Thread: Purgatory: Discussion thread: Credo Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000619
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
This is the place to discuss the entries in Credo.

[ 08. May 2007, 01:49: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Well that was fun and enlightening. Thanks!
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
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
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Of course, the point of the 'original' creeds was that there were some Christians (Arians, for example) who couldn't assent to them.
 
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
DoD sets the bar very high. Impressive, and, suprisingly, moving.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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]

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.
 
Posted by hild (# 6042) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
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. [Smile]
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 ]
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
I've entered my entry - A creed based on ephesians

Max
 
Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy, on the Competition Entries:Credo thread
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 ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
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'.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
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] (but my need to talk might not be equal to others need to hear [Biased] ...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 ???
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
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
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by GrahamR (# 11299) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I was interested in the different ways we tried to speak for others or chose not to do so. Some have said they tried to express themselves in words all can accept while others try to say what should be and what is. On the other hand, I have tried to say only what I believe because I felt I can do no more.
 
Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
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;


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 ]
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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". [Roll Eyes]

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Curiosity seems to get easily mistaken for argument on here.
Thgat's because we believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt... [Big Grin]

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
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.
Wow - thank you!

The irony is, this is the sort of creed that it's impossible to air in the local church. Ah well.
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
The "I believe" versus "we believe" argument is interesting. "We believe" is more of a hoop to jump through for me. A community of like-minded spirits saying "I believe" feels like we're discovering, or re-discovering something.

The alternative sounds like "we're in this gang...are you? Tangentially, I have heard confessions (no, not in the box, in the congregation!) in which "We confess that we...." actually means "We judge that THEY - or some of them...."

I prefer the catholic way of saying "I confess (to you, my broyhers and sisters)". Is it more "Catholic to say 'I believe...'?
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
Some of the entries have no reference to God. How can you have a Christian creed without even mentioning God?

It may be what you believe, but how can you call it Christian?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Because we are hospitable and grown up enough to not worry to much about who plays in the sand pit and to deal with seeming inconsistencies?

Maybe we even get a sneaking feeling that we may learn something?

Maybe not mentioning God is a good way to find out about Him (or Her)?

P
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
I would expect that one who believes in God would say so in a Creed. I would also expect that one who does not say so in a Creed, does not believe in God. If that is the case, for that person to call himself a Christian is blasphemy.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I would expect that one who believes in God would say so in a Creed. I would also expect that one who does not say so in a Creed, does not believe in God. If that is the case, for that person to call himself a Christian is blasphemy.
Blasphemy? This is a rather odd use of the word, wouldn't you say?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Blasphemy?
Blasphemy is: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God.

That is the way I see it.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Blasphemy?
Blasphemy is: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God.

That is the way I see it.
This all seems rather Alice-in-Wonderlandish -- does a word mean what you want it to mean, or does it mean what it means?

The key concept in blasphemy is wrapped up, as you seem to acknowledge, in the idea of contempt for the Almighty. Failing to believe that He exists may be wrong-headed, but it's a bit of a stretch to turn that into contempt.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
... Failing to believe that He exists may be wrong-headed, but it's a bit of a stretch to turn that into contempt.

--Tom Clune
It is the failing to believe He exists, while still calling yourself Christian, that I called blasphemy.

Oh, btw, the definition was from Miriam Webster.

[ 22. September 2006, 17:29: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
It is the failing to believe He exists, while still calling yourself Christian, that I called blasphemy.
But there are many people who believe that Christ was the epitome of moral conduct, and yet they fail to believe in God. When such people "follow" Christ (admittedly, this is a confused notion, but I have known a number of people who find this to be exactly the state that they are in), it is reasonable for them to refer to themselves as "Christ followers," or "Christians," or some such terminology. It is not exactly a view that I find coherent, but it is certainly not one that seems to be disrespectful. It may even be a view that may grow into a full-blown faith, given proper encouragement to develop. When we verbally assault those who aren't necessarily in synch with our own belief, we short-circuit the possibility of that fruitition. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But there are many people who believe that Christ was the epitome of moral conduct, and yet they fail to believe in God. When such people "follow" Christ (admittedly, this is a confused notion, but I have known a number of people who find this to be exactly the state that they are in), it is reasonable for them to refer to themselves as "Christ followers," or "Christians," or some such terminology.
It is not just a confused notion. Someone who thinks Jesus was "the epitome of moral conduct" but does not recognize His divinity has no idea who Jesus is. They are not Christian, for you cannot follow someone who you do not know.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Someone who thinks Jesus was "the epitome of moral conduct" but does not recognize His divinity has no idea who Jesus is. They are not Christian, for you cannot follow someone who you do not know.
I would not want to take issue with any of this. However, it doesn't seem to be blasphemous, just confused.

--Tom Clune

[ 22. September 2006, 18:18: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
The "I believe" versus "we believe" argument is interesting. "We believe" is more of a hoop to jump through for me.
The usual arguments for and against in our church are the other way round from that. "We believe" is said to be weaker. When I say it it says that I am a member of this community that holds these things to be true but it doesn't mean I have to personally sign up to them. Its the language of mental reservations. "I believe" is stronger. If I don't believe I ought to be wary of saying it.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Someone who thinks Jesus was "the epitome of moral conduct" but does not recognize His divinity has no idea who Jesus is. They are not Christian, for you cannot follow someone who you do not know.
I would not want to take issue with any of this. However, it doesn't seem to be blasphemous, just confused.
Well quite. There are lots of people who can't quite bring themselves to believe in God but hope that if He does exist He is like Jesus.

I rather think the appropriate response is: "My son, you are not far from the Kingdom of God" rather than "Blasphemer!"

[ 22. September 2006, 18:30: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I rather think the appropriate response is: "My son, you are not far from the Kingdom of God" rather than "Blasphemer!"
I agree. That does tend to wind them up even more [Snigger]
 
Posted by angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I would expect that one who believes in God would say so in a Creed. I would also expect that one who does not say so in a Creed, does not believe in God. If that is the case, for that person to call himself a Christian is blasphemy.
What if I believe in God but also believe that any attempt to pin God down in words or concepts is blasphemy? {I said 'if': i don't want to get drawn into another Hell thread]
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
I like the way that Pyx_e's creed sidesteps the "I believe" / "We believe" choice by going for "We love..." instead. (Apologies if anyone else has also used a similar approach earlier). The pronoun seems to matter less in this context, although the result still seems to me a clear statement of belief.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Reading through the thread I decided that The Way wasn't really creedish - so I've tried again. What canst thou say ? This is as creed-like as I can honestly be, I think.

On the I/we believe debate - I'd definitely state 'I believe' because it is about making a personal committment. In churches that keep a creed central - then it is the individual committing to be part of that. To me it seems tpo be something about taking responsibility for, and owning, the statement of their own beliefs - so 'I' is important. I think 'we' prayers maybe important and useful in all sorts of contexts - but not for a creed.

[ 23. September 2006, 00:06: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But there are many people who believe that Christ was the epitome of moral conduct, and yet they fail to believe in God. When such people "follow" Christ (admittedly, this is a confused notion, but I have known a number of people who find this to be exactly the state that they are in), it is reasonable for them to refer to themselves as "Christ followers," or "Christians," or some such terminology.
It is not just a confused notion. Someone who thinks Jesus was "the epitome of moral conduct" but does not recognize His divinity has no idea who Jesus is. They are not Christian, for you cannot follow someone who you do not know.
Of course you can follow someone you don't "know"! "Sheep & goats", "other sheep have I that are not of this fold", etc.

Let's say you're going about your daily business. You see a person who behaves decently, honestly, and lovingly. Just seeing them makes you want to be like them. So you start trying to behave the way they do.

You may not know their name, you may not have ever spoken with them, you may not know any details about their life...but you can see that there is something worthwhile in the way they live. Some day, you may know them in a different way--but you ARE following them.

Some such folks might even be following the person more than some who know the person by name.
 
