinct and I could say it without feeling fraudulent. Thank you - I'm re-examining my own beliefs at the moment, and your creed has helped.
Doublethink - can't wait till the final edition. Echoes of TS Eliot, perhaps? Poetry adds another dimension. Your poem has power. Thank you.
H.
--------------------
still journeying
Posts: 79 | From: Durham | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
DOD, that's a cool textual arc you set up for your creed between those first two lines and the last line. The first two lines are really great, very meta-Thomistic. I love it.
Though I rarely agree with IngoB (and greatly fear being awarded his generously offered booby prize now that I've put my hat in the ring), I must say that I like DoD's crede quite a lot as well. There's something great about putting our capacity to question at the center of a statement of belief. Paradoxical and beautiful.
[fixed elision]
[ 20. September 2006, 21:53: Message edited by: Mertseger ]
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
I've entered my entry - A creed based on ephesians
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
DOD, love yours.
But might I suggest that the future tense for the Kingdom, "will be life for the dead" etc, could be altered to something closer to the present? We are so close to the Kingdom in our lives now.
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy, on the Competition Entries:Credo thread- (1) There is one God, the divine Trinity exists within Him, and He is the Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ.
- (2) Believing in Him is a faith that saves.
- (3) We must not do things that are evil--they belong to the Devil and come from the Devil.
- (4) We must do things that are good--they belong to God and come from God.
- (5) We must do these things as if we ourselves were doing them, but we must believe that they come from the Lord working with us and through us.
Freddy PM'd me about the above creed, which is actually a creed used in Freddy's church. I accept that he posted it by honest mistake on the Competition Entries: Credo thread. It does pay to read the Credo Competition rules!
I've moved it here for comment and deleted it from the Competition thread.
Like the Credo competition rules say: your creed must be your own original work. But no harm has been done here. Freddy, you are most welcome to submit your own original creed.
ETA: I've moved this contribution from R.D. Olivaw too for similar reasons:
quote:
I'm sorry but I couldn't help thinking of Steve Martin's classic I believe monologue.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
[ 21. September 2006, 04:08: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
your creed must be your own original work. But no harm has been done here. Freddy, you are most welcome to submit your own original creed.
Thank you, Duo. I apologize for not reading the instructions.
I don't know if I have any original thoughts on a creed. But I do like the creed I submitted. Short and simple and only slightly heretical.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I wonder if I can ask IngoB, or others that know, what the historic creeds represent to a Catholic ( or Orthodox ).
I am Protestant and I certainly believe the Nicene and Apostles Creed. I am sure many Protestants believe them.
So it seems they do not so fully define Catholic faith as to exclude all those considered heterodox, but on the other hand must be more than just 'x percent of the Catholic faith'.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
moonlitdoor, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was obviously not written in order to differentiate future Roman Catholics from future Protestants. Hence there's no good reason to expect that it would do that. Nevertheless, there is one sentence which does establish a difference: "I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."
There is only one Church, it is by nature apostolic and it is universal (catholic) for all mankind. The only way a Protestant can believe in that is by interpreting it non-literally and in the abstract. Whereas for the Roman Catholic (and for the Orthodox), this is completely literal and practical: the church based on the apostolic succession of bishops, which traces back in an unbroken line of personal transmission to the apostles, is the one church of Christ, and all must belong to it and together follow its teachings here on earth. Whereas the Protestant must claim that the plethora of denominations are in some sense united as "one", that somehow the apostolicity is distributed over all believers, and that universality is enhanced rather than diminished by the many (often enough contradictory) flavours of church.
Nothing in the Creed itself will tell you which of these two interpretations to pick. But would the church fathers have endorsed or for that matter even understood the Protestant intepretation? I doubt it...
[ 21. September 2006, 08:57: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
hello IngoB
I realise that I am interpreting the phrase about the one holy catholic apostolic church differently from you. By no means is it my intention to try to debate the meaning of the Nicene Creed with you which I am not equipped to do.
I just am interested to know what it represents to you. Does it in some way represent the most important or fundamental teachings of Christianity ? Does it just set out the church's teaching on issues where there was disagreement with heresies prevalent in the 4th century ? Or what is it ?
I would like to know because the spirit in which one might attempt a modern version for your competition is influenced by what the original stands for.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
i found it hard to write a personal creed - mainly cause i amn't great at being clear in short phrases .... i tend to need paragraphs ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) (but my need to talk might not be equal to others need to hear ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ...so i was glad of the wordlimit!!! )
One thing struck me in the exercise though. The advantage of the statement, 'we believe', is that i don't feel that i have to always feel good about every single line of the creed. I am supported by a community which declares, and struggles with its belief system. 'We believe' is a group statement which focuses out, whereas - i think that- 'i believe' can be very introspective.
