Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Christian Orthodoxy

Thread: Purgatory: Christian Orthodoxy 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=001204

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

How should Christian orthodoxy be defined? Should the criteria be 'generous' -- say, the Apostles' and/or the Nicene Creed -- or must a Christian believe, and not believe, things above and beyond what is communicated in these ecumenical formularies (say, believing in Sola Fide; or rejecting gay marriage) to be considered orthodox?

The former interpretation would leave a lot of room for 'non-essential' doctrine (say, Calvinism vs. Arminianism; traditional sexual ethics vs. progressive ethics, etc.), which may be orthodox or may be heterodox; but insofar as the basic criteria is met, regardless of which position is taken on the non-essentials, the Christian nonetheless must be considered orthodox. The latter would leave less room, incorporating what the former sees as non-essential into the very criteria for Christian orthodoxy -- and thereby, possibly, making heretics out of Calvinists or Arminians, or those who reject traditional sexual ethics.

The question seems to me to be of central importance for ecumenism.

What say you?

[ 05. January 2015, 01:02: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I draw the line at the Council of Chalcedon, which includes the creeds and Christological controversies leading up to it.

Zach

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I only use the word "orthodox" to describe the Orthodox Church, which alone lays claim to preserving not only the apostolic faith and ancient patterns of worship, but also the Creed in its original form. I'm afraid I think that to use the word in any other context risks misrepresentation.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Which is precisely the attitude that merits the use the fairly maligned terms "Roman Church" and "Eastern Churches."

Zach

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
How should Christian orthodoxy be defined?

What do you mean by 'Christian orthodoxy'? Is it what one must believe to be saved, what one must believe in order to call themselves Christian, or a definition of 'average' Christianity?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I use the ecumenical Creed as a standard for sine qua non Christian belief. There is more to be said on the subjects of ecclesiology and sacramentology (to coin a word), however.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Orthodoxy is generous. Heresy is narrow.

The Nicene Creed is the touchstone of orthodoxy.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

I vote for the Nicene Creed myself, and I vote for baptism to be seen as incorporation into Christendom.

According to that incomparable tome of internet knowledge, dictionary.com, the meaning of 'orthodox' comes from something like 'right in religion.' The question then becomes one of authority: who gets to declare what is 'right'--the bishops or the people?

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

The problem becomes tautological if, to be Christian, one must be orthodox, and if orthodox belief is required in order to claim the label of Christian.

What about those sincere Christians - followers of Jesus Christ - who are not Orthodox by creedal definitions, such as Unitarians, Quakers, Progressive Christians etc?

If orthodoxy and Christianity are conflated, it becomes impossible to be a heretic, and every heretic is forced to become an apostate.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

I think that different people have different definitions of "orthodoxy". Moreover, "orthodoxy" is itself often defined in terms of being "not heresy". The heresy itself is often defined in very fine detail, merely so that the orthodoxy can position itself as being the polar opposite on one particular point of detail of that heresy.

This is itself a legacy of Christianity's attempts to try to define itself in terms of being "not pagan" and "not Jewish", which in turn is partly a legacy of Judaism's attempts to define itself in terms of being "not Egyptian", and even, to some extent, Platonism's attempts to define itself in terms of being "not sophistry".

[ 31. December 2010, 16:36: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I think I use orthodox to mean roughly speaking the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, plus the Chalcedonian definition, and anything that can be said to reasonably follow on from that. (For example, if you've said that God is the creator of all things visible and invisible, you can't then talk about God as another very complex assemblage of atoms and molecules.)
More precisely, it's the positions that you navigate towards by progressively rejecting various major Christological and Trinitarian heresies.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I think that different people have different definitions of "orthodoxy".

I'm finding it hard to imagine grounds for disagreeing with this.

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
What about those sincere Christians - followers of Jesus Christ - who are not Orthodox by creedal definitions, such as Unitarians, Quakers, Progressive Christians etc?

I don't know, but you've just proposed your own criteria for Christianhood: He who is a 'follower of Jesus Christ'.

A little too generous for my liking; it could include Muslims, for instance, who can claim to follow Jesus Christ.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I think that different people have different definitions of "orthodoxy".
I'm finding it hard to imagine grounds for disagreeing with this.

Thanks - but I'm pleased that you tried. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
More precisely, it's the positions that you navigate towards by progressively rejecting various major Christological and Trinitarian heresies.

Indeed. "Orthodoxy" is "not heresy", meaning that you have to understand the heresy before you can understand the orthodoxy.

The Trinity and the Incarnation seem to be particular sticking points. I particularly like the way that different denominations are able to accuse each other of being non-Trinitarian, and sometimes even non-Incarnational, when they each insist that they themselves are fully Trinitarian and Incarnational.

What about the Trinity? You're allowed to say "God is the Father, the Father is God. God is the Son, the Son is God. God is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son, and the Father is not the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not the Son."

You can also say "Atum is Atum-Ra, Atum-Ra is Atum. Ra is Atum-Ra, and Atum-Ra is Ra. But Ra is not Atum, and Atum is not Ra".

But heaven forbid anyone suggest you use ancient Egyptian composite gods as a model for understanding the Trinity! No! That's far too pagan! Even though the nature of the Trinity is beyond human understanding, this is not supposed to prevent us from knowing that the nature of the Trinity is unlike the nature of Egyptian composite gods.

Platonism tried to pass itself off as being "not sophistry" - indeed, it even tries to have us believe that Socrates died over the matter, among other things. But personally, I reckon that Aristophanes had it right in his play "Clouds" all along.

And ever since then, one of the best ways of practising your sophistry skills has been to familiarise yourself with the apologetics of any religion or school of philosophy that tries to pass itself as "not" something else. Like "not pagan", or "not Jewish", for example.

Having said all that, I find it hard to conceive of a religion these days which does not define itself in terms of being not something else. It's no good saying that the hero will rescue the princess from the monster, if you can't tell the hero and the monster apart.

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?

Why, orthopraxy, my good man.

Also, a solid common standard for ecumenical relations.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
The problem becomes tautological if, to be Christian, one must be orthodox, and if orthodox belief is required in order to claim the label of Christian.

This is pretty silly. Talking about orthodoxy is precisely talking about what the contents of the Christian faith are; it's drawing a line between Christian and non-Christian. If we aren't allowed to define orthodoxy, then the catholic faith is devoid of any meaning.

Zach

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?
Why, orthopraxy, my good man.

Also, a solid common standard for ecumenical relations.

But again, what are you going to do with this standard?

If the idea is, say, that you want it to be the criterion for entry into a particular ecumenical partnership, then the definition of "orthodoxy" should be determined by the aims of the partnership.

So if (for example) you're going to define the Council of Chalcedon as the standard of orthodoxy, such that non-Chalcedonians aren't allowed in the group, then there has to be some explanation as to why membership of the group would be unsuitable for, say, Copts or Armenian Orthodox.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
The problem becomes tautological if, to be Christian, one must be orthodox, and if orthodox belief is required in order to claim the label of Christian.
This is pretty silly. Talking about orthodoxy is precisely talking about what the contents of the Christian faith are; it's drawing a line between Christian and non-Christian. If we aren't allowed to define orthodoxy, then the catholic faith is devoid of any meaning.

No. You are of course allowed to define orthodoxy, but orthodoxy is narrower than, and not coterminous with, Christianity. There are plenty of people who are Christians, but not orthodox - because they believe that orthodoxy is wrong.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
The problem becomes tautological if, to be Christian, one must be orthodox, and if orthodox belief is required in order to claim the label of Christian.
This is pretty silly. Talking about orthodoxy is precisely talking about what the contents of the Christian faith are; it's drawing a line between Christian and non-Christian. If we aren't allowed to define orthodoxy, then the catholic faith is devoid of any meaning.
No. You are of course allowed to define orthodoxy, but orthodoxy is narrower than, and not coterminous with, Christianity. There are plenty of people who are Christians, but not orthodox - because they believe that orthodoxy is wrong.

Every community of faith defines its identity through certain rituals and beliefs. The orthodox creeds function in a similar way to a country's Constitution. I suppose one could say that a Constitution necessarily excludes those who do not agree with its underpinning values. But without a Constitution, a form of first principles that underlies the conversation, dialogue is difficult, and nay say, near impossible.

So even if one puts aside the Creeds, and simply examine the belief that Jesus existed. A conversation between two people who accept that Jesus existed will be different than people who reject his existence altogether.

Orthodoxy simply frames the dialogue. For example, when speaking of the doctrine of marriage, many thinkers use the analogy of the Trinity. To enter into the particular discussion of marriage then, would be to accept as a first principle, the doctrine of the Trinity.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

So we need two definitions: "orthodoxy" for the desirable inner circle, and "Christian but not orthodox" for the less desirable but still okay outer circle.

But wait. Doubtless there are people who don't want to be in the bull's eye and yet don't want to be in the also-ran circle. We need three concentric circles then, each with its own definition.

But wait.

This way madness lies.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?
Why, orthopraxy, my good man.

Also, a solid common standard for ecumenical relations.
But again, what are you going to do with this standard?

If the idea is, say, that you want it to be the criterion for entry into a particular ecumenical partnership, then the definition of "orthodoxy" should be determined by the aims of the partnership.

So if (for example) you're going to define the Council of Chalcedon as the standard of orthodoxy, such that non-Chalcedonians aren't allowed in the group, then there has to be some explanation as to why membership of the group would be unsuitable for, say, Copts or Armenian Orthodox.

That's a very good point. I think this is a very good argument in favour of the idea that the definition of "orthodoxy" ought to be a little bit flexible, so that it can be altered to fit the circumstances of each particular grouping of Christians as necessary.

I still think there might be some people who prefer to think that orthodoxy ought to be a bit more rigid than that, though.

Mind you, "God" and "orthodoxy" are not one and the same thing. Just because God doesn't change, doesn't mean that orthodoxy must not change either. But again, I think some Christians will be uncomfortable admitting that orthodoxy is itself a product of human need rather than divine revelation. Makes it sound a bit capricious.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So we need two definitions: "orthodoxy" for the desirable inner circle, and "Christian but not orthodox" for the less desirable but still okay outer circle.

But wait. Doubtless there are people who don't want to be in the bull's eye and yet don't want to be in the also-ran circle. We need three concentric circles then, each with its own definition.

But wait.

This way madness lies.

I agree. But I don't think it's any madder than the existing system of denominational infighting.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I wasn't aware that those were two options we were choosing between.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So we need two definitions: "orthodoxy" for the desirable inner circle, and "Christian but not orthodox" for the less desirable but still okay outer circle.

But wait. Doubtless there are people who don't want to be in the bull's eye and yet don't want to be in the also-ran circle. We need three concentric circles then, each with its own definition.

But wait.

This way madness lies.

From my perspective, where your "madness" goes wrong is in thinking that the circles are concentric, and that being orthodox is somehow better than being heterodox.

I just think of "orthodox Christians" as a sub-set of all Christians, no better or worse.

Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?
Why, orthopraxy, my good man.

Also, a solid common standard for ecumenical relations.

And because it's preferable to believe something true to something false, whether or not that true or false thing has any practical outworking.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I just think of "orthodox Christians" as a sub-set of all Christians, no better or worse.

We know. It's only the same pony you ride through town every Tuesday.

Zach

Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :

I always imagined that saying 'an orthodox Christian' is tautological. Like saying a three sided triangle, or unmarried bachelor. The definition of being a Christian is to be orthodox.

Saying 'heterodox Christian' is like saying a five sided triangle or married bachelor - it's a state of affairs that simply cannot be.

I think the definition of a Christian, then, is someone who accepts the creeds; specifically, a Christian must believe in the Trinity and deity of Christ. Someone who says they're a Christian but don't believe Jesus is the Son of God is essentially saying that they're a Christian but not a Christian. It's a non-existent, impossible and contradictory state of affairs. They may well have a very real faith of some kind, they may worship in a Christian community, but their faith cannot be called Christian.

Obviously this should be qualified with the caveat that no human can judge whether a person affirms or denies these beliefs - it's perfectly possible for me to affirm the Creeds weekly at Mass, but to never have really believed them. I think that judgement of the heart is to be left to God alone.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I just think of "orthodox Christians" as a sub-set of all Christians, no better or worse.

I think they're worse. Why get stuck on the idea that God somehow prefers right believers? As if belief was a choice, let alone an eternally significant one.

Until church redefines orthodoxy in terms of Christian values, better to be heterodox.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Until church redefines orthodoxy in terms of Christian values, better to be heterodox.

I rather like the value of believing what is true and rejecting what is false. Is that a Christian value? If you don't accept Christian revelation, then you don't accept Christianity and you aren't a Christian.

Zach

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I just think of "orthodox Christians" as a sub-set of all Christians, no better or worse.
I think they're worse. Why get stuck on the idea that God somehow prefers right believers? As if belief was a choice, let alone an eternally significant one.

But lots of things are like this. To be a "Utilitarian" is to have certain beliefs. Likewise, a "behavioral Psychologist" or a "Keynesian economist."

These are definitions of things. The label "orthodox Christian" is - or should be - a value-neutral identifier. Just because certain people are pompous about it doesn't mean the rest of us are or have to be.

[ 31. December 2010, 21:42: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I rather like the value of believing what is true and rejecting what is false. Is that a Christian value?

Probably. It'd be what makes a revelation-believing orthodoxy undesirable.

quote:
you aren't a Christian.

Well, nothing to do with you anyway. I'm Church of England.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The label "orthodox Christian" is - or should be - a value-neutral identifier. Just because certain people are pompous about it doesn't mean the rest of us are or have to be.

True. It's hard to resist the odd comment though.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I just think of "orthodox Christians" as a sub-set of all Christians, no better or worse.
I think they're worse. Why get stuck on the idea that God somehow prefers right believers? As if belief was a choice, let alone an eternally significant one.

Until church redefines orthodoxy in terms of Christian values, better to be heterodox.

Indeed. I just wasn't bold enough to say that, and reopen a can of worms, on a forum dominated by those who think that orthodox = Christian and the rest of us can go hang.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you don't accept Christian revelation, then you don't accept Christianity and you aren't a Christian.

I think the point is that, in our view, the orthodox completely misunderstand the Christian revelation, as shown by the life and teachings of the man Jesus (as best we can piece them together from the historical record).

The orthodox treat Christianity as a set of doctrinal beliefs rather than an ethical approach, as a religion about God rather than as a philosophy about humanity, and as a means of salvation from hell rather than as grounding for life.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
The orthodox treat Christianity as a set of doctrinal beliefs rather than an ethical approach, as a religion about God rather than as a philosophy about humanity, and as a means of salvation from hell rather than as grounding for life.

Like I said, the pony you ride through town every week. In that view, orthodoxy means absolutely nothing. You could worship a 50-breasted fertility goddess and if you "Did unto others" you'd still count as a Christian. You've already pinpointed the essential difference between yourself and Christians- Christians think what one believes is important.

quote:
Probably. It'd be what makes a revelation-believing orthodoxy undesirable...Well, nothing to do with you anyway. I'm Church of England.

Cute how you cut what I actually said in the most precise manner possible so that you could twist it into something that would cause you offense. If you claim to be a Christian, yet you reject Christian revelation, I think you ought to give some very serious though into why you are a Christian at all. Where do you think the Christian faith came from? How can you accept the validity of its creeds if you can't accept how those creeds came about?

Zach

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Like I said, the pony you ride through town every week.

I've as much right to my pony as you have to yours, and I'll keep on riding it as long as is necessary.

quote:
In that view, orthodoxy means absolutely nothing. You could worship a 50-breasted fertility goddess and if you "Did unto others" you'd still count as a Christian. You've already pinpointed the essential difference between yourself and Christians- Christians think what one believes is important.

What one believes is important. That's why false beliefs can be so dangerous, and why stripping Christianity back to its bare essentials is preferable to the multiplication of invented articles, creeds and doctrines.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

There has to be a point at which we don't attempt to make windows into men's souls, as Good Queen Bess said. Hence, subscribers to the Chalcedonian Christological definition and the Nicene Creed should arguably be considered orthodox Christians, regardless of how they might inwardly understand those formulae.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Jesus loves everybody. Get over it.

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
What one believes is important. That's why false beliefs can be so dangerous, and why stripping Christianity back to its bare essentials is preferable to the multiplication of invented articles, creeds and doctrines.[/QB]

Using the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as the standard of Christian orthodoxy is stripping things down to the bare essentials. That's the point. The many differences between separate Christian communions and denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) are supposed to be above and beyond the bare essentials which the Creeds communicate -- above and beyond (or, rather, below) the one catholic faith, called Christianity.

If Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., find that they do not believe some of these things, they have unfortunately departed from Christianity. This judgement/inference is not to denigrate them; it is, rather, to respect them as unique religions in their own right. For instance, it is more respectful to regard Islam -- which also shares much in common with Christianity, doctrinally -- as its own distinct religion than to regard it (as very many Christians did prior to the 20th century) as a 'Christian heresy'.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:

quote:
What one believes is important. That's why false beliefs can be so dangerous, and why stripping Christianity back to its bare essentials is preferable to the multiplication of invented articles, creeds and doctrines.
Using the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as the standard of Christian orthodoxy is stripping things down to the bare essentials. That's the point. The many differences between separate Christian communions and denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) are supposed to be above and beyond the bare essentials which the Creeds communicate -- above and beyond (or, rather, below) the one catholic faith, called Christianity.

If Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., find that they do not believe some of these things, they have unfortunately departed from Christianity. This judgement/inference is not to denigrate them; it is, rather, to respect them as unique religions in their own right. For instance, it is more respectful to regard Islam -- which also shares much in common with Christianity, doctrinally -- as its own distinct religion than to regard it (as very many Christians did prior to the 20th century) as a 'Christian heresy'. [/QB]

Exactly.

To be Christian isn't simply a private matter, it is incorporation into a community of faith. As a worshipping community, much of our hymnals and devotional liturgies is rooted in Creedal theology ("Glory be to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" is often said/sung after a Psalm for example). By reciting the Creeds, we are intentionally entering into a tradition that includes Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Karl Rahner and others who were united in worshipping the Triune God and honoring the unique Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. So, the Creeds act as a type of family language that signals that we are one family united around common faith principles.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

In that case, Christianity is a mockery and a travesty of Jesus Christ.

It's nothing more than a blasphemous concoction of cannibalistic mystery-cult pseudo-Egyptian idol-worship, and deserves about as much respect as Scientology or Satanism.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?
Why, orthopraxy, my good man.

Also, a solid common standard for ecumenical relations.
And because it's preferable to believe something true to something false, whether or not that true or false thing has any practical outworking.

But the question posed wasn't "What is true?" but "How should we define the word 'orthodoxy'?"

From the responses given, it appears that most posters think "true" and "orthodox" are different things. A Protestant who defines "orthodox" in terms of the Nicene creed presumably believes the Catholics are wrong about (say) the Immaculate Conception, but not unorthodox. Whereas the Unitarians are both wrong and unorthodox.

RadicalWhig and Zach are not (on this thread) arguing about the proposition "Jesus Christ was God incarnate" - which is a proposition of fact - but merely over whether RadicalWhig can be called a Christian, which is a dispute over terminology.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The point I'm making is that asking "What is orthodox?" doesn't seem to be very helpful in establishing what is actually true or false.

It's very effective, however, for getting people annoyed.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
you cut what I actually said in the most precise manner possible so that you could twist it into something that would cause you offense.

No, I simply quoted the parts of your post I was replying with.

quote:
If you claim to be a Christian, yet you reject Christian revelation, I think you ought to give some very serious though into why you are a Christian at all.

I mostly don't claim to be a Christian, because I know there are people like yourself who take a very narrow view. Instead I self-identify as a member of a church where continuing orthodoxy of belief is not a condition of membership.

Willingness to assent to the creeds is not a test of belief anyway. Most people I know who regularly participate in services either don't say some parts of the creed, or say it only as part of the liturgy, nothing to do with their personal beliefs. It's a fundamentally dysfunctional means of expressing commitment to a community. Whatever the history, insisting on vocal assent to an institution's statement of beliefs only excludes those who prefer to mean what they say.

[cross-posted]

[ 01. January 2011, 11:28: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I am not sure that saying the Creeds is any test of orthodoxy. Depends what we mean when we say them.

The Apostles Creed has "born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate" and "sitteth at the right hand..." without distinction about the sense used. Yet all would say that the last is not to be taken literally and has a meaning beyond the literal.

Does the same apply to other credal phrases?

Can not "born of the virgin Mary" also be taken as a theological rather than a biological statement?

And anyway the driving force behind the creeds (particularly Chalcedon) was not so much to elaborate on truth as to combat heresy.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Radicalwhig, are you here to discuss the definition of orthodoxy, as Ricardus explained, or are you here to once again denounce the catholic faith?

Zach

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Radicalwhig, are you here to discuss the definition of orthodoxy, as Ricardus explained, or are you here to once again denounce the catholic faith?

I'm here to remind you that what passes for your "orthodoxy" is not "right belief" at all. It couldn't be more wrong, either as a way of describing reality or as a way of understanding the message and teachings of Jesus. You can define "orthodox" and set the bounds of your religion as you please, but that doesn't make it right or true.

Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Most people I know who regularly participate in services either don't say some parts of the creed...

Which bits, specifically, aren't said?

The only line I imagine someone could not believe in the Apostle's Creed and still be a Christian is the "...and descended to the dead."

I can't understand how someone can claim to carry the name Christian and not believe in the deity of Christ or Trinity. I think it's a bit odd that someone who would want to claim to be a Christian wouldn't believe in the Virgin Birth, but it's certainly possible to not believe in the Virgin Birth and be a Christian.

Why would someone who doesn't believe that Christ is fully human and fully divine want the appelation of 'Christian'?

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Perhaps because they follow the religious and ethical teachings of the naturally-born mortal human being Jesus - you know, the non-trinitarian Jewish prophet who tried to purify and reform his religious tradition for the sake of a more genuine spirituality and a deeper human fraternity founded on a universal grace-based ethic, and who was martyred by the religious and political authorities of his day for the trouble?

[ 01. January 2011, 14:36: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Perhaps because they follow the religious and ethical teachings of the naturally-born mortal human being Jesus - you know, the non-trinitarian Jewish prophet who tried to purify and reform his religious tradition for the sake of a more genuine spirituality and a deeper human fraternity founded on a universal grace-based ethic, and who was martyred by the religious and political authorities of his day for the trouble?

All very laudable - except there's nothing unique about Jesus' ethical teaching when compared to those of any other rabbi, sage, buddha, guru, sadhu, druid etc. etc. Why does Jesus stand out?

Unless he's the Son of God?

And, the following of the teachings of a Jewish rabbi may amount to some sound ethical instruction, but it's not Christianity. Christianity says it's possible to have a living, personal relationship with that Jewish rabbi, who is alive now.

And I feel that a part of making that relationship a good one is believing the right things about that rabbi - including that he's fully divine, and alive now.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
Why would someone who doesn't believe that Christ is fully human and fully divine want the appelation of 'Christian'?

Mostly I imagine to either identify with a particular community or institution, or to acknowledge they at least in some respect value the Christian tradition.

I suspect most claims to orthodox belief are more a fig leaf for commitment to or dependence on a church community that requires it than any meaningful conclusion about the Trinity.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
All very laudable - except there's nothing unique about Jesus' ethical teaching when compared to those of any other rabbi, sage, buddha, guru, sadhu, druid etc. etc. Why does Jesus stand out?

On the one hand, I agree. If Jesus got close to the best way to live, it is unsurprising that other sages have taught similar things - although with different nuances, for different times, cultures and conditions - after all, we are all human, and "do unto others" is the basic rule which makes human society possible. Working this out as an on-going process.

On the other hand, Jesus is actually quite inverting and radical. Firstly, he says that all the morality is fine, but that it shouldn't become an end in itself - when we lose sight of humanity and fraternity, and become legalistic, we do more harm than good. Secondly, he introduces grace - the undeserved favour, the living magnanimously and with lavish kindness - this transforms the reciprocal moralities of other teachers and makes it truly liberating.

I'm not a "Jesus-only"; I'm a "Jesus-first". There are other sages, prophets and philosophers in the pantheon of human thought and spirituality from whom we also have much to learn, but of all of them, Jesus has the highest place of honour.

quote:
Unless he's the Son of God?

What's that got to do with anything? His teachings stand on their own merits, not on any ludicrous pretence to divinity.

quote:
And, the following of the teachings of a Jewish rabbi may amount to some sound ethical instruction, but it's not Christianity. Christianity says it's possible to have a living, personal relationship with that Jewish rabbi, who is alive now.

But it that's Christianity, Christianity has very little to do with Jesus Christ.

quote:
And I feel that a part of making that relationship a good one is believing the right things about that rabbi - including that he's fully divine, and alive now.

Jesus is dead, like Moses, Buddha, Socrates and all the other great prophets. But I know how you feel. Sometimes, when making an active choice to follow Jesus' example and his teaching in a difficult situation, one can imagine that it's almost like he's still alive in one's mind, a voice raised from the dead page and living in our consciousness. One can have something like a "relationship" with the idea of a fictional character - why else would people cry at sad stories? - so it is possible for something similar to develop with respect to a great historical figure, especially if you are regularly reading and applying what the received texts claim to be "his words".

A preacher friend of mine once put the resurrection myth in these terms: when the disciples gathered after the crucifixion to eat together, to tell stories about Jesus, to repeat what they had learnt, and to get ready to start the process of making his words into deeds in the transformation and redemption of the world, it felt almost as if he were alive with them, as if, through them, he had been "resurrected".

Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Jesus is dead, like Moses, Buddha, Socrates and all the other great prophets.

Well, maybe so. Or maybe not. We could debate whether a bodily resurrection happened or not. That would be a different thread.

But people who believe that Jesus is dead aren't Christians. They may have a very real spirituality, a real faith, profound ethical understanding and love for their fellow humans. They may just end up as some of the nicest people in Hell. They aren't Christians.

Christians believe, inter alia that Jesus Christ is alive.

Saying 'a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ' is like saying 'a triangle that has five sides' or 'a married bachelor'.

I don't propose here to re-debate much of what had already been said on this thread. And I don't need to, given what John's prologue says about Jesus.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
Christians believe, inter alia that Jesus Christ is alive.

Nah. You're mistaken. Happens to us all.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
Unless he's the Son of God?
What's that got to do with anything? His teachings stand on their own merits, not on any ludicrous pretence to divinity.

Which teachings do you mean? "I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me"? "Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life within you"? "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent"?

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

If Jesus was/is not divine -- just an ethical teacher -- I would probably have to give Socrates, Zeno, or even Epicurus, far greater rank of honour. This Jesus of Nazareth likely wouldn't be a footnote in the history books if his followers did not believe him to be divine. The mere 'moral philosophy' which we find in the Gospel narratives frankly doesn't hold a candle to the Platonic-Aristotelian, Epicurean, Stoic, Pyrrhonian and Academic Skeptic, and Neoplatonist moral systems.

Really, what's so great about it? How different or 'radical' is it really?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
If Jesus was/is not divine -- just an ethical teacher -- I would probably have to give Socrates, Zeno, or even Epicurus, far greater rank of honour. This Jesus of Nazareth likely wouldn't be a footnote in the history books if his followers did not believe him to be divine. The mere 'moral philosophy' which we find in the Gospel narratives frankly doesn't hold a candle to the Platonic-Aristotelian, Epicurean, Stoic, Pyrrhonian and Academic Skeptic, and Neoplatonist moral systems.

Really, what's so great about it? How different or 'radical' is it really?

Another point is that the Historical Jesus did not write anything done (or at least nothing that has survived). What we have is the witness of early Christian communities which:

1) had a high Christology (Philippians 2:5-11 is considered a very early Christian hymn, and already in the first century, we find the faith community having a preliminary understanding of the Son of God being pre-existent)

2) Ascribed certain divine titles that the Romans applied to the Emperor, to Jesus Christ. Jesus is given the title of Lord, Son of God, Son of Man, etc. Some scholars point out that the early Christians were reluctant to call Jesus "God". Paul reserves "God" to the Father and "Lord" to Jesus. So a fully-fledged concept of the divinity of Christ, and the Son being equal to the Father, was a later development of the Church. However, the early Christians did not regard Jesus just as a teacher and they certainly believed that he rose from the dead.

If he didn't rise from the dead, then Jesus would have gone the way of other messianic pretenders and have been lost to history. People do not follow dead messiahs, especially crucified ones.

Any attempt to separate Jesus "the divine figure" and Jesus "teacher" is impossible. The teachings of Jesus as we have them now in the Gospels are filtered through a faith tradition that ascribed to Jesus divine titles and honours. As well, the New Testament no doubt contains material that reaches to the Historical Jesus, but it also contains sayings and teachings that reflects the post-Resurrection Church. The underlying belief is that the risen Jesus is the active presence in the Church, his Body, continuing speaking wisdom and direction to his followers.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

I think Via Media has made a good point about the creeds.

As for the idea that Islam is a separate religion in its own right, rather than a form of Christian heresy - I think it's stretching a point to say that the idea didn't surface until the 20th century. However, it certainly existed in the middle ages.

But is there a history of Muslims ever considering themselves to be Christians?

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
In that case, Christianity is a mockery and a travesty of Jesus Christ.