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on :
 
I am reminded again of the conversation that Jesus had with the Samaritan woman (John 4). The woman was having a conversation with the Christ and yet didn't recognise who he was (or at least didn't to begin with). Yet at no point did Jesus question that the Samaritans were really worshippers of God, he did however give her good reason to consider getting to know him better.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I like ACOL-ite's entry. Very sound emphasis on the goodness of creation, and of humanity as part of that creation.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Whereas to my ears Gort's entry sounds like Plotinus on acid... [Biased] Which raises the interesting question how much one must be able to understand what one is saying so that a "I/We believe..." becomes valid?
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Which raises the interesting question how much one must be able to understand what one is saying so that a "I/We believe..." becomes valid?
Not a lot, I'd have thought, if the officially sanctioned ones are anything to go by. Anyone seriously claiming to understand 'eternally begotten of the Father'?
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
"Understanding", for me, is visualizing a proposition and confirming or denying its truth through application. I've mentioned this before... "Faith" (or belief) is not an unsupported leap of acceptance but an intimate, integral, required part of every creative act no matter how mundane, common or 'miraculous'. It is the force that completes the stages of 'becoming' implicit in the concept of trinity but isn't widely acknowledged as such and, for me, holds absolutely no traditional religious connotations.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Which raises the interesting question how much one must be able to understand what one is saying so that a "I/We believe..." becomes valid?
Not a lot, I'd have thought, if the officially sanctioned ones are anything to go by. Anyone seriously claiming to understand 'eternally begotten of the Father'?
I think the point is that we can understand what that doesn't mean - that the Son is created.
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
first of all, I want to say I think this is a really wonderful project. Kudos to IngoB and the Purg Hosts.

I am hearing two takes on this though, and would appreciate clarification (or at least consensus?) on the purpose. Are we writing our own credo, or a "correct" Christian one? (yes I read the rules, it sort of indicates this is for the universal Church. which is my problem)

While I am a Christian, my theology is not "correct" in the eyes of the general christian populace. Yet I still believe it quite correct!

Sharkshooter's comments about some of the entries being blasphemous makes me have second thoughts on creating an entry. while mine will certainly include God, it will not necessarily hit on all the necessary points, re: Christ's divinity for example, and I don't want to enter something that will either be disqualified or unnecessarily derided. (I can take constructive criticism. spouting off about blasphemy will just piss me off)

So, can we make a judgement call? personal creed or creed for all?

Thanks
Comet
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
Perhaps I should clarify my position on the "I" or "we" question. When I said that the "we" version felt more like having to jump through hoops I didn't mean it was more difficult.

Saying "I believe..." is the harder option because, as I think someone has already pointed out, it means that I am taking personal responsibility for what I'm saying. That there are like-minded people around me saying the same thing is encouraging, not cowing. Indeed, one of the most encouraging situations is to be totally silent - for a significant time - in the company of others. This is something many people find intimidating.

"We believe" makes me feel that I am having a conversation, or making a declaration with, other people, and not with God, aimed at some third part or parties "out there" who need to know what the rules of the gang are.

All this is probably indicative of nothing more than my weird psychological state, but I may not be entirely alone here. [Ultra confused] [Frown] [Help] [Paranoid]
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Blasphemy?
Blasphemy is: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God.

That is the way I see it.
But if you don not believe in Him, how can it be blasphemy?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines blasphemy as,
  1. a) A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
    b) The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
  2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

But this requires belief, I would think.

Best,
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I think the point is that we can understand what that doesn't mean - that the Son is created.
I don't think that helps. What's the 'Son'? Essentially a paradoxical concept that cannot be understood, only accepted as having some reality.

Gort's entry uses unfamiliar (to most of us, I guess) connections. I'd say it's probably more understandable than say, the Nicene Creed. Only familiarity with the liturgy stops some Christians from thinking 'what on earth does this mean?' every time they say it, and I suspect they're in a minority.
quote:
Originally posted by cometchaser:
I am hearing two takes on this though, and would appreciate clarification (or at least consensus?) on the purpose. Are we writing our own credo, or a "correct" Christian one? (yes I read the rules, it sort of indicates this is for the universal Church. which is my problem)
I don't think there's much point in going for a "correct" one. But then I'm not a "correct" Christian either.

I see this as an opportunity to attempt a form of words that reflects what's helpfully distinctive about the universal church, but leaving out the specific historical interpretations that exclude people, me for example, on the basis of tradition.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I think the point is that we can understand what that doesn't mean - that the Son is created.
I don't think that helps. What's the 'Son'? Essentially a paradoxical concept that cannot be understood, only accepted as having some reality.
The 'Son' is indeed a paradoxical concept, but one which I believe refers to a paradoxical reality, namely God in that eternal way of being God encountered in history in Jesus.

Paradox is not inconsistency. I agree with you that the language of the creeds stretches our everyday language to breaking point. I disagree with you, in that I think it remains just this side of sense.

Christians ought to ask themselves regularly 'what on earth does this mean', if only in order to evoke the response 'no-thing on earth', which is precisely what God-talk is hinting at.

[ 24. September 2006, 12:55: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
The 'Son' is indeed a paradoxical concept, but one which I believe refers to a paradoxical reality, namely God in that eternal way of being God encountered in history in Jesus.
The question, though, is whether the Church should be defined by that belief. Whether something ultimately significant is lost by recognising faith without that understanding, or whether in fact that understanding is only a culturally and historically acquired perception of reality that is part of but not essential to the tradition of the Church.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
We've argued about this before. I think it is. You don't.

Incidentally, the fact that a perception is 'historically conditioned' can't have any bearing on this. All human perceptions are, by definition, historically conditioned.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
Yes, we've discussed this before, but IIRC the reasons for your position are essentially historical. Traditional Christian theology assumes that God's involvement in history implies that God is at work through history, and you are committed to that view.

My position is that perception of God as a personal reality need not be defined in this way, and that the Church is deficient if it's historical definition excludes those of us who are no longer able to believe as you do.

I'm still looking for reasons, other than that you and other Christians happen to believe as you do, why the Church should continue to insist that yours is the only authorised expression of faith for those drawn to the way and person of Jesus.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...Let's say you're going about your daily business. You see a person who behaves decently, honestly, and lovingly. Just seeing them makes you want to be like them. So you start trying to behave the way they do.
...
Following Jesus is not at all like that. In John 6, these types of people left when they were confronted with who Jesus is. That is not what Christianity is all about.

And, as my last comment on using the term blasphemy, I believe that to apply Christ's name to something that is not Christian is blasphemy, and I believe the dictionary definitions support this. If you disagree, that is fine. Call it what you will.

The rules asked for a Christian credo. That is not possible without proclaiming the divinity of Christ. Call it your personal belief statement, if you will, but don't call it Christian.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I disagree, but then I would include Jehovah's witnesses within my definitions of Christianity.

In a rare attempt to proof text, I would ask you to consider, a passage I can't quite remember - from the gospels, something along the lines of the disciples coming to Jesus and saying - oi that bloke is preaching in your name and he isn't one of us, and Jesus said don't be so petty so long as his heart is in the right place that's OK.

(I'm paraphrasing, you understand ?)
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

My position is that perception of God as a personal reality need not be defined in this way, and that the Church is deficient if it's historical definition excludes those of us who are no longer able to believe as you do.
There is no such thing as a definition which does not exclude some positions. Definition entails differentiation. You are unhappy that the Church defines its faith so as to exclude the extreme latitude of belief you require. I'm not sure what can be said about this. To use an analogy I've used before, it would be rather like me complaining that the Conservative Party excludes me because it is not in favour of the nationalisation of industry.

[ 24. September 2006, 18:00: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines blasphemy as,
  1. a) A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
    b) The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
  2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

But this requires belief, I would think.
Requiring belief gives too much, ISTM. Certainly, the desecration of the Temple altar by Antiochus was blasphemy, whether Antiochus believed in God or not.

On the other side of the coin, you can conduct yourself with respect for Hindu gods if you are visiting an Indian holy site without believing in Hinduism. And, if you fail to observe all the niceties of Hindu piety when at the site out of ignorance of the religion, I would venture that most people of good will would not view your ignorance as blasphemous.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...Let's say you're going about your daily business. You see a person who behaves decently, honestly, and lovingly. Just seeing them makes you want to be like them. So you start trying to behave the way they do.
...
Following Jesus is not at all like that . In John 6, these types of people left when they were confronted with who Jesus is. That is not what Christianity is all about.

The rules asked for a Christian credo. That is not possible without proclaiming the divinity of Christ. Call it your personal belief statement, if you will, but don't call it Christian.
For some people, following Jesus is exactly like that.

Your statement above is almost like claiming personal ownership of Christianity. It sets up to exclude. I think Christianity is bigger than that.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
There is no such thing as a definition which does not exclude some positions. Definition entails differentiation. You are unhappy that the Church defines its faith so as to exclude the extreme latitude of belief you require.
No, it's really not my personal exclusion I'm arguing against, although I can see it probably looks that way. I'm mostly only using my own position as a concrete illustration.

Of course a definition involves exclusion. Perhaps I should have said in my last post something like "the Church is deficient if it excludes those who understand God to be creator and sustainer, who are inspired by the person of Jesus, are drawn to the way of Jesus, but do not believe saying he is God makes sense".