Also 'we believe' is challenging - just cause a statement doesn't sit true with me today, doesn't make it untrue. For years i couldn't say 'i believe in the resurrection of the body', but others said it - and somehow that has been a challenge and a consolation. It reminds me that i'm not there yet!
Does the statement, 'I believe', allow a person to pick what they are comfortable with, and leave other parts out ???
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is only one Church, it is by nature apostolic and it is universal (catholic) for all mankind. The only way a Protestant can believe in that is by interpreting it non-literally and in the abstract. Whereas for the Roman Catholic (and for the Orthodox), this is completely literal and practical...
I find it flabbergasting that anyone could write the above sentences with no sense of irony. "We RC (and of course the other, separate unified Church, the Orthodox,) are each separately the one true Church. You Protestants obviously are not part of our disunified unity." Don't you think it makes sense to give up this tired crap and consider moving toward a real unity in Christ?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:
DOD, love yours.
But might I suggest that the future tense for the Kingdom, "will be life for the dead" etc, could be altered to something closer to the present? We are so close to the Kingdom in our lives now.
Now, and not yet. It's a difficult one.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I just am interested to know what it represents to you. Does it in some way represent the most important or fundamental teachings of Christianity ? Does it just set out the church's teaching on issues where there was disagreement with heresies prevalent in the 4th century ? Or what is it ?
Hmm, for me personally it has about the same status Newton mechanics has in physics. Within the domain it addresses, it speaks the truth! But today we know that this domain is only the subset of a larger area which requires a more sophisticated treatment (Newton Mechanics vs. Einstein's Relativity). We also know that there are other fundamental areas which it does not address sufficiently or at all (Newton mechanics vs. Quantum Mechanics). But in some sense this is where it all started, in a way everything that's modern followed only after this domain had been securely established. It's a sort of historical paradigm for the entire endeavour and as such it will stand till the end of time.
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I would like to know because the spirit in which one might attempt a modern version for your competition is influenced by what the original stands for.
No. The competition is entirely independent of my or any other understandings of the Creed. The competition is precisely what it is - write up the core of your belief in 225 words or less. For whatever reason...
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Don't you think it makes sense to give up this tired crap and consider moving toward a real unity in Christ?
Funny that. I say precisely the same thing to you. (Oh, and the Orthodox are not part of the principle unity in Christ, since they lack the "sacrament" of unity: the successor of St Peter, the rock on which the church will prevail against the gates of hell - the pope. They are just in a state where little else is lacking.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The competition is precisely what it is - write up the core of your belief in 225 words or less.
That's different to Duo's wording in the rules - "a new Creed for 21st century Christianity".
I'd have thought for the competition to make any sense, it can't be just about personal statements (what would be the value in voting on them) but how our personal beliefs might be reflected in a statement "for the Church".
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Don't you think it makes sense to give up this tired crap and consider moving toward a real unity in Christ?
Funny that. I say precisely the same thing to you. (Oh, and the Orthodox are not part of the principle unity in Christ, since they lack the "sacrament" of unity: the successor of St Peter, the rock on which the church will prevail against the gates of hell - the pope. They are just in a state where little else is lacking.)
I'll take that as a "No."
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The competition is precisely what it is - write up the core of your belief in 225 words or less.
That's different to Duo's wording in the rules - "a new Creed for 21st century Christianity".
I'd have thought for the competition to make any sense, it can't be just about personal statements (what would be the value in voting on them) but how our personal beliefs might be reflected in a statement "for the Church".
I hadn't thought about that wording in the rules ... I was definitely taking it as a personal statement of faith. I don't think I'd even attempt a statement of faith for the church (however you define "the Church") as a whole.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GrahamR
Shipmate
# 11299
|
Posted
Well, my entry is in, for what it's worth! I enjoyed writing it though- it was interesting to have to think about it, and I definitely enjoyed reading the other entries- I think that there are some really good ones!
--------------------
My blog - theology, archaeology, science
Posts: 184 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I'm concerned about two things in my own effort. Firstly - is it Christian? It's mant to be A credo for 21st century christianity, not THE creed.
The second concern is whether it will creep in under the word count. I@ve couned it five times and got five different results (math not being my major subject) but I think it can be shoe-horned in if the hyphenated words count as one.
Pruning might be safer though. I believe the rules allow it. How do we do that? Just submit an alternative which cancels out the firts try?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I'll take that as a "No."