It's nothing more than a blasphemous concoction of cannibalistic mystery-cult pseudo-Egyptian idol-worship, and deserves about as much respect as Scientology or Satanism.

And so what if it is? I don't see how that helps us to define "orthodoxy".

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
RadicalWhig and Zach are not (on this thread) arguing about the proposition "Jesus Christ was God incarnate" - which is a proposition of fact - but merely over whether RadicalWhig can be called a Christian, which is a dispute over terminology.

Agreed. I also think we need to make a distinction between what is "Christian orthodox" as an intellectual belief system, and what it means to say that a particular person or organisation is "Christian".

Just because a particular belief system might be "Christian orthodox", does it automatically follow that a person who believes in those doctrines is themselves a "Christian"? And does it automatically follow that a person who does not believe them is not a Christian?

If so, then how do we ascertain what a person believes? Given that people don't normally spend their entire waking lives reciting the Creeds back to back, like a tape on loop, it's not unreasonable to suppose that a person can be thought of as a "Christian", even if they don't constantly profess the Creeds. So perhaps a person's status as "Christian" hangs upon reciting the creeds with a certain specified minimum frequency.

But if that's really the case - then what's the point of baptism?

To what extent is orthodoxy and baptism related?

If it's necessary for a person to profess orthodox belief before they get baptised, then what happens if they change their mind about it later on? Do they cease to be a Christian? Is their baptism nullified? If so, what happens if they change their minds twice - first against it, and then back round in support of it again? Is the validity of the previously nullified baptism reinstated - or does the believer have to get a second baptism?

What happens if you get a baptism in one church - but then you join a second church, which does not recognise the validity of the first church's baptism, and you get baptised again? What if you are baptised once, and then you lie and pretend that you haven't been baptised, in order to get a second baptism? Do any of these things nullify your first baptism?

What if you are baptised as a Christian one day - but then later on, you are baptised into a neo-pagan reconstruction of ancient Isis worship? Does this nullify your Christian baptism?

The question of whether a particular person, family or organisation can be thought of as "Christian" is complicated enough as it is, before we even start to address the question of the definition of "orthodox belief".

It may be that the question of how we define orthodox belief affects how we decide who is, and who isn't, a Christian - but I don't think the question of how we decide who is, and who isn't, a Christian, really affects the question of how we define orthodox belief.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Anglican-Brat posted

"1) had a high Christology (Philippians 2:5-11 is considered a very early Christian hymn, and already in the first century, we find the faith community having a preliminary understanding of the Son of God being pre-existent)"

Not necessarily.

The wording of this hymn could equally well refer back to Adam "who grasped at equality with God" as it does to a pre-existent Divine Redeemer.

And Paul, quoting an early Christology, spoke of Jesus as having been designated Son of God by virtue of the resurrection. (Romans 1)

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Any attempt to separate Jesus "the divine figure" and Jesus "teacher" is impossible. The teachings of Jesus as we have them now in the Gospels are filtered through a faith tradition that ascribed to Jesus divine titles and honours. As well, the New Testament no doubt contains material that reaches to the Historical Jesus, but it also contains sayings and teachings that reflects the post-Resurrection Church. The underlying belief is that the risen Jesus is the active presence in the Church, his Body, continuing speaking wisdom and direction to his followers.

(Also in response to Mousethief's earlier point about "what are the teachings of Jesus).

These are real problems. Fortunately, we have all the tools of reason, experience, and conscience - applied through the study of mythology, comparative religion, anthropology, and other branches of knowledge - to guide us, and to help us separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. The Jefferson Bible is a good starting point, I think.

Also, even if we had the exact words of Jesus, that would not make them absolutely authoritative. We'd still have to separate out that which was of Jesus' place, time and culture, from that which has continuing resonance today. For example, there is no way that Jesus could have known what we know today about the origins and nature of the universe, and his idea of God - although very different from the Old Testament God - is more personal and theistic than I'd be happy with today. Yet there is no incompatibility between Jesus' teaching and the sort of Tillich Ground of Being God.

Personally, I believe that the key teaching of Jesus is that what he called "the Kingdom of God" is at hand: that there is a way to live which stands against Caesar, the temple priests, the money changers, the Pharisees, and all the hatred, abuse, oppression, fear, and competition of the world, and which substitutes for it a grace-based ethic of love, reconcilation, forgiveness, renewal. That, to my mind, is the "right belief", the "orthodoxy" of the true gospel.

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Personally, I believe that the key teaching of Jesus is that what he called "the Kingdom of God" is at hand: that there is a way to live which stands against Caesar, the temple priests, the money changers, the Pharisees, and all the hatred, abuse, oppression, fear, and competition of the world, and which substitutes for it a grace-based ethic of love, reconcilation, forgiveness, renewal. That, to my mind, is the "right belief", the "orthodoxy" of the true gospel.

Virtually every major moral philosopher in the Greco-Roman world offered a way of living starkly opposed to the ethic of 'the world' -- of the rulers, and of the vast majority of people, of society. Again, there is really nothing special about what you say Jesus' doctrine was. Plato's Socrates' ethical dialectic and doctrine is more thorough, forceful and well-argued/convincing. Your "true gospel" was preached and practiced long before JC came on the scene; nobody needed him to recycle anything. (And Socrates was martyred by 'the world' for his trouble as well, on trumped-up charges of corrupting the youth and atheism.)

I just don't get your particular attachment to this Jesus character and his philosophy, when greener, fresher pastures from the mouths of more deserving prophets are to be had.

[ 01. January 2011, 21:17: Message edited by: Via Media ]

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

I still feel we're kinda getting away from the point about what is "orthodoxy". I mean ...

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If he didn't rise from the dead, then Jesus would have gone the way of other messianic pretenders and have been lost to history. People do not follow dead messiahs, especially crucified ones.

Not even King Arthur?

This seems to strike me as a bit of a misunderstanding of the nature of messianic expectation. The whole point of expecting a messiah to come in the future is that the world is recognised as being beset by pain, suffering, sin and death, and other literal or metaphorical monsters and dragons, including Satan. Legendary kings and heroes have killed some of the enemies and monsters in the past - but their work is only partially complete. So, one day, one of them will come back and finish their work, the final Boss Monster (Satan) will be defeated, and the heavens and earth will be renewed.

Has Jesus already done this? Funnily enough, no he hasn't. Indeed, the idea that Jesus himself will come back in the future is itself an important component of orthodox Christian belief. So it seems to me that the only real difference Jesus made - assuming he ever existed at all - is that he has modified the Jewish messianic expectation of the return of the line of David, and replaced it with a slightly more specific Christian messianic expectation of the return of Jesus, who, in addition to being Jesus, is also of the line of David.

Whoever comes to save us in the future, whether it be Jesus or another son of David, or even King Arthur, I can't honestly see that it makes much odds either way. However, I think you'll be very hard pressed to find anyone who describes themselves as a Christian who seriously believes that the New Jerusalem, as described at the end of Revelation, has already been and gone.

Course, having said that, I suspect there was a time when Constantine's edict of toleration was passed off as the arrival of the New Jerusalem. Indeed, I highly suspect that people tried to make out that Constantine's reign was the thing that the legendary arena martyrs under Diocletian had died for. They died because they believed in a prophecy for the future - and that prophecy had now come true. In all honesty, I suspect that the martyrdoms under Diocletian may have been exaggerated for that purpose.

That's not to say that there weren't any martyrs at all, though. But how do we decide who is and who isn't a martyr anyway, given the fact that all mortal men eventually die of something?

Maybe a few of the people who are called Christian martyrs really were Christian martyrs. But they might not all have been Christian. Perhaps some were Christian, but were sentenced to death for reasons unrelated to their religious affiliation. Perhaps some were pagans! Perhaps some were martyrs for Isis, and were only called Christian martyrs later on - after all, if emperors got upset on being told that they're not true gods on the grounds that Christ is the only true god, then presumably they'd have felt the same way about being told that the only true gods are Isis and Osiris.

Perhaps some "martyrs" couldn't care less about religious beliefs, and just wanted to ape the glory of former gladiator arena celebrities. Maybe one or two of them thought they might even be able to defeat the beasts and escape. And perhaps a good many of the legendary martyrs never even existed in the first place. Who can say?

Nevertheless, it's very convenient for an emperor to be able to claim that lots of heroes have bravely died for the "freedom" that his subjects now "enjoy". Especially if the emperor is able to accuse those who protest against his rule of being disrespectful to the memory of those heroes. You co-opt the stories of real dead warriors to your rule if you can get away with it - but you just make them up out of thin air if you can't.

But if the emperor ever did manage to convince people that the New Jerusalem was already here, it seems as though the belief didn't last very long. A few decades later, and Christianity reverted back to the prior messianic expectation that it held before Constantine's edict - albeit perhaps slightly modified by St Augustine's tendency to treat much of the Apocalypse (though not all of it) as an allegory. It seems to me that this has played a large part in defining what has been thought of as "orthodoxy" ever since.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Personally, I believe that the key teaching of Jesus is that what he called "the Kingdom of God" is at hand: that there is a way to live which stands against Caesar, the temple priests, the money changers, the Pharisees, and all the hatred, abuse, oppression, fear, and competition of the world, and which substitutes for it a grace-based ethic of love, reconcilation, forgiveness, renewal. That, to my mind, is the "right belief", the "orthodoxy" of the true gospel.

That may be - but I think we need to make a distinction between what has been orthodoxy, and what we think should be orthodoxy. It sounds to me that you are arguing about what you think should be orthodoxy, as opposed to using the perspective of historical analysis to figure out what has been thought of as "orthodoxy" in the past. Let's not muddle the two things up.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

So, what you are saying is, that the man you think is god was actually a bit lame? Not much of a god, is it?

Anyway, to answer the question, I've learnt much from the Buddha, from Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero and Socrates, but following Jesus has changed and transformed me, and my life and relationships, more than any other philosopher, guru, prophet or sage. (I'm speaking here only on the personal and ethical level, and in terms of character and personality.)

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

[X-posted; reply to via media]

And, for what it's worth, the building of the "New Jerusalem" is the purpose of christianity; it's the crucial thing we are all called to do, as followers of Jesus - bringing in what he called the "kingdom of god" through love, fraternity, forgiveness etc.

[ 01. January 2011, 21:28: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So, what you are saying is, that the man you think is god was actually a bit lame? Not much of a god, is it?

Well, no. What makes Him special to me is that He is God Incarnate, Who paid for my sin on the Cross.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The radical message of Jesus' ethics is that it's based on love. There's no sense that morality is a transaction whereby if you fulfil your side of the bargain you'll be all right, any more than friendship is a contract whereby your friend's support is contingent on you fulfilling certain criteria.

This means that on the one hand you can never absolutely fall away from goodness, because there's no sense of triggering a penalty clause that invalidates the whole deal - and on the other hand, you can't just do the minimum of good works to comply with the bargain and then say "My work is done: the rest of the time is my own."

Honestly, I can say the Nicene Creed without crossing my fingers or doing mental contortions, but if I ever came to doubt it, the moral teaching of Christ would remind me that there's something worthwhile in Christianity.

Tbh I don't think Plato says very much about morality at all, and although Aristotle says a lot about the mechanics of the good life, I think Jesus is a lot better at expressing the point of it.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So, what you are saying is, that the man you think is god was actually a bit lame? Not much of a god, is it?

I never thought I'd agree with RadicalWhig on this kind of thread, but I do now. There's something slightly surreal about watching "orthodox" Christians attacking the founder of our religion.

I blame C.S. Lewis.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
There's something slightly surreal about watching "orthodox" Christians attacking the founder of our religion.

It's not attacking Jesus to say that his moral teachings were more or less precisely in line with first century near eastern understandings of the Torah and messianic thought. Saying he was unoriginal in that regard is a mere statement of fact; He is the God of the prophets after all.

Zach

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
If Jesus was/is not divine -- just an ethical teacher -- I would probably have to give Socrates, Zeno, or even Epicurus, far greater rank of honour. This Jesus of Nazareth likely wouldn't be a footnote in the history books if his followers did not believe him to be divine. The mere 'moral philosophy' which we find in the Gospel narratives frankly doesn't hold a candle to the Platonic-Aristotelian, Epicurean, Stoic, Pyrrhonian and Academic Skeptic, and Neoplatonist moral systems.

Really, what's so great about it? How different or 'radical' is it really?

I'd take the opposite stance. What's so special about divine people? Ancient history is littered with them.

You can start with the Roman Emperors of Jesus' time...

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Indeed. Myths of incarnated gods are ten-a-penny. So are ghost stories and fairy-tales. Gods who die, resurrect, or in some way sacrifice themselves for their people are also pretty common throughout the ancient world - and not just in Egypt and the Near East.

Making up stories is what we do: we are big-brained social primates with over-active imaginations and a need to rationalise, bond, so we find meaning through imaginative play, stories etc.

For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline) is fine as a myth; I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality. They are no longer following the way and teaching of Jesus, but fetishising him and turning him into an idol. This rot set in very early, even within a few decades or so of Jesus' death.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Anyway, to answer the question, I've learnt much from the Buddha, from Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero and Socrates, but following Jesus has changed and transformed me, and my life and relationships, more than any other philosopher, guru, prophet or sage. (I'm speaking here only on the personal and ethical level, and in terms of character and personality.)

You need to be careful about saying that sort of thing; people might call you to account over it! But personally, I reckon it's better to keep these kinds of discussions non-personal.

If we're going to talk about how Jesus has changed the life of anyone, it's better to talk about how he has changed the lives of particular named celebrities, or the nations and cultures of the past that we read about in the history books. That's something that can be argued about from both sides on an internet discussion forum, without anyone having to corroborate it with personal details from their own lives.

We cannot do that with the idea that Jesus has changed our own lives. I'm not in a position to be able to size up whether Jesus really has changed the life of RadicalWhig or not, and I can't accept that he has merely on RadicalWhig's say-so. And there's nothing that RadicalWhig can say about his own life that would convince me otherwise, since I don't know enough about RadicalWhig in order to know whether he's telling the truth or not. If we want to get into debates about whether Jesus has changed anyone's life or not, it's got to be about people for whom there is a widespread level of common public knowledge.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So, what you are saying is, that the man you think is god was actually a bit lame? Not much of a god, is it?

Being a good teacher does not make you a god.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I never thought I'd agree with RadicalWhig on this kind of thread, but I do now. There's something slightly surreal about watching "orthodox" Christians attacking the founder of our religion.

I don't think it's attacking Jesus to say he didn't come up with very much original.

It seems to me that some people have fallen into the fallacy of thinking that the teachings of Jesus stand on their own merit, as though they would be equally true even if they had been first taught by someone other than Jesus - when in fact they only gave those teachings credit in the first place because it was Jesus, and not someone else, who taught them.

I suspect this has come about partly as a result of playing the teachings of Paul off against the teachings of Jesus. Some people simplistically assume that since Jesus is supposed to be the central bloke in "Christianity", it therefore follows that if they're ever less than happy with the teachings of Paul - or the creeds - then it's okay to say that the authority of the teachings of Jesus trumps the authority of Paul and the creeds.

It's okay to say that the authority of the teachings of Jesus trumps the authority of the teachings of Paul, if that's what you really believe. But it's no good trying to argue that this somehow means that the teachings of Jesus somehow stand on their own merit, even if Jesus was not the son of God, and wasn't of the line of David, and was not born of a virgin, and performed no miracles, and did not die and rise again, and did not have any special status in Christianity for any other reason. Because you'll become unstuck!

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline) is fine as a myth; I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality. They are no longer following the way and teaching of Jesus, but fetishising him and turning him into an idol. This rot set in very early, even within a few decades or so of Jesus' death.

That strikes me as pot calling kettle black reasoning. How is the idea that there's something inherently special about the teachings of Jesus not a form of idolisation?

I'm with Via Media on this one.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Indeed. Myths of incarnated gods are ten-a-penny. So are ghost stories and fairy-tales. Gods who die, resurrect, or in some way sacrifice themselves for their people are also pretty common throughout the ancient world - and not just in Egypt and the Near East.

Making up stories is what we do: we are big-brained social primates with over-active imaginations and a need to rationalise, bond, so we find meaning through imaginative play, stories etc.

For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline) is fine as a myth; I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality. They are no longer following the way and teaching of Jesus, but fetishising him and turning him into an idol. This rot set in very early, even within a few decades or so of Jesus' death.

The issue isn't that the Church "ignores" the historical Jesus, it is that it does not simply equate the historical Jesus to the true Christ. As well, we all know that scholars, both secular and religious, disagree on the exact details of the historical Jesus, was he an eschatological prophet heralding the end of the world or was he a wisdom sage pontificating pearls of wisdom? Was he political, in that his message was definitely anti-imperial?

Albert Schweitzer, hardly a raging fundamentalist, argued that historical Jesus research by in large reflected the bias of the scholars. You make up a historical Jesus out of your own image. The Church takes it one step further, by stating that the risen Christ still speaks through the testimony of his apostolic community that emerged after his death and resurrection. The church is Christ's Body, and is now the means for accomplishing his mission. Because of this belief, I do not privilege the historical Jesus over the risen Christ in terms of matter of faith. For me, the historical Jesus is not the same as the true Jesus.

But then I believe in the Resurrection, and thus I believe in a living and risen Lord who speaks through his apostolic community both then and now. "Why seek ye the living among the dead", Jesus is not a dead teacher in the past, but is a living presence, risen and in glory right now, working through his church.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Anyway, to answer the question, I've learnt much from the Buddha, from Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero and Socrates, but following Jesus has changed and transformed me, and my life and relationships, more than any other philosopher, guru, prophet or sage. (I'm speaking here only on the personal and ethical level, and in terms of character and personality.)
You need to be careful about saying that sort of thing; people might call you to account over it! But personally, I reckon it's better to keep these kinds of discussions non-personal.

I can't vouch for anyone else. I also know I cannot prove it to you, since I am, to you, just a series of digital pixels of light and darkness on a screen. However, I know my testimony, and I can personally testify to the power and the goodness of following Jesus' teachings. I'll argue passionately for what's good in Cicero, or try to adopt a Socratic style of questioning with my students, or try to see problematic days with the calmness of Seneca, but Jesus is the one who has taught me how to love, how to forgive, how to turn darkness into light, how to build up rather than to destroy - and that's why I continue to follow his teachings. Ultimately, I know I'm a better person for it.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So, what you are saying is, that the man you think is god was actually a bit lame? Not much of a god, is it?
Being a good teacher does not make you a god.

Err, either you are misunderstanding me, or I am misunderstanding you; I think we are agreeing. Jesus was a good teacher - a most excellent teacher and example - but not god.

quote:
It seems to me that some people have fallen into the fallacy of thinking that the teachings of Jesus stand on their own merit, as though they would be equally true even if they had been first taught by someone other than Jesus

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying. The Socratic method would still have its uses, even if Socrates never existed and Plato made the whole thing up. There would still be much wisdom in the written meditations of Marcus Aurelius, even if he had never been a Roman emperor. It's not who they are that counts, its what value the writings, teachings, principles have.

quote:
when in fact they only gave those teachings credit in the first place because it was Jesus, and not someone else, who taught them.

But that's not the case, is it? If I'd thought the teachings of Mohammed were superior, I'd have become a Muslim. I became a Christian only because of the teachings of Jesus, and because they seemed to offer the hope of a way out of some of the destructive aspects of humanity. My aim is to end man's inhumanity to man and to promote living well together; religion is good in so much as it supports, and does not detract from, that aim. Jesus' teachings, in my own personal and unverifiable experience, really do offer the most excellent way, the most fundamental truth, and the liberating, abundant life.

quote:
I suspect this has come about partly as a result of playing the teachings of Paul off against the teachings of Jesus. Some people simplistically assume that since Jesus is supposed to be the central bloke in "Christianity", it therefore follows that if they're ever less than happy with the teachings of Paul - or the creeds - then it's okay to say that the authority of the teachings of Jesus trumps the authority of Paul and the creeds.

Err, yes. There's good stuff in Paul, don't get me wrong. Some of it is very helpful. But it's his own gloss and his own very distorted take on Jesus - whom he never even met - and he needs to be read through that critical lens.

quote:
It's okay to say that the authority of the teachings of Jesus trumps the authority of the teachings of Paul, if that's what you really believe.

Thank you.

quote:
But it's no good trying to argue that this somehow means that the teachings of Jesus somehow stand on their own merit, even if Jesus was not the son of God, and wasn't of the line of David, and was not born of a virgin, and performed no miracles, and did not die and rise again, and did not have any special status in Christianity for any other reason. Because you'll become unstuck!

Why is it no good? Why will I become unstuck? This doesn't make any sense. They teachings DO stand on their own merit, and made-up myths about being the son of God, born of a virgin, rising again etc do not detract from that.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline) is fine as a myth; I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality. They are no longer following the way and teaching of Jesus, but fetishising him and turning him into an idol. This rot set in very early, even within a few decades or so of Jesus' death.
That strikes me as pot calling kettle black reasoning. How is the idea that there's something inherently special about the teachings of Jesus not a form of idolisation?

Hopefully I've already made that clear. Jesus was a great man; a bold, humane, and a man of the people, who stood at the head of the line of Jewish prophets in castigating the hypocrisy and pretensions of power and standing up for humanity against oppression; he was the leader of a social movement, a revolutionary, an inspiration and a challenge. I have followed that inspiration and accepted that challenge, and in so doing I am participating in the revolution, letting myself be liberated and transformed in order to transform and liberate the world. I have the utmost respect for - even a sort of love for - Jesus. I've very glad that he lived and I'm very glad that his message is still at work in my life and in the world. But he's not god. I don't idolise him. Worship is for god alone - (and, as Jesus himself hinted, the God Who Might Actually Exist is far greater than the petty, jealous figment of human imagination described in the OT).

[ 02. January 2011, 14:55: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline)

I think this is actually the problem of the creeds. There is nothing of his life and teachings in them.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality.

This is where we part ways RadicalWhig.

I believe in the resurrection. I believe Jesus is present today.

But I believe it because I've experienced it. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The issue isn't that the Church "ignores" the historical Jesus, it is that it does not simply equate the historical Jesus to the true Christ.

Surely this is heresy Anglican_Brat!!! [Eek!]

Think about what you've just written.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

Albert Schweitzer, hardly a raging fundamentalist, argued that historical Jesus research by in large reflected the bias of the scholars. You make up a historical Jesus out of your own image. The Church takes it one step further, by stating that the risen Christ still speaks through the testimony of his apostolic community that emerged after his death and resurrection. The church is Christ's Body, and is now the means for accomplishing his mission.

Anglican_Brat. Without the historical Jesus, the "Church" which is Christ's continuing body, makes Jesus in its image.

You have the Spirit, but you have to have the background to translate the spirit into the here and now.

Otherwise, you, me and the church can just walk around and say "Jesus told me so!"

His life and his teachings and his reactions to his surroundings during his lifetime give us that yardstick of separating fact from fiction.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The issue isn't that the Church "ignores" the historical Jesus, it is that it does not simply equate the historical Jesus to the true Christ. As well, we all know that scholars, both secular and religious, disagree on the exact details of the historical Jesus, was he an eschatological prophet heralding the end of the world or was he a wisdom sage pontificating pearls of wisdom? Was he political, in that his message was definitely anti-imperial?

Good point. Trying to get back to the question of what is and what isn't "orthodoxy", traditional creeds don't seem to specify that you hold one of these beliefs about historical Jesus over another.

But this is a point which I suspect is lost on a lot of people on the fringes of Christianity, whose main experience of Christian dogma is the scripted apologetics of denominations that tend towards millenarianism, and narrowly literal views of the interpretation of prophecy. To those apologists, it would seem ridiculous to suggest that you can pin your hope on a future world renewal, even if you don't think Jesus ever actually existed in the first place; as far as they're concerned, the hope for the future hangs on the historicity of the past.

Even orthodox Christianity seems to specify a minimum level of historical understanding of Jesus. "By the power of the Holy Spirit, he became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man". How can you sensibly interpret that any way other than historically?

And "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." Not - "He has already come in glory, he is already judging the living and the dead, and his kingdom is already having no end." - or still less "his kingdom had no end." So much for realised eschatology, then.

Come to think of it - I suspect that realised eschatology has become incredibly popular. A belief in realised eschatology motivates people to humiliate modern-day apocalyptic prophets who set dates and get it wrong. People run screaming from Jim Jones and David Koresh, and they naturally think that realised eschatology somehow solves the problems posed by Jones and Koresh. I suspect the adherents of realised eschatology would be less than keen to admit that parts of the orthodox creeds flatly deny it.

Can anyone comment on how widespread the belief in realised eschatology is these days? Is it still the exception in mainstream Christianity, or has it now become the norm?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

Can anyone comment on how widespread the belief in realised eschatology is these days? Is it still the exception in mainstream Christianity, or has it now become the norm?

The New Testament teaches a partially realised eschatology. Jesus set the Kingdom in motion.

It has begun but it isn't finished.

Now and not yet.

[ 02. January 2011, 15:16: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline)
I think this is actually the problem of the creeds. There is nothing of his life and teachings in them.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality.
This is where we part ways RadicalWhig.

I believe in the resurrection. I believe Jesus is present today.

But I believe it because I've experienced it.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The issue isn't that the Church "ignores" the historical Jesus, it is that it does not simply equate the historical Jesus to the true Christ.
Surely this is heresy Anglican_Brat!!! Think about what you've just written.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

Albert Schweitzer, hardly a raging fundamentalist, argued that historical Jesus research by in large reflected the bias of the scholars. You make up a historical Jesus out of your own image. The Church takes it one step further, by stating that the risen Christ still speaks through the testimony of his apostolic community that emerged after his death and resurrection. The church is Christ's Body, and is now the means for accomplishing his mission.
Anglican_Brat. Without the historical Jesus, the "Church" which is Christ's continuing body, makes Jesus in its image.

You have the Spirit, but you have to have the background to translate the spirit into the here and now.

Otherwise, you, me and the church can just walk around and say "Jesus told me so!"

His life and his teachings and his reactions to his surroundings during his lifetime give us that yardstick of separating fact from fiction.

I knew that point was going to come up sooner or later. [Biased]

To a certain extent, there is no getting away around it, we do always make Jesus into something like ourselves. There is a certain degree of subjectivity involved in faith, whether it be the Black liberation theologians who see Christ as an exemplar of the black struggle for justice or feminists who view Christ as a feminist. I don't know if the historical Jesus could be called a Marxist or a feminist, or if we commit the gross sin of anachronistic thinking.

I agree with you to a certain extent in that I share Hans Kung's view that the historical Jesus is one tool (Note, I said One tool) that the Church uses to discern whether it is getting the message right or not. At the same time, our view of Jesus shouldn't be limited to just the historical Jesus.

But then I'm a catholic on this issue. I value Church tradition in that I do not dismiss the teachings of St Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther, and the other great Christian thinkers that are part of the apostolic community. They do not displace the Bible of course, but I consider it foolish to not engage with them. They are our brothers and sisters who I believe live and learn with us now, through the risen Christ.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline)
I think this is actually the problem of the creeds. There is nothing of his life and teachings in them.

I used to feel this way, too - but then somebody pointed out to me that this wasn't the function of the Creeds. That the Creeds were mainly lists of doctrinal statements, meant to address (and cut away) heretical beliefs. Most of these statements were attempting to do just that - they were created in response to the varying heresies, according to the church, that arose in the first few centuries of its existence.

The life and teachings are in Scripture - which is certainly viewed as having great authority. And few dispute the Gospel canon (although of course there are varying interpretations). The Creeds are simply statements of what Christians are to understand and believe about Jesus' cosmic overarching mission. The statements were meant to clarify doctrine itself.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline)
I think this is actually the problem of the creeds. There is nothing of his life and teachings in them.
I used to feel this way, too - but then somebody pointed out to me that this wasn't the function of the Creeds.

Quite so and I agree.

Which is why they are a poor test of Orthodoxy.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Err, yes. There's good stuff in Paul, don't get me wrong. Some of it is very helpful. But it's his own gloss and his own very distorted take on Jesus - whom he never even met - and he needs to be read through that critical lens.

Paul's authentic letters predate the Gospels, by what rationale would you privilege the Gospels over his writings?

There is a strong argument to be made that the gospel writers never met the historical Jesus either. What we have in the Gospels are testimonies of early Christian communities, some of which can be traced to the historical Jesus. You have written that we ought to separate the chaff from the wheat, but again, I argue, why must we privilege the historical Jesus to such an extent as to marginalize the witness of Christians from time immemorial? Should their testimonies be considered suspect and in error, including many who have gone to die for their faith?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline)
I think this is actually the problem of the creeds. There is nothing of his life and teachings in them.
I used to feel this way, too - but then somebody pointed out to me that this wasn't the function of the Creeds.
Quite so and I agree.

Which is why they are a poor test of Orthodoxy.

You are correct, I prefer the 39 Articles of Religion [Biased]

That way, Anabaptists can finally accept infant baptism and the Church can finally reject those who teach a mere memorialist understanding of the Lord's Supper [Eek!]

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

If you don't "privilege the historical Jesus" then your whole religion is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!

It all seems very odd. On the one hand, you say that Jesus is God; on the other, that what the Church made up about him is more important than whatever he might have actually said and done.