The question, to put it another way, is how the Church defines itself so as to only exclude those who are not interested in or opposed to God and truth and other perhaps ultimately important stuff. It seems to me that describing what the Church is in the here and now will do this more effectively than prescribing what we're supposed to believe in order to be part of it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...Let's say you're going about your daily business. You see a person who behaves decently, honestly, and lovingly. Just seeing them makes you want to be like them. So you start trying to behave the way they do.
...
Following Jesus is not at all like that. In John 6, these types of people left when they were confronted with who Jesus is. That is not what Christianity is all about.

And, as my last comment on using the term blasphemy, I believe that to apply Christ's name to something that is not Christian is blasphemy, and I believe the dictionary definitions support this. If you disagree, that is fine. Call it what you will.

The rules asked for a Christian credo. That is not possible without proclaiming the divinity of Christ. Call it your personal belief statement, if you will, but don't call it Christian.
Sharkshooter, I'm not sure how much of this was directed at me, but I'll try to answer what I can.

Per the gospels, Jesus related to people in many ways--presumably adapting his approach to the person and situation. He met people where and as they were. Sometimes he said "follow me" or "come and see". Others, he did a miracle, preached a sermon, or did something intriguing, and let people figure things out on their own. When demons spilled the beans about who he was, he told them to shut up. He was also known to get into heated arguments, tell people off, and even whip them. Perhaps not the easiest guy to get to know! [Angel]

If Jesus were here today as one of us, I doubt that most people--even Christians--would immediately fall down and worship him. We wouldn't be sure who he was. If he did miracles, we'd probably think they were faked. We might think he was psychotic, or the anti-Christ, or performing some kind of psych experiment.

We might want to test him. He wasn't big on proving himself, most of the time. His reaction might well be like that of dear old Hodge in "Dragonslayer": "Oh, so it's a TEST you want ! We don't DO tests!"

Plus, we'd be in the midst of our own lives--working, commuting, buying groceries, dealing with kids, trying to find a chance to breathe. We might well walk right on by him, or tell him to get lost. If we were feeling kindly disposed, we might point him towards a homeless shelter or soup kitchen.

In other words, we'd probably have the same spectrum of reactions as the people in the gospels. Heck, someone might even think he was an embarassment to Christianity and try to kill him. [Paranoid]

IMHO, Jesus's disciples and followers often were unsure of who he really was--even when they'd known him for years. Are we really any better?


As to the creed contest and my particular creed: if mine isn't properly Christian enough for the rules, don't worry--I won't win the contest and won't get yet another Christian book to add to my collection. [Big Grin]

I didn't mention God in my creed for several reasons: someone asked me on the spur of the moment to write and post one; I'd been mulling it over anyway and wasn't sure what to say; and I have may religious questions and hurts. I want God to exist, and be good, and safely love us, and be with us all every step of the way, and ultimately heal all of creation. I deeply want that to be true, and I've affirmed that many times on the ship. I don't know if it's true, but I do try to cling to it.

The brief creed I posted is more or less my bottom line--the things I try to live by even in the midst of my ignorance and confusion. And, if you read it carefully, you'll find that some of it is very similar to things a certain Pesky Person taught. I was tempted to quote some of them, but we're supposed to use our own words.

Sharkshooter, I doubt that any mainstream Christian church will adopt the creed I've posted. If it does, I'll give you some chocolate to deaden the pain.
[Two face]
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
Sharkshooter, this thread is not about satisfying your expectations of a creed. Bandying about words like 'blasphemy' and stating categorially that certain beliefs about Jesus are un-Christian, does not seem conducive to open-minded discussion of how to write creeds.

T.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cometchaser:
first of all, I want to say I think this is a really wonderful project. Kudos to IngoB and the Purg Hosts.

I am hearing two takes on this though, and would appreciate clarification (or at least consensus?) on the purpose. Are we writing our own credo, or a "correct" Christian one? (yes I read the rules, it sort of indicates this is for the universal Church. which is my problem)

While I am a Christian, my theology is not "correct" in the eyes of the general christian populace. Yet I still believe it quite correct!

Sharkshooter's comments about some of the entries being blasphemous makes me have second thoughts on creating an entry. while mine will certainly include God, it will not necessarily hit on all the necessary points, re: Christ's divinity for example, and I don't want to enter something that will either be disqualified or unnecessarily derided. (I can take constructive criticism. spouting off about blasphemy will just piss me off)

So, can we make a judgement call? personal creed or creed for all?

Thanks
Comet
As professor kirke said above: part of the interest here is precisely the tension between "Credo - this is my Christian belief" and "Credo - this is a corporate statement of Christian belief".

I have no difficulty with people taking and following either interpretation, whether it's "Statement of personal belief" or "Creed for all".

No-one's entries will be disqualified nor should anyone feel that their entry might be derided. If you would like to submit a creed as a statement of personal belief then that's fine - but there is an implied invitation to consider whether your personal belief represents 21st Century Christianity in the wider sense, whether that's in part or whole. And vice versa of course: "A creed for 21st Century Christianity"...Credo.

There was a deliberate choice of words both in the rules and even in the name of the competition.

I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else, but I'm quietly pleased with the quality of the entries so far, reflecting the thought and faith that has gone into them

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

[ 25. September 2006, 09:32: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

The question, to put it another way, is how the Church defines itself so as to only exclude those who are not interested in or opposed to God and truth and other perhaps ultimately important stuff.
The problem is that I (along with most Christians) think that the Incarnation, through which we are drawn into the mystery of God, is 'important stuff'.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
There is no such thing as a definition which does not exclude some positions. Definition entails differentiation. You are unhappy that the Church defines its faith so as to exclude the extreme latitude of belief you require...
I think this point reflects a significant aspect of the differing views we are seeing in this thread. ISTM that there are two basic spirits in which creeds may be offered up. In one, the goal is to raise up things that a particular group holds dear -- to affirm what it is they find valuable and fulfilling in their coming together as a group. These kinds of creeds often are created as part of a renewal effort of some sort, in which the participants are trying to give new voice to what makes them want to be in unity in the first place. By and large, these positive statements are not particularly excusionary. In these creeds, the point of DOD is largely vacuous. Any time I say that I am A, I implicitly intimate that I am not (or am less inclined to be) not A. However, the goal is to affirm, not to exclude.

And that gets to the second kind of creed, in which the goal is to be exclusive. These creeds are typically political in nature. They are also typical of the early Church creeds. The Nicene creed is an excellent example of a creed that was worked and reworked because the goal was specifically to say, "Not You!!!!" Arians kept being able to accomodate the wording of the creed, and so the Athanasians kept rewording it. I get the distinct impression that it would have been more efficient to list all the individuals that the Athanasians wanted to exclude by name, "we believe that Arius and xxx and yyy and ,,, are bad people who are not Chrisitans."

I find it amazing that the Nicene creed continues to be lifed up as a wonderful statement of faith. In truth, it makes me suspicious of the motives of anyone who does, because it always seems to have an agenda very much like it did 1700 years ago when it is so lifted up. Its focus is on who it excludes, not what it affirms. Or so ISTM.

Both approaches to credal statements have a long history in Christianity. In that sense, both approaches are legitimate, although the enterprise of each is radically distinct from the other. And our responses to each kind of credal statement say a great deal of who we are in Christ, which is ultimately the point of them.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Sharkshooter, this thread is not about satisfying your expectations of a creed.
Of course not. It is about writing a "Christian" creed. I am entitled to express my opinion as to what must be included in a creed for it to be a Christian one.

If people do not want to believe that Jesus is God, that is their choice. But I will not stand by and allow them to call it Christianity. It is not.
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If people do not want to believe that Jesus is God, that is their choice. But I will not stand by and allow them to call it Christianity. It is not.
Is it really your role to allow or disallow this? You're entitled to disagree with someone who says it - of course! - but to allow it?

T.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If people do not want to believe that Jesus is God, that is their choice. But I will not stand by and allow them to call it Christianity. It is not.
Is it really your role to allow or disallow this? You're entitled to disagree with someone who says it - of course! - but to allow it?

T.
But I will not stand by and allow them to call it Christianity without being challenged.

Feel better, now?
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
This is why my post is “Christian” even though it does not mention God or Jesus: “Christianity” has changed in two millenea. It used to be agreed inside and outside Christianity that “Christian” should only be applied to “one who believes that Jesus was a unique instance of a personal, trinitarian God taking on human flesh, rising physically from the dead, and promising to return to the world to judge all men to eternal punishment or reward.” This is not agreed upon any longer, especially after the Protestant Reformation and the advent of Process Theology.