--Tom Clune
Tom, I think IngoB's point was that you were asking Catholics to adopt a Protestant understanding of the Church . It would be unfair, then, to say that your position is any more magnanimous than the 'we're right, you're wrong' you identify in Rome. You're saying exactly the same. There is nothing wrong with this - we presumably all think our beliefs are correct, otherwise we wouldn't hold them, and this involves believing incompatible beliefs are false. But this is a feature of (consistent) believing of whatever sort, whether it issues from Rome or Geneva.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The competition is precisely what it is - write up the core of your belief in 225 words or less.
That's different to Duo's wording in the rules - "a new Creed for 21st century Christianity".
I'd have thought for the competition to make any sense, it can't be just about personal statements (what would be the value in voting on them) but how our personal beliefs might be reflected in a statement "for the Church".
I think the tension between those two understandings is precisely what should make this competition, and more importantly, this discussion-thread, so interesting.
Is it possible to draw up a statement 'for the Church'? If any are serious about unity in any sense, then this seems like a necessary goal. Of course, there are those that pursue unity on a more specific set of terms, where you must accept or adopt their statement. But perhaps a move toward greater or deeper unity (or whatever concept you may substitute) would involve a new, modern statement that releases some speficificity without losing its power or relevance?
Or maybe it's all futile. But it's damn interesting, either way.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The answer to IngoB is of course the we understand 'one' differently, we understand 'Catholic' differently and we understand 'Apostolic' differently. We might object for instance that from our Protestant understanding of apostolic that the teachings of Rome do not really meet this criteria.
Six of one, half a dozen the other. Remember Rome's right to determine the tradition depends on its readings.
That's just the problem with creeds. They all contain enough ambiguity to drive a coach and horses through them in what they mean if you want to. A creed for the 21st Century would have to accept this. Therefore it cannot be a linear creed.
Jengie
[ 21. September 2006, 17:57: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
The second concern is whether it will creep in under the word count. I@ve couned it five times and got five different results (math not being my major subject) but I think it can be shoe-horned in if the hyphenated words count as one.
If you copy your entries into MS Word (or some other like-program) there is a feature called "Word Count..." that will do the work for you.
quote:
Pruning might be safer though. I believe the rules allow it. How do we do that? Just submit an alternative which cancels out the firts try?
From the rules thread:
quote:
There's only one entry per person. You can re-submit as often as you like, but only your last post will enter the competition.
Do read the rules, people--it will help you out. Try to avoid the tl;dr phenomenon.
Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I had the beginings of an interesting discussion with Max in the cafe last night - re a fundemental difference in approach to faith and creeds.
In attempting a creed, I am rather going against my tradition - as Quakers in the UK have made a point of not having them. I wanted the creed I wrote to reflect the reasons for this.
In essence what I am trying to get at in The Way is;
- the idea that 'there is that of God in everyone' (George Fox)
- the idea that we derive guidance and insight from properly attending to our personal relationship with the divine
- the idea that there have been human examples of this throughout history, with Christ being central
- the idea of resurrection, of the persistence of life in some form
But most centrally, it is an attempt to express belief in a process of faith rather than particular teachings - because I see the truth as a an ever changing dynamic thing, like a river - at once the same and different every time anyone experiences it.
[ 21. September 2006, 18:46: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Boopy. I liked your creed very much. Better than mine. I can't resist, at times like this, trying to leave great thoughts for posterity, and they get all mixed up with the really honest stuff. Yours reminds me of Herbert's mystical songs - full of heart in mouth "simplicity".
Thank you.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
It's a very interesting thing to try to do. I agree that the choice between "I" and "we" is difficult. A good creed should be in the plural. But I don't think it's for a single author (certainly not me!) to propose that.
I'm sceptical about the value of new credal statements as a tool to redefine and maybe, in some sense, reunify 21st century Christianity. Even if it is possible, I'm certainly not in a position to write it. So my own effort is unashamedly personal. Maybe a collection of fairly personal creeds, which is what is rapidly developing, is more valuable. At least it's a starting point for something.
Voting will raise its own questions. Do you pick the creed that most reflects your beliefs, or that most originally captures some elements of belief, or that most elegantly formulates the fundamentals of another person's faith?
Nobody's needed to discuss yet what should be the subject matter for creeds. The last time I did something like this was when I was at school, aged 11. One of my classmates included "I believe that Don Bradman was the greatest cricketer of all time". An extreme example.
But it's not obvious what sorts of things one can talk about and what can't be. Certainly my effort isn't a list of what is fundamental to my worldview, and unless theology features overwhelmingly in other people's existences, I imagine that I'm not alone. Are the things that you include only those that wouldn't be assumed true if you became an atheist? If so, isn't that just the basis for an unsatisfactory theology of the gaps? Are they a set of axioms - unprovable but plausible statements which taken together form a complete basis for belief? Or something else?