[X-posted; reply to AnglicanBrat's previous post]

[ 02. January 2011, 15:50: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Quite so and I agree.

Which is why they are a poor test of Orthodoxy.

The problem, though - at least as I see it - is that Scripture can be interpreted in various ways. (Not to mention that there are varying interpretations right in the Gospels themselves!)

So that one couldn't really define "orthodoxy" using the Bible, either. Don't you think? (I think this is to the good, actually - we get a lot more out of Scripture this way, and see many more possibilities.)

Perhaps the problem is just that "orthodoxy" has become kind of a bugaboo. I didn't like the term, myself, either, because it's been used as a weapon of late. But as Dave Marshall implied earlier: what's wrong with heterodoxy? Everybody's welcome in the church, or should be. As somebody else said, we don't - shouldn't - make "windows into men's souls."

Perhaps the word shouldn't be used at all. Perhaps we should just say: the Creeds are how the church has defined the boundaries of the Christian faith. They are what we fall back on when there's controversy about something - and they are how we will continue to define the boundaries of the faith. But come be controversial anyway; it could be interesting.

I'm just saying, as I said above: all things have definitions. This is the church's definition of its own faith; it does have the right to do this. And anybody's free to believe what they like - but the church will continue to profess these creeds, because they are the base definition of the faith. I just can't see how else it could be done, actually....

[ 02. January 2011, 15:52: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If you don't "privilege the historical Jesus" then your whole religion is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!

It all seems very odd. On the one hand, you say that Jesus is God; on the other, that what the Church made up about him is more important than whatever he might have actually said and done.

[X-posted; reply to AnglicanBrat's previous post]

I didn't write that, what is underlying your argument is your denial of the Resurrection. I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection means that Jesus Christ is a living reality, and that he speaks through his Church. Therefore to privilege Jesus' teachings before his death over his teachings after his death and resurrection is IMHO arbitrary. As well, what we have in terms of the gospel narratives are testimonies of the post-Resurrection church both to the historical Jesus and to the risen Christ who spoke in their contemporary context.

So the Gospel of John, even though many scholars would argue has limited historical value, is still authoritative for Christians, and Christians were justified in their examination of the Gospel of John in developing a high Christology which resulted over time in Nicea and Chaledon.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If you don't "privilege the historical Jesus" then your whole religion is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!

To clarify: this matters if you say you worship the man-god, and that his teachings have no stand-alone value apart from the deity of the teacher. The "historical Jesus" doesn't matter so much if you take the teachings on their own merits: then the ask is actually rather different - not to find the "original" teachings in the murky waters of scripture, but to find and apply the "best" teachings.

If the historical Jesus had said things which were wrong, then the right course of action would be to reject those things.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Basically the "historical Jesus" thing is a way to say "THESE teachings of Jesus (that I like) are the REAL teachings of Jesus; those other teachings of Jesus (the ones I don't like) are not."

It's making Jesus in our own image.

If we have to deal with ALL the teachings of Jesus, then we are forced into conclusions that we may not particularly like. Can't have that. Better to tame Jesus by excising anything that doesn't suit our particular tastes.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(I think one question we might reasonably ask is, "Why are we reciting a list of doctrinal statements at every instance of Divine Service?"

I don't think this has always been the case - I forget right now what I think I used to know about this - and I'm not sure it's necessary at all.

Of course, people used to say that it was a good thing that the Creed came after the sermon. That way, you could tell if what the preacher was talking about actually made any sense and/or was doctrinally sound. [Biased]

So perhaps there's a method to the madness....)

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Perhaps the real phrase in the Creed that people have difficulty isn't the part about Jesus' equality with God, but this phrase:

"I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."

This phrase is about faith in God's church, as being faithful to the witness of Jesus. "One", in spite of its many divisions, the Church remains united as a single body of Christ carrying out the single message of Christ's redeeming love to the world. "Holy" as in the Church partakes in the holiness of God through its encounter with Christ. "Catholic" as in that the Church's message is universal and for all people in every generation and "Apostolic" as in the Church is faithful to the apostolic heritage and presents a trustworthy teaching to the world.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Ok, so what you are saying is that the historical Jesus is very important, but ultimately what the Church says trumps what the historical Jesus is believed to have said in the Bible, as the Bible can only be interpreted through the experience of the Holy Spirit working through the Church?

Have I understood your position correctly?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Ok, so what you are saying is that the historical Jesus is very important, but ultimately what the Church says trumps what the historical Jesus is believed to have said in the Bible, as the Bible can only be interpreted through the experience of the Holy Spirit working through the Church?

Have I understood your position correctly?

My point is that the "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of faith" (to use Marcus Borg's phrase, even though I'm more conservative than Borg) are both facets of the "Real Jesus" and that we should not reject one over the other. The Resurrection is the crucial link between the two.

So I'm responding to your assumption that the historical Jesus should be privileged because it is the "Real Jesus" as opposed to the "Christ of faith" because it is a later corruption of the Church. I argue that the notion that the historical Jesus=the real Jesus is a problematic assumption and would result in us arbitrarily dismissing the insights of Paul, Augustine, and Aquinas and others simply because their focus is on the Christ of faith.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Who'd have thought it: bravo RW.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Ok.

I'm saying that the historical Jesus is very important, but ultimately what my reason and conscience say trumps what Jesus is believed to have said in the Bible, because I can only discover and interpret what is good and true through the experience of my own judgement, informed by my reason and conscience.

My reason, conscience and experience enable me to find much that is excellent and relevant in the teachings of Jesus, to ignore, critique or reinterpret that which is not so good, and to follow the way that Jesus taught, without falling into the error of thinking that he is god incarnate, born of a virgin, or any other mythological invention.

I'm feeling very Jeffersonian: "My own mind is my church". (For this church I claim no infallibility!)

(Of course, in the orthodox's book, this means "I'm picking and choosing" and "taming Jesus" by making things up according to my own tastes. So be it. The "orthodox" are doing just the same, only they've let a bunch of dead guys with beards do the picking and the choosing, the taming and the making things up for them.)

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
To a certain extent, there is no getting away around it, we do always make Jesus into something like ourselves. There is a certain degree of subjectivity involved in faith, whether it be the Black liberation theologians who see Christ as an exemplar of the black struggle for justice or feminists who view Christ as a feminist. I don't know if the historical Jesus could be called a Marxist or a feminist, or if we commit the gross sin of anachronistic thinking.

This is something that intrigues me. I don't deny that people do create all sorts of different stories about Jesus the exemplar - however, what I'm wondering is, what sort of beliefs about eschatology are likely to underpin this.

To my way of thinking, the beliefs about eschatology have got to be at least slightly Futurist. After all, there's no point in believing that Jesus was a Marxist, or a Black liberationist, or a feminist, if you don't believe that Jesus is going to come back in the future and pass judgement. If you go over to a fully realised eschatology, then the question of what Jesus might have been in the past becomes rather irrelevant.

Having said that, I think there are a number of different ways of interpreting the idea of the future return of Jesus - or indeed, any legendary hero of the past. It does not necessarily have to be in the form of a one-off apocalyptic battle, and a final victory of good over evil, although this is one of the main ways of seeing it.

However, a legendary hero of the past may also be thought to "return" in the way they inspire people to ape their glory by copying their achievements, and out-doing them if they can. And a martyr can be thought to "return" or to "rise from the dead" in the way that the death of the martyr provokes a desire for vengeance among his followers.

It seems to me that realised eschatology beliefs deny not just the end-times apocalyptic battle, but also perhaps these other more metaphorical ways of understanding the return of the exemplar. Or do they? Perhaps they don't, I don't know.

It still seems to me that creedal orthodoxy requires some level of belief in the historicity of Jesus, and some level of futurism in the interpretation of prophecy. And I'm not yet convinced that the way that Jesus gets re-invented as an exemplar for all sorts of different pet hobby horses is entirely consistent with that.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
when in fact they only gave those teachings credit in the first place because it was Jesus, and not someone else, who taught them.
But that's not the case, is it? If I'd thought the teachings of Mohammed were superior, I'd have become a Muslim. I became a Christian only because of the teachings of Jesus, and because they seemed to offer the hope of a way out of some of the destructive aspects of humanity. My aim is to end man's inhumanity to man and to promote living well together; religion is good in so much as it supports, and does not detract from, that aim. Jesus' teachings, in my own personal and unverifiable experience, really do offer the most excellent way, the most fundamental truth, and the liberating, abundant life.

Aha! I think I spot the flaw in your reasoning. You seem to assume that an appreciation of the teachings of Jesus constitutes Christian orthodoxy, and qualifies people as "Christians".

But it does neither of those things.

Just because you think you like the teachings of Jesus, does not mean that Christian orthodoxy ever has been defined in terms of the teachings of Jesus, and nor does it mean that it should be defined in terms of the teachings of Jesus.

I think Anglican_Brat has illustrated quite well the scope for variation in the way that the teachings of Jesus may be interpreted, and how it may lead Jesus to be seen as an exemplar for all sorts of different causes, not all of which are in harmony with each other. This is the reason why it's very difficult to define orthodoxy if we are relying on the teachings of Jesus alone.

Put simply, the teachings of Jesus are too long, too complicated, and too self-contradictory. The creeds are a lot shorter, and a lot simpler - even though they admittedly use technical theological terminology like "Trinity" and "Incarnation" whose meanings are not always self-evident.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If you don't "privilege the historical Jesus" then your whole religion is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!

Yes - but it seems that by your own arguments, it doesn't matter if the whole religion of Christianity is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!

If the teachings which you say are "of Jesus" really do "offer the hope of a way out of some of the destructive aspects of humanity" - then they should be able to offer the same hope, regardless of their source. It should not make any difference whether they were first taught by Jesus or by someone else - and it should not matter whether Jesus actually existed or not either.

And more to the point, the question of whether those teachings constitute "Christian orthodoxy" or not should also not depend on whether Jesus actually existed or not.

But if that's the case, then how could such teachings ever come to be considered "Christian" in the first place? It seems to me that the fact that there's a Christian identity to go with these teachings that you say are "of Jesus" is wholly dependent on the fact that there's a story of a bloke called "Jesus" that goes with the teachings. If you kept the teachings, but lost the story of Jesus, then the teachings would cease to be considered Christian.

And that's the reason why it makes no sense to consider them a sole yardstick for Christian orthodoxy - do you not see?

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm saying that the historical Jesus is very important, but ultimately what my reason and conscience say trumps what Jesus is believed to have said in the Bible, because I can only discover and interpret what is good and true through the experience of my own judgement, informed by my reason and conscience.

My reason, conscience and experience enable me to find much that is excellent and relevant in the teachings of Jesus, to ignore, critique or reinterpret that which is not so good, and to follow the way that Jesus taught, without falling into the error of thinking that he is god incarnate, born of a virgin, or any other mythological invention.

Yes. But this is not about what you believe. It's about how we define "Christian orthodoxy".

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
(Of course, in the orthodox's book, this means "I'm picking and choosing" and "taming Jesus" by making things up according to my own tastes. So be it. The "orthodox" are doing just the same, only they've let a bunch of dead guys with beards do the picking and the choosing, the taming and the making things up for them.)

Perhaps you are picking and choosing. Then again, perhaps you're not. Perhaps the "orthodox" are picking and choosing too. But then again, perhaps they're not.

However, none of that is relevant to how we define "christian orthodoxy". The Creeds themselves do not state that Christians are required to believe that orthodoxy itself is not an exercise in "picking and choosing".

To my way of thinking, the only thing that really matters is that whatever has been picked and chosen, stays picked and chosen for a reasonable length of time, and gets properly codified in creeds and statements of faith, such that it can be considered a form of "orthodoxy".

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
(Of course, in the orthodox's book, this means "I'm picking and choosing" and "taming Jesus" by making things up according to my own tastes. So be it. The "orthodox" are doing just the same, only they've let a bunch of dead guys with beards do the picking and the choosing, the taming and the making things up for them.)

But the fact is that Jefferson's Bible (for instance) has been judged by many generations and found wanting in various ways. This is just an obvious conclusion, since it's not well-known and not used by the vast majority of human beings calling themselves Christian. This is OK, but it's not just "a bunch of dead guys with beards"; it's lots and lots and lots of folks - living beardless women included.

IOW, the demand simply isn't there. Which is OK, too - but I think this says that you're wrong about the Bible and about Christian doctrine. I think it says that many, many people do in fact find value in both these things. And these facts in themselves says something about the human condition, I'd say.

For myself, I wouldn't pay the slightest attention to the church if I didn't believe what it teaches. To me, it's an utter absurdity without its doctrine; I'd stay far, far away, believe me.

It helps to remember that doctrine hasn't been picked out of the air; it came about as a way to address real-world concerns. And I think there is a limit to the number of these concerns, in fact! I'm trying to think of a possible fresh new heresy (I'm using that word in its exact and non-pejorative sense) and I can't, really; Christian doctrine is logical, and has only a few axioms. One of them is the Incarnation, though - so if that's a no-go for you, then the rest will make absolutely no sense.

But for lots of us, without that first axiom, there's literally no reason to be involved. Jesus did have interesting things to say, I agree - but most (not all) of what he said can be found in the Old Testament. It's what he did that makes the difference for me and many others.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(And certainly I wouldn't call Christianity without the Incarnation a religion. It would be, literally, blasphemous in my eyes.

It would have to be a philosophy - but of course, Jesus was a religious Jew, and everything he said and did, he said and did within the confines of that framework. I don't see how you can pull Jesus out of Judaism and make him a mere philosopher.

Historical doctrinal Christianity does, really, make perfect sense. It's completely internally consistent - at least, I find it so....)

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Aha! I think I spot the flaw in your reasoning. You seem to assume that an appreciation of the teachings of Jesus constitutes Christian orthodoxy, and qualifies people as "Christians".

It should, if the word Christian were to have any good meaning to it. Although I'd say its important not just to appreciate the teachings, but to apply them. Jesus wanted disciples, not worshippers or admirers.

quote:
But it does neither of those things.

Fair enough. But that's only because the "orthodox" have deviated so far away from the Jesus they claim to know.

quote:
Just because you think you like the teachings of Jesus, does not mean that Christian orthodoxy ever has been defined in terms of the teachings of Jesus, and nor does it mean that it should be defined in terms of the teachings of Jesus.

Obviously it should be; but it hasn't, not since the very earliest days.

quote:
I think Anglican_Brat has illustrated quite well the scope for variation in the way that the teachings of Jesus may be interpreted, and how it may lead Jesus to be seen as an exemplar for all sorts of different causes, not all of which are in harmony with each other. This is the reason why it's very difficult to define orthodoxy if we are relying on the teachings of Jesus.

Put simply, the teachings of Jesus are too long, too complicated, and too self-contradictory.

Wait, isn't this fellow supposed to be YOUR GOD? Seesh. It's such a small and pathetic god if you put it like that: he can't even make himself clear. The case for what you call Christianity is looking weaker than ever.

quote:
The creeds are a lot shorter, and a lot simpler - even though they admittedly use technical theological terminology like "Trinity" and "Incarnation" whose meanings are not always self-evident.

And I'm the one who gets accused of bending the truth for my own convenience?!

quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If you don't "privilege the historical Jesus" then your whole religion is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!

quote:
I've addressed this point directly above. It's the one that starts, "To clarify:...".

[QUOTE]But if that's the case, then how could such teachings ever come to be considered "Christian" in the first place? It seems to me that the fact that there's a Christian identity to go with these teachings that you say are "of Jesus" is wholly dependent on the fact that there's a story of a bloke called "Jesus" that goes with the teachings. If you kept the teachings, but lost the story of Jesus, then the teachings would cease to be considered Christian.

The Socratic method would still be the Socratic method of Socrates had been a figment of Plato's imagination. It's the same thing.

quote:
And that's the reason why it makes no sense to consider them a sole yardstick for Christian orthodoxy - do you not see?

What I see is that Christianity is a false religion that what it claims to be "orthodoxy" is untrue. That's why I no longer go to church (although I miss it deeply) and no longer self-identify as Christian (although I remain a committed disciple of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth). You've all got it completely wrong, and totally missed the point of what Jesus was all about.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(And certainly I wouldn't call Christianity without the Incarnation a religion. It would be, literally, blasphemous in my eyes.

No. What's blasphemous is to imagine that a person is God. As the Muslims say, "lam walid wa lam yulad wa la lahu kufwan adhad" - [God] was not begotten, did not beget, and has no equal".

quote:
It would have to be a philosophy - but of course, Jesus was a religious Jew, and everything he said and did, he said and did within the confines of that framework. I don't see how you can pull Jesus out of Judaism and make him a mere philosopher.

Cos it's easier than pulling him out of Judaism and making him God. Anyway, I'm happy to say that I follow a sort of Christian philosophy but not a Christian religion - because the philosophy has much that is good in it, but the religion is false.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
No. What's blasphemous is to imagine that a person is God. As the Muslims say, "lam walid wa lam yulad wa la lahu kufwan adhad" - [God] was not begotten, did not beget, and has no equal".

And that's the reason for the Trinity, and then for the Creeds. Jesus is the Incarnation of God. This is not blasphemous; it's the solution to blasphemy - and it's also a really interesting idea.

And of course I'm not a Muslim, so it wouldn't matter to me what the Muslim take on this is, except as a point of interest.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Cos it's easier than pulling him out of Judaism and making him God. Anyway, I'm happy to say that I follow a sort of Christian philosophy but not a Christian religion - because the philosophy has much that is good in it, but the religion is false.

Well, you've sort of got a point there - but there are divine characters in Judaism, too. Jesus is unique, I grant, in his divinity in Christianity - but then, he did claim to be unique as well.

And if you're OK in following a Christian philosophy - why worry about what the Christian religion calls "orthodox"? Just curious.

But let's go another way. How would you define "Christian Orthodoxy"? It's clear you believe there is one, because you claim that what's considered orthodox at present is flatly wrong.

IOW, what, exactly, are the tenets of the Christian philosophy? And how did you arrive at these tenets?

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

Going back a bit:

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The Creeds themselves do not state that Christians are required to believe that orthodoxy itself is not an exercise in "picking and choosing".

That's given me an idea. I wonder what Christianity would look like if the Creeds did state that Christians are required to believe that orthodoxy is not an exercise in picking and choosing.

An accusation of "picking and choosing" is a frequently used rhetorical device in Christian polemics and apologetics - so it's no surprise that RadicalWhig has also tried to use this rhetorical device. But what does it actually mean?

I think it's fair to say that when an apologist does accuse someone of "picking and choosing", the argument is based on the assumption that those who do not "pick and choose" are those who adhere to the full set of creedal statements.

There has to be a clear set of statements of doctrine, in order to compare that set with a rival preacher's professed beliefs. And there is only a basis for saying that a rival preacher is "picking and choosing" if that rival's set of professed beliefs do not match that list of doctrinal statements.

But when someone says that orthodoxy itself is "picking and choosing", then we have a problem - because it's orthodoxy that defines the creeds that enable us to say whether a rival preacher is "picking and choosing" or not. Therefore, orthodoxy cannot logically be said to be "picking and choosing" - unless we are to create an alternative set of doctrines, to which orthodoxy itself can be compared. A kind of "super-orthodoxy" if you like.

Has orthodoxy itself picked and chosen? Of course it has! How do we suppose anyone might have ever come to a decision about which books should be included in the Bible, and which books should be excluded, if no-one had ever picked and chosen?

The whole point of the creeds is that the early church has made choices about what is orthodox, and what is heretical. A profession of the creeds carries the implication that those who set the creeds had the authority to set them in the way that they did.

If one person doesn't agree with the content of the creeds, that's fine. However, that alone is not enough to prompt "orthodoxy" to be redefined. However, there is no requirement for Christians to believe that orthodoxy has not made choices.

If there was a requirement that Christians believed that orthodoxy had not made choices, then that would serve to undermine the authority of the choices that orthodoxy has made. One of the effects of this would be to undermine the authority of the canonical lists, by which we can say that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the only four legitimate Gospels.

To accuse someone of "picking and choosing" is nothing more than a rhetorical device. It has no binding effect on the definition of Christian orthodoxy. If anyone has ever accused you of picking and choosing, Christian orthodoxy does not require you to believe that they might be right. So you needn't take it that seriously.

I'd be interested in knowing how RadicalWhig defines Christian orthodoxy.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
But if that's the case, then how could such teachings ever come to be considered "Christian" in the first place? It seems to me that the fact that there's a Christian identity to go with these teachings that you say are "of Jesus" is wholly dependent on the fact that there's a story of a bloke called "Jesus" that goes with the teachings. If you kept the teachings, but lost the story of Jesus, then the teachings would cease to be considered Christian.
The Socratic method would still be the Socratic method of Socrates had been a figment of Plato's imagination. It's the same thing.

We need to make a distinction between whether Jesus as a real living breathing person ever existed, and whether stories of Jesus exist.

Stories of Hitler exist. Stories of Hercules exist. Stories of Alexander the Great exist. Stories of Reynard the Fox exist. Stories of Paris Hilton exist. Stories of Lindsay Lohan exist. Stories of Bart Simpson exist.

Some of these were probably real people, others probably weren't. But that's not the point. The point is the stories.

There is a narrative thread running through Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo, and in my opinion, that constitutes a story of Socrates - or, rather, one story of Socrates. Whether Socrates actually existed or not is beside the point. I think you would find it quite difficult to remove the "story" from the "teachings", in a way which left the "teachings" intact. Most of the "teachings" of Socrates are presented in the form of dramatised dialogues, not unlike the way that the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides are presented.

And I suspect the same is true of Jesus. The Gospels are primarily narratives. They are only secondarily concerned with the teachings of Jesus; to the extent that they are concerned with those teachings, it's only as part of the larger plot of the overall story.

That's not to say that you can't isolate individual parables or sayings of Jesus. Of course you can; you can isolate individual parables and sayings just as much as you can isolate individual stories from Arabian Nights, or Ovid's Metamorphoses, or Apuleius's Golden Ass.

But what you can't do is extract a complete collection of sayings, parables and teachings of Jesus, and strip it of the story narrative, in a way that keeps those teachings intact. That's because, like the dialogues of Socrates, the meaning of much of Jesus's teaching is dependent upon its context within the overall narrative structure of the relevant Gospel.

Of course, you can try - but what will you do with the context-sensitive material? Will you simply exclude it? If so, then how will you decide which parts of the teachings of Jesus are context-sensitive, and which parts aren't?

Suddenly, the boundaries at the edge of what can and can't be thought of as the "teachings of Jesus" become a lot more slippery.

Don't you see how difficult this makes the use of some loosely defined notion of "the teachings of Jesus" to define orthodoxy?

If you were to say that the creeds are in some ways ambiguous, I would agree with you. But I think they're a lot less ambiguous than this notion of defining orthodoxy in terms of the teachings of Jesus that you seem to be getting at.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Good question. To my mind, Christian orthodoxy is following in way and spirit of Jesus, following a Jesus-centred ethic of life.

That means critically appreciating the teachings of the historical Jesus as depicted in the scriptures, understanding them and interpreting them, and following them as best we can.

Here are two "creeds" which I think are a lot more genuinely orthodox than those who claim to be orthodox would admit:

(1) "Love is the doctrine of this church. The quest for truth is its sacrament, and service is its prayer. To dwell together in peace; to seek knowledge in freedom; to serve humanity in fellowship; to the end that all souls shall grow together into harmony with the source and meaning of life." (From a Unitarian declaration of faith by L. Griswold Williams).

(2) "I believe in one God. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." (From the Rights of Man by Tom Paine).

It's hard to summarise all of what constitutes the trust and substance of Jesus' teachings in a few words, and neither of these is perfect, but both of these are much closer to what Jesus was getting at - the "Kingdom of God on Earth" - than the official received creeds of "orthodoxy".

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Good question. To my mind, Christian orthodoxy is following in way and spirit of Jesus, following a Jesus-centred ethic of life.

That means critically appreciating the teachings of the historical Jesus as depicted in the scriptures, understanding them and interpreting them, and following them as best we can.

Here are two "creeds" which I think are a lot more genuinely orthodox than those who claim to be orthodox would admit:

(1) "Love is the doctrine of this church. The quest for truth is its sacrament, and service is its prayer. To dwell together in peace; to seek knowledge in freedom; to serve humanity in fellowship; to the end that all souls shall grow together into harmony with the source and meaning of life." (From a Unitarian declaration of faith by L. Griswold Williams).

(2) "I believe in one God. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." (From the Rights of Man by Tom Paine).

It's hard to summarise all of what constitutes the trust and substance of Jesus' teachings in a few words, and neither of these is perfect, but both of these are much closer to what Jesus was getting at - the "Kingdom of God on Earth" - than the official received creeds of "orthodoxy".

OK, I get you.

#2 of course could happen without Jesus at all - it's strictly Judaism, Micah, and secular notions of the "equality of man" - but the first I would grant to have a strong Jesus influence, because of the emphasis on love.

And I do think you have a point there! I think there should be far more emphasis on love in the church - but then, lots of Christians throughout history have thought so, too. St. Francis, for example, and St. Nicholas and St. Seraphim and St. Martin - and St. Paul, now that I think of it! "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

I don't see the Creeds, though, in opposition to this - although it's very possible that they have become dry and rote and remote. It would be very interesting, in fact, to include "love" as an integral part of Christian orthodoxy! The Nicean Creed - and I Corinthians 13 together, maybe?

I must say I think it really would make a difference. I think the Creeds are actually quite generous - they don't demand more than assent to bare essentials. But maybe they themselves are only "philosoophy" and it would be good to make explicit an emphasis on love as part of "orthodoxy." Of course, this would also exclude people, many of whom are not able to give love initially but who might become so later.

But these are things worth thinking about....

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
What's blasphemous is to imagine that a person is God.

I think you finally might be getting it. On the other front, ordering a man to sacrifice his son makes Jehovah look pretty questionable ethically.

Zach

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, I get you.

Thank you. I mean that. Even when we don't agree, it is heartening to be heard and understood.

quote:
#2 of course could happen without Jesus at all - it's strictly Judaism, Micah, and secular notions of the "equality of man" - but the first I would grant to have a strong Jesus influence, because of the emphasis on love.

Yes, although one could also argue that the universality of the Paine quote, and notion of equality, are derived from Jesus' radical reinterpretation of the best of the Jewish prophetic tradition.

quote:
And I do think you have a point there! I think there should be far more emphasis on love in the church - but then, lots of Christians throughout history have thought so, too. St. Francis, for example, and St. Nicholas and St. Seraphim and St. Martin - and St. Paul, now that I think of it! "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

Unfortunately, it tends to get obscured by the exclusion of those who don't believe the right things in the right way.

quote:
I don't see the Creeds, though, in opposition to this - although it's very possible that they have become dry and rote and remote.

You are right. The creeds do not act directly against what I have said. They are fairly disconnected from it, in fact. But they do serve an exclusionary purpose: they exclude all those followers and disciples of Jesus who, although moved and inspired by his message, and keen to play their part in the building up of what he called the "Kingdom of God" (a way of life in which we live as if people actually mattered), do not buy into the whole Egyptian/Babylonian zombie death-cult side of it.

quote:
It would be very interesting, in fact, to include "love" as an integral part of Christian orthodoxy! The Nicean Creed - and I Corinthians 13 together, maybe?

It seems to me that a "creed", from "I believe", starts from the wrong premise. It makes acceptance of metaphysical claims, rather than commitment to ideals and a way of life, the central point. Jesus seemed pretty uninterested in ironing out the finer points of theology, and much more interested in how we live and act. Maybe a vow makes more sense than a creed: one would make a vow to follow Jesus, and would recite the terms of that vow. 1 Corinthians 13, and a few other choice verses from the old and new testaments (including perhaps the bit of Micah paraphrased by Tom Paine), might provide a starting point for wording.

quote:
I think the Creeds are actually quite generous - they don't demand more than assent to bare essentials.

Well, it all depends. I think they miss out the bare essentials of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus, and cram in a lot of metaphysical stuff which is, at best, a sort of pious fairy tale to be taken with a large pinch of metaphorical salt, and at worst is a serious stumbling-block to those who don't believe in magic resurrecting zombies.

I'm serious here. The message and the way of life taught by Jesus are too good - they are truly the way to what we might call "salvation" and "redemption", both of ourselves and our societies - to be made conditional on believing in superstitions. Unless a believable, non-supernatural Jesus can be recovered, there is no hope for humanity. Unless we can recover the teachings and the way of Jesus, in away which is compatible with our knowledge and rationality, we are doomed to live in a world without a path to mercy, grace, peace, love, joy, healing, liberation, forgiveness.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
What's blasphemous is to imagine that a person is God.
I think you finally might be getting it. On the other front, ordering a man to sacrifice his son makes Jehovah look pretty questionable ethically.

Indeed, but, as I've said before, Jehovah isn't God either. The God That Might Actually Exist is a lot bigger than the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", or any other human-created God of the Imagination.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob took a week to make the earth, couldn't see Adam and Eve when they were hiding, and had no idea about the humane transportation of animals on sea voyages. The real God is so much greater than fictional Jehovah.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

If God does not blaspheme, then you have no saviour RW.