After the Protestant Reformation, the “One True Church” was no longer recognized among all Christians as the defining authority for Christian belief. After Process Theology, I would argue that the beliefs of the founders of Christianity are also not the defining authority for Christian belief: the revelation of God itself is a process that includes us. There is no question that Peter, John, and Paul believed Jesus to be the unique incarnation of God, that he rose physically from the dead, and that he promised to return to judge all to eternal reward or punishment. There is no question that those who wrote what Jesus said believed the same. There is a question among those brought up in the Christian faith and tradition that Jesus actually said these things and made these claims.

The ancient church used to call such “heretics,” and they were excommunicated. Now “heretics” are bishops and professors of divinity in Protestant seminaries. No doubt Peter, John, and Paul would have denounced them as “beguiling spirits” and painted them as deceivers leading the Found back to the Lost. No doubt the early church would have burned some at the stake. There is however doubt in my own mind that Christ would have done the same. Perhaps it is because I am not Christian and do not know Christ, but I don’t think so. I'm dying to hear what Scientist and Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori exactly believes with regard to the divinity of Christ and Final Judgement. Having heard her speak, I'm betting she's a heretic.

My creed expresses Faith, Hope, and Charity: a different Trinity. There is faith that Good and Evil are real and not arbitrary, so it is not rational atheism or agnosticism. It evokes Charity among believers of like mind, who seek Good together. It ends in Hope. It acknowledges the reality of a predisposition to Evil, which is real, and a thirst for Goodness, which is also real, clearly showing my Christian roots. Peter would have said “Deceiver!,” the early church would have said, “Heretic!,” but the real question is what Jesus would have said or will say. I’ll take my chance that he will not say, “Depart from me ye worker of iniquity!” If he does, fuck him. I will burn forever with other heretics rather than worship and serve one who would respond to my honest search for Ultimate Good in such a manner.

My heartfelt best wishes to sharkshooter. I know he takes no pleasure in the thought that such as me are blasphemers flirting with eternal torment. But that's my lot. My Christian tradition and secular education have produced such a mongrel.

Cheers, all.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
This is why my post is “Christian” even though it does not mention God or Jesus: ...
I read your entire post, and it is obviously well thought out. My question to you is:

What makes it "Christian?"

What is there that says it is not Islam, Buddhism, or even aethiest? Many people of other religions, or no religion have faith, believe in good and evil, hope and charity.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
As usual, I find myself agreeing with JimT on many points.

My creed was written for an entirely different context (Wood's "so you say you're a Pagan who goes to church, what the heck does that mean to you?"), but the points I was trying to make at the time remain valid. I chose the form of the Nicene Creed as a bridge to a vision of divinity that does not require Chirstianity to be so restrictive as to negate every other faith on earth.

Sometimes I just want to Christianity a great big hug and try to tell it that, yes, you were harmed once, martyred and persecuted, but that's all over, and you can grow up be an adult religion now. You don't have act out of that pain any more. You don't have to see yourself as a persecuted minority which is the sole guardian of the truth of God. Really. It's okay. The whole world does not hate you any more. In fact, mostly, they never cared about you one way or the other. Come, sit at the table of your peers, and let's talk.

But, no, apparently, it's essentially Christian (for some, at least) that the world be seen as smothered in darkness except for shining of those few that believe exactly as you do. The martyr complex and bunker mentality is certainly not limited to nor even at its worst in Christianity (I'm looking at you, Islam), but I'd like to assert that the Christ of the Gospel seems rarely to command his followers to isolate, insulate and inoculate themselves against their fellow humans and their beliefs. As I understand Him, He seemed to reach out and reach across and touch people's lives despite prior barriers of class, taboo, religion, culture and race.

I choose to use the "I believe" structure because these are the things I believe. It's a powerful and tranformative act to say "I believe in God" in a public setting. (I did so in the Stanford Daily once, in fashion that I doubt that most evangelicals could do simply because, as ever, I made it clear in that context that my statement of belief is not a negation of all other beliefs.) I'd love it if others grew open to a feminine vision of the divine, but I accept the fact that many cannot. Therefore, I could not use the "we believe" since there cannot be true consensus if it's externally imposed.
 
Posted by Petaflop (# 9804) on :
 
I may have missed this, although I've looked in all the threads I can find. But is this competition in any way connected with the 1993 card game of the same name? (Credo the card game)

You play a faction with its own (real, historical) doctrines and are trying to maneuver to get the ecumenical councils to incorporate them into an official creed, in which case you get rewarded and the others get persecuted.

It's well researched. But like many English and US games, the game mechanisms are a bit dull - i.e. it's an interesting bit of history but a bad game.

Boardgamegeek ranks Credo as rather better than Monopoly. But simply not in the same league as German classics like Puerto Rico or Die Siedler von Catan.
 
Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on :
 
question about the competition
Has the process for the final voting been decided? Is it just going to be one-shipmate-one-vote with us having to decide which one creed works best for us? So many of the entries so far are appealing and relevant I think it's going to be really difficult to select just one to vote for.

Anyway, forgive me if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here, but I think it would be better to have a more complex poll, with each question relating to one of the entries, and each voter able to respond to each. E.G. Then either the winners are just the 3 with the most points, or the top five could go through to a second round which was a simple vote-for-one-candidate-only poll.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
I may have missed this, although I've looked in all the threads I can find. But is this competition in any way connected with the 1993 card game of the same name? (Credo the card game)

You play a faction with its own (real, historical) doctrines and are trying to maneuver to get the ecumenical councils to incorporate them into an official creed, in which case you get rewarded and the others get persecuted.

It's well researched. But like many English and US games, the game mechanisms are a bit dull - i.e. it's an interesting bit of history but a bad game.

Boardgamegeek ranks Credo as rather better than Monopoly. But simply not in the same league as German classics like Puerto Rico or Die Siedler von Catan.
[Killing me] No - no connection whatsoever.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BuzzyBee:
question about the competition
Has the process for the final voting been decided? Is it just going to be one-shipmate-one-vote with us having to decide which one creed works best for us? So many of the entries so far are appealing and relevant I think it's going to be really difficult to select just one to vote for.

Anyway, forgive me if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here, but I think it would be better to have a more complex poll, with each question relating to one of the entries, and each voter able to respond to each. E.G. Then either the winners are just the 3 with the most points, or the top five could go through to a second round which was a simple vote-for-one-candidate-only poll.
That would be 42 polls! The Circus Hosts will revolt!

Rest assured, we have thought about this.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Mudfrog, I see that you've opted for such a pithy number... is it the belief that nil else matters, or that all else is obvious from those few statements?
 
Posted by Papa Smurf (# 1654) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
That would be 42 polls! The Circus Hosts will revolt!
either that, or just ignore them.
 
Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
my statement of belief is not a negation of all other beliefs.
Mert, can you help me out?: I simply don't understand what the content of that claim could be.

Presumably if you believe "God exists" is true, you believe "God does not exist" is false. RIght? Is this different from what you're referring to as "negating a belief" (I'm reading this phrase as meaning "believing X is false", is that where I'm losing you?) If by "not negating other beliefs" you simply mean something about toleration, then I'm all behind you. However, you seem to be meaning something stronger, I just can't figure out what.
 
Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :
 
Forgive the double post, but clearly there's a trivial reading of the phrase I quoted too: belief that God exists doesn't negate belief that grass is green, hence there's at least one belief that believing in God doesn't negate (ie. force to be evaluated false under a consistent truth (partial) assignment?), so your statement is true.

But, that again seems much weaker than what you mean.

[ 26. September 2006, 16:31: Message edited by: ACOL-ite ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
This is why my post is “Christian” even though it does not mention God or Jesus: ...
I read your entire post, and it is obviously well thought out. My question to you is:

What makes it "Christian?"

What is there that says it is not Islam, Buddhism, or even aethiest? Many people of other religions, or no religion have faith, believe in good and evil, hope and charity.
Surely it can only be Christian if it is literally 'Messianic'.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ACOL-ite:
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
my statement of belief is not a negation of all other beliefs.
Mert, can you help me out?: I simply don't understand what the content of that claim could be.