On a less heavy note, it's disappointing that all the suggestions so far have missed out on the wonderful opportunity of communication offered by this medium - the smiley. I challenge somebody.
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
A good creed should be in the plural.
Why?
It puzzles me, you know, that "credo" is singular, but "we believe" is the newer translation.
One explanation I've heard is that "I believe" would be about faith as an individual proposition, and "we believe" is meant to assert about what the church as a whole trusts in. But what does it mean for "we" to believe something, that the individual "I"'s can't assent to? It reduces the creed to a nice background historical statement, but not very important going forewards for individuals to care that the statements are important.
I find quite appealing Doublethink's description of the Quaker attitude to creeds. But in an Episcopal church (where I am currently), which chooses to have a creed, the above attitude seems very odd.
[ 21. September 2006, 22:37: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'd have thought for the competition to make any sense, it can't be just about personal statements (what would be the value in voting on them) but how our personal beliefs might be reflected in a statement "for the Church".
Sure, Dave. This was in reaction to somebody saying that how I view the Nicene Creed is going to shape the competition entries. But I truly do not intend to impose my views as normative here. I want to see what other people make of this. Please remember that I'm not going to judge the entries, it will be a popular vote. However, given that this is a competition and will rely on public appeal, in some sense the "going beyond yourself" is a given (at least for the future winners). But how "high" you aim with it is not. The only other conditions are what I said. (Although in fact nothing stops anyone to submit a creed they do not really believe in themselves...)
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
I think the tension between those two understandings is precisely what should make this competition, and more importantly, this discussion-thread, so interesting.
Precisely.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The answer to IngoB is of course the we understand 'one' differently, we understand 'Catholic' differently and we understand 'Apostolic' differently.
An answer I gave myself already in that same post...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
It can be much more than a historical background statement.
It's not solely been translated that way as a cop-out for those of us who might struggle to assent to some of the propositions. It makes explicit the shared, corporate nature of the belief. Saying it together is a very clear form for a community of belief.
And, yes, it does allow some room to include those who, on occasion, may not feel a great deal of personal identification with some of the clauses. But not by relegating a creed to a historical background - by instead asserting the reality of a community of faith of which we are part. While many of us may struggle to understand some of what we profess, we accept and celebrate that we are part of a greater whole.
I'm sure that there is a strong denominational component to all of this and appreciate that the previous paragraph may look a little crazy to many Protestant mindsets.
[ETA crossposted - was replying to Autenreith Road]
[ 21. September 2006, 22:59: Message edited by: fisher ]
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
It puzzles me, you know, that "credo" is singular, but "we believe" is the newer translation.
AFAIK it will be "I believe" again in the new translation expected around 2008. It is already so in the C^4. Let's just say it was a momentary lapse in the ability of Latin to English translators caused by the "Spirit of Vatican II in the Age of Aquarius".
A proper "we believe" consists in eveybody saying "I believe" to the same thing. If everybody says "we believe", that does not necessarily imply that every single person who is joining in really believes what they say. For some it could also mean something like "the church I belong to as a whole (in the majority or officially) believes, whereas I actually don't". The "I believe" is much more challenging and points to a proper communion of spirit when said together. At least so if people care about what they are saying - which is not always the case, of course.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The "I believe" is much more challenging and points to a proper communion of spirit when said together. At least so if people care about what they are saying - which is not always the case, of course.
I'm going to disagree with this.
A church can have a manifesto ("We believe") that can be aspired to by the congregation ("I believe"). "We believe" is an inclusive statement, even if you don't fully assent to all the creed's statements. The church, whilst being the people present, is greater than the people present because it also consists of the saints who have gone before.
Which is why I went through my entry and changed all the "I"s to "We"s before I submitted it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think that there is more power in a 'we believe' statement than an 'I believe' statement.
In the former, you're a bunch of people assenting to something. In the latter you're a bunch of individuals saying the same thing.
Church is more than just me. If I had to just write down what I intellectually and emotionally assented to at any given moment, it probably wouldn't amount to more than:
Some days I believe in God, and all that stuff.
Some days it smells like a very bad con.
Mostly I don't know or don't think about it.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I'm not sure if I belong here on the Ship as all my posts so far seem to have been misunderstood.
I did not at all mean to suggest that people's entries for the competition should or would be influenced by IngoB's view of the Nicene Creed.
I meant that their entries might be influenced by their own view of the Nicene Creed and what creeds are for. I was just curious what his view of the Nicene Creed was.
Curiosity seems to get easily mistaken for argument on here.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