If God did not assume full humanity then you are not healed.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Unless we can recover the teachings and the way of Jesus, in away which is compatible with our knowledge and rationality, we are doomed to live in a world without a path to mercy, grace, peace, love, joy, healing, liberation, forgiveness.

In effect, only a god that bows down to our reason and ethics can save us. Though, if God is already compatible with us, I can't see that there is any need to talk about redemption at all.

Zach

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I must say I think it really would make a difference. I think the Creeds are actually quite generous - they don't demand more than assent to bare essentials. But maybe they themselves are only "philosoophy" and it would be good to make explicit an emphasis on love as part of "orthodoxy." Of course, this would also exclude people, many of whom are not able to give love initially but who might become so later.

I agree about the risk of excluding people. Trying to make the "love cult" into a defining characteristic of Christianity strikes me as problematic for a number of reasons - not least of all by how love is defined.

Is "love" intended to impose a behaviour requirement on Christians? If so, then how will that be sized up? What about people who have illnesses, or disabilities, or who are imprisoned?

And perhaps the biggest elephant in the room: will Jesus defeat Satan by loving him?

If the answer to that is yes, then how do you square that with the pre-existing creedal statement that says "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" ...?

How exactly do you judge someone by loving them?

Naah, sorry, can't see it working.

I for one would feel much more "judged" by being told that I'm about to be killed for my sins, than by being told that I'm about to be loved for my sins. But perhaps that's just me, maybe I'm weird.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Unless we can recover the teachings and the way of Jesus, in away which is compatible with our knowledge and rationality, we are doomed to live in a world without a path to mercy, grace, peace, love, joy, healing, liberation, forgiveness.
In effect, only a god that bows down to our reason and ethics can save us. Though, if God is already compatible with us, I can't see that there is any need to talk about redemption at all.

It's not about God bowing down to our reason and ethics. It's about finding the best way to live, and developing an idea of God which is believable and capable of promoting that way. A sort of Deism-for-Jesus does that for me. There's plenty of challenge there. And if you can't see the need for redemption, I suggest you have a look around you.

[ 02. January 2011, 21:21: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
It's not about God bowing down to our reason and ethics. It's about finding the best way to life, and developing an idea of God which is believable and capable of promoting that way. A sort of Deism-for-Jesus does that for me. There's plenty of challenge there. And if you can't see the need for redemption, I suggest you have a look around you.

It may not be about that, but it's what your god does anyhow. "The best way to life" is according to our own reason and ethics, and your god is obligingly compatible to that. Since you already have reason, then you don't really need God at all, and certainly not salvation. You already have the tools you need, and if there is to be any God at all, well he can hardly contradict you. And you preach to us about blasphemy. You expound on a tame god that you can be comfortable with in your reason and say we are setting up idols!

According to Karl Barth, "The Gospel does not expound or recommend itself. It does not negotiate or plead, threaten or make promises. It withdraws itself always when it is not listened to for its own sake." We Christians do not have a reasonable account for the catholic faith. A reasonable account is impossible, for our own point for the Incarnation is a soteriological one-- our human reason needs to be redeemed as much as the rest of the world.

Zach

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I agree about the risk of excluding people. Trying to make the "love cult" into a defining characteristic of Christianity strikes me as problematic for a number of reasons - not least of all by how love is defined.

Is "love" intended to impose a behaviour requirement on Christians? If so, then how will that be sized up? What about people who have illnesses, or disabilities, or who are imprisoned?

And perhaps the biggest elephant in the room: will Jesus defeat Satan by loving him?

If the answer to that is yes, then how do you square that with the pre-existing creedal statement that says "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" ...?

How exactly do you judge someone by loving them?

Naah, sorry, can't see it working.

I for one would feel much more "judged" by being told that I'm about to be killed for my sins, than by being told that I'm about to be loved for my sins. But perhaps that's just me, maybe I'm weird.

Well, RW's original quote said this: "Love is the doctrine of this church."

That imposes behavior on the church itself, as far as I can tell - which really isn't a bad idea, in my view! The church has failed time and again in this area, IMO, and it might be something of a good idea to remind the PTB (aka "hierarchy," or whatever term you prefer) what the reason for the church's existence actually is.

And I can't argue with RW that love is supposed to be a distinguishing characteristic of the church! And surely that's what doctrine is all about - pinpointing what is unique and carving away what doesn't belong?

I'm just thinking aloud, really. I think this is somehow pretty important, actually.....

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It may not be about that, but it's what your god does anyhow. "The best way to life" is according to our own reason and ethics, and your god is obligingly compatible to that.

As opposed to your god, who is obligingly compatible with your religious creeds, heh? But yes, there is a congruence - as you would expect - between what I believe about God (which is essentially a sort of Deist/Pantheist God) and what I believe about ethics. The key touch-stones are reverence and interconnectivity. We are all one: love one another.

quote:
Since you already have reason, then you don't really need God at all, and certainly not salvation.

No, there's no "need" of God, in the sense of a psychological crutch or heavenly prefect. Following Jesus would work just as well for an atheist. The only difference between me and an atheist disciple of Jesus is that I happen, as a point of speculation, to believe in God. But whether or not we believe in God is secondary to the central point, which is how we live and love.

quote:
You already have the tools you need, and if there is to be any God at all, well he can hardly contradict you.

Yes. Have tools, must build. Can't wait for the big man in the sky to switch the cosmic stick from "fucked" to "sorted".

quote:
And you preach to us about blasphemy.

Yes, because you worship a man as a god, and you confuse the human-invented anthropomorphic god of the OT with the real God of Nature.

quote:
You expound on a tame god that you can be comfortable with in your reason and say we are setting up idols!

It's not about "tame gods". It's about how best to live. It's not my fault God is everywhere and everything and so can't possibly go around impregnating nubile virgins or turning into wafers. Strange as it might seem, I'm actually criticising the limitedness of your views of incarnation; for me, the whole universe is equally divine, I see Nature in everything.

quote:
According to Karl Barth, "The Gospel does not expound or recommend itself. It does not negotiate or plead, threaten or make promises. It withdraws itself always when it is not listened to for its own sake." We Christians do not have a reasonable account for the catholic faith. A reasonable account is impossible, for our own point for the Incarnation is a soteriological one-- our human reason needs to be redeemed as much as the rest of the world.

In other words, "we are making this shit up and we know it doesn't make any sense".[/QB][/QUOTE]

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The creeds do not act directly against what I have said. They are fairly disconnected from it, in fact. But they do serve an exclusionary purpose: they exclude all those followers and disciples of Jesus who, although moved and inspired by his message, and keen to play their part in the building up of what he called the "Kingdom of God" (a way of life in which we live as if people actually mattered), do not buy into the whole Egyptian/Babylonian zombie death-cult side of it.

Pray, tell me, what exactly do you think is wrong with Egyptian Babylonian zombie death-cults anyway?

I can't help thinking that it's not a very post-colonial way of looking at things. It seems to be rooted in a desire to make a distinction between "them" and "us", which itself is a legacy of colonialism. The Egyptian Babylonian zombies and death cult members are the bad guys who don't love, whereas we are the good guys who do love. And we're going to show them how to love, by kicking their asses!

Doesn't sound like love to me.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Unless a believable, non-supernatural Jesus can be recovered, there is no hope for humanity. Unless we can recover the teachings and the way of Jesus, in away which is compatible with our knowledge and rationality, we are doomed to live in a world without a path to mercy, grace, peace, love, joy, healing, liberation, forgiveness.

Sounds like a lot of pacifist idealism to me.

Does death not bother you? Does hunger not bother you? Does disease not bother you? Does pain not bother you?

What about predators - like wolves and vultures. Do they not bother you?

The way I see it is that you can be as idealistic as you like - however, in the current world as it stands, naturally-occurring environmental differences will give rise to inequalities, which in turn will give rise to injustices.

The only way in which human society can overcome those injustices is to allocate different roles to different people; some are food-production workers, some protect the civilisation against predators and natural disasters, and a few occupy government and administrative roles to co-ordinate the activities of these other two groups.

Snag is - that system will naturally give rise to other inequalities and injustices of its own.

Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with idealism. But it seems that you are not acknowledging all the possible kinds of suffering and injustice that may occur in the world. I think that creedal Christianity, as it stands, does acknowledge it, at least implicitly, and also proposes a stronger sense of hope for a future better world.

The relevant Nicene Creed lines are "He will come to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end" - and, "We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."

If you drop those lines, then what you're left with is not orthodox Christianity. I don't think you have yet made a case in favour of dropping those lines. I won't be convinced that these lines should be dropped from the creeds, unless you're able to replace it with something else that expresses either a more explicit acknowledgement of the pain and suffering of the current world, or something that offers an even stronger sense of hope that things will be better some day, even in spite of our own individual deaths.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And I can't argue with RW that love is supposed to be a distinguishing characteristic of the church! And surely that's what doctrine is all about - pinpointing what is unique and carving away what doesn't belong?

That still ducks the question of whether Jesus will defeat Satan by loving him or not, in my opinion.

A related question to that is the question of whether or not we should love our own deaths. It could be argued that if we are supposed to love death, then we shouldn't be worried about all this afterlife and apocalypse nonsense anyway. It could even be argued that we are being selfish and unloving if we live beyond our "allotted time".

What about idols? Are we supposed to love them too? No? Well, in that case, what about the people who have created the idols? Don't you think they might be slightly upset if we smashed those idols? Maybe you think it's possible to love the creator of an idol, without loving the idol itself - but what if the person who created the idol thought that the idol symbolised a war hero, that they're related to, and whose loss on the battlefield they're still grieving? Going round wantonly smashing up war memorials and burial headstones really is not my idea of "love".

However, placing a behavioural requirement of "love" on Christians may also require Christians to be idolatrous as a side-effect. I'm not opposed to idolatry - I think grieving relatives of war heroes have got every right to set up memorials - but I don't think that idolatry should be made compulsory.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
In other words, "we are making this shit up and we know it doesn't make any sense

What's really confounding is that, knowing precisely what we are going to say, you continue to hold forth about how unreasonable we catholic Christians are in thread after thread after thread after thread...

Zach

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Jessie Phillips:

What I'd like to know is whether you are deliberately understanding me, or whether you really don't get a word of what I'm saying.

Do you think I am some sort of naive idealist? No. Jesus was KILLED, remember. Oppression, suffering, hatred, violence, exploitation are all too real. I see following the teachings of Jesus as the best way out of that on the ethical, personal level. As for trying to find practical, political, economic sorts of solutions, well, that's why I became a political scientist in the first place; it's part of my vocation in following Jesus, ultimately trying to find ways to love my neighbour.

What I don't see is how making up religious fairytales is going to make any real difference.

You seem to think that some words in the creed are what it takes to confront the reality of evil, when what it actually takes is our commitment, character, courage and comradeship.

And here's the thing: I follow Jesus of Nazareth, and I can personally attest to the power and the goodness of that way. But I'm not allowed to join in with that, because the religionists have captured the Jesus-movement and turned it into a death cult (not that there's anything wrong with Egyptian-Babylonian zombie death cults, if that's your bag, but it's got nothing to do with Jesus and makes no contribution to human well-being). I think your notions of God are blasphemous human inventions, you think mine are blasphemous human inventions too; but why should that stand in the way of what matters? How can we love the God whom we do not see, if we cannot love the neighbours whom we do see? Why does orthodoxy have always to be defined on the creedalists terms, such that those who don't subscribe to the zombie cult are excluded from fellowship and from developing their discipleship in the company of others? Well, I've had all the reasons for that, and I'm not convinced - I think you've got it wrong, and that Jesus, if he were alive today, would agree with me.

Now, that's not to say that I can't see the merit in the grand Christian story. I can. But it's a story, a myth that gives meaning. If it is taught and treated as such, I have no problem with it. I even have no problem with the idea that, in a strange non-literal sense, so long as his teaching and way are alive, "Jesus is alive" too. But being able to believe in it as fact should not debarr someone from being a sincere disciple.

Ironically, none of this even reared its head until I asked to be baptised. It took me many years of growth and reflection to come to the point of wanting to make such a commitment to the way of Jesus - and, despite being in a church which was relatively liberal by some standards, I was told that I couldn't be baptised because I didn't believe the "right" things. That is why I am concerned about the definition of "orthodoxy", and grieved that the wrong criteria are used.

There's a book called Christianarchy which I read long ago. It makes a distinction between the "bounded" group and the "centered" group. The bounded group has hard boundaries determined by standards of right belief and outward conformity. The centred group has no boundaries, but is drawn towards the centre that is Jesus. It is a terrible pity that the movement of renewal centered on Jesus so quickly became a church bounded by so-called orthodoxy.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
That still ducks the question of whether Jesus will defeat Satan by loving him or not, in my opinion.

A related question to that is the question of whether or not we should love our own deaths. It could be argued that if we are supposed to love death, then we shouldn't be worried about all this afterlife and apocalypse nonsense anyway. It could even be argued that we are being selfish and unloving if we live beyond our "allotted time".

What about idols? Are we supposed to love them too? No? Well, in that case, what about the people who have created the idols? Don't you think they might be slightly upset if we smashed those idols? Maybe you think it's possible to love the creator of an idol, without loving the idol itself - but what if the person who created the idol thought that the idol symbolised a war hero, that they're related to, and whose loss on the battlefield they're still grieving? Going round wantonly smashing up war memorials and burial headstones really is not my idea of "love".

However, placing a behavioural requirement of "love" on Christians may also require Christians to be idolatrous as a side-effect. I'm not opposed to idolatry - I think grieving relatives of war heroes have got every right to set up memorials - but I don't think that idolatry should be made compulsory.

You seem to have ignored what I actually said - that the requirement is laid on the church, not on individuals - in favor of your own interpretation, so there seems little point in responding.

Still, Jesus did ask his followers to "love our enemies" - in addition to God and our neighbors - so the requirement actually does seem to exist anyway, from the man's own mouth. I'm not sure what "smashing up war memorials and burial headstones" has to do with anything, though....

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Incidentally, although I'm excluded from mainstream church because of my unitarian/deist beliefs about God, I still feel a strong urge to be baptised. This started about last easter and has only become stronger. I see baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus as a symbolic act of commitment to the way of Jesus of Nazareth, enjoined by Jesus himself, a sign of washing clean the wrongdoing of the past, of saying no to the selfish part of myself and saying yes to discipleship. If anyone here is willing to baptise me, even though I am a heretic by the standards of the "Christian orthodoxy", please PM me. I will travel anywhere in the EU.

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Incidentally, although I'm excluded from mainstream church because of my unitarian/deist beliefs about God, I still feel a strong urge to be baptised. This started about last easter and has only become stronger. I see baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus as a symbolic act of commitment to the way of Jesus of Nazareth, enjoined by Jesus himself, a sign of washing clean the wrongdoing of the past, of saying no to the selfish part of myself and saying yes to discipleship. If anyone here is willing to baptise me, even though I am a heretic by the standards of the "Christian orthodoxy", please PM me. I will travel anywhere in the EU.

Why not 'baptise' yourself? Surely it isn't necessary to follow the rules of Christian orthodoxy re: having to have someone else do it to you.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm excluded from mainstream church because of my unitarian/deist beliefs about God, I still feel a strong urge to be baptised.

You don't help yourself by insulting everyone's faith. Will you be this brusque with the minister who baptises you?

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
Why not 'baptise' yourself? Surely it isn't necessary to follow the rules of Christian orthodoxy re: having to have someone else do it to you.

My understanding of Jesus' teaching is that being baptised by another disciple is the norm.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm excluded from mainstream church because of my unitarian/deist beliefs about God, I still feel a strong urge to be baptised.
You don't help yourself by insulting everyone's faith. Will you be this brusque with the minister who baptises you?

No, if he or she is willing to do it, it means there's no reason to be brusque, because their understanding is broad enough not to merit harsh criticism. If they are fine with my beliefs, I'm fine with theirs.

[ 03. January 2011, 00:08: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Apologies; I've gone on a tangent away from the OP and away from my definition of orthodoxy vs official orthodoxy... ...I won't pursue the baptism question further here. PM me if you can be of help.

Posted by mattyou (# 15646) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Incidentally, although I'm excluded from mainstream church because of my unitarian/deist beliefs about God, I still feel a strong urge to be baptised. This started about last easter and has only become stronger. I see baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus as a symbolic act of commitment to the way of Jesus of Nazareth, enjoined by Jesus himself, a sign of washing clean the wrongdoing of the past, of saying no to the selfish part of myself and saying yes to discipleship. If anyone here is willing to baptise me, even though I am a heretic by the standards of the "Christian orthodoxy", please PM me. I will travel anywhere in the EU.

try your local church. If that one fails try another.

I doubt you'll have to look far.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Radical Whig

Mate, you're brilliant, traumatized, broken by war and injustice and the insanity that pervades us all.

I was binitarian. Practically bitheistic. Didn't believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit. I submitted to it as a given. It took me another ten years to encounter perichoresis: the eternal dance of the triune God. The Person of Persons, Mind of Minds. Metamind, metaperson. Whatever.

Lay it down man. Lay down your inability to grasp the ineffable. We ALL have to. Repeatedly.

You understand Islam. Too well. Submit.

To be baptized is to be immersed in the dance. Lifted up in the Spirit by the Son to the Father. To be included. Completely. Completed. NOT assimilated. Not in the Borg.

To become fully significant. Important. Along with every body else.

To rationalize against that, to deny the hypostatic union of God become us that we become God is to remain autonomous.

Lost. Alienated. Unit-arian.

There is no compromise.

There is ONLY total immersion, inclusion in God.

When the Father looks down at the end of the age, all He will see is the Son.

Give up mate.

Or you'll find some fool to baptize you in isolation.

You are SO right that orthopraxis is orthodoxy.

Submit your confusion and rebellion and pride and resistance and rationalism and revulsion on your knees at the foot of the cross and let your tears mingle with the blasphemous blood of the God you murdered.

[ 03. January 2011, 00:35: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
If they are fine with my beliefs, I'm fine with theirs.

And by fine with your beliefs you mean "Willing to admit them as part of the Christian religion?" Because that's all that's being discussed here.

Zach

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
If they are fine with my beliefs, I'm fine with theirs.
And by fine with your beliefs you mean "Willing to admit them as part of the Christian religion?" Because that's all that's being discussed here.

Yes. I mean, I'm not too concerned about the label as such. But yes, they'd have to accept that my approach is a valid one. In other words, I don't want to have to lie about my true beliefs.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Baptism would be about accepting you into the Christian community, which means accepting into our community the assertion that we are a "a blasphemous concoction of cannibalistic mystery-cult pseudo-Egyptian idol-worship, and deserves about as much respect as Scientology or Satanism," as you put it. Doesn't that expectation of yours seem a little absurd to you?

Zach

[ 03. January 2011, 01:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Baptism would be about accepting you into the Christian community, which means accepting into our community the assertion that we are a "a blasphemous concoction of cannibalistic mystery-cult pseudo-Egyptian idol-worship, and deserves about as much respect as Scientology or Satanism," as you put it. Doesn't that expectation of yours seem a little absurd to you?

No. Baptism is public commitment to the way and life of Jesus and a personal act of consecration, pledging one's life to being a part of the movement of redemption, salvation, liberation and healing which Jesus' teaching ushers in.

"The blasphemous concoction of cannibalistic mystery-cult pseudo-Egyptian idol-worship", which "deserves about as much respect as Scientology or Satanism," has nothing to do with following the way of Jesus. In fact it is directly opposed to that way. Orthodox Christians can have their religion; I don't want to be baptised into their religion; I want to be baptised as a follower of Jesus (whom their religion misappropriates, parodies, idolises, worships, and ignores).

Ship's Biohazard: interesting post; I understood some but not all of it. Still a bit too cryptic for me.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Whig, no one is doubting the validity of your beliefs. We simply do not find them to be part of the Christian religion. You seem to be of the opinion that Christians and God are both obligated to accept your beliefs into our fold and baptize you. Since you are demanding baptism from us, then you should know that we do not see baptism as a mere commitment to be nice to everyone. We see it as inclusion in the Triune life of the Spirit, a doctrine you explicity reject. Therefore you cannot be baptized. We are not any more obligated to accept your beliefs than you are to accept ours. You can disagree with us all you like... which is precisely why you aren't one of us. Like it or not, being one of us rests on accepting certain doctrines which you find utterly deplorable.

Zach

[ 03. January 2011, 01:40: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

That was an awesome post, Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

A parable.
Imagine: I'm a Scottish Nationalist. I believe in the story of Robert the Bruce, and the values of Robert Burns, and the Declaration of Arbroath, and David Hume and Adam Smith - freedom from governmental interference and oppression, such as taxation, excise, and so on. The problem is that name 'Scottish Nationalist' has been appropriated by Little Scotlanders: primitivists with romantic ideas of independent nation states and socialistic attitudes to economic reality. It's true that there are traces of support for Scottish independence from England in the Declaration of Arbroath or in Robert Burns, but that's outdated nonsense which has no bearing on the real message of the Declaration of Arbroath, which is free-market libertarian economics. True Scottish Nationalism recognises that closer incorporation into England is the way forward. (And while we're about it, we should translate Burns into modern standard English.)

I think that if I were to try to join a branch of the Scottish Nationalist Party, with the avowed intention of reforming it to hold the above views (not my actual opinions!), I would probably not be successful in getting them to recognise them as a valid form of Scottish Nationalism.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

I agree with you to a certain extent in that I share Hans Kung's view that the historical Jesus is one tool (Note, I said One tool) that the Church uses to discern whether it is getting the message right or not.

Which church would that be Anglican-Brat? Or do you try and harmonise them all and accept the Spirit as heterodox in expression of the risen Christ? [Biased]

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Do you think I am some sort of naive idealist? No. Jesus was KILLED, remember. Oppression, suffering, hatred, violence, exploitation are all too real. I see following the teachings of Jesus as the best way out of that on the ethical, personal level. As for trying to find practical, political, economic sorts of solutions, well, that's why I became a political scientist in the first place; it's part of my vocation in following Jesus, ultimately trying to find ways to love my neighbour.

What I don't see is how making up religious fairytales is going to make any real difference.

Okay, thanks for clarifying - but your clarification has raised more questions than it has answered.

You previously seemed to suggest that it's important for Christianity to be able to do without its fairy tales, because the teachings of Jesus stands on its own merit - but now you're saying that it's important that Jesus was KILLED. In CAPITAL LETTERS.

I had previously assumed that the belief that Jesus was killed was one of those "fairy tales" you wanted to reject. But it seems as though it isn't.

The way I look at it is that if the teachings of Jesus really do stand on their own merit, then it shouldn't make any difference whether Jesus was killed or not. Indeed, it shouldn't make any difference whether or not Jesus ever existed in the first place.

But now you're saying that it does matter? In that case, you will need to be clearer about which fairy tales you think are important, and which ones you think Christianity should lose. Are there other fairy tales about Jesus that you think are important - or is his death the only one?

And on the same theme:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Now, that's not to say that I can't see the merit in the grand Christian story. I can. But it's a story, a myth that gives meaning. If it is taught and treated as such, I have no problem with it. I even have no problem with the idea that, in a strange non-literal sense, so long as his teaching and way are alive, "Jesus is alive" too.

If you've explained yourself properly on that point, then I think I agree with you on it fully.

The thing that I disagree with you on is the idea that it's possible to separate the "teaching of Jesus" on the one hand, from the "myth" or "story" on the other.

Whilst on the one hand you seem to be railing against the "myths" of Jesus, on the other hand, it appears as though you've got your own notion of a "story of Jesus" that you're not letting on. I don't know what that story is - but it's clearly different to the traditional story. If it wasn't, you'd have no grounds for railing against the "myths" and "fairy tales".

So you're going to have to tell that story, if you want us to understand it. It may seem like it's obvious to you - but don't assume it's obvious to the rest of us. And it's no good just telling us to read one of the Gospels either; I think you're going to have to put it in your own words if you want people to see where you're coming from. Thanks.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Still, Jesus did ask his followers to "love our enemies" - in addition to God and our neighbors - so the requirement actually does seem to exist anyway, from the man's own mouth. I'm not sure what "smashing up war memorials and burial headstones" has to do with anything, though....

The point I was trying to make - which I don't think I made very well - was that if there is a behavioural requirement on Christians to "love", then there are all sorts of complicated what-ifs that may make it difficult to realise. The way that you square Christianity's traditional prohibition of idolatry with people's need to grieve for their dead relatives is one of them, but there are lots of others besides this.

There's nothing wrong with talking about what it means to love; on the contrary, I think it should be talked about. But I think it's a bad idea to make it a defining characteristic of orthodoxy. Why? Because it will lead to an existential crisis within Christianity. That existential crisis will then be seized upon to generate more schisms and separations of denominations - and, in my opinion, we've had enough of that in Christianity already, I can't see the point in creating excuses for more of it.

But if there isn't a formal requirement on people to love, then we have a situation that's no different to how things are now. People will say that Christians are a bunch of people who always talk about love but never do anything practical about it.

But you suggest it should be a requirement on the church, but not the people - however, I don't see the distinction between the church and the people.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Whig, no one is doubting the validity of your beliefs. We simply do not find them to be part of the Christian religion. You seem to be of the opinion that Christians and God are both obligated to accept your beliefs into our fold and baptize you. Since you are demanding baptism from us, then you should know that we do not see baptism as a mere commitment to be nice to everyone. We see it as inclusion in the Triune life of the Spirit, a doctrine you explicity reject. Therefore you cannot be baptized. We are not any more obligated to accept your beliefs than you are to accept ours. You can disagree with us all you like... which is precisely why you aren't one of us. Like it or not, being one of us rests on accepting certain doctrines which you find utterly deplorable.

Zach

I for one don't think we can speculate about an individual poster's motives. Why should the question of whether or not RadicalWhig wants to be baptised make any difference to the way we define Christian orthodoxy?

Beliefs don't really get in the way of Christian baptism, any more than they get in the way of initiation to any other religion. Provided you go along to evening meetings that last for a few hours, take place roughly once a week, and repeat for a few months - and as long as you make more or less the right noises at those meetings and the ceremony that follows them, then bingo! You are baptised! What you actually believe is completely inconsequential, as long as you keep it to yourself - just for the time being at least, until you've got the ceremony and the photo-shoot out of the way.

I think the issue of baptism is a red herring!

Personally, I think that the way that the orthodoxy of different religions is defined is a bit like the way that the boundaries between different languages are defined. Latin and Italian are clearly very similar, when compared to other languages - yet they are two different languages.

Dante's Divine Comedy is a classic of Italian literature. At the time it was written, Italian was only just beginning to develop an identity as a separate language from Latin, as opposed to merely being a regional dialect of Latin.

However, in spite of the greatness of the Divine Comedy, no-one would doggedly insist that it's in Latin. No-one would insist that the question of what is, and what is not, Latin, should be rethought in the light of the Divine Comedy - and no-one thinks that the Latin language should be broadened to include the Divine Comedy. It's true that languages and their vocabulary changes as time goes by - but there comes a time when regional dialects break off and form separate languages.

And I see the relationship between RadicalWhig's beliefs and Christianity as the same. Sure, the things RadicalWhig seems to be saying have got some things going for them. And I grant that they do indeed bear some loose resemblance to Christianity. However, the same is true of the Italian language's resemblance to Latin. RadicalWhig's beliefs are no more a form of Christianity than the Divine Comedy is a work of Latin.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Whig, no one is doubting the validity of your beliefs. We simply do not find them to be part of the Christian religion.

Yes, I have understood and accepted that point. I'm not a believer in the Christian religion and I have no intention of re-joining it.

quote:
You seem to be of the opinion that Christians and God are both obligated to accept your beliefs into our fold and baptize you.

I don't think that "God is obligated to accept" my beliefs; I think that my beliefs are the most true and honouring understanding of God - that's why I hold them. I'm not "watering down" for my own convenience; I'm refining and purifying to get closer to the truth.

I don't think that Christians are obligated to accept my beliefs as Christian either. As I've said, I'm not that worried about the labels, and if the "orthodox" want to monopolise the name of Christian then there's nothing I can do about it.

However, baptism does not only belong to those who are believers in the Christian religion, but to all who are followers of Jesus.

quote:
Since you are demanding baptism from us, then you should know that we do not see baptism as a mere commitment to be nice to everyone. We see it as inclusion in the Triune life of the Spirit, a doctrine you explicity reject. Therefore you cannot be baptized.

I'm not demanding baptism from you; I've understand that that's not going to happen, because you see it so differently. You cannot stop me being baptised in accordance with Jesus' example and instruction. Christianity does not have a monopoly on Jesus or on baptism.

quote:
We are not any more obligated to accept your beliefs than you are to accept ours. You can disagree with us all you like... which is precisely why you aren't one of us. Like it or not, being one of us rests on accepting certain doctrines which you find utterly deplorable.

I don't want to be one of you.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Provided you go along to evening meetings that last for a few hours, take place roughly once a week, and repeat for a few months - and as long as you make more or less the right noises at those meetings and the ceremony that follows them, then bingo! You are baptised! What you actually believe is completely inconsequential, as long as you keep it to yourself - just for the time being at least, until you've got the ceremony and the photo-shoot out of the way.