Presumably if you believe "God exists" is true, you believe "God does not exist" is false. Right? Is this different from what you're referring to as "negating a belief" (I'm reading this phrase as meaning "believing X is false", is that where I'm losing you?) If by "not negating other beliefs" you simply mean something about toleration, then I'm all behind you. However, you seem to be meaning something stronger, I just can't figure out what.
If I may, the logic of belief is a strange one. A few of the oddities about it:
1. The fact that I believe that there are lions in Central Park in no way affects the truth of the statement "There are lions in Central Park." Conversely, the truth of the declarative in no way affects the truth of the assertion of my belief.
2. Factually equivalent statements are not interchangeable in intensional contexts. For example, I may believe that President Lincoln freed the slaves during the Civil War. That in no way implies that I believe that the sixteenth President of the United States freed the slaves during the civil war.
3. I may believe statements that are true, and still believe a false thing. For example, I may believe that Washington, DC is the capital of the United States, but I may also believe that Washington DC is the name of the largest city in New York state. If what I mean by "Washington DC" is New York City it is far from clear that I believe a true thing -- and not really clear that I believe a false thing, either, since very little of our understanding is pristine enough to survive a complete referential unpacking.

The plain fact is that meaning is opaque in an intensional context. I suspect that much of what Mertseger is saying is reflective of this fact. First, he appeared to be saying that his belief affects his actions -- that beliefs have import for the believer. And second, he seems to be acknowledging that the nature of that import is opaque, at least in part due to the opacity of the context. It could be, for example, that when person A says that he believes that God created the world, he may mean essentially the same thing that person B means when she says that she believes that life is good, but not at all the same thing that person C means when he says that he believes that life is worth living.

Tolerance is not a bad thing, despite how some folks have come to use it as some kind proof of moral weakness. But ISTM that one can very well claim that one's own statement of belief need not contradict any other person's belief statement without claiming anything more than that belief statements are opaque. Indeed, for the intolerant among us, it should be clear that many people who claim to affirm our own shining belief statements clearly fail to believe the shining truth that we uphold...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
That would be 42 polls! The Circus Hosts will revolt!
We are already revolting.
 
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
That would be 42 polls! The Circus Hosts will revolt!
We are already revolting.
Just send them more chocolate.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
tclune's worthy post pretty aggrees with my understanding of the logic of belief. The statement "I beleive in God" certainly precludes that I believe myself to be an atheist, but does not preclude that atheists might be right (or, even, that I might be considered an atheist by others with a different set of beliefs - a relevent point for Modernist Chiristians a la +Spong). Furthermore, my creed also asserts that Sophia may well speak through atheists as well as theists.

But I certainly do believe something stronger than this (perfectly appropriate) logical wheedling (as, I believe, most who do have posted a similar assertion in their creeds for this competition). Namely, there is a wise, intellegent, sentient being enacting the physical universe and intimately interested, invested and involved in the personal lives of the sentient beings herein.

On the other hand, my faith contrasts that of some of my brothers and sisters here in that I believe that Sophia has spoken, does speak and will continue to speak very nearly equally on such matters of belief (the opaque things, as tclune says) through nearly all spiritual traditions. I have experienced Her speaking as much through the casting of a spell with four other witches this past Equinox as I have in the most intimate of table fellowship with Christians.

Thus, I am looking to build a creed which retains all that is worthy and God-breathed through the Christian creeds while still opening out to all that is worthy in other traditions as well. That goal might well not be possible and still have Christianity mean what Christianity must mean. And I'm okay with that. In that case, I will happily stand aside and admire that to which you hold as a valid expression of Sophia.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
I may have missed this, although I've looked in all the threads I can find. But is this competition in any way connected with the 1993 card game of the same name? (Credo the card game)

You play a faction with its own (real, historical) doctrines and are trying to maneuver to get the ecumenical councils to incorporate them into an official creed, in which case you get rewarded and the others get persecuted.

It's well researched. But like many English and US games, the game mechanisms are a bit dull - i.e. it's an interesting bit of history but a bad game.

Boardgamegeek ranks Credo as rather better than Monopoly. But simply not in the same league as German classics like Puerto Rico or Die Siedler von Catan.
I know this is a little off topic, but is Credo available for purchase?
 
Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The statement "I beleive in God" certainly precludes that I believe myself to be an atheist, but does not preclude that atheists might be right
Again, I need some help unpacking this. I can see two readings of what you've written:

1) By "atheists might be right", you mean that it might be the case that "God doesn't exist". It certainly isn't incompatible for you to believe "God exists" and for God not to exist. However, it does seem inconsistent for you to believe that "God exists but God might not exist". Maybe I should read your statements of belief as actually being statements of high probability in this case.

2) It's possible for atheists to be right even thought God exists. When you say "God exists" and atheists say "God doesn't exist" you appear to be contradicting eachother, but actually you aren't. An analogy might be drawn with Marie Antoinette saying "My head hurts" and me saying "my head doesn't hurt" -- the two statements 'look' contradictory (one is the other negated), but really aren't. Here, there should be some story to tell about why the apparent contradiction isn't really there (if you care, I can talk about indexicality all day for the Marie A example).

If you believe (2), then you have to adopt a massively error theory about how people report each other's belief reports. But maybe this is OK... after all, belief is complicated.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ACOL-ite:
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The statement "I beleive in God" certainly precludes that I believe myself to be an atheist, but does not preclude that atheists might be right
Again, I need some help unpacking this. I can see two readings of what you've written:

1) By "atheists might be right", you mean that it might be the case that "God doesn't exist". It certainly isn't incompatible for you to believe "God exists" and for God not to exist. However, it does seem inconsistent for you to believe that "God exists but God might not exist". Maybe I should read your statements of belief as actually being statements of high probability in this case.
I don't think I exactly understand your number two but it seems pretty consistent for Mertseger to say that he believes God exists but it is possible that God actually doesn't.
 
Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :
 
Err... could you use some kind of bracketing convention to show whether your last clause is part of the belief or the hypothetical scenario?

[ie. do you mean

(1) it seems pretty consistent for Mertseger to say, "I believe God exists but it is possible that God actually doesn't."

or

(2) it seems pretty consistent for Mertseger to say, "I believe God exists" but it is possible that God actually doesn't. ]

Maybe this is the crux of the problem. For something meaningful proposition, P, I don't see how it's consistent to believe "P but possibly not P," if this "possibly" is meant to be epistemic*.

--

* It's clearly possible with a metaphysical possibly, eg. "the coin came up heads, but it might have come up tails" seems fine. However, "I believe it's possible that the coin actually did come up tails, but I still believe that it came up heads" sounds like a bad thing.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I was making claim one.
 
Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on :
 
I don't want this to count as an entry to the competition, so I'll post this reply here instead of on the "entries" thread if that's ok:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
I may play later, for serious reals, but this is the first thing that came to mind:
quote:
There was a God, He had a Church,
E-I-E-I-O!
And in that Church there was a Creed,
E-I-E-I-O!
It went, "I believe,
You believe,
Everybody be-lieves!"
There was a God, He had a Church,
E-I-E-I-O!
Or how about (as per this song):

There is a God and He has a son
And Jesus is his name-Oh
J-E-S-U-S
J-E-S-U-S
J-E-S-U-S
and Jesus is his name-Oh

With the spirit they're a Trinity
And this is our Creed-Oh
C-R-E-E-D
C-R-E-E-D
C-R-E-E-D
and this is our Creed-Oh
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ACOL-ite:
However, "I believe it's possible that the coin actually did come up tails, but I still believe that it came up heads" sounds like a bad thing.
One is clearly within one's epistemic rights to believe that something is true, even though possibly not true. This is the situation of everyone who believes something to be warranted on the basis of available evidence, whilst accepting that some evidence might subsequently serve to falsify that belief. Scientific theory falls into this category. A physicist may believe, for example, that a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one, whilst accepting that it possibly may not be. Such, indeed, is the mark of a truly scientific stance.

When people talk about th 'possible non-existence' of God, however, they are normally talking about logical possibility. Basically, to say God's non-existence is possible in this sense is to say that the existence of God is not an analytic necessity, given in the definition of the word 'God'. Almost everyone who rejects the ontological argument for the existence of God adopts this position*, including for example Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas thought that God's existence was metaphysically necessary. Which only goes to show that necessity means all sorts of different things, to all sorts of different people, in all sorts of different people.

*It would be theoretically possible to hold that the existence of God is an analytic necessity, but that any hitherto existing ontological argument fails to show this. I'm not aware of anyone who adopts this position.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
'..in all sorts of different situations'

Note to self : never post before the third coffee of the morning.
 
Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
When people talk about th 'possible non-existence' of God, however, they are normally talking about logical possibility. Basically, to say God's non-existence is possible in this sense is to say that the existence of God is not an analytic necessity, given in the definition of the word 'God'. Almost everyone who rejects the ontological argument for the existence of God adopts this position*, including for example Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas thought that God's existence was metaphysically necessary. Which only goes to show that necessity means all sorts of different things, to all sorts of different people, in all sorts of different people.
If this is what was meant, then I certainly agree it's a cogent position to hold.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
I suspect that DOD understands these matters far better than I, but, indeed, it seems to me that one of the major goals of a creed is to be a statement (individually or collectively) about metaphysics. The minimum standard I require of any metaphysics is that it not contradict the epistemology of science.