No, no, no, and a thousand times, no. I've done that for years. I've turned up to church and kept my mouth shut, filtering out the good from the irrelevant and the absurd. I don't do that anymore. If I could find a religious community where that wasn't necessary, I'd join it, but I won't find it in a trinitarian, orthodox, creedal, Christian church - because those churches are wrong, in my opinion.

quote:
Personally, I think that the way that the orthodoxy of different religions is defined is a bit like the way that the boundaries between different languages are defined.

Ok, interesting analogy. But, as I see it, orthodox christians are speaking Italian and claiming it is Latin; I'm trying to rediscover the language of Cicero.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Whig, no one is doubting the validity of your beliefs. We simply do not find them to be part of the Christian religion.
Yes, I have understood and accepted that point. I'm not a believer in the Christian religion and I have no intention of re-joining it.

Who is this "we" you speak of? You speak for Christendom Zach? What are you, the Pope?

[Killing me]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Who is this "we" you speak of? You speak for Christendom Zach? What are you, the Pope?

Precisely the same "We" as "We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, Eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made..."

Zach

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Whig, no one is doubting the validity of your beliefs. We simply do not find them to be part of the Christian religion.
Yes, I have understood and accepted that point. I'm not a believer in the Christian religion and I have no intention of re-joining it.
Who is this "we" you speak of? You speak for Christendom Zach? What are you, the Pope?

Another common fallacious assumption. Just because person A says he thinks that the articulated beliefs of person B is not part of the Christian religion, it does not mean that person A speaks on behalf of that religion, any more than person B does.

I don't think that the beliefs RadicalWhig has expressed so far constitute orthodoxy, and I don't believe RadicalWhig speaks on behalf of Christianity, and I don't believe that Zach82 speaks on behalf of Christianity either. But does that mean that I do speak on behalf of Christianity? Course it doesn't!

I for one have got my own beefs about orthodoxy. Not least of all the fact that I think the concept of the "formless" god, and the related prohibition of idolatry, is itself merely the product of a rather short-sighted attempt to make out that Hebrew religion is somehow inherently "better" than Egyptian religion, in a way which I find wholly unconvincing. It creates and perpetuates a "them and us" dichotomy. Although it's not the only thing that creates a "them and us" dichotomy, it is nevertheless a component of colonialist thought.

But so what? That doesn't mean that I think Christian orthodoxy should be redefined so as to be a bit more post-colonial.

Now, if the leaders of both the Eastern and Western churches got together one day, and rallied around an agreement to make Christianity a bit more post-colonial, well, good for them. But I can't see it happening any time soon.

But in the meantime, we still need to be able to talk about what Christianity is, and what it isn't. And that gets made more difficult if we pretend that Christianity is broader than it has historically been, just to suit the fashions of the day. Granted, it doesn't make it impossible - but it does make it more difficult. That's because we'd need to start talking about "Christianity version 1.0", "Christianity version 1.1" and so on, and we'd need to start pegging the various different version numbers on the dates that they arose.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The point I was trying to make - which I don't think I made very well - was that if there is a behavioural requirement on Christians to "love", then there are all sorts of complicated what-ifs that may make it difficult to realise. The way that you square Christianity's traditional prohibition of idolatry with people's need to grieve for their dead relatives is one of them, but there are lots of others besides this.

There's nothing wrong with talking about what it means to love; on the contrary, I think it should be talked about. But I think it's a bad idea to make it a defining characteristic of orthodoxy. Why? Because it will lead to an existential crisis within Christianity. That existential crisis will then be seized upon to generate more schisms and separations of denominations - and, in my opinion, we've had enough of that in Christianity already, I can't see the point in creating excuses for more of it.

But if there isn't a formal requirement on people to love, then we have a situation that's no different to how things are now. People will say that Christians are a bunch of people who always talk about love but never do anything practical about it.

But you suggest it should be a requirement on the church, but not the people - however, I don't see the distinction between the church and the people.

Yeah, there are problems with this, I completely agree. I'm still thinking about it - which is really all I wanted to do anyway. I've been thinking about it for years, actually.

I myself have issues with the way "orthodoxy" is used as a weapon at present, which is why I can understand RW's objections, I guess. OTOH, I myself don't have a problem with the Creeds as the "definition of Christianity" either - as I've been saying, everything else gets defined, so why not a religion? It's just that I think they may not be saying all there is to say - and I think it might be interesting to consider this, that's all.

Perhaps it's enough to say, "If you can't believe this now, just leave it open; you're still welcome. Lots of people have 'come to believe' over time, and that could happen for you, too. Meantime, let's work on that 'love' thing...."

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Anyway, I think I've about exhausted this thread. To summarise:

(1) Your orthodoxy is orthodoxy to you, I think you are wrong, so I'm not orthodox, even though my beliefs are, in my view, more correct than yours. So be it.

(2) You think that orthodoxy defines Christianity. I don't think it should, because it's an incorrect perversion of Jesus' message, but I accept that, on point of fact, the word Christian has been monopolised by those who can only see it in an orthodox way, and that sometimes language must concede sense to usage.

(3) Baptism is a response to following Jesus, not to accepting certain invented ideas about Jesus. It doesn't mean I want to join your religion, because I think your religion has got it wrong.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
You think that orthodoxy defines Christianity. I don't think it should, because it's an incorrect perversion of Jesus' message

About the incarnation and Trinity there's room for doubt, obviously. But I find it hard to see how you can be claiming to follow Jesus' message if you think he was wrong about there being a personal God. Unless you think the entirety of the Gospels were composed by the Committee for Misleading Later Historians, I think it's clear that Jesus regarded his ethical teaching as subordinate to his message about God.

If you assume that Paul and the later church were wrong about Jesus, and take out from the Gospels everything that came from them, then you're not left with an ethical teacher (that's Paul): you're left with an apocalyptic prophet and cultist whose message was largely about the coming independence of Israel as a result of divine vengeance against the Romans.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
You think that orthodoxy defines Christianity. I don't think it should, because it's an incorrect perversion of Jesus' message
About the incarnation and Trinity there's room for doubt, obviously. But I find it hard to see how you can be claiming to follow Jesus' message if you think he was wrong about there being a personal God. Unless you think the entirety of the Gospels were composed by the Committee for Misleading Later Historians, I think it's clear that Jesus regarded his ethical teaching as subordinate to his message about God.

Ok, I do agree that Jesus believed in a personal, monotheistic God (and he did not believe he was in any way part of the Godhead, although he did believe himself to be a prophet). Now, I don't conceive of God in that way, and to that extent I disagree with Jesus. I'd also agree that his thoughts about God inspired his ethical teaching. But here's the thing: those teaching still work, even if you don't really think of God in the same way.

quote:
If you assume that Paul and the later church were wrong about Jesus, and take out from the Gospels everything that came from them, then you're not left with an ethical teacher (that's Paul): you're left with an apocalyptic prophet and cultist whose message was largely about the coming independence of Israel as a result of divine vengeance against the Romans.

I've never denied that Jesus was a subversive revolutionary - a bit like Moses, and quite a few other prophets.

Tony Benn said that the bible is a book about the battle between the priests, who defend the status quo and protect the powers that be, and the prophets who call for a radically equalitarian righteousness. I'm with the prophets. I don't necessarily think about God in the same way as they did, but the impulse is the same. I think its origins really lie in sensitivity to humanity.

But that doesn't detract from the fact that Jesus - and, to be fair, Paul - did offer an excellent challenge to how to live, and how to act and treat people, so that we can bring about the new birth of a better, more loving and restored humanity, which Jesus called the "Kingdom of God".

Would it make everyone more comfortable if I said, once and for all:

quote:

"I'm not a Christian.

I'm a deistic, pantheistic unitarian.

I have a strong commitment to the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth as a sublime ethical teacher, an inspiring prophet of liberation, and a champion of all that is best in the human spirit.

I have a high regard of the Bible as a treasure-trove of human wisdom and experience, and as a record of humanity's struggle for righteousness, holiness, goodness, and liberation, but I do not take it literally, nor regard it as perfect, inspired, or the word of God.

I can be inspired by the Christian narrative, with its stories of creation, fall, liberation, incarnation, passion, resurrection, eschatology etc. I see it as a great journey from slavery, through law, to love. But I don't take it literally. It's myth. A good myth.

I believe that the Christian religion can offers an excellent way to live, even if it is not actually true. I try to live in accordance with the way and the mission of Jesus, as best I can understand and apply it, by trying to cultivate what Christianity calls the "fruits of the spirit" and by trying to be an instrument of love, forgiveness, healing, reconciliation, liberation etc.

I believe that Jesus did start a social movement, known as his church, which carried on his work and teaching after his death. This "alternative" or "parallel" community serves two functions. The first is to be a place of love, forgiveness, healing etc, where we can go to be set free and to learn to be a better person in company with others on a similar journey. The second is to give that goodness back to the world, in continuing the work of ministering love to humanity and the world. Jesus did not intend to start a religion: that was a corruption, from which the church has never recovered, except amongst a few scattered souls such as the Quakers."

Ok. So I'm not a Christian. I might believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, the Christian story, living a Christian life, and the Church, but I believe it all "wrongly", at least in the eyes of those who define the acceptable bounds of Christianity.

Hopefully, that doesn't tread on anyone's toes.

(Seriously, Christians are the most uncharitable people I've ever met. Here I am, so close in so many ways (I've more "on fire for Jesus" now than I ever was, and I'm growing in spirituality and holiness as never before) and yet because I cannot literally believe in the magic and myths, I'm treated like a bad smell).

Jesus wept. I know why.

PS. In terms of the SNP analogy, I get your point. If I wanted to join the Anglicans, the Prebyterians, the Baptists, or anyone else, I'd agree with you. Those are their own clubs with their own rules of entry, and I don't meet the criteria. Ok. But I'm not trying to join any particular church. I'm trying to be baptised as a follower of the way of Jesus of Nazareth, and that's not something you Christians can monopolise.

[ 03. January 2011, 15:08: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Tony Benn said that the bible is a book about the battle between the priests, who defend the status quo and protect the powers that be, and the prophets who call for a radically equalitarian righteousness. I'm with the prophets. I don't necessarily think about God in the same way as they did, but the impulse is the same. I think its origins really lie in sensitivity to humanity.

That is a somewhat simplistic reading of the Bible. Yes, the Prophets did criticize the way the temple religion of Israel ignored issues of justice, but that didn't necessary mean that they wanted to do away with worship altogether. The critique of the Prophets was that temple religion was insufficient and needed to be expressed in justice. "Faith without works is dead" as James puts it. That doesn't mean that faith is not important.

As well, the Prophets believed firmly in a God who is active in human history. For them, the Israelites, for their idolatry and social injustice will face the judgment of the God of Israel. This theology is not incidental to their social and political praxis, it underlies it.

quote:

But that doesn't detract from the fact that Jesus - and, to be fair, Paul - did offer an excellent challenge to how to live, and how to act and treat people, so that we can bring about the new birth of a better, more loving and restored humanity, which Jesus called the "Kingdom of God".

This way of life is dependent upon faith in God. Jesus taught that the first commandment before "Love thy neighbor" is to "Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength." This root of justice is faith in God.

[ 03. January 2011, 15:26: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I don't think you have to have a creed to be a Christian, nor a baptism ritual, but then I am a Quaker. People vary as to whether they consider us Christians. And some of us, like me, consider ourselves Christians, and others do not.

A key point in our experience though, is that one's sense of the divine comes from direct experience. If I were defining who is Christian and who is not (which is frankly not really my job), then I'd be tempted to be guided by biblical passages such as:

quote:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

And that bit where the disciples come to him concerned that someone else is preaching about him and he says it OK.

That said I don't see how RW is Christian, if he doesn't think Jesus is Christ ? The supernatural bit is what makes it a religion rather than a philosophy. If you think there is no supernatural action to the baptism ritual, then I don't really see why you would do it.

In someways mainstream ideas in Quakerism are close to RW's - seeing Christianity as "not a notion, but a way" - but we lack sacramental rituals, not because we don't believe in the supernatural qualities of the deity but because we believe life and our relationship with the deity are imbued with those qualities making the rituals unnecessary.

[quote]

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

If orthodox means something like 'aligned with the prevailing point of view' there's no value in talking about whether being orthodox is good or bad per se. The question for churches, given the views that prevail, is whether holding those views is really the best criteria for determining who is a member.

Christian orthodoxy is almost entirely 'textual literalism' (ie. belief in the literal truth of a 'text'), where text might mean bible only or it might include whatever other writings and practices a particular church also considers sacred. I think it's most people's lack of comprehension that churches still expect belief in the factual truth of such things that is driving Christian orthodoxy to the margins of C21 relevance.

For all his qualities I tend to find Rowan Williams an often depressingly, sometimes destructively, orthodox Archbishop, but his New Year Message was interesting. It included:

quote:
when we try to make sense of our lives and of who we really are, it helps to have a strongly-defined story, a big picture of some kind in the background.

It goes on to present orthodox Christianity in terms of a story that can help make sense of our lives. The interesting bit was he didn't need to add any barbed references to 'risen Christ' or 'divine Saviour'. He'll doubtless get stick from the usual suspects, but it seemed that simply by providing that context he was able to deliver an open-ended Christian message without compromising his orthodoxy.

Of course, if Christianity is nothing more than a historical religious society that's neither here nor there. Orthodox Christians can meet and worship to their hearts' content, keeping spirits up as they reinforce each other's faith against the hopeless humanity of the world outside. But it's my understanding that being Christian is about becoming fully human. I think that requires making peace with how the world and God really are. Rowan's message seemed to be saying the same.

Now where's that miracles thread...

[cross-posted]

[ 03. January 2011, 16:32: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

I wonder if it would help at all to to see things through the lens of A.A. (as I almost always do anyway)?

Tradition 3 (the 12 Traditions are often described as "the 12 Steps for the Groups" - IOW, the way A.A. organizes itself) is this: "The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking."

In the text of the explication of Tradition 3, you find this:

quote:
This Tradition is packed with meaning. For A.A. is really saying to every serious drinker, "You are an A.A. member if you say so. You can declare yourself in; nobody can keep you out. No matter who you are, no matter how low you've gone, no matter how grave your emotional complications - even your crimes - we still can't deny you A.A. We don't want to keep you out. We aren't a bit afraid you'll harm us, never mind how twisted or violent you may be. We just want to be sure that you get the same great chance for sobriety that we've had. So you're an A.A. member the minute you declare yourself."

To establish this principle of membership took years of harrowing experience.

The whole thing is an interesting read, actually.

Basically it boils down to: you're welcome as you are, with only this one requirement: a "desire" to stop drinking. (Apparently at one time it was "a sincere desire," but they dropped even that qualifier. And really: lots of people have not much real desire to stop drinking when they arrive. They have to, if they want to live, but they don't really want to.)

A.A. certainly has a "definition." It has its own self-definition (called the "Preamble," often read at the start of meetings) - and it is certainly defined by the 12 Steps. If you didn't have those, I don't think you'd have A.A. any longer.

But the bar to entry is very low - it's Tradition 3 and nothing else. You don't ever have to do the steps, in fact. (You'll lose out big-time if you don't - but it's entirely your own affair.)

So: definition and description, yes. Requirements: only one. It really does work. I keep wondering if it's analogous to Christianity, but haven't quite come up with a firm answer yet.

And Think2 makes an excellent point as well, I must say....

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

IIRC AA was started as a tool of evangelism, so I would think it is very related to Christianity in all sorts of ways.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
IIRC AA was started as a tool of evangelism, so I would think it is very related to Christianity in all sorts of ways.

Bill Wilson first started attending "Oxford Group" (not to be confused with "The Oxford Movement") meetings. This group was started by a Lutheran pastor, Frank Buchman. Interestingly,

quote:
The group was unlike other forms of evangelism in that it targeted and directed its efforts to the "up and outers": the elites and wealthy of society. It made use of publicity regarding its prominent converts, and was caricatured as a "Salvation Army for snobs." Buchman's message did not challenge the status quo and thus aided the Group's popularity among the well-to-do. Buchman made the cover of Time Magazine as "Cultist Frank Buchman: God is a Millionaire" in 1936. For a U.S. headquarters, he built a multimillion-dollar establishment on Michigan's Mackinac Island, with room for 1,000 visitors. From Caux to London's Berkeley Square to New York's Westchester County layouts, Buchman and his followers had the best. In response to criticism, Buchman had an answer: "Isn't God a millionaire?" he would ask.

!

Also,

quote:
Buchman, who had little intellectual interest or interest in theology, believed all change happens from the individual outward, and stressed simplicity. He summed up the Group's philosophy in a few sentences: all people are sinners, all sinners can be changed, confession is a prerequisite to change, the change can access god directly, miracles are again possible, the change must change others.

A.A. went through lots of changes before settling on its current form, but it did start out this way.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
But that doesn't detract from the fact that Jesus - and, to be fair, Paul - did offer an excellent challenge to how to live, and how to act and treat people, so that we can bring about the new birth of a better, more loving and restored humanity, which Jesus called the "Kingdom of God".
This way of life is dependent upon faith in God. Jesus taught that the first commandment before "Love thy neighbor" is to "Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength." This root of justice is faith in God.

No. It's root is humane compassion-in-action. Aka love.

Perhaps it works the other way: we make gods to answer to the yearnings of compassion which, in reality, are so often frustrated by the power of those who exploit. The message and the way of Jesus is that we have to love people better. All are broken and hurting, the elder brother as much as the prodigal son, and the rich man as much as the poor. We all need to be transformed by the power of compassion, fraternity, love. That's the gospel. It works whether you believe in God or not; obviously, belief in a loving, personal god helps, but belief in the redemption of self and society through love is what really matters, and even a deist can have that. I know it works because I've seen it in my life and in the lives of others: taste and see. The change starts inwards and moves outwards - maybe that's what the "loving god" part really means, finding an openness to the power of love (what Christians call the Spirit) in oneself, and letting it all emerge from that. If we can forgive and love ourselves, we can begin to forgive and love others; we need to break down the barriers of fear which are the root of our selfishness. Again, I know it works because I've experienced it.

But none of this means having a personal god, a trinitarian god, a dying resurrecting god, a god who writes books, or a god who turns into crackers: it's all open to natural reason, from looking into the eyes of another human being and saying, "this is a man and a brother", rather than "this is a tool for me to exploit".

Jesus had that insight more clearly than anyone before, and it taught it, lived it, and died for it - no one said this would be easy, because it has revolutionary implications which challenge the powerful. But it is the most excellent way to live, and it is ultimately our best and only hope to be fully human beings.

[ 03. January 2011, 19:24: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Radicalwhig, have you even read the Gospels?

Zach

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Yes. I just took off the glasses first.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Although, now you mention it, when I got married the Minister gave us a presentation bible, which happened to have footnotes in it. These footnotes were written from a fairly conservative evangelical perspective. Perhaps if one were to read the gospels through those footnotes, one would come away with the impression that Jesus was indeed the son of god who died to take away the sins of the world. I never use that bible, because the footnotes distort the text. May Christians, however, do have "footnotes" of one sort or another. They see the bible through their religious glasses.

I generally use a different version, which is redacted but without footnotes. I believe it is the best and most accurate text.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Again I would ask, why call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in Christ ? Why not simply a follower of the ethical teachings of Jesus of Nazereth ?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Small-"o" orthodoxy is an essentially relative term. It is quite literally impossible to call yourself "heterodox". Really. Everyone is always "orthodox", by definition. We believe what we believe is right. We cannot believe what we believe is wrong. It's a contradiction in terms, or perhaps a psychological impossibility. You must be clinically insane to truly consider yourself heterodox. Whatever you happen to believe is true is what you believe to be "right-belief", thus orthodoxy. A "sea of faith" liberal Christian is as orthodox as a Hassidic Jew, just in a different way.

Hence every single person who identifies as "heterodox" implicitly affirms what he denies. The one and only way you can claim to be heterodox is by saying that there is an entity that so significantly proposes belief, that you will abusively label them "orthodox" and yourself "heterodox". Only by assigning overwhelming authority to someone else can you possibly contrast yourself as "deviation". Only by abandoning the essential relativity of the term "orthodox", can you make it an absolute that you disagree with. It's a kowtowing denial, a sucking up to what you hate. It's weak, despicable, dishonest... yuck.

Seriously, I do not get the discussion. At all. If tomorrow I believe that salvation depends on snorting milk powder while buggering a goat and reciting e.e. cummings, then without question that is "orthodox". And if I somehow manage to conceive this as the teachings of Christ, then it is "Christian orthodox". And every bloody else would be "(Christian) heterodox", naturally.

Have the courage to stand for your convictions, or non-convictios, or pink undershorts. Just bloody stand up and be counted. As soon as you do, you are "orthodox" something. Heterodox is never you.

Now, the question what is traditional, that is a different one. "Traditional orthodoxy" is not a relative term, but a historical one. And if you are not pretty close to the intersection of RCC and Eastern Orthodox, then you are probably "traditional heterodox". But just because my orthodoxy is close to traditional orthodoxy, I will not confuse them. Why would you then, if they are very different for you?

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

I'm happy to call Jesus "Christ"; I have no doubt that he was a very "anointed" person. That doesn't make him god. He was "holy" and "anointed", yes, in the same way as the Buddha and others of that ilk can be "holy" and "anointed".

I would have called myself a Christian because I'm inspired by and follow the way and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, called "the anointed" or "Christ". But, as I've noted several times on this and other treads, I don't call myself a Christian anymore, because that name has been appropriated by followers of the Christian religion, which is at best only tangentially related to Jesus Christ.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

IngoB. You and I very rarely see eye to eye, but I think your distinction between "orthodox" and "traditional" is very useful.

As Tom Paine said, "every man's opinions are orthodox to himself".

(Although, that said, every man is potentially heterodox to others.)

So I'm orthodox to myself, because I think I am right, but have no problem admitting that I am heterodox in the eyes of traditional Christians.

Et voilà!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you assume that Paul and the later church were wrong about Jesus, and take out from the Gospels everything that came from them, then you're not left with an ethical teacher (that's Paul): you're left with an apocalyptic prophet and cultist whose message was largely about the coming independence of Israel as a result of divine vengeance against the Romans.
I've never denied that Jesus was a subversive revolutionary - a bit like Moses, and quite a few other prophets.

The 'historical' Jesus (i.e. if we decide a priori to shear the account of what could be religious accretions) was a subversive revolutionary if the guy on the street corner with a bad haircut and a sandwich board is a subversive revolutionary.

quote:
Tony Benn said that the bible is a book about the battle between the priests, who defend the status quo and protect the powers that be, and the prophets who call for a radically equalitarian righteousness. I'm with the prophets.

With respect, I don't think you are. Just because someone is opposed to the priests in power doesn't mean they're not just another priest whose side hasn't got into power yet.

quote:
So I'm not a Christian. I might believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, the Christian story, living a Christian life, and the Church, but I believe it all "wrongly", at least in the eyes of those who define the acceptable bounds of Christianity.

Hopefully, that doesn't tread on anyone's toes.

Of course it doesn't. Why would calling people's beliefs a 'religion, a corruption from which the church has never recovered' tread on anyone's toes?

I've known people in the various churches and Christian groups that I've been part of who've believed pretty much what you've believed up until about this point, and we've got along happily. But they didn't demand, as a precondition of their acceptance, that everyone else acknowledge how contemptible they thought everyone else was.

quote:
Seriously, Christians are the most uncharitable people I've ever met. Here I am, so close in so many ways (I've more "on fire for Jesus" now than I ever was, and I'm growing in spirituality and holiness as never before) and yet because I cannot literally believe in the magic and myths, I'm treated like a bad smell).

Let me see if I've got this straight. You tell us that we're corrupt zombie-worshippers. Then you patronise us by telling us that although we've got it wrong you'll do us the favour of appropriating the symbolism we've been using because you'll use it properly. And we're uncharitable because we're not flattered?

[ 03. January 2011, 22:33: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

It doesn't matter. I left the zombie-biscuit eaters alone for years, doing my own thing and thinking my own way, and generally keeping my mouth shut. It's only when I was told that I didn't fit that it suddenly became an issue. Now I'm silent no more.

For years I was inside the tent, finding my own quiet little corner within it, self-identifying as being on the liberal wing of Christianity; now I've been kicked outside the tent because I don't believe the right things, and so I feel free to criticise the errors and absurdities of the Christian religion.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

The irony of this, of course, is that my actual views haven't changed very much, only the way they are orientated, packaged and expressed. There's not much difference between what I believe now and what I believed when I went to the baptist church every week- only now I don't bother to keep the filters in place.

Perhaps the biggest shock - and it is a shock - is that so many people really do believe this stuff, and not just on a mythical, narrative, "oh-what-a-nice-idea" sort of level. They're nuts.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

You base your outworking of rationality and understanding of Jesus on love, but love and grace are irrational, whilst criticising us for believing some other things that are also not rational - this is not rational.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
With respect, I don't think you are.

Sorry; that comment was overly hellish.

I can't comment on your interactions with your former church. (I'm not shocked that the Baptists are less than tolerant of dissenting opinions.)

But...
you can either enjoy the considerable satisfaction of thinking other people are nuts and looking down on them;
or complain that other people are uncharitable and treating you like a bad smell;
but you can't reasonably do both at the same time.
It's a quirk of human nature that when other people despise us we resent it.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

People matter. People hurt. People can hurt people. But people can also help people. That's real. That's the ultimate choice we face every day, in our personal lives, at work, in our economic decisions and in our public and political lives as citizens: Do we want to be hurters or helpers? Do we want to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom for prisoners, to bring sight to the blind and to release the oppressed? Or do we just retreat into our own selfishness? "Salvation" is liberation from our fear and selfishness, so that we can be helpers rather than hurters.

Now, you might ask, "Why do people matter?" Perhaps that's the point at which we break out of wisdom, ethics, living-well, and politics, and instead enter into metaphysics or theology. It is hard to provide a definite answer to this question. One one level, I say that people matter because in us nature has become sentient and moral - we can feel not only pain, but also injustice. One another level, I can ascribe it to God - but it doesn't require either a personal God or a trinitarian God; people matter because the Force, the Spirit, Nature, Reason-Fire, Consciousness, Love, call it what you will, can be said to be in and through us.

But (and this is the really central point) here we are entering into baseless speculation. What I know is that if you prick someone, they bleed, tickle them and their laugh, poison them and they die, wrong them and their natural inclination is to seek revenge. What matters is to stop the pricking the the poisoning, and to transform revenge into reconciliation and restoration. That's it. That's the whole point. The consequences of not treating people as if they matter are the torture chamber, the overseers whip, the sweatshop, the slum, the gag, the stake and the fire.

I don't know whether this is "rational", but it is based on the reality and the imperative of human compassion. Why complicate it with too much exclusionary theology?

[ 03. January 2011, 23:38: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

But it is not rational to reject Christianity on the grounds it isn't rational, if the fundamental underpinning of your own position is also irrational.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

There's no need to complicate all those things with theology, since they're not religion, so there is no point dragging theology into it. It's like saying there's no need to complicate them with a lot of nonsense about burial sites and old buildings and standing stones. Because they're not archaeology.

Religion, however, is religion, and that's where we complicate things with theology. Or simplify things with theology, depending upon your point of view. But there is no need to do theology to do good deeds, just as there is no need to do archaeology, or biology, or anything else than do good deeds, to do good deeds. Good deeds are part of many religions; but religion needn't be part of good deeds.

The problem is when what you want are the good deeds, and the name "religion" (or "Christianity"), but not the content, which is perforce theological.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] With respect, I don't think you are.
Sorry; that comment was overly hellish.

It's ok. In any case, you're probably right, and I need to hear it. As many have found, the hardest thing is not to turn into the thing you oppose. It's hard sometimes to be as harmless as dove. The more I go on about being on the side of the prophets, the more I must keep my self-righteousness in check, lest I turn into a priest. It's easy for me to build up an excess of pride and fall into that trap.

quote:
I can't comment on your interactions with your former church. (I'm not shocked that the Baptists are less than tolerant of dissenting opinions.)

With the Baptists the main problem was that I didn't "believe" in the Bible the same way as most of them did. At the age of 18 at university I was first introduced to the concept of higher criticism and never looked back. But, apart from sometimes in homegroups, it wasn't a major problem. The church I went to was evangelical and charismatic, but more "open" than "conservative", I think, and not really fundamentalist. They had women in leadership roles, that sort of thing. But questions of trinity, christology, ecclesiology etc never came up, so I was left alone in thinking through those things in my own way, and when differences arose I just kept quiet.

Ironically, it was after I married, and my (Roman Catholic) wife refused point-blank to go to the Baptists, that we settled on the Anglicans as a comfortable refuge - she got traditional music, mass, and candles, and I got a more "liberal" and "critical" approach to scripture. It was good. I'd never been so happy in church. I didn't agree with the words in the liturgy, of course, but I assumed no one really did - no one, surely, took all this stuff literally, did they? Surely, like me, they just took it at its mythological, narrative level, and were happy with that. I was even ready to get baptised. This was something I had often thought about when I was with the baptists, but I had never felt ready to make that commitment. Now I was. It was then that everything unravelled. Taking at the mythological, narrative level wasn't enough. I had to really believe. Apparently, they all do. I can't.

The good thing is that I've learnt to speak out and be honest about exactly what I believe - no more keeping quiet or pretending. The bad thing is that I've found myself without a church community for the first time in my adult life, and I miss it, but I don't miss it so much that I'm prepared to lie or fake it again.

quote:

you can either enjoy the considerable satisfaction of thinking other people are nuts and looking down on them;
or complain that other people are uncharitable and treating you like a bad smell;
but you can't reasonably do both at the same time.
It's a quirk of human nature that when other people despise us we resent it.

Ok. Fair point.

By "they're nuts" what I meant was, "I really cannot get my head around the idea that people - sane, educated, sensible people - really, literally, honestly believe this stuff. I can only think it is a sort of complete mental compartmentalisation. It comes as a real shock to me that people DO seem to really, truly believe it. For years, I understood it as myth, story, narrative, metaphor, tradition. I thought everyone else did the same, apart from a minority of crazy fundamentalists. But no. They really believe it. Wow. I don't know how to cope with that."

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's no need to complicate all those things with theology, since they're not religion, so there is no point dragging theology into it. It's like saying there's no need to complicate them with a lot of nonsense about burial sites and old buildings and standing stones. Because they're not archaeology.

Religion, however, is religion, and that's where we complicate things with theology. Or simplify things with theology, depending upon your point of view. But there is no need to do theology to do good deeds, just as there is no need to do archaeology, or biology, or anything else than do good deeds, to do good deeds. Good deeds are part of many religions; but religion needn't be part of good deeds.

The problem is when what you want are the good deeds, and the name "religion" (or "Christianity"), but not the content, which is perforce theological.

Yes. I'm coming to think that I've never really had, or understood, "religion" in that sense. What I've had, and understood, is a sort of ethical philosophy and way of life, with a few stories, myths, rituals, symbols and traditions attached to it. (Then again, I'm not convinced that Jesus came to start a religion... ...so back to square one!)

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But it is not rational to reject Christianity on the grounds it isn't rational, if the fundamental underpinning of your own position is also irrational.

I have a cat. Cats are probably a good source of protein. I'm also a bit hungry, and because I was working on finishing a journal article today I forgot to take meat out of the freezer. So, would it be rational to eat the cat? Well, maybe, but I love the cat. That's irrational, especially as the cat doesn't love me (it likes the fact that I feed it and keep it warm, but that's it). Is that love irrational? Probably, by your standards of rationality. I'm acting irrationally but lovingly. Does that then mean that I'm going to believe there's an invisible green dragon in my living room, and that the only reason not to eat the cat (not to mention the fact that the SSPCA might have something to say about it) is that it makes the invisible green dragon cry? No, of course not.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Talking about orthodoxy is precisely talking about what the contents of the Christian faith are; it's drawing a line between Christian and non-Christian.

Unless we're going to either reject the Chalcedonian definition or claim that churches like the Nestorians or Syriac Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox aren't Christians, I would have to disagree.

The word orthodox is an attempt to be precise about someone's adherence to certain doctrines. The word Christian, on the other hand, is a lot broader and more fuzzy around the edges than the word orthodox. There are limits beyond which one can't stretch it - Muslims are not Christians - but there's a whole range in which the application of the word is vague. For what it's worth, I would tend to go with whether someone considers themselves as sharing in the general same general enterprise as (at least some of) the orthodox denominations.
I'd consider it more significant that somebody feels Christian fundamentalists embarrass them than whether they adhere to any article of the creeds, for example.

Adding additional sacred books that attempt to revise the New Testament is the only absolute disqualifier I think.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Well, I think you are applying occam's razor there. Which is fair enough, I am just pointing out that saying something is irrational is not in and of itself a reason for not believing in it, or acting upon it. You are an intelligent human being, you can still love your cat. The two things are not incompatible.

It does sound as if you never quite 'got' religion. But if you are deist, i.e. you think there is a God - why do you assume miracles are not possible ? Or to put it another way, what is different about the deity than an idea or a new previously undiscovered species ?

[ 04. January 2011, 00:16: Message edited by: Think² ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Who is this "we" you speak of? You speak for Christendom Zach? What are you, the Pope?
Precisely the same "We" as "We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, Eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made..."

Zach

Ah, not the Pope,* just Constantine. That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.

(*My bad, the Pope has a more charitable view.)

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

[Crossposted in reply to RadicalWhig]

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But if you are deist, i.e. you think there is a God - why do you assume miracles are not possible ?

Interesting question. Tom Paine said that he saw no reason why God would not be able to perform miracles, but also no evidence that he ever had. His view was that God set up the laws of nature, implanted reason and conscience in man, and left it at that. That's a sort of classical, 18th century deism.

I don't quite see it that way. For God to be able to perform miracles, God would need certain attributes which I cannot concieve of God possessing - personality, volition, purpose. God would have to be a Supreme Being, standing outside the universe and able to manipulate it at will. I see no evidence for such a God. Indeed, I find it hard to reconcile with the regularity and orderedness of Nature. I see God more as the sort of transcendent Principle of Nature, which is not outside and above nature, but in and through it. Such a God might be "miraculous", "awesome" and "wonderful", but it cannot "do" things. This makes it impossible to talk about miracles, except perhaps in the metaphorical, non-physical sense of the "miracle" of Andrew(*). It also makes it impossible to talk about "revelation", except as the most profound stiring of our own hearts and minds. It makes it impossible to talk about God's love, except for the love we have for one another, which can be almost "divine" in quality. On the other hand, I've felt and experienced the power of the Force, the Holy Spirit, call it what you will - but I see this more as a sort of "energy", possibly eminating from our own consciousness, rather than as a third person of the trinity.

I have experientially found, over the years, that keeping regularly tapped into that Force, Spirit, or Consciousness, through reflective prayer and meditation, is very helpful in trying to live well and follow the way of Jesus.

* Andrew (not his real name) was found homeless, penniless, drunk and comatose on the streets of Barcelona. He was Polish, and didn't know where he was or how he had got there. He was found by a friend of my mother in law called Martin (also not real name), who took him in to live with him over the border in France. He's now clean, living and working, and learning French. My mother in law is giving him free French lessons. One day he said, in French, "My name is Andrew and Martin is my friend". Now that's what we might rightly call a "miracle". That's a real "resurrection". But it was wrought by human hands, by human compassion, by human desire to live out the way of Jesus.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I can only think it is a sort of complete mental compartmentalisation. It comes as a real shock to me that people DO seem to really, truly believe it.

I don't have any external evidence for this, but I doubt most people really believe most faith claims. The test would be a chamber that provided an ultimately attractive reward if you stepped in and really believed, but instant death if not. How many of us would step in on the basis of a religious belief?

I think we can get into the habit of thinking we believe as a result of regular reinforcement, for example through positive experiences of a religious community. But there's never any verification for religious beliefs, so the habit becomes our unconsciously conditioned, socially validated response whenever the belief is considered.

It's only through some traumatic refutation of an habitual belief, or sufficient loss of regular reinforcement over time to allow other possibilities to naturally seep back in (how it seemed to happen for me), that we discover if our beliefs are real.

Which would explain why we can use perfect logic with a religious believer until we're blue in the face, only to get to the response 'but I really believe it!' and no further. They obviously genuinely think they believe, as I did, but not on the basis of any relevant evidence: it's just the force of habit.

[cross-posted]

[ 04. January 2011, 01:01: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

I don't quite see it that way. For God to be able to perform miracles, God would need certain attributes which I cannot concieve of God possessing - personality, volition, purpose. God would have to be a Supreme Being, standing outside the universe and able to manipulate it at will. I see no evidence for such a God. Indeed, I find it hard to reconcile with the regularity and orderedness of Nature. I see God more as the sort of transcendent Principle of Nature, which is not outside and above nature, but in and through it. Such a God might be "miraculous", "awesome" and "wonderful", but it cannot "do" things. This makes it impossible to talk about miracles, except perhaps in the metaphorical, non-physical sense of the "miracle" of Andrew(*). It also makes it impossible to talk about "revelation", except as the most profound stiring of our own hearts and minds. It makes it impossible to talk about God's love, except for the love we have for one another, which can be almost "divine" in quality. On the other hand, I've felt and experienced the power of the Force, the Holy Spirit, call it what you will - but I see this more as a sort of "energy", possibly eminating from our own consciousness, rather than as a third person of the trinity.

OK, rephrase, how is God different form gravity, an orgasm, or even Reich's concept of the orgone ?

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
OK, rephrase, how is God different form gravity, an orgasm, or even Reich's concept of the orgone?

Well, I don't know much about the orgone, or vitalism, life-force etc for that matter.

Certain types of charismatic experience can certainly produce what looks like quasi-orgasmic experiences, especially in women, but that's probably just chemicals in the brain, crowd excitement, relief at letting go of emotional pain, hyperventilation, that sort of thing.

God as gravity? No, not exactly. God as energy, matter, gravity, the sort of universal essence and nature of everything? Yes. That's the sort of God I believe in when I say I believe in The God That Might Actually Exist. Not a god who appears in burning bushes, but a God which emcompasses and unifies all the processes which go into making a bush.

I think it was Jefferson who said, "I believe in God. I spell it N. A. T. U. R. E."

(And that is quite interesting, because in a metaphorical sense we can both abstract and personalise Nature. We can say that "Nature abhors a vacuum", "Nature will take her course" etc. The bush, for example, is not really God and is not to be worshipped; but the bush is natural and divine, a product of Nature and thus of God. God is the idea or principle of Nature, not the physical green stuff. That's about the best I can do.)

[ 04. January 2011, 01:28: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Ah, not the Pope,* just Constantine. That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.

When did I say that again?

Zach

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Ah, not the Pope,* just Constantine. That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.
When did I say that again?

When you said someone wasn't a Christian.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Ah, not the Pope,* just Constantine. That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.
When did I say that again?

When you said someone wasn't a Christian.

Didn't you conflate these two things with me many months ago? And didn't we spend pages and pages trying to explain to you that defining 'Christian' and defining 'saved' aren't the same thing?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Whatev may be the definition of orthodox, it must be sufficient to include the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would deeply regret their exclusion, and feel real brotherhood for them in their often difficult paths.

The Oriental Orthodox now appear to be saying that what was perceived to be dissent from the Nicene formulation was simply due to their lacking a word for the Greek homoousis; they say that they never dissented from the concept. It's rather harder to say just where the Assyrians stand now, given the different allegiances in their Church these days, and the difficulties which I, as an outsider, have in understanding just who says what. Still, they have struggled over centuries to proclaim their belief in Christ as the only-begotten Son of God.

[ 04. January 2011, 09:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Ah, not the Pope,* just Constantine. That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.
When did I say that again?

When you said someone wasn't a Christian.
Didn't you conflate these two things with me many months ago? And didn't we spend pages and pages trying to explain to you that defining 'Christian' and defining 'saved' aren't the same thing?

You and me? Pages and pages? Surely you are mistaken sir. [Big Grin]

Yes we did. Do you recall a conclusion, if any?

I think my problem was a lack of articulation.

As you say, being a Christian and being saved are not the same thing. We can be Christian and not be saved.

I think what I have come to realise from that discussion is that being a Christian, in principle allows for the possibility of salvation. And that salvation is through Jesus, and only Jesus.

So in saying someone is not a Christian, you are essentially saying they are excluded from the possibility of salvation through Jesus.

And I don't believe anybody has the right to say that.

Jesus, the Father and the Spirit choose whom they will.

They certainly chose me. And I didn't know any damn creed.

Never even picked up a frickin bible.

Saved by faith...not works...

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't have any external evidence for this, but I doubt most people really believe most faith claims. <...>

I think we can get into the habit of thinking we believe as a result of regular reinforcement, for example through positive experiences of a religious community. But there's never any verification for religious beliefs, so the habit becomes our unconsciously conditioned, socially validated response whenever the belief is considered. <...>

It's only through some traumatic refutation of an habitual belief, or sufficient loss of regular reinforcement over time to allow other possibilities to naturally seep back in (how it seemed to happen for me), that we discover if our beliefs are real.

They obviously genuinely think they believe, as I did, but not on the basis of any relevant evidence: it's just the force of habit.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure that's how it is. Even those people who say they really believe it probably don't, for the most part, [/i]really[/i] believe it. They just like to say, pretend, and imagine that they really believe it, to the point where fantasy and reality break down.

In the past I have likened religion to a Live Action Role Playing game. It's not a perfect analogy by any means, but there is a certain likeness. Sometimes it takes a while to realise that the Amulet of Perpetual Power which you are trying to obtain from the Queen of the Warlock Goblins with the use of your Magic Sword of Destruction is in fact a cheap bracelet that you are trying to get off a fat girl with ringlets with the aid of a prop your mate Eric made out plastic foam. If you walk into the game and burst out of character, and say, "it's all made up, it's just a game", then you are persona non-gratia. That's fine: you can play along with that, because it's a good game and you don't want to spoil it. Then, years later, you realise that you are the only one playing a game and that everyone else thinks its real - and that unless you think it is real too, you can't play anymore.

Then the emphasis shifts, and the LARPers you used to play harmless games with suddenly seem as if they are nuts. You need to help these people before they hurt themselves or others.

(I'm not saying the ethical side of living well is a game; but the whole myth and religion side of it is.)

Now, at what point do people pass between, on the one hand, knowing deep down it is a game but really wanting to pretend as hard as they can, and even to convince themselves that is is real, and on the other actually really believing it? I don't know. I suspect that many are somewhere on that spectrum, but are not honest with themselves or others...
...and this is why: because they cannot see the goodness in the game - if they can't make-believe it is really true, then it has no value to them. That's sad, I think.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
As you say, being a Christian and being saved are not the same thing. We can be Christian and not be saved...I think what I have come to realise from that discussion is that being a Christian, in principle allows for the possibility of salvation. And that salvation is through Jesus, and only Jesus.

I never said anything about salvation, Evensong, and I can hardly be called to account for your soteriology that I knew nothing about. Since I do NOT conflate Christianity and salvation, you have nothing to worry about when I say that some people aren't Christians.

Zach

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

I like IngoB's comments, but ultimately we have to find a way around the language. There are at least two significant competing Christian Orthodoxies that claim to be 'authentic'.

The traditional orthodoxy that IngoB outlines which may well take in Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and parts of Canterbury is one.

The new orthodoxy is harder to pin down due to its diversity - but people certainly have a sense of belonging to it. Evangelical is not really accurate, neither is reformed nor protestant or even charismatic.

But most Christians, even on the liberal edges have a sense of belonging to one or other of these understandings.

My temptation is to draw the line with the Sacraments, but I doubt it is that simple either.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
The traditional orthodoxy that IngoB outlines which may well take in Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and parts of Canterbury is one.

Ahem, don't you mean "Parts of Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and Canterbury?" I go to a Catholic theological school and I know plenty of heterodox Caflicks.

Zach

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
They obviously genuinely think they believe, as I did, but not on the basis of any relevant evidence: it's just the force of habit.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure that's how it is. Even those people who say they really believe it probably don't, for the most part, really believe it. They just like to say, pretend, and imagine that they really believe it, to the point where fantasy and reality break down.

So, presumably, RadicalWhig and Dave Marshall don't really believe all that stuff they keep telling us either. Marvellous!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So in saying someone is not a Christian, you are essentially saying they are excluded from the possibility of salvation through Jesus.

I don't follow. Why is that? I believe lots of people will be saved through Christ who are not Christians. Indeed everybody who is saved will be saved through Christ, as He Himself said, "No-one comes to the Father but through Me." But as a wise person once said to me, you don't have to know the name of a bridge to cross it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't have any external evidence for this, but I doubt most people really believe most faith claims. <...>

I think we can get into the habit of thinking we believe as a result of regular reinforcement, for example through positive experiences of a religious community. But there's never any verification for religious beliefs, so the habit becomes our unconsciously conditioned, socially validated response whenever the belief is considered. <...>

It's only through some traumatic refutation of an habitual belief, or sufficient loss of regular reinforcement over time to allow other possibilities to naturally seep back in (how it seemed to happen for me), that we discover if our beliefs are real.

They obviously genuinely think they believe, as I did, but not on the basis of any relevant evidence: it's just the force of habit.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure that's how it is. Even those people who say they really believe it probably don't, for the most part, [/i]really[/i] believe it. They just like to say, pretend, and imagine that they really believe it, to the point where fantasy and reality break down.

In the past I have likened religion to a Live Action Role Playing game. It's not a perfect analogy by any means, but there is a certain likeness. Sometimes it takes a while to realise that the Amulet of Perpetual Power which you are trying to obtain from the Queen of the Warlock Goblins with the use of your Magic Sword of Destruction is in fact a cheap bracelet that you are trying to get off a fat girl with ringlets with the aid of a prop your mate Eric made out plastic foam. If you walk into the game and burst out of character, and say, "it's all made up, it's just a game", then you are persona non-gratia. That's fine: you can play along with that, because it's a good game and you don't want to spoil it. Then, years later, you realise that you are the only one playing a game and that everyone else thinks its real - and that unless you think it is real too, you can't play anymore.

Then the emphasis shifts, and the LARPers you used to play harmless games with suddenly seem as if they are nuts. You need to help these people before they hurt themselves or others.

(I'm not saying the ethical side of living well is a game; but the whole myth and religion side of it is.)

Now, at what point do people pass between, on the one hand, knowing deep down it is a game but really wanting to pretend as hard as they can, and even to convince themselves that is is real, and on the other actually really believing it? I don't know. I suspect that many are somewhere on that spectrum, but are not honest with themselves or others...
...and this is why: because they cannot see the goodness in the game - if they can't make-believe it is really true, then it has no value to them. That's sad, I think.

Much as I enjoy being told by you two that I can't possibly think differently to the way that you do, neither of you are such icons of perfection that the universe has to revolve around your point of view, okay? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Much as I enjoy being told by you two that I can't possibly think differently to the way that you do, neither of you are such icons of perfection that the universe has to revolve around your point of view, okay?

No, no. You've missed the point of the post. Ok, so you are one of those who really, really do believe it. I just can't believe that people like that exist - or exist in such numbers. It's this realisation which is shocking.

In the past, when Dawkins said religious people were deluded, I would agree with him about fundamentalists and wackos, but I thought he was wrong about most moderate, common-or-garden religionists. I thought he was just displaying a slightly wooden, one-dimensional mind, with no poetic or imaginative ability - that he thought were deluded only because he failed to understand the role of myth, metaphor and culture. Now I see that Dawkins is right: many more are sincerely deluded than I thought. That bemuses me. It also scares me. I have to accept it, but I find it very difficult to understand. I cannot get my head around it. It's absurd.

[ 04. January 2011, 20:53: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I still don't get why you consider it so much a delusion, when what you are saying about a pervasive life force is no more rational or evidence based. Why is my myth so much crazy than your myth ?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

It sure makes it easy to just assume everyone that disagrees with you is deluded, doesn't it? [Roll Eyes]

Zach

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I still don't get why you consider it so much a delusion, when what you are saying about a pervasive life force is no more rational or evidence based. Why is my myth so much crazy than your myth ?

No, your myth is fine. It's when you think your myth is an accurate reflection of actual reality that I start to worry about you.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

But you are saying your myth is !

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Actually, I don't know about that. I believe in the God That Might Actually Exist, the God of Nature, which I think is a minimal belief. Even then I know I can't prove it. Ultimately, even my deism is agnostic. But I have had experiences of a mystical, spiritual kind, and the myth of some sort of Spirit pervading that nature is a nice idea that helps me to explain that. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, though.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

So what you are saying is that you don't believe that, are not a deist - might be an agnostic tending atheist. In the same way that Christians actually believe in God, Deists actually believe in a deity.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
The traditional orthodoxy that IngoB outlines which may well take in Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and parts of Canterbury is one.
Ahem, don't you mean "Parts of Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and Canterbury?" I go to a Catholic theological school and I know plenty of heterodox Caflicks.

Zach

No - the point of 'parts' of Canterbury was that some Anglicans would look to the other orthodoxy.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
No - the point of 'parts' of Canterbury was that some Anglicans would look to the other orthodoxy.

And my point was that "parts" of Catholicism and Orthodoxy look to the other orthodoxy too. I've met them. Lots of them.

Zach

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Somehow this seems relevant ...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Ok, so you are one of those who really, really do believe it. I just can't believe that people like that exist - or exist in such numbers. It's this realisation which is shocking.

Clearly your intuitions on this are very wrong. Does this give you pause about the strength of your trust in your intuitions about other religious issues/questions?

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
So what you are saying is that you don't believe that, are not a deist - might be an agnostic tending atheist. In the same way that Christians actually believe in God, Deists actually believe in a deity.

I do believe in a a deity, which I concieve of in deistic-and/or-pantheistic terms. I just don't claim to know with any certainty.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Ok, so you are one of those who really, really do believe it. I just can't believe that people like that exist - or exist in such numbers. It's this realisation which is shocking.
Clearly your intuitions on this are very wrong. Does this give you pause about the strength of your trust in your intuitions about other religious issues/questions?

Well, in a sense yes, that's all part of the process which ended up with me leaving the church, no longer self-identifying as Christian, and waking up to the fact that the world is full of very deluded people.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I do believe in a a deity, which I concieve of in deistic-and/or-pantheistic terms. I just don't claim to know with any certainty.

Agnostic or if you prefer Agnostic.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Clearly your intuitions on this are very wrong. Does this give you pause about the strength of your trust in your intuitions about other religious issues/questions?
Well, in a sense yes, that's all part of the process which ended up with me leaving the church, no longer self-identifying as Christian, and waking up to the fact that the world is full of very deluded people.

But this doesn't give you any pause at all to think that maybe YOUR intuitions are wrong, and it's YOU who's deluded?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I do believe in a a deity, which I concieve of in deistic-and/or-pantheistic terms. I just don't claim to know with any certainty.

I'm not sure you use the word 'belief' in the same way that everybody else does. At least, not when expressing your shock and amazement that people believe things.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
As you say, being a Christian and being saved are not the same thing. We can be Christian and not be saved...I think what I have come to realise from that discussion is that being a Christian, in principle allows for the possibility of salvation. And that salvation is through Jesus, and only Jesus.
I never said anything about salvation, Evensong, and I can hardly be called to account for your soteriology that I knew nothing about. Since I do NOT conflate Christianity and salvation, you have nothing to worry about when I say that some people aren't Christians.

Zach

Christianity is not about salvation??
[Confused]

What's it about for you then? A source of amusement?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So in saying someone is not a Christian, you are essentially saying they are excluded from the possibility of salvation through Jesus.
I don't follow. Why is that? I believe lots of people will be saved through Christ who are not Christians. Indeed everybody who is saved will be saved through Christ, as He Himself said, "No-one comes to the Father but through Me." But as a wise person once said to me, you don't have to know the name of a bridge to cross it.

Then we are speaking of different "saves" here mousethief. Yours seems to be an end of the world thing...?

I'm talking about now, in this life, knowing God through Christ.

If you don't think that's important, but that people are upheld by Christ in this life regardless of whether or not they know him, then they are Christians. Because that is how their salvation is effected. Through Christ.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people to understand.

A Muslim believes s/he is saved through Muhammad, Buddhists through Buddha etc. etc just as we believe we are saved through Jesus.

Christians are Christians because they follow the way, they follow Jesus.

If everyone follows Jesus (or is saved through him) whether they know it or not, then they're all Christians too and there is absolutely no point in making any distinctions whatsoever.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Christianity is not about salvation??

Try to up your order of logic here 2 or 3 degrees here. Just because they aren't the same thing doesn't mean they aren't closely related.

Zach

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Christianity is not about salvation??
Try to up your order of logic here 2 or 3 degrees here. Just because they aren't the same thing doesn't mean they aren't closely related.

Zach

That is not an answer.

If salvation is only "closely related" to Christianity, then what is Christianity?

If you tell someone they are not a Christian, what are you excluding them from?

Just a set of intellectual propositions that you particularly like?

In that case, yeah, it doesn't matter if they are excluded from your brand of Christianity.

They might take Christianity more seriously though.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about by "saved". How is someone who is "saved" merely in this life any different from someone who isn't?

For me (and you might not know this; not everybody (alas!) hangs on my every word here) salvation means becoming by grace what God is by nature. That can start in this life, or for some it might start in the next. But for all it is made possible by Christ's work (incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension) and attested to by His teachings and that of His apostles and saints. For Christians it explicitly starts in this life (if we let it).

You seem to have an idea of salvation that I've never met before, if you think Christians are saved by Christ, and Muslims are saved by Mohammed (I'm sure there are no Muslims in the entire world who would agree to such a thing), and Buddhists are saved through Buddha, but then you seem to equate being saved with being a Christian. Saved for what? Saved from what? No, I don't understand what you mean by "saved." It's not what the Church has understood by the word for nigh on 2000 years.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Being a Christian means being a member of the Church through baptism.

To put it simply (rather too simply, honestly) non Christians get points for being mostly right, or even sort of right.

Zach

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about by "saved". How is someone who is "saved" merely in this life any different from someone who isn't?
,,,,,

It's not what the Church has understood by the word for nigh on 2000 years.

Mark 16.16: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 7.50: And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’

Romans 10.9: because* if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I don't think my notion of being saved is foreign to the Church.

More simply, IMO, to be saved is to know God through Christ.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Being a Christian means being a member of the Church through baptism.

My bad. I was going much deeper than that.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Mark 16.16: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 7.50: And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’

Romans 10.9: because* if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I don't think my notion of being saved is foreign to the Church.

I don't see how those quotes support any one notion of what being saved means.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Christianity is not about salvation??
Try to up your order of logic here 2 or 3 degrees here. Just because they aren't the same thing doesn't mean they aren't closely related.

Zach

That is not an answer.

If salvation is only "closely related" to Christianity, then what is Christianity?

If you tell someone they are not a Christian, what are you excluding them from?

Just a set of intellectual propositions that you particularly like?

In that case, yeah, it doesn't matter if they are excluded from your brand of Christianity.

They might take Christianity more seriously though.

I think you're finally getting it. And in less than a year.

'A set of intellectual propositions' is precisely what a creed IS.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Mark 16.16: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 7.50: And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’

Romans 10.9: because* if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I don't think my notion of being saved is foreign to the Church.
I don't see how those quotes support any one notion of what being saved means.

You're right. They don't. They use the word, but none of them define what it means.

It's hardly unusual for Evensong to consider these sorts of things to be self-evident.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
More simply, IMO, to be saved is to know God through Christ.

If it's 'through Christ' then Muslims who believe they are saved through Muhammad are mistaken? Is that what you're saying?

Ironically, you're not being at all clear on the distinction (if any) between 'Christian' and 'saved'.`You now seem to asserting that one can only be saved through Christ, but it also seems that you think by definition that this is what 'Christian' means which explains why you get upset anytime someone is excluded from being a 'Christian'.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't have any external evidence for this, but I doubt most people really believe most faith claims. The test would be a chamber that provided an ultimately attractive reward if you stepped in and really believed, but instant death if not. How many of us would step in on the basis of a religious belief?

Actually, Christianity was founded on the blood of those who faced horrific deaths in order to receive their heavenly reward.

But Christianity has never required a faith that strong, just praised it. Because Christianity recognizes human weakness. Your test is simply inhumane, and religion by and large isn't.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Now I see that Dawkins is right: many more are sincerely deluded than I thought. That bemuses me. It also scares me. I have to accept it, but I find it very difficult to understand. I cannot get my head around it. It's absurd.

Actually, your attitude (and Dawkins', but that goes without saying) is absurd. It is simply beyond reasonable doubt that the typical claims of religion cannot be proven wrong or false to general satisfaction. And not so for the lack of trying - it just literally cannot be done. Given this state of affairs, the only non-absurd attitude is to stop using terms like "delusion".

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Mark 16.16: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 7.50: And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’

Romans 10.9: because* if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I don't think my notion of being saved is foreign to the Church.
I don't see how those quotes support any one notion of what being saved means.

*sigh*.... I wasn't trying to prove any one notion of what the word means. I was trying to show that my idea of being saved through Christ is rather standard biblical fare...

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Mark 16.16: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 7.50: And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’

Romans 10.9: because* if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I don't think my notion of being saved is foreign to the Church.
I don't see how those quotes support any one notion of what being saved means.
You're right. They don't. They use the word, but none of them define what it means.

It's hardly unusual for Evensong to consider these sorts of things to be self-evident.

Thus cometh the snarkiness.....I think I'll step back here.

As you were.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Thus cometh the snarkiness.....I think I'll step back here.

As you were.

Evensong, the only reason the snarkiness comes is because that's exactly how I perceive many of your responses to other people. As snarky or patronising.

Any time someone presents a point of view on this topic that you don't like, your response is often a passive-agressive oblique comment. Often with a link to a picture or something.

Now, if you want to debate the topic, go ahead. But can you please do it in a form that doesn't involve remarks along the lines of "That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ"

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A Muslim believes s/he is saved through Muhammad, Buddhists through Buddha etc. etc just as we believe we are saved through Jesus.

Christians are Christians because they follow the way, they follow Jesus.

If everyone follows Jesus (or is saved through him) whether they know it or not, then they're all Christians too and there is absolutely no point in making any distinctions whatsoever.

It seems to me fairly difficult to look at the set of Buddhists or the set of Muslims on one hand and the set of Christians on the other and to say that all of one lot are definitely saved in this life, and all of that lot still need salvation. There are Buddhists who certainly seem saved, and I'm sure we can both think of lots of loudly devout Christians who don't seem to have been saved from anything very much at all yet.
(And no Buddhists do not believe they are saved through the Buddha (with the possible exception of Amida) as we believe we are saved through Jesus; and Muslims certainly do not believe they are saved through Mohammad.)