If I am understanding the history of the subject correctly, the agenda of the Vienna Circle was to demonstrate that there was no metaphysic that did not contradrict science (or, more precisely, that all metaphysical assertions are meaningless). But Wittgenstein, at the very least, came to understand to his satisfaction that some form of metaphysic was inescapable. In my estimation there seem to be a wide variety of metaphysics which do not contradict science including versions (at least) of most of the world's religions and spiritual traditions.

That is not to say that there are not criteria both subjective and objective by which competing metaphysics may be judged. On the objective side there is at least the Jamesian pragmatic approach of examining the consequences of individuals and groups adopting a particular set of metaphysical beliefs. On the subjective side, I would assert that there is evidence that humans tend to demonstrate that that they have certain spiritual needs and desires, and so a religion might be judged on how it is reported by its adherents that those needs are being met.

And so when I assert that I beleive in God but my belief does not preclude that atheists might be right, I am indeed asserting ACOL-ite's (1) above.

As I understand matters, nothing in a metaphysic can be verified or falsified. If any particular component of a metaphysic could be verified or falsified then that component would become under the proper purview of science and no longer a matter of belief.

Thus, one purpose of a creed is to assert a preference about at least parts of a metaphysical understanding of a universe which contains but is not limited to a physical, consensus reality. While such a statement of preference will necessarily contradict other preferences, it is still possible that these contradicted perfernces are "true" (although what exactly truth means in the absence of verifiability or falsifiability in a scientific sense remains problematic) in that they do not contradict our mutual understanding of physical reality. All I'm saying is that while I believe in God, I have to acknowledge that an atheistic metaphysic accomodates and explains our physical, consensus reality equally as well.

Finally, I do think that a fairly common metaphysical position asserted by creedal religions is that since we are stating our creed to be "true" then we must believe and, more impotant, act as if all contradictory creeds must be "false". Since we cannot ever look into the opaque box of metaphysics to make that ultimate determination, I find such exclusivist metaphysics (appealing to Jamesian pragmatism) to be dangerous as it plays out in human society. Thus, I prefer from a pragmatic standpoint creeds which acknowledge (as do many of the creeds submitted to the contest so far) that our knowledge and understanding of such matters is by definition limited.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:

As I understand matters, nothing in a metaphysic can be verified or falsified.
Empirically verified or falsified.

I'm not entirely happy with describing creeds as 'metaphysics'. Some clauses of creeds - 'he was crucified under Pontius Pilate' - are remarkably unmetaphysical. Others - 'I believe in God' - speak of, what I would prefer to call, the metametaphysical. Either way, the point is that creeds make truth-claims, which I think is at the heart of what you are saying.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I'm not entirely happy with describing creeds as 'metaphysics'.
Which is why I did not say that they were. Instead, I said that one purpose of a creed is to make a (at least one) statement about metaphysics. If there were no such statement about metaphysics, then I think we can show that it's not a creed. If a list of largely uncontested historical facts were presented as a candidate for creedhood then few would call that list a creed. Furthermore, such a list would not constitute a creed even when the history is contested:

quote:
I believe that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. I believe that Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin. I believe that Shakespeare's plays were written by Sir Francis Bacon.
I would not call this list a creed even though it asserts a list of historical statements. Nor, is it a creed merely because the weight of evidence largely contradicts each statement, and, thus, the unsound historical understanding or methodology implied by the statements might require certain metaphysical beliefs in order to be supported.

On the other hand,
quote:
Well, I believe in the soul. The cock. The pussy. The small of a woman's back. The hanging curveball. High fiber. Good scotch. That the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitution Amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas eve. And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.
Ron Shelton in Bull Durham
is a creed even though much of it is thoroughly uncontestable, and it might, arguably, contain only one metaphysical statement.

Furthermore, the statement that "all metaphysical statements are meaningless" is a creed, and arguably the most significant creed that Modernism has. It is a creed precisely because the problem that Wittgenstein ran into, as I understand it, was that he and the Vienna Circle could not come up with a formulation of that statement such that the formulation itself was not a metaphysical statement (and, thus, by its own assertion, meaningless).
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I think that you missed my point slightly. God is not the kind of thing which is 'beyond physics' - the same sort of thing as, say, propositions, properties and other such staples of 'metaphysics'. God is beyond that - beyond the beyond, as it were.

So, basically, I'm saying 'I believe in God' is not a metaphysical assertion.

[ 28. September 2006, 22:51: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
My entry is not a joke. I think the simple, 'I believe' statement sounds very powerful, especially if coming after a formal statement of faith in the liturgy or from a bible reading. And even more powerful if said by each individual one after the other to form a body of sound. (Rather like the way the Lord's prayer was typed on the 3-D church of fools - each phrase appearing several times on the screen in quick succession).
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
What a tiny number of entries! What does this say? That most people are satisfied? Or humble? Or complacent? Or unimaginative? Or afraid?

My guess would be "quite comfortable with the familiar, thank you very much" - and there's something to be said for, and against, that. I used to know a great deal of the Book of Common Prayer off by heart. I'm sure there are comfortable catholics who feel the same way about the Tridentine Mass (no,I'm not sure, I'm guessing.

But doesn't comfort have to be alleviated by regular exercise, for the health of mind and body? Go for it guys. Who cares if you don't win? You can beat MY puny efforts, surely? [Snore] [Two face]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
What a tiny number of entries!
As Blake said, the eye altering alters all. I was thinking how many and diverse the entries were. I worked on a faith statement for our local church some years back. It took a group of a half-dozen of us months to come up with something that we all affirmed and did not find vacuous. It's a LOT of work. Personally, I'm impressed with both the number and thoughtfulness of the entries.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
tclune. I guess you're right. I expect the actual entries are just the tip of the iceberg. I certainly endorse your comments regarding the thought that has gone into the entries. I'd still like to see more of the iceberg, though!
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
I believe that God the Father would want his children to grow up. What good father wouldn't? But since most of his children want to stay in their prams (except for those sections of the clergy who want to be God, and keep their brothers and sisters in their prams), I find it hard to accept the concept of "God the Father". Bear with me - I'm trying hard to work out a creed that makes some sense.

The above has an obvious inconsistency. God is not answerable for his children's refusal to grow up. But a creed is both a statemenmt and an invitation to like-minded "believers", and the nature of God is inevitably bound up with the baggage his believers carry around with them.

Problem. Can I ditch the baggage without ditching my christian friends at the same time.

I believe God the Son would want to please his father and bring his (the son's) friends home to meet him. What thankful son of a good father wouldn't? And would the father proscribe anyone from friendship with his son?

The Spirit's easier. She is divine wisdom, invincible courage, unconditional love, and everything else that is good. But when I say easier, I don't mean easier to follow. We are silly, OKOKOK I am a silly squabbling coward.

How do I forge a creed out of that? Impossible. Maybe I shouldn't have started with the crazy idea of a triune God. And it has to be positive, a creed of any use. So a creed that includes the term "ditching" won't work.

Nor will a discussion held only with myself.
Any comments? I'm pretty thick-skinned, honestly! [Help]
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
Just a reminder that the deadline for all entries is midnight GMT on 4th October 2006.

One of the Purgatory hosts will lock the competition thread at that point and the polling will begin.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
What a tiny number of entries! What does this say? ...
In my case, I can't make up my mind if it says

1. Why bother? any creed that came out of me would be so askew and alien-looking to most folks, it wouldn't appeal, or

2. I always seem to get here at bedtime -- who can think?!?!?

Maybe a little of both.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think the simple, 'I believe' statement sounds very powerful, especially if coming after a formal statement of faith in the liturgy or from a bible reading.
Shouldn't a credo be a stand-alone statement?

I thought the idea was to say what you believe.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
Finally, I do think that a fairly common metaphysical position asserted by creedal religions is that since we are stating our creed to be "true" then we must believe and, more impotant, act as if all contradictory creeds must be "false". Since we cannot ever look into the opaque box of metaphysics to make that ultimate determination, I find such exclusivist metaphysics (appealing to Jamesian pragmatism) to be dangerous as it plays out in human society.
I genuinely don't know what this means. What it seems on the surface to mean is such obvious bollocks its hard to imagine anyone does mean it.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Shouldn't a credo be a stand-alone statement?