If we're calling someone a Christian we're talking in this worldly terms about the community that they're a member of, the symbols they use to find meaning, the stories they tell, the rituals they take part in, and, yes, even the intellectual beliefs they assent to. Bringing salvation into it is a whole other set of value judgements.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Muslims certainly do not believe they are saved through Mohammad.

Indeed. As I understand it, Islam doesn't have a concept of being "saved". Being a Muslim certainly doesn't make you "saved" - neither in the sense of an internal spiritual change, nor in the sense of having a guaranteed place in paradise. You have to be a "good" - that is, observant, obedient - Muslim in order to be on the right side of the balance on the day of judgment. The whole Islamic system is based on what we used to call "house points" and "black marks". It's only after you die that you find out whether you have won enough house-points for good behaviour to outweigh your black marks: obviously, though, not being a Muslim - having not "submitted" to "Allah" and "His Prophet" - is the ultimate black mark against someone.

[ 05. January 2011, 10:01: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

(Sunni) Islam is actually a fairly simple religious system. It's totalitarian, legalistic monotheism in its purest form: Allah exists as a sovereign-creator-ruler. Everything that happens is Allah's will, and Allah's will is capricious, absolute, irresponsible and unquestionable. Allah issues commands and legal rules, transmitted through prophets, which are absolute and binding on all humanity. If you submit to obey all the rules and submit to Allah and his prophets you might be rewarded with paradise after you die. If not, you will burn in hell.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a good system. It's basic principle is "get down on your face, shut up, obey!"(*) It's expansionistic, violent(**), fatalistic and inflexible. It tends towards a repressive, hypocritical legalism. It allows no real separation between religious and secular authority. But at least it has the advantage of a certain austere simplicity.

(*) It's no wonder that Muslim-majority countries find it so difficult to establish anything approximating liberal-democracy. (Turkey, Indonesia and Lebanon are, at best, partial exceptions).

(**) Anyone who says, "Islam is a religion of peace" is either a lying or misguided apologist for Islam, or is forgetting that "Peace" (Salaam) and "Submission" (Islam) come from the same root - S-L-M - the "peace" which Islam offers is the peace of totalitarian rule on its own terms.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
No - the point of 'parts' of Canterbury was that some Anglicans would look to the other orthodoxy.
And my point was that "parts" of Catholicism and Orthodoxy look to the other orthodoxy too. I've met them. Lots of them.

Zach

Really? That's interesting.

I acknowledge that plenty of protestants look towards the 'Apostolical' Orthodoxy of the early fathers, the sacraments, the ancient liturgies - indeed that spirit was at the heart of much of the reformation. They may be 'liberal' or 'conservative' on dead horses.

I am not sure how to define the other Orthodoxy in a positive way because I don't hold to it - only that is doesn't look towards those things - or isn't concerned with them. I can't see how one could be Orthodox or Catholic and authentically not look towards the 'Apostolical' tradition.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
*sigh*.... I wasn't trying to prove any one notion of what the word means. I was trying to show that my idea of being saved through Christ is rather standard biblical fare...

No one but no one is doubting that mankind is saved through Jesus Christ. We're just wondering if you have a clear idea of what "saved" means.

Zach

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Muslims certainly do not believe they are saved through Mohammad.
Indeed. As I understand it, Islam doesn't have a concept of being "saved".

I think the point is rather that 'Vell, Muhammed's just zis guy, you know' (Apologies)

Muhammed doesn't save people any more than Isaiah or Jeremiah save people.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What Dinghy Sailor said.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
*sigh*.... I wasn't trying to prove any one notion of what the word means. I was trying to show that my idea of being saved through Christ is rather standard biblical fare...

Quoting bible verses that don't necessarily support any one notion of "salvation" PERFORCE doesn't support YOUR notion of "salvation". I should have thought this self-evident. Those verses stand apart from any idea of what salvation means, therefore they cannot possibly support YOUR idea of what salvation means.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Even those people who say they really believe it probably don't, for the most part, really believe it. They just like to say, pretend, and imagine that they really believe it, to the point where fantasy and reality break down.

I wasn't saying anyone is pretending to believe. Obviously there are some who have no interest in making reasonable sense with the words they use, or lack the ability, or play games, but I wasn't thinking of them.

There's also a problem with language, because belief is such a mushy idea - it spreads out to cover a range of sometimes subtle shades of meaning. Is there a difference between believing something and thinking we believe it, for example. I'm suggesting there is, in that 'real belief' is arrived at by a reasoned consideration of evidence, while 'habitual belief' is something we fall into for some other reason. But from the inside they're both genuinely 'what we believe'.

The difference becomes apparent (to us as the believer) if a doubt crops up that makes us look again at why we believe. For a 'real belief' we can simply go back to the evidence. But a 'habital belief' doesn't have that, only whatever context caused the habit to form. At this point we might discover there is in fact good evidence for our belief so it becomes grounded and therefore 'real' (as I did with God). And if we find no real evidence (as I did with the Incarnation) we may (grudgingly, because we're only human) acknowledge we were mistaken and adjust our belief system to reflect our updated perception of reality. But alternatively, we might for whatever reason close down or shut out consideration of questions that raised the doubt and stick with a world view that at least in this respect does not reflect reality.

This is where it seems 'traditional orthodoxy', to use Ingo's terminology, has left traditional Christianity: 'habitual believers' using carefully constructed tools ('worship', 'prayer') to convince themselves and others that their world view makes sense, when anyone free of the habit can see good reasons why it doesn't. That's not to say orthodox Christians don't sincerely believe, just that from our point of view they're mistaken.

[ 05. January 2011, 20:42: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
This is where it seems 'traditional orthodoxy', to use Ingo's terminology, has left traditional Christianity: 'habitual believers' using carefully constructed tools ('worship', 'prayer') to convince themselves and others that their world view makes sense, when anyone free of the habit can see good reasons why it doesn't. That's not to say orthodox Christians don't sincerely believe, just that from our point of view they're mistaken.

Close, but no cigar. The "carefully constructed tools" prayer and worship do little to convince anyone of anything in the intellectual sense. That's simply not their purpose.

I should loose some weight, 10 kg at least. Why don't I? Do I have any problems intellectually grasping that I should loose some weight? Not at all. Yet I do not in fact loose weight.

Christianity, or for that matter religion in general, faces the same problem. Just much worse. Prayer and worship can be considered as a solution strategy, if you want a mechanistic analysis.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The difference becomes apparent (to us as the believer) if a doubt crops up that makes us look again at why we believe. For a 'real belief' we can simply go back to the evidence. But a 'habital belief' doesn't have that, only whatever context caused the habit to form. At this point we might discover there is in fact good evidence for our belief so it becomes grounded and therefore 'real' (as I did with God). And if we find no real evidence (as I did with the Incarnation) we may (grudgingly, because we're only human) acknowledge we were mistaken and adjust our belief system to reflect our updated perception of reality. But alternatively, we might for whatever reason close down or shut out consideration of questions that raised the doubt and stick with a world view that at least in this respect does not reflect reality.

This is where it seems 'traditional orthodoxy', to use Ingo's terminology, has left traditional Christianity: 'habitual believers' using carefully constructed tools ('worship', 'prayer') to convince themselves and others that their world view makes sense, when anyone free of the habit can see good reasons why it doesn't. That's not to say orthodox Christians don't sincerely believe, just that from our point of view they're mistaken.

But why not just accept Christianity as an internally-consistent system based on a bunch of unproved axioms, just the same way we do in math? That's what I do, pretty much.

I mean, nobody can prove the Incarnation, one way or the other, just as nobody can prove the existence of God in the first place. But if you take these things as given, you can go someplace with them. You can explore the system and see what it has to offer - just as in math. It might have some unexpected and surprising answers - just as in math. It might even be unreasonably effective in certain areas - just as math is.

Axioms of this kind might be non-logical, all right - but that's the way mysticism works anyway. It's not supposed to be "proved" - it's supposed to get you someplace. Viz., to transcendence and integration (well, sometimes) - or maybe to a sense of the unfairness of the world around you. Possibly you experience a profound, astounding sense of well-being - or possibly you end up cracked wide open and at the beginning of a long, difficult struggle. Either way, you've found something you positively weren't looking for.

That's called Serendipity - finding something while looking for something else. And that's the mystical path, really, I think - the confounding of all one's expectations, in order to get someplace we had no idea existed. The moving beyond our own preconceived notions of reality into something perhaps utterly fascinating and strange. Like non-Euclidean geometry, maybe.

And all this, totally free of charge to anybody who wants to give it a try. That's the best part, actually....

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
*sigh*.... I wasn't trying to prove any one notion of what the word means. I was trying to show that my idea of being saved through Christ is rather standard biblical fare...
No one but no one is doubting that mankind is saved through Jesus Christ. We're just wondering if you have a clear idea of what "saved" means.

Zach

It was never my intention to define "saved". Just the fact Christianity is about salvation.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What Dinghy Sailor said.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
*sigh*.... I wasn't trying to prove any one notion of what the word means. I was trying to show that my idea of being saved through Christ is rather standard biblical fare...
Quoting bible verses that don't necessarily support any one notion of "salvation" PERFORCE doesn't support YOUR notion of "salvation". I should have thought this self-evident. Those verses stand apart from any idea of what salvation means, therefore they cannot possibly support YOUR idea of what salvation means.

Ditto what I said to Zac.

I don't understand why everyone has such trouble with this idea.

In my opinion, Christianity is about salvation. So if someone says you're not a Christian, the implication is that offer of salvation is no longer open to you.

And only God can judge that.

But if Christianity is only about being a member of a meaningless club, then it doesn't matter.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
...Just the fact Christianity is about salvation.

I agree, Christianity is about salvation. You keep whipping the goal posts around.

quote:
So if someone says you're not a Christian, the implication is that offer of salvation is no longer open to you.

Salvation is offered to everyone. Does that mean that everyone is a Christian?

Zach

[ 06. January 2011, 01:17: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
...Just the fact Christianity is about salvation.
I agree, Christianity is about salvation. You keep whipping the goal posts around.

I'm moving the goalposts? [Confused]

Above you said you did not conflate Christianity with salvation.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
So if someone says you're not a Christian, the implication is that offer of salvation is no longer open to you.
Salvation is offered to everyone. Does that mean that everyone is a Christian?

If they accept that offer, yes.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I'm moving the goalposts? [Confused] Above you said you did not conflate Christianity with salvation.

Do you really not know the difference between "Christianity is salvation" and "Christianity is about salvation?"

quote:
If they accept that offer, yes.

Zoom! Goal posts moved again. First, Christianity is being offered salvation, now, Christianity is accepting salvation.

Zach

[ 06. January 2011, 01:35: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Zoom! Goal posts moved again. First, Christianity is being offered salvation, now, Christianity is accepting salvation.

That is how I read this, also.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I'm moving the goalposts? [Confused] Above you said you did not conflate Christianity with salvation.
Do you really not know the difference between "Christianity is salvation" and "Christianity is about salvation?"

I made that distinction quite carefully in my first post on the topic.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
If they accept that offer, yes.
Zoom! Goal posts moved again. First, Christianity is being offered salvation, now, Christianity is accepting salvation.

It's both. Or do you think we have no free will in the matter?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I made that distinction quite carefully in my first post on the topic... It's both. Or do you think we have no free will in the matter?

Now we're on to a third proposition. "Christianity is being offered and accepting salvation." See, you think you are being so clear here. We are trying to make you understand that you aren't.

Zach

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I made that distinction quite carefully in my first post on the topic... It's both. Or do you think we have no free will in the matter?
Now we're on to a third proposition. "Christianity is being offered and accepting salvation." See, you think you are being so clear here. We are trying to make you understand that you aren't.

Obviously not.

Let's try a different tack.

When you say someone is not a Christian, how do you think that affects their salvation in your mind?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I have already explained that, and I've been consistent to boot. It was in that "non-Christians get points for being mostly right" thing. What's ironic is that you quoted Lumen Gentium against me, when I am more in accordance with it than you. (As far as I can tell.)

The doctrines, sacraments, and moral teachings of the Christian Church are indeed the offer of God's grace on this earth. Yet, as Lumen Gentium says,

quote:
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience...

Zach

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

It doesn't matter what he thinks about it. Personal salvation and professing Christianity are closely related, some people believe that one exclusively leads into the other, other people (ie universalists) don't think that. However, we all agree that whether or not they're inextricably linked, the two concepts [u]are not coterminous[/i]. A person may or may not be able to be saved without being Christian, but that is a different debate to the one about what it means to be a Christian.

Whatever Zach thinks on the issue, I've just given the majority consensus, and is what we mean when we say these words. You don't get to redefine them for your own purposes!

[x post with Zach]

[ 06. January 2011, 02:56: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

<Prescript> I take way too long to write [Disappointed]

, but I don't think this covers too much ground already covered. My apologies if it does. </Prescript>

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In my opinion, Christianity is about salvation.

I would agree, but isn't it about much more than just salvation? I think salvation is a beginning - a very important beginning, but still only a beginning because I think Christ cares as much about what we do after we're saved as He does about whether or not we accept His salvation to begin with. It's not just about whether we can accept or receive His joy and peace, but also about how much of them we're able to receive and pass on to others.

quote:
So if someone says you're not a Christian, the implication is that offer of salvation is no longer open to you.

That's the implication only if that someone thinks that the only way to salvation is through Christianity. Another possibility is that the only way to salvation is through Christ and that He offers it to everyone, but only Christians are aware that He is the way. Non-Christians can still receive salvation through Christ, they're just not aware of it yet.

I may be wrong, but you seem to be equating the idea that Christianity is about salvation with the idea that salvation is the only point of Christianity. Even if the whole world was Christian, and absolutely everyone was already saved, Christ would still be calling us to look after and help each other. I think that's what Christianity is about because I think salvation is a given for everyone willing to receive it. Christians may have the advantage of being able to know in this life what it is they are receiving, but non-Christians get to find out in the next life if they don't in this life.

I'm not saying that's the only way to see it, just that it's a legitimate way to see it. Or am I just misunderstanding your point?

quote:
And only God can judge that.

Yes, but that's true whatever you believe about salvation. If you think only Christians can be saved, then only God can judge whether someone is a Christian. If you think non-Christians can be saved, then you can safely judge whether someone seems to be a Christian or not while leaving it to God to judge whether or not they are saved.

Depending on how you see the relationship between being Christian and being saved, saying that someone is not a Christian doesn't have to mean anything about whether or not they're able to be saved, and at the same time it doesn't have to mean that there's no point to being a Christian.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
So if someone says you're not a Christian, the implication is that offer of salvation is no longer open to you.
That's the implication only if that someone thinks that the only way to salvation is through Christianity.

It's not even that. If you're not a Christian, the implication is NOT that the offer is no longer open. If that were the case there could be no adult converts to Christianity. Before age 18, I was not a Christian. From this it most emphatically does not follow that the offer of salvation wasn't open to me. If someone had said of me at that time that I wasn't a Christian, would Evensong have reprimanded them and tell them that they were condemning me to the flames of Hell? It's nonsense.

For, as it turns out, I did become a Christian in that year.

This is the problem: Evensong's definition of 'Christian' is slipping and sliding all over the place. First she says that the offer of salvation -- not salvation itself, but the offer of it, is not available to non-Christians. God does not offer salvation to non-Christians. Then she says Christians are those who have accepted the offer. No word on people who have rejected the offer, or how (or whether) people who are members of some other religion are saved.

Every time she posts she raises more questions than she answers.

[ 06. January 2011, 03:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :

Holy poop on a stick, I don't sign in for a few days and this thread's gone to five pages...

A lot of discussion about how Christianity amounts to doing good, to love of neighbour, to Jesus' radical message of gracious love of our fellow humans, to overturning social and political oppression and not to a literally resurrected, still living Christ seems to advocate a very good thing, in many respects.

But do those who support this (non-orthodox) account of Christianity worry at all about this?

This isn't meant to be a Hellish dig at non-orthodoxy. Genuinely, aren't the non-orthodox Christians (or, maybe they're not Christians, depending on which definition you opt for) concerned about missing out on (and I sound way more evangelical than I am when I say this) a personal relationship with God?

Or is that what it boils down to - that there is no God, but we like our traditions and we like to be nice?

[ 06. January 2011, 15:33: Message edited by: Calleva Atrebatum ]

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
But do those who support this (non-orthodox) account of Christianity worry at all about this?

Well, in the context of that specific passage I think the Bushes have more to worry about than the Gandhis. It seems to be directed at those who are "Christians" - or at least who claim to be - but who nevertheless do evil. It implies judgement according to deeds and character, not the judgment according to faith in Christ which is what you get if you look at the Bible through the lens of Paul rather than the lens of Jesus.

Of course, I don't believe in a literal heaven or a literal hell, so judgment isn't understood in that sense (which is basically an Egyptian idea, weighing the heart when crossing the river styx, that sort of thing). But we can create real torment or bliss, for ourselves and for others, depending on how we are and how we act.

quote:
This isn't meant to be a Hellish dig at non-orthodoxy. Genuinely, aren't the non-orthodox Christians (or, maybe they're not Christians, depending on which definition you opt for) concerned about missing out on (and I sound way more evangelical than I am when I say this) a personal relationship with God?

What is the difference between a "personal relationship with God" and "a personal relationship with one's own conscience"? I think those who say they experience the former are, like me, merely experiencing the latter. But there's a sense in which our conscience is the seat of rationality, of the Spirit, of Consciousness, and so we can say it is divine too. Maybe we all have a personal relationship with God, even if our God is not a theistic, personal, trinitarian God.

quote:
Or is that what it boils down to - that there is no God, but we like our traditions and we like to be nice?

I'd phrase it more positively than that: firstly, that there is an impersonal, transcendent, Pandeistic God, which is the epitome of Nature and of Natural Law, in which all creation lives, moves and has its being; secondly, that ethical way of the Christian tradition, more specifically a radical and humanistic interpretation of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, provide a most excellent way to live in accordance with Natural Law, a way based on love, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation and healing for all humanity and ultimately for all creation. Our religious duties are to love God and to love our neighbour; the love of God being evidenced by reverence for the cosmos and the natural order, and with love of our neighbour reflecting the fact that we all contain the divine spark of consciousness and we are all cousins derived from the same source.

(The really interesting thing about Pandeism is that it is fully incarnational: if God became the universe and is manifest in Nature and Nature's Law, then everything is filled with divinity).

Romans 7:19 is the trickier one. This reflects a difficulty in all of us in choosing between that which we know to be "most excellent" and that which is "easiest" or "most immediately rewarding". The development of virtue, as I understand it, is an education and forming of our desires, so that we come to habitually want and do that which is most excellent; that takes practice and discipline. But this isn't evidence of an original sin or fall; we are evolving creatures, slowly using our conscience and reason to shape, and sometimes override, our instincts.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I seem to have royally fucked this up again. [Big Grin]

I'm sorry if I'm unclear. I'm not trying to be obscure. I suppose the definitions of "Christian" and "Salvation" are just to wide for us all to be on the same page.

I'll just go back to the original cause for comment.

Zac told RadicalWhig he wasn't a Christian because he didn't believe in the Nicene Creed (or was that all other Church doctrine as well?)

RadicalWhig self-professes to follow Jesus.

So according to scripture like "Ask, knock and you will receive the Holy spirit" and "whoever believes in me will receive eternal life", RadicalWhig quite easily qualifies as a Christian.

According to scripture, it's quite possible he has the holy spirit and is therefore "saved" or on the path to salvation or has accepted the offer of salvation from Jesus.

So Zac coming along and excommunicating him is just bizarre IMO.

This has nothing to do with Universalism or salvation in other faiths etc when someone professes to be a Christian.

And just to be clear about my comments on Buddhists and Muslims believing they are saved through their prophets, I did not mean it ontologically like some people relate it to Jesus. I don't mean they have a myriad of insane atonement theories based on the person of their prophets. I meant a Muslim generally believes he is saved through following the revelation handed down to Muhammad by God. A Buddhists generally believes he will head for Nirvana by following the practises of the Buddha. Therefore, they are "saved" through their prophets.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I seem to have royally fucked this up again.

I'm sorry if I'm unclear. I'm not trying to be obscure. I suppose the definitions of "Christian" and "Salvation" are just to wide for us all to be on the same page.

I'll just go back to the original cause for comment.

Zac told RadicalWhig he wasn't a Christian because he didn't believe in the Nicene Creed (or was that all other Church doctrine as well?)

RadicalWhig self-professes to follow Jesus.

So according to scripture like "Ask, knock and you will receive the Holy spirit" and "whoever believes in me will receive eternal life", RadicalWhig quite easily qualifies as a Christian.

According to scripture, it's quite possible he has the holy spirit and is therefore "saved" or on the path to salvation or has accepted the offer of salvation from Jesus.

So Zac coming along and excommunicating him is just bizarre IMO.

This has nothing to do with Universalism or salvation in other faiths etc when someone professes to be a Christian.

And just to be clear about my comments on Buddhists and Muslims believing they are saved through their prophets, I did not mean it ontologically like some people relate it to Jesus. I don't mean they have a myriad of insane atonement theories based on the person of their prophets. I meant a Muslim generally believes he is saved through following the revelation handed down to Muhammad by God. A Buddhists generally believes he will head for Nirvana by following the practises of the Buddha. Therefore, they are "saved" through their prophets.

Depends entirely on whether you think RadicalWhig "believes in me" (ie Jesus).

What does that mean, exactly? Because as I understand it, RW doesn't believe that Jesus is God, or supernaturally divine, or anything along those lines.

There is a whole spectrum of beliefs ABOUT Jesus - that he was a wise teacher, or a prophet. Do they all qualify as belief IN him?

That's the question you need to consider.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Yet another definition of a Christian from Evensong.

It's the price of having a consistent definition of Christianity, Evensong. It draws a line between who's in and who's out.

Zach

[ 07. January 2011, 02:04: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

So Unitarians are not Christians?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So Unitarians are not Christians?

Who are you asking?...

In my current view, no.

EDIT: But if you want to ask whether Unitarians are saved, you'll get a much more complex answer about how that's God's decision, not mine, and any view I express on it won't make a jot of difference, and there'll be all these complicated sidebars about how/if non-Christians get saved.

[ 07. January 2011, 02:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

I think the word "Christian" is the only reasonable option we have to describe people who base their lives around the fellow from Nazareth. As was pointed out earlier here, if we restrict the word too much, then heresy becomes impossible. There are True Christians are... the other. Which is silly.

Now as for "orthodox" Christianity, well this hardly is a final answer but I would say anyone whose baptism you recognize as "valid" counts. If you can take people and pour water on them while saying "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" while believing the ideas, if not the words, of the Creeds, then you're orthodox.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Depends entirely on whether you think RadicalWhig "believes in me" (ie Jesus).

What does that mean, exactly?

Well for me, believing in Jesus means following Jesus. For some it seems to mean assenting to a doctrinal creed the Church devised 300 years after Jesus' death.

Perhaps Churchian rather than Christian is a better term for such types.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yet another definition of a Christian from Evensong.

Which bit? Having the spirit? No. Talked about that last page.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

It's the price of having a consistent definition of Christianity, Evensong. It draws a line between who's in and who's out.

And this separating the sheep from the goats helps who exactly? Sounds like it just helps those who are "in" feel more self-righteous.

Jesus was rather keen on those that were "out" and oppressed by the institution Zac. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Depends entirely on whether you think RadicalWhig "believes in me" (ie Jesus).

What does that mean, exactly?
Well for me, believing in Jesus means following Jesus. For some it seems to mean assenting to a doctrinal creed the Church devised 300 years after Jesus' death.

Okay.

I will have to think for a while about whether or not I actually think 'following' helps clear things up at all.

I'm inclined to think that what you believe ABOUT Jesus is important. My basis for thinking that would mainly be the passage where Jesus asks about who people say he is, and then asks the disciples who do THEY say he is - and Peter declares him to be the Christ.

I know that's not quite a Nicene Creed thing, because it rather depends on what you think being the Christ/Messiah means.

Another factor to me is that, in my view, the Jewish leaders who were against Jesus quite clearly understood him to be claiming divinity. On my reading of a number of passages, that was the reason they regarded him as blasphemous. Surely that's important.

On the other hand, it's quite ironic that you bring up the sheep and the goats because that parable is all about saying that what you call Jesus is NOT the key thing, it's what you do.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Doesn't the introduction of smilies in your post above create snark - which you have professed you want to keep out of the discussion ?

I am in a non-creedal church, probably not included in orthodox definitions of Christianity. The fact that it isn't doesn't actually make a lot of difference to me personally.

Re the radcial whig debate, when you say follow or believe in Jesus - do you consider that that means believing in Jesus' divinity or not ?

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Addressed to Evensong - crossposted with various folk.

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

Having recently concluded that questions about Orthodox doctrine concerning the Virgin Mary cannot be adequately addressed if we restrict ourselves to Protestant assumptions, I now wonder if we are faced with a similar problem in considering the meaning of the word 'Christian' or, rather, the meaning of 'Christ', since this is who is being discussed.

While we might dismiss RadicalWhig's Christ on the grounds that his avowedly Jeffersonian Christ is not the Christ of the New Testament (can anyone produce a convincing dismissal, I wonder?), we cannot do so with Evensong, who has explicitly sought to separate the Gospels from the post-Apostolic church, and quite possibly also from the rest of the New Testament.

While I'm sure many Protestants would distance themselves from this position, ISTM to be a logical consequence of the Protestant approach to Scripture, leading inevitably to a plurality of Christs.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Depends entirely on whether you think RadicalWhig "believes in me" (ie Jesus).

What does that mean, exactly?
Well for me, believing in Jesus means following Jesus. For some it seems to mean assenting to a doctrinal creed the Church devised 300 years after Jesus' death.

Perhaps Churchian rather than Christian is a better term for such types.

Here I suspect is the rub. Engaging with the creeds identifies the Churchian with the ongoing community of faith which is the body of Christ. Which is what it is to be a Christian in a catholic orthodox corporate sense.

It is within this community in Christ that we find salvation.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think what Edward said is great. Don't you hate it when someone else deflates your argument by saying it with far more clarity than you would have yourself? [Biased]

Zach

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Engaging with the creeds identifies the Churchian with the ongoing community of faith which is the body of Christ. Which is what it is to be a Christian in a catholic orthodox corporate sense.

Beloved in Christ Edward

I would not disagree with this, but beyond asserting that 'Christian' must be qualified in this way, how do you argue it with the 'diversitians'?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

I'm just curious. Does anybody not think that the Creeds are sort of inevitable?

I mean, we're talking about a human person who was crucified - tortured to death - under a colonizing government. We now believe that this person is/was the divine Son of the One God.

Wouldn't this raise the very same questions in any era in which it was considered? And wouldn't we devise pretty much the same Creeds over and over again, if, say, we threw them away today and reconsidered them again in a hundred years? (I mean, perhaps the "Virgin" Mary would not make an appearance - but perhaps she would. I can't think of much else that's up for grabs, though.)

I don't find the "all this happened too long ago to matter anymore" or the "the winners write the history" arguments convincing at all. But maybe that's just me....

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The "carefully constructed tools" prayer and worship do little to convince anyone of anything in the intellectual sense. That's simply not their purpose.

Intellectual activity doesn't happen apart from the world view within which it takes place. Within an habitual believer's world view the purpose of 'prayer and worship' (I was thinking private devotions and public liturgy) may well be some general kind of self-expression and spiritual benefit.

But at some point along the way from the personal to the institutional, there will be a very clear intent on the part of the religion's overseers to not merely enable personal development but to perpetuate the religious beliefs of a community. That in terms of my real/habitual distinction is the explicit reinforcement of the habitual at the expense of the real.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Maybe, Tuba. I think the catholic faith has always hinged on soteriology instead of metaphysics- the Creeds are a result of Jesus' understanding of what humanity's problem was and His solution to that problem.

The formation of the Creed is a fascinating story. During the time of the Arian heresy the catholic faith hung by a thread. It was quite literally the cry in the wilderness- the few catholic bishops left in the whole world were banished and hiding in the wilderness from the soldiers of an Arian emperor. Even the pope was banished and an anti-pope placed on the throne of Peter.

Zach

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But at some point along the way from the personal to the institutional, there will be a very clear intent on the part of the religion's overseers to not merely enable personal development but to perpetuate the religious beliefs of a community. That in terms of my real/habitual distinction is the explicit reinforcement of the habitual at the expense of the real.

Firstly, the contrast you draw between personal development and institutional perpetuation is a false one. It makes about as much sense as saying that schools' overseers do not merely intent to enable personal development of students but to perpetuate the knowledge and skills of a community. These are in fact inseparable: the personal development we are talking about occurs precisely in terms of what is being perpetuated. You are here implicitly assuming an independent standard of truth, with which to judge the process from the outside as to what part of it is "for the individual" and what part "for the institution". I do not believe that this is generally possible.

It is of course possible that institutional indoctrination is abusive. But just as possible is that it is helpful and indeed the only way forward for an individual to achieve their aims. For example, without a decade of indoctrination by various universities, I could not work as a scientist. (And yes, I mean "indoctrination" in the full sense of the word: academic teaching is about a lot more than just factual information transfer.)

Secondly, the contrast you draw between habitual and real is not a necessary one. There is no need for a habit to be at odds with reality. Indeed, the basic point of habits is to automatize "accordance with reality" so that action becomes rapid, precise and successful. Where this is not the case, we hence talk of "bad habits". I claim that prayer and worship are generally good habits, which tend to make us accord more with reality. The truth of this claim depends on underlying assumptions about the existence and actions of God. You may disagree with those, of course, but you cannot sensibly attack habits as such. Or are you worrying two times a day whether it would be a good idea to brush your teeth?

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
why not just accept Christianity as an internally-consistent system based on a bunch of unproved axioms, just the same way we do in math? That's what I do, pretty much.

Accept in what sense? And for what purpose?

Orthodox Christianity, while being sort of internally consistent, is a system based not only on unproved axioms. It relies on claims (God as a conscious rational being who chooses to incarnate, for example) that all the verifiable evidence in the universe indicates are wrong. So for me personally, while I'm happy to accept the traditional Christian story as a big picture that helps some make sense of life, it doesn't interest me as such.

I find the story science (and maths) tell of nature more awe-inspiring and credible...

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the personal development we are talking about occurs precisely in terms of what is being perpetuated.

Yes, in the development of 'habitual belief' rather than 'real belief'.

quote:
You are here implicitly assuming an independent standard of truth, with which to judge the process from the outside as to what part of it is "for the individual" and what part "for the institution".

No, you're imposing a context that I carefully avoided. Where one becomes the other is neither here nor there; they might co-exist within individuals with leadership roles, for example. The point is they both exist, and that one promotes 'habitual' over 'real' belief.

quote:
the contrast you draw between habitual and real is not a necessary one. There is no need for a habit to be at odds with reality.

Yeah, but ... I wasn't making any judgement about habit in general. I compared two kinds of belief, one based on evidence that I labelled 'real', the other that we fall into for some other reason that I labelled 'habitual'. Now I do think 'real belief' is preferable to 'habitual belief' in most contexts, but that's saying nothing about the value or usefulness of habitual behaviour in general.

[ 07. January 2011, 21:38: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Doesn't the introduction of smilies in your post above create snark - which you have professed you want to keep out of the discussion ?

I was under the impression sarcasm and general snark is acceptable in purgatory if it is directed towards the issue and not the person talking about the issue. I thought orfeo's comments were more a personal attack and wanted to refrain from that as we have done more than enough of that in Hell.

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

I am in a non-creedal church, probably not included in orthodox definitions of Christianity. The fact that it isn't doesn't actually make a lot of difference to me personally.

To be not included in "orthodox" Christianity is not a big deal IMO. But to be told you are not a Christian at all I assume would be another matter?

Wouldn't that bother you?

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

Re the radcial whig debate, when you say follow or believe in Jesus - do you consider that that means believing in Jesus' divinity or not ?

It can but I don't think it has to. It leaves things nice an open. Which, IMO, is as it should be.

For example, I would not have any trouble calling a Quaker a Christian.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Depends entirely on whether you think RadicalWhig "believes in me" (ie Jesus).

What does that mean, exactly?
Well for me, believing in Jesus means following Jesus. For some it seems to mean assenting to a doctrinal creed the Church devised 300 years after Jesus' death.

Perhaps Churchian rather than Christian is a better term for such types.
Here I suspect is the rub. Engaging with the creeds identifies the Churchian with the ongoing community of faith which is the body of Christ. Which is what it is to be a Christian in a catholic orthodox corporate sense.

It is within this community in Christ that we find salvation.

Not sure about that......I don't think the Catholics think us creedal Anglicans are the "true" church and I suspect they rather worry about our salvation.

This credal body of Christ you speak of is not a uniform, monolithic entity. It consists of at least the Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox which will all have differing theologies.

Seems to me to be drawing a rather arbitrary line.

I mean, are the creedal churches really the ongoing body of Christ anymore?

Perhaps once, when everyone was Orthodox and the schism had not yet come up.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

On a completely different note, my sister lives in Central Kalimantan (Borneo) and she texted me today.

We have a young man staying with us on a "field trip" here from there and she asked me if I would take him to Church tomorrow as his parents were very Christian and she thought it would be a good experience. (Their names are Mr and Mrs Christ. No joke).

She said the Anglican church ( my church) would be good because he is a Christian, not a Catholic.

In Central Kalimantan, you are a either a Catholic, or a Christian. [Killing me]

At that point I realised things were getting ridiculous.

So I apologize to all those I have given a hard time to when they say other self confessed Christians are not Christians.

I've realised it's all rather a big joke and has little bearing on reality.

Someone saying you're not a Christian when you think you are is hurtful, but ultimately, makes no difference to the truth. (Whatever that may be)

On that note, I'd like to exit this discussion.

Please. [Big Grin]

[ 08. January 2011, 07:15: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Doesn't the introduction of smilies in your post above create snark - which you have professed you want to keep out of the discussion ?
I was under the impression sarcasm and general snark is acceptable in purgatory if it is directed towards the issue and not the person talking about the issue. I thought orfeo's comments were more a personal attack and wanted to refrain from that as we have done more than enough of that in Hell.

Well go and look at what you did again. You mentioned zach82 by name. Again.

In other words, your snark IS directed at people.

[ 08. January 2011, 08:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
On that note, I'd like to exit this discussion.

Please.

You know how to do that, right? Stop posting.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
On that note, I'd like to exit this discussion.

Please.
You know how to do that, right? Stop posting.

Fair point, but you know what? I really dislike it when I have long conversations with people and then they just stop posting. I find it weird and kind of rude. It's like there's no resolution. So I'm trying to end it civilly. You don't have to agree. You can agree to disagree. But to be left hanging (which has happened to me on a number of threads) is just a bit weird.

And if you stop posting, then people just say you're not "engaging" and people give you a hard time for that too. It's like you can't win. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

A fair amount of UK Quakers don't self-identify as Christians and would probably just argue with you if you told them they were.

Personally, it does not bother me much if someone says I am not a Christian - because their mistake beliefs about me and my faith don't actually change the nature of my faith or relationship with God.

People are not saved, or not-saved, on the basis of what others say about them.

Christian is a descriptive word, if it can not be used to distinguish one group of people from another group of people it has no descriptive utility.

It is as if we are arguing about whose coat is orange, one group is arguing that it has to be at least dyed a mixture of red and orange - radical whig is arguing you can leave out one of the colours - and you are arguing that it is wrong to comment on the colour of the coat because anyone could put on an orange coat if they wanted to. Meanwhile David is saying its his coat, he paid for it with his taxes and if he wants it to be blue but called orange that's his right.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I compared two kinds of belief, one based on evidence that I labelled 'real', the other that we fall into for some other reason that I labelled 'habitual'. Now I do think 'real belief' is preferable to 'habitual belief' in most contexts, but that's saying nothing about the value or usefulness of habitual behaviour in general.

The problem is that you are trying very hard to appropriate a particular term - "real" - for your particular set of idiosyncratic beliefs, because you know that this term has rhetorical power and social status that you can use in arguments.

However, to my mind the only thing special about your set of beliefs is that based on the particular narrow set of evidence and weak deductions you allow, most people come to other, more atheistic convictions. That's kind of interesting, but makes them no more "real" than other false beliefs to me.

"Real" means something like "in accordance with what is actually true", so obviously it's quite silly to expect people to let you have that particular label for your beliefs. That would determine the outcome of any discussion in your favor before it has started...

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
David is saying its his coat, he paid for it with his taxes and if he wants it to be blue but called orange that's his right.

It's not my coat. [Eek!]

It belongs to most of the population of England. I'm suggesting that in fact the orange colour is a mix of stains and dirt. With a proper clean we'd see that really it is blue.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The problem is that you are trying very hard to appropriate a particular term - "real" - for your particular set of idiosyncratic beliefs, because you know that this term has rhetorical power and social status that you can use in arguments.

I thought I referred to a certain kind of belief, not to any set of beliefs in particular. Of course my choice of labels was not arbitrary. But neither do I think it was unreasonable or misleading, given that 'real' does not seem inconsistent with a belief that is based on evidence rather than something else.

quote:
"Real" means something like "in accordance with what is actually true"

FWIW I usually go with real as how things are, so truth can describe what is real.

quote:
obviously it's quite silly to expect people to let you have that particular label for your beliefs. That would determine the outcome of any discussion in your favor before it has started...

I guess that would make us all quite silly then, seeing as a large part of what goes on here is precisely debate over whether labels we choose are justified. On the other hand, if a positive label is read as associated with our beliefs when we're talking about something else, well, that would be a happy coincidence... [Smile]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
On that note, I'd like to exit this discussion.

Please.
You know how to do that, right? Stop posting.
Fair point, but you know what? I really dislike it when I have long conversations with people and then they just stop posting. I find it weird and kind of rude. It's like there's no resolution. So I'm trying to end it civilly. You don't have to agree. You can agree to disagree. But to be left hanging (which has happened to me on a number of threads) is just a bit weird.

And if you stop posting, then people just say you're not "engaging" and people give you a hard time for that too. It's like you can't win. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Duty calls ...

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

In Central Kalimantan, you are a either a Catholic, or a Christian.

Going on a tangent, I have a friend who teaches public high school in The Big City. In her first year, she (who is Jewish) was completely flummoxed when she got to the unit on the Reformation in her Social Studies class and students said to her, "I'm not a Christian, I'm Catholic." She was trying to make some point about how Christians didn't get along with each other.

These were inner city high school kids in the United States. You don't have to go to Borneo for this view.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
David is saying its his coat, he paid for it with his taxes and if he wants it to be blue but called orange that's his right.
It's not my coat.

It belongs to most of the population of England. I'm suggesting that in fact the orange colour is a mix of stains and dirt. With a proper clean we'd see that really it is blue.

Hmm, that's as maybe. In my analogy above I did also mean to say a mixture of red and yellow - at which point the analogy makes a bit more sense ...

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I thought I referred to a certain kind of belief, not to any set of beliefs in particular. Of course my choice of labels was not arbitrary. But neither do I think it was unreasonable or misleading, given that 'real' does not seem inconsistent with a belief that is based on evidence rather than something else.

Dave Marshall giveth, and Dave Marshall taketh away.

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Duty calls ...

Creepy.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But neither do I think it was unreasonable or misleading, given that 'real' does not seem inconsistent with a belief that is based on evidence rather than something else.

Well, all this is the same shtick as with old positivism and new atheism, just with a different outcome. (That, as I've said, makes your stuff somewhat interesting - but that concerns the result, not the foundation.) You should be well aware that people disagree that what you call "belief based on evidence" is the be all and end all of rational thought and truth. Thus to label your approach "real" moves it from the domain of discussion to the domain of proselytism. That's just where Dawkins and his ilk are hanging out. If you don't want that company, and if you want people to talk with you rather than against you, you have to stop using vocabulary that indicates that there is in fact not point talking to you. I'm as committed as anyone to the Divine truth of Catholic teaching, but I consider it pointless to use this as argument - whether explicitly or implicitly by choice of vocabulary - with those are not so committed. It makes no more sense to call your stuff "real".

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I guess that would make us all quite silly then, seeing as a large part of what goes on here is precisely debate over whether labels we choose are justified.

Maybe that is a large part of the discussions you have. I rarely talk about labels. The only label I worry about with some frequency here is "infallible", and almost always that is simply correcting popular opinion about what Catholics even mean by the term (rather than whether the term is actually justified). The current discussion about "orthodox" is I guess a classic here, but as expressed earlier on this thread, that's in my opinion simply because a term with a clear, objective and non-controversial definition is being abused to indicate sides in a social and historical conflict. What people really mean there is "traditional", or perhaps "Traditional" to indicate a (former) social dominance.

My general opinion is that labels must be useful. And the way "orthodox" is being used here is not useful, because it mixes up truth claims, history and social issues. I certainly think "Traditional" belief is (essentially) right belief, orthodox. But I find it annoying if people call "Traditional" beliefs orthodox, if they actually think that they are wrong (or arbitrary). That's not what "orthodox" is supposed to mean, to the detriment of discussion. Actually, this is basically the same problem I have with your appropriation of the label "real", except that in this case many people confuse the issue, whereas in your case it's basically just you...

Anyway, if I ever become say a Protestant, I will immediately begin to refer to that as "orthodox" and to people who have chosen other beliefs (but are sufficiently close in belief) as "heretics". If I became Buddhist again, I would not talk about Christianity in these terms, because the distance is too large. But I may use the labels concerning other Buddhists. If I lost my mind and became of the opinion that "teachings" do not matter, then I would not use the labels at all (since they do not matter) or only in scare quotes (to indicate that I do not consider them serious). Etc.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm as committed as anyone to the Divine truth of Catholic teaching, but I consider it pointless to use this as argument - whether explicitly or implicitly by choice of vocabulary - with those are not so committed. It makes no more sense to call your stuff "real".

It sounds like you don't think arguing from an open-ended, grounded position is possible. Your last couple of replies at least seem to ignore where I've explained that I haven't been describing 'my stuff'. I used 'real' as a descriptive label for what seems to me 'how things are' with belief. Rather than considering whether that is correct, you've apparently dismissed the question as if it were an attempt to proselytise for a belief system.

I have no interest in defending or promoting an abstractly-defined world view in the sense that you seem able to with Roman Catholicism. I didn't first consider and adopt evangelicalism, get tired of it and then adopt critical realism. I'm looking at how things are, attempting to work out a reasonably-defined ordinary-language description of how things are that is consistent both internally and with a scientific view of the universe.

quote:
The current discussion about "orthodox" is I guess a classic here, but as expressed earlier on this thread, that's in my opinion simply because a term with a clear, objective and non-controversial definition is being abused to indicate sides in a social and historical conflict.

'Clear, objective and non-controversial'? I've no idea what makes you think that. Based on how I see 'orthodox' used on here and in other church contexts, your definition is at best idiosyncratic. It's not a word I currently have much use for, but on those occasions where it seems appropriate I will expect it to convey the meaning it has acquired in the 'real world' context I'm addressing. It's likely to be imprecise, with various connotations depending on who hears it. What it is supposed to mean is neither here to there outside formal academic discourse.

And so it goes with many words we use. 'Real', on the other hand, does I think generally convey 'how things are' in informal contexts to which it is applied.

[ 09. January 2011, 15:21: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Anyone who says, "Islam is a religion of peace" is either a lying or misguided apologist for Islam

I presume some of your best friends are Muslim?

Anyway, a friend linked to this article, about Muslim reactions to the bombing of Coptic churches:
Muslims attend Coptic Mass to act as shield.
Also mentioned on the BBC.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I used 'real' as a descriptive label for what seems to me 'how things are' with belief. Rather than considering whether that is correct, you've apparently dismissed the question as if it were an attempt to proselytise for a belief system.

I've always considered your beliefs to be wrong. At least to a significant degree, there are of course also right things about your beliefs. And I assume that opinion is mutual. My point is rather that you claiming the title "real" for your beliefs is as helpful as me claiming the title "Divinely infallible" for mine. Such vocabulary is a discussion stopper, a marker for the other to STFU. It is not helpful, unless you indeed want to stop discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I have no interest in defending or promoting an abstractly-defined world view in the sense that you seem able to with Roman Catholicism.

Self-reflection is clearly not your strength.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm looking at how things are, attempting to work out a reasonably-defined ordinary-language description of how things are that is consistent both internally and with a scientific view of the universe.

None of us sets out to acquire an idiot faith, which contradicts all known facts and incoherently waffles about illusions. Those who disagree with you, like yours truly, believe they have reason and facts on their side.

Now, if you want to talk with people who disagree with you, you don't start by telling them that they are brainless and ignorant.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
'Clear, objective and non-controversial'? I've no idea what makes you think that. Based on how I see 'orthodox' used on here and in other church contexts, your definition is at best idiosyncratic.

It's simply what the Greek means (well, the Greek is more "right worship" than "right belief", but one has to make some allowances). Furthermore, the only difference you will find in typical dictionary definitions is that they will add some reference to "approved" or "established" belief. And I have to agree with that, and insofar correct my own statement. It makes little sense to completely make up some stuff and then call it "orthodox" just because you belief it. There needs to be a reference point of authority beyond yourself. What that reference point is, remains however open. And while such a reference point typically has some history, it need not be identical with a particular historically dominant entity or for that matter a contemporary huge institution.

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Anyone who says, "Islam is a religion of peace" is either a lying or misguided apologist for Islam
I presume some of your best friends are Muslim?

So, you're in the misguided apologist category are you?

[Note I'm not speaking about Muslims, but about Islam as a religion and as an ideology. Also, I think an MA in Arabic, years of studying, working and doing research in various middle eastern countries, and some very interesting military service in Iraq, mean that I'm more qualified than most to voice my judgment on Islam: in my case, it's not pre-judice.

[ 09. January 2011, 22:45: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is rather that you claiming the title "real" for your beliefs ... is a discussion stopper, a marker for the other to STFU.

My point is that I am not claiming the title 'real' for 'my beliefs'. I am suggesting that there exist different kinds of belief, that may be classified according to how they are arrived at. That of itself says nothing about the content of whatever beliefs are under consideration.

quote:
Self-reflection is clearly not your strength.

Feel free to explain what I'm overlooking.

quote:
None of us sets out to acquire an idiot faith, which contradicts all known facts and incoherently waffles about illusions.

Of course not. But some of you adopt a system of belief that depends on 'revealed truths' for which there is no verifiable support.

quote:
Those who disagree with you, like yours truly, believe they have reason and facts on their side.

Yes. But what they and you believe are facts, many people, me included, now find are better explained by other interpretations of the evidence.

quote:
Now, if you want to talk with people who disagree with you, you don't start by telling them that they are brainless and ignorant.

It's very hard to talk with anyone if they disregard what you've actually said but instead focus on what might follow if what you said is correct.

quote:
It makes little sense to completely make up some stuff and then call it "orthodox" just because you belief it.

I didn't notice anyone doing that. What seemed to be happening was that a context was being assumed - the historical beliefs of institutional Christianity - and generally understood. I thought people were using the special case scenario that you identified as an appropriate use, making your strict definition unnecessary but still probably useful.

[ 10. January 2011, 00:01: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It's very hard to talk with anyone if they disregard what you've actually said but instead focus on what might follow if what you said is correct.

While certainly people do need to talk about what you actually say. But looking on what might follow if what you said is correct is a pretty standard debating methodology. If you're not willing to have your beliefs examined in this way you may be in the wrong place.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

[Confused]

That must be one of the most pointless of your one-liners I can remember.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

[Confused]

I for one tend to test the logical implications of my own proto-statements to see where they lead, because it's one of the best known ways of figuring out if the original ideas were correct in the first place!

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
why not just accept Christianity as an internally-consistent system based on a bunch of unproved axioms, just the same way we do in math? That's what I do, pretty much.
Accept in what sense? And for what purpose?

Orthodox Christianity, while being sort of internally consistent, is a system based not only on unproved axioms. It relies on claims (God as a conscious rational being who chooses to incarnate, for example) that all the verifiable evidence in the universe indicates are wrong. So for me personally, while I'm happy to accept the traditional Christian story as a big picture that helps some make sense of life, it doesn't interest me as such.

I find the story science (and maths) tell of nature more awe-inspiring and credible...

Well, "accept" in the sense that this is the reality of it; that's what Christianity is. It takes a major unproved axiom from Judaism - the existence of One God who favors his people - and adds a few of its own, based in events in the world, in a continuity. The theology works itself out logically.

I'm not sure how one could "verify," or not, what God might choose to do. Certainly the Jews of the Tanakh believed that God was conscious and rational; He made covenants with them. They were His people, and the sheep of His pasture. So all the theology leading up to the Incarnation says: God is rational, conscious, and bestows favor on people. (And when you consider that same theology in context, in the world in which it existed, it's really not so hard to believe this. This is why the Psalmist says, "O Lord, how I love Thy Law!")

And then Jesus comes along to say, "I have not come to abolish the Law - but to fulfill it." It all makes quite good sense.

Yes, the universe is awe-inspiring, I would agree - and we have science to thank for showing us this. But nature, as we know, is red in tooth and claw - awe-inspiring though it might be. So I can't really see a one-to-one mapping from math and science to Christianity. They are just not engaged in the same endeavor at all; religion is about what it means to be human.

"Nature, Mr. Allnut," says Kate Hepburn to Humphrey Bogart on the African Queen, "is what we are put in this world to rise above." It's really not a bad argument....

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Yes, the universe is awe-inspiring, I would agree - and we have science to thank for showing us this.

Yes and no. A couple of people noted before the advent of science how awe-inspiring the universe was. Psalm 8 comes to mind.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
My point is that I am not claiming the title 'real' for 'my beliefs'. I am suggesting that there exist different kinds of belief, that may be classified according to how they are arrived at. That of itself says nothing about the content of whatever beliefs are under consideration.

And I'm trying to tell you that you need to change your label. Because "My beliefs are real(istic) and yours are not." is not neutral concerning the content at all, and indeed will cause instant offense. I'm guessing something like "empirical" would be more fitting.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Self-reflection is clearly not your strength.
Feel free to explain what I'm overlooking.

From my perspective, "defending or promoting an abstractly-defined world view" is pretty much all you ever do here! As you go on right after: "I'm looking at how things are, attempting to work out a reasonably-defined ordinary-language description of how things are that is consistent both internally and with a scientific view of the universe." What else is that then the promotion of an abstractly-defined world view? It is not "abstract" in the sense of "lacking realistic content", but rather like for example theoretical physics is abstract. You have always been very weak on practicalities concerning your thought system, actually.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But some of you adopt a system of belief that depends on 'revealed truths' for which there is no verifiable support.

Nonsense, Dave. There is no verifiable support of the empirical kind for some of the things I believe in - or at least what empirical support there may be (e.g., miracles) is not compelling, largely because it is not reproducible. However, there are other means of support that one can consider relevant. And I do. Furthermore, if you believe in something, then you do not ultimately have verifiable support for it. Otherwise you would know it. So you may argue for greater probability of your beliefs, but that's all.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It's very hard to talk with anyone if they disregard what you've actually said but instead focus on what might follow if what you said is correct.

Your statement is self-contradictory, since if people consider the consequences of what you say, then they are clearly not disregarding it.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I didn't notice anyone doing that.

My own previous definition could have been interpreted that way. I was correcting myself.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

It's a brave and worthwhile thing to question, IngoB, but I could probably write a dissertation on why empiricism simply doesn't have the first principles necessary to reflect on itself. It's a hopeless cause.

Zach

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Self-reflection is clearly not your strength.
Feel free to explain what I'm overlooking.
You have always been very weak on practicalities concerning your thought system, actually.

From my perspective, arguing with Dave Marshall is like trying to organize custard.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"My beliefs are real(istic) and yours are not." is not neutral concerning the content at all, and indeed will cause instant offense.

If I were saying that you would have a point. As it is, I don't see a better label than 'real', as in 'how things are', for referring to beliefs that come about as a result of consideration of evidence (which need not be limited to hard empirical data). I imagine you don't like it because some of your beliefs may not fall in that category, but is that a good reason for taking offence at a use of language that simply makes the difference clear?

quote:
[Your world view] is not "abstract" in the sense of "lacking realistic content", but rather like for example theoretical physics is abstract. You have always been very weak on practicalities concerning your thought system, actually.

On reflection, abstract was a poor choice of word to distinguish between a 'reasonably-defined ordinary-language description of how things are that is consistent both internally and with a scientific view of the universe' and a religiously constructed alternative. But I see the lack of institutional reliance and no pre-determined fixed positions as a strength. My bottom line is it allows me to make good sense of life - and I don't need to step outside it in order to engage with a non-religious point of view.

quote:
There is no verifiable support of the empirical kind for some of the things I believe in - or at least what empirical support there may be (e.g., miracles) is not compelling, largely because it is not reproducible. However, there are other means of support that one can consider relevant. And I do.

Yes. But you also seem to want to assert that that kind of belief is as valid and reliable as the kind based on science. If in fact you're acknowledging that's not the case, then I'm not sure what grounds you have for objecting to my labels.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
From my perspective, arguing with Dave Marshall is like trying to organize custard.

Isaac, you never argue with anyone, you merely quote or assert or attack. Slurp.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As it is, I don't see a better label than 'real', as in 'how things are', for referring to beliefs that come about as a result of consideration of evidence (which need not be limited to hard empirical data). I imagine you don't like it because some of your beliefs may not fall in that category, but is that a good reason for taking offence at a use of language that simply makes the difference clear?

No, I don't like your definition because it is pointless, and in the way you actually use it, wrong and offensive. Pointless, because in the intention of generality that you give all this there are only two reasonable interpretations: either all belief is "real", or none. All, because absolutely all belief has come about as a result of the consideration of some evidence or the other. And be it only that your dad beat you senseless when voicing contrary opinion. There is a whole library worth of discussion concerning what is "proper" consideration and "proper" evidence, which is getting swept under the carpet here. None, because by definition belief does not ultimately obtain its force by evidence and consideration thereof. Where that happens, we call it "knowledge". Again, we could spend years discussing the fine detail, but if evidence and consideration alone suffice to call something "real", then you know that it is real, you do not believe it. There is no "leap of faith" required then.

Your application of the term is wrong, because it cannot actually make the right distinctions for you in the discussion with others. "How things are" is precisely what my beliefs are about, if you ask me. And so it is for everybody, basically. Hence if you say that my beliefs are "not real", then you claim that I am flat out wrong. And since this is pure assertion, and a strong one, that is offensive. It preempts the discussion whether "how things are" is how you believe they are, or how I believe they are.

What you really want is a label that indicates a particular kind of evidence considered in a particular way. Because that's actually what you use.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yes. But you also seem to want to assert that that kind of belief is as valid and reliable as the kind based on science. If in fact you're acknowledging that's not the case, then I'm not sure what grounds you have for objecting to my labels.

You are plain and simply comparing apples and oranges. Of course, in a sense it is "more certain" that if I hold a fire to a mix of hydrogen and oxygen, there will be a bang, than that if I die, I will be judged by Jesus Christ. But it is idiotic to conclude that therefore the question of the afterlife should be solved by chemistry. Rather it is intellectually valid to apply the best tool to the job at hand. And as far as intellectual analysis is relevant here anyhow, it just isn't modern natural science that will get you furthest. If you are not at least doing metaphysics, then you are simply sitting in a canoe trying to paddle up Mt. Everest. That you do not succeed does not indicate that Mt. Everest is an illusion... Nor does it follow that since paddling on a lake is easier than climbing Mt. Everest, canoes is all we ever shall need...

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
I would not disagree with this, but beyond asserting that 'Christian' must be qualified in this way, how do you argue it with the 'diversitians'?

Exactly in the same way that I argue the Sacraments with the non-Sacramentals.

From the Scriptures, in conversation with the Fathers and the 2000 years of the Spirit speaking to the Churches.

But my experience is that folks don't get it through arguing. It seems to be deeper than that.

I can however pinpoint my own 'personal' 'Catholic' conversion. Ironically.

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Isaac, you never argue with anyone, you merely quote or assert or attack.

You're forgetting my feeble attempts at humour.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

True. Sorry.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Note I'm not speaking about Muslims, but about Islam as a religion and as an ideology. Also, I think an MA in Arabic, years of studying, working and doing research in various middle eastern countries, and some very interesting military service in Iraq, mean that I'm more qualified than most to voice my judgment on Islam: in my case, it's not pre-judice.

There are people with equal or greater experience who disagree with you. And as a rule of evidence, I think people who make blanket negative statements are absolutely less reliable than people who don't.
Also, I would have thought that service in an occupying army is not the ideal situation in which to generate the respectful empathy required for an unprejudiced understanding of someone else's belief system.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, "accept" in the sense that this is the reality of it; that's what Christianity is. It takes a major unproved axiom from Judaism - the existence of One God who favors his people - and adds a few of its own, based in events in the world, in a continuity. The theology works itself out logically.

Yes, that's the theology of Christianity. I think Christianity itself is more the strand of history that synthesised the theology, together with the institutions and traditions associated with it.

That makes Christianity something we're participating in now. I don't see it as a static story from the past to research or inhabit, but more history in the making. A present day attempt to critically evaluate the resources we've inherited, building on what is still of value in order to make sense in our time.

Although from the way some people talk it's easy to overlook, it's entirely up to us what Christianity is today.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And as a rule of evidence, I think people who make blanket negative statements are absolutely less reliable than people who don't.

I am wondering if you said that with a straight face, given the scope for self-referential application.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And as a rule of evidence, I think people who make blanket negative statements are absolutely less reliable than people who don't.
I am wondering if you said that with a straight face, given the scope for self-referential application.

Just to clarify - I am talking of the logical point, a la "All generalisations are false" - and not making any personal references.

e.g. "People who make negative generalisations are not as reliable as people who avoid them." (itself a negative generalisation)

[ 11. January 2011, 01:33: Message edited by: MSHB ]

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Note I'm not speaking about Muslims, but about Islam as a religion and as an ideology. Also, I think an MA in Arabic, years of studying, working and doing research in various middle eastern countries