I thought the idea was to say what you believe.
Depends whether you want to say that you believe in something particular or whether you want to assert that you do, indeed, believe. Which may be a big step on its own.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
...whether you want to assert that you do, indeed, believe. Which may be a big step on its own.
Not really, as everyone believes something.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Yes, and when we stand up in church and say the Creed were are saying what we do believe. To ourselves, and to the angels and the whole company of heaven and Satan and his demons.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
HOSTING

And at the stroke of midnight CREDO came to its' not insubstantial close - we have 47 final entries.

Credo: The Vote in Council is now open for voting in the Circus. Please read through the Credo competition entries thread and pick up to five creeds that you think best fit the brief "a creed for 21st Century Christianity" as set out in the Credo Rules.

I'd like to thank everyone for the care and thought that obviously went into the entries.

Voting closes at midnight GMT 18 October 2006.

We'll announce the results soon after that.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Papa Smurf (# 1654) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Flausa on the POLL thread:
I would have voted for Max's creed, but I know that what he means by "Catholic and Apostolic Church" is not what I mean by "Catholic and Apostolic Church." So we could be speaking the same creed, but we are saying entirely different things.

 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
quote:
Originally posted by Flausa on the POLL thread:
I would have voted for Max's creed, but I know that what he means by "Catholic and Apostolic Church" is not what I mean by "Catholic and Apostolic Church." So we could be speaking the same creed, but we are saying entirely different things.
Thanks Papa Smurf. Incidendally the fact that I put professor kirke's name in twice in the Poll should not be seen as some plot by me. Just tick one or the other, not both!
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Well, phooey, I apparently can't tell time or read a calendar. Though I did think that midnight was going to mean, "midnight after Wednesday October 4th was over."

Then again, I'm one of those who believe the new millennium began on January 1, 2000; and that the first century had 99 years.

I know, I know, if 12:01 a.m. goes with the date it's on, surely 12:00 midnight should go with that date also.

I believe that I'm often as confused about Christianity as I am about the calendar.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Though I did think that midnight was going to mean, "midnight after Wednesday October 4th was over."
That would be the normal English usage! If you say I will do something at midnight on Wednesday you normally mean that you have already passed through 11pm, 10pm, 9pm and so on.

But maybe its another one of those things like "next Tuesday" or "12 pm" which really have no generally agreed meaning.
 
Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But maybe its another one of those things like "next Tuesday" or "12 pm" which really have no generally agreed meaning.
"12pm" I'll grant you, but "next Tuesday"? Doesn't that just mean what it says on the tin... the first Tuesday in the future. eg. currently the next Tuesday is 10/10/06?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ACOL-ite:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But maybe its another one of those things like "next Tuesday" or "12 pm" which really have no generally agreed meaning.
"12pm" I'll grant you, but "next Tuesday"? Doesn't that just mean what it says on the tin... the first Tuesday in the future. eg. currently the next Tuesday is 10/10/06?
No, trust me on this. I've been through the loop more than once before. There are at least three meanings, and people not only differ but they often don't realise that anyone else uses it differently from them. Not a regional/national thing either - usage seems to vary between neighbours or even people in the same family.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ACOL-ite:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But maybe its another one of those things like "next Tuesday" or "12 pm" which really have no generally agreed meaning.
"12pm" I'll grant you, but "next Tuesday"? Doesn't that just mean what it says on the tin... the first Tuesday in the future. eg. currently the next Tuesday is 10/10/06?
Very much what ken said. I would tend to mean the next Tuesday after the one in the future. aka, 10-10 is the coming Tuesday because there's less than a week before it and 10-17 is next Tuesday. When I put it like that it sounds ludicrous but that is certainly what I often mean and I'm not alone.

I'm tempted to start a circus poll about opinions on next but I doubt anyone cares all that much so I won't.

[ 04. October 2006, 19:29: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
This Tuesday, next Tuesday, the following Tuesday, some Tuesday.

It's all so confusing.

Perhaps we should just get rid of Tuesdays.
 
Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
Don't feel bad, AR. Even I thought that was what it meant originally, and was a bit surprised when the 24 hour warning came out. After thinking about it, I realized that if you know Duo, you know she always means exactly what she says.

Oh, and ken's right. "Next tuesday" is the source of unending confusion.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Though I did think that midnight was going to mean, "midnight after Wednesday October 4th was over."
That would be the normal English usage! If you say I will do something at midnight on Wednesday you normally mean that you have already passed through 11pm, 10pm, 9pm and so on.

But maybe its another one of those things like "next Tuesday" or "12 pm" which really have no generally agreed meaning.
I interpreted it this way, too. Hence, I didn't get a chance to post a final draft of my creed.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Hard to know how to vote. Unexpectedly, I find the tension between "what do I believe" and "what should a creed for 21st century Christianity be", as much of a puzzle in choosing creeds to vote for, as it was in thinking whether I had something I wanted to post as a creed to start with.
 
Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on :
 
The diversity of the entries was particularly interesting. Selection was made a little easier by categorising into styles or types, and then going for best of breed in clarity, quality of expression and memorability.

Really enjoyed this, and once the dust has settled on this one, what other forms could the ship take on? A confession and absolution, a eucharistic prayer?
 
Posted by Papa Smurf (# 1654) on :
 
Taken from the POll thread:
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on 04 October, 2006 10:32 PM :

quote:
Whew! That was difficult!

I sort of split between creeds that stated really well much of what I believe, and ones that were different yet persuasive.
Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on 05 October, 2006 01:35 AM :

quote:
Interesting. I used "being able to say Amen to them" as the first condition, then within that ranked them by how much ground they covered and then used "poeticness" as a tie breaker.

I was interested by how many I couldn't say Amen to...
Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on 05 October, 2006 10:26 AM :

quote:
I created a spreadsheet with them all on, and gave them all points on (a) whether or not they irritated me (b) to what extent I could agree/assent/say Amen to them (c) how inspiring/uplifting I found them and (d) how useful they could be for me as a christian. The top five scorers got my votes.

Yes, that IS incredibly sad, I know. I am anal, and I like to do things properly and systematically.
Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on 05 October, 2006 10:57 AM :

quote:
Seems perfectly reasonable and well-organised to me. But then I deeply enjoyed 'High Fidelity'.

 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... As the best possible rival to the current creed I would select DOD's entry, as the best complement to it I would select professor kirke's...
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whereas to my ears Gort's entry sounds like Plotinus on acid...
47 creeds, 40 votes in 48 hours.

Kinda looks like the interest in judging the new creeds is less than the desire to create them. [Big Grin]

Tell ya what: Just vote for mine and if it wins, I will PM each of you the penultimate Key to the Mysteries* and I will reveal the true nature of your legacy as children of God. Your word will become manifest on Earth just as it will in Heaven. A click of the mouse and your destiny will be secured.

Show IngoB that he can dictate the terms of the contest but not the result.


(*Void where taxed or prohibited. Your results may vary. May cause allergic reaction or death. Consult a licensed professional.)
 
Posted by PeteCanada (# 10422) on :
 
Confessio:

I liked Spiffy's. Might be the only vote that little lamb gets, so I might as well confess up front. I did it!

[Hot and Hormonal]

I also voted for a few others. Though I have to say that the Nicene Creed says it for me, but then, as everyone knows, I am a degenerate.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Spiff got one from me, bud. Don't feel like the lonesome stranger!
 
Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on :
 
She'll probably end up winning now if she gets everyones "yeah I'll vote for one silly one" vote.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
I ended up voting for:
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I ended up with six that fit my beliefs and included certain things I considered good to be included. I have to admit I ended up choosing which one not to vote for a bit randomly.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I didn't categorise, (wish I'd thought of that). I'll admit I did vote for my own as one of my five - after all if I don't assent to it, why write it ? But I'll probably only get one vote [Razz]

I loved marmot's for it's simplicity. Very taken with inclusiveness of cometchaser's.

[ 06. October 2006, 22:47: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on :
 
Still only 69 people have voted - that's not even half as much again as the number of entries. Does it reduce the validity of the vote if the majority of the voters are biased due to being a candidate?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BuzzyBee:
Still only 69 people have voted - that's not even half as much again as the number of entries. Does it reduce the validity of the vote if the majority of the voters are biased due to being a candidate?
It may be disappointing if the vote is low, but the vote is just the "beauty contest" portion of the exercise. The real value, ISTM, was in the creation of the creeds in the first place -- and in the thought that went into trying to create one among those of us who failed to submit one.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
It may be disappointing if the vote is low, but the vote is just the "beauty contest" portion of the exercise. The real value, ISTM, was in the creation of the creeds in the first place -- and in the thought that went into trying to create one among those of us who failed to submit one.

--Tom Clune
I agree although I'm actually comfortable with the number of voters. A number of people have remarked how tought the choice was - and a lot of competitions have only one or two judges, not 69.
 
Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on :
 
quote:
a lot of competitions have only one or two judges, not 69.
Yes, but when a competition has one or two judges, those judges have been selected as sagacious persons who will be able to correctly determine the best candidate. Given that anyone can vote, it's more similar to an election where you need a critical mass of voters such that the results reflect the overall oppinion of a population and a single vote here or there is insufficient to sway the vote at all significantly. In this case, the average number of votes per entry, if they are all of roughly similar standard, will be around 7. That means that a single vote more or less will change the result by a statistically huge amount of 14%.

Though actually, you have a very good point tclune - the value of the exercise was in the creation rather than the judging, so maybe it doesn't matter all that much.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
I had naively hoped that the number of votes would top the attendance at the First Council of Nicea (250-318 according to the ever-accurate Wikipedia). But, then, looking at the surviving polls in the Circus and Limbo, none of the polls SoF has retained show more than 200 votes. (186 for Laura's poll on silly terroism response recomendations in Hell(!) seems to be the highest retained). Where's a Constantine when you need one?
 
Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on :
 
How about a meta-poll to ask shipmates "Why haven't you voted on the "Credo" poll?"
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
I would also have preferred more participation in the vote. I guess it's a case of "I can't be bothered to read all that."?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I find the tension between "what do I believe" and "what should a creed for 21st century Christianity be", as much of a puzzle in choosing creeds to vote for
I had to come down to the latter. It can't be personal. Some of the suggested Creeds might be in my opinion complete bollocks. But I can't judge them as statements about the belief of the writer. Maybe they really do think that, who am I to look into their heads? I can only say whether or not I think it is the Church's belief.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
I've posted a reminder about the Credo voting up in the Styx.
 
Posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow (# 9397) on :
 
Congratulations and
Rest in Pyx_e.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Pyx_e Victor.

And trudy and D.O.D. the only others to get moro than 20 votes.
 
Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on :
 
Congratulations, Pyx_e.

I had two entries and still couldn't compete. [Biased]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Pyx_e Victor.

And trudy and D.O.D. the only others to get moro than 20 votes.
Not so fast, ken.

I got 23 - only two behind Pyx_e. And if it hadn't been for those meddling kids...
 
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
I noticed (in the circus) that only people who voted can see the results .... which will mean only those of us who voted can engage in the conversation about why other people didn't vote ?!?!?!
.... sounds like a good parish pastoral council meeting - retired people discussing why young people don't come to church on sunday !!!!!!!!! [Two face]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
I voted for Pyx_e's long before the controversy. I'm glad to see that his credo came in first. I was tempted during the whole controversy to shamelessly campaign for his credo (though I still like DOD's). I miss Pyx_e.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
I voted for Pyx_e's long before the controversy. I'm glad to see that his credo came in first.
Ditto.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Double ditto.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Oh do stop talking as if the guy has died, for goodness' sake! He's probably merely working hard on the sewing pattern for his next pair of rainbow trousers, or somesuch.

Anyway, congrats to all the winners - I've just read through their entries again and am most impressed. Will any of them get an airing in services or prayers in the near future?
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would also have preferred more participation in the vote. I guess it's a case of "I can't be bothered to read all that."?
It might have worked better if you had two rounds of voting with the first round to select the top 5/6. The second round to vote for 1,2 and 3. This would mean that people would only have to read 6 for the final round.
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Pyx_e Victor.

And trudy and D.O.D. the only others to get moro than 20 votes.
Not so fast, ken.

I got 23 - only two behind Pyx_e. And if it hadn't been for those meddling kids...
Gosh, was I actually close??? I never saw the results because I was too torn to ever figure out who to vote for ... but I was impressed by all the winners. I liked Pyx_e's best so I'm glad it won.

[ETA: just realized I could view the results. I think that's the closest I've ever come to placing in a competition ... thanks! [Hot and Hormonal] ]

[ 18. October 2006, 23:57: Message edited by: TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) ]
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
Congratulations to the winners. [Cool]

I am disappointed that Pyx_e's came first, though. I thought DOD's and Doc Tor's were both somehow more creed-worthy; if I'd been voting for one orthodox entry I'd have probably gone with Doc Tor for the way he handled the resurrection.

Pyx_e's love-in with God obviously pushed the right buttons in terms of votes, but it's so riddled with cliches and Christianese that I would not have been able to say it with a straight face long before I ever had a heretical thought. One more illustration of the limitations of popular judgement, I think.

And sad as I am not to have picked up enough heretical votes to take a prize off him, I hope IngoB feels suitably appreciated for coming up with the idea and the prizes. An inspired and generous contribution to the Ship.

[ 19. October 2006, 00:44: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
I've just posted the complete tally of votes, go and have a look.

I must say, that the overall vote would be so strongly "conservative" comes as a complete surprise to me. And it rather thwarts the mild irony hidden in the offered prizes - handing out these books to these winner means carrying coals to Newcastle or teaching your grandma to suck duck eggs, really... [Biased]
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
....... Will any of them get an airing in services or prayers in the near future?
Wow they are great and yes I would love to use some of them for services or prayers or just publish them in parish mags but are they available for these uses? My understanding is that copyright of posts passes to the Ship? So is the Ship giving permission for use and do the competitors/winners have a view ?
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
....... Will any of them get an airing in services or prayers in the near future?
Wow they are great and yes I would love to use some of them for services or prayers or just publish them in parish mags but are they available for these uses? My understanding is that copyright of posts passes to the Ship? So is the Ship giving permission for use and do the competitors/winners have a view ?
We've actually dealt with this in the Styx: by posting on the Ship, the membership terms allow SoF a copyright licence to use the creeds and can re-publish them as it sees fit. However this is a licence, not a copyright assignment.

So the copyright and all moral rights in each creed remain with the author of that creed. My suggestion would be to contact the poster concerned, ask their permission ie their licence granted to you or your church group, for the use you have in mind and give them a proper author credit if they want it. We don't actually manage their rights, so you need to contact the person concerned.

I've contacted all winners by e-mail or by PM.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I find the tension between "what do I believe" and "what should a creed for 21st century Christianity be", as much of a puzzle in choosing creeds to vote for
I had to come down to the latter. It can't be personal. Some of the suggested Creeds might be in my opinion complete bollocks. But I can't judge them as statements about the belief of the writer. Maybe they really do think that, who am I to look into their heads? I can only say whether or not I think it is the Church's belief.
Judging them as beliefs of the writer? No, of course not. Judging them as things I'd want to be saying regularly? Yes. With a dose of what it makes sense to be saying in a Christian church and not solely a gathering of, say, humanists.

I ended up rather averaging the two POVs -- my beliefs, or the official beliefs? -- tilting towards how I could say my beliefs on my believing days, and leaving aside those that would be quite appropriate for my most unbelieving days. (Sorry, Mad Geo and Papio!)

FWIW, these were my brief notes to myself as I narrowed things down to my final 5:

Mad Geo slightly too much doubt
Trudy Trudy yes positivity & traditional over Papio's negation
Boopy YES my doubt
MrsBarlow YES my faith
Papio a worthy statement, but I choose to assert
mdijon YES a positive path
Lyda*Rose yes a freedom within traditional terms
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Like AR, I judged the creeds as to whether they were something I could identify with and want to say in church. Even a great creed, if I disagreed with it I didn't vote for it. I also had elements like the Kingdom on earth that I looked for in creeds.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
I just came across the creed in Neil Gaiman's American Gods, and since I had posted the Bull Durham Creed earlier in this thread, I just had to share this one as well:
quote:
I can believe things that are true and I can believe things that aren't true and I can believe things where know one knows if they're true or not. ... I believe that candy really did taste better when I was a kid, that it's aerodynamically impossible for a bumble bee to fly, that light is a wave and a particle, that there's a cat in box somewhere who's alive and dead at the same time (although if they don't ever open the box to feed it it'll eventually just be two kinds of dead), and there are stars in the universe billions of years older than the universe itself. I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do. I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and doesn't even know that I'm alive. I believe in an empty and godless universe of causal chaos, background noise, and sheer blind luck. I believe that anyone who says that sex is overrated hasn't done it properly. I believe that anyone who claims to know what's going on will lie about the little things too. I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies. I believe in a woman's right to choose, a baby's right to live, that while all human life is sacred there's nothing wrong with the death penalty if you trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system. I believe that life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when you're alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it.
Neil Gaiman, American Gods, Harpertorch, NY, NY, 2001 p. 394-395
I'd say it's an amusing secularist, post-modernist creed. It's certainly not the Christian Credo for the next millenia, but its take on what a creed is and its embracing of paradox is relevent to our previous discussions in this thread.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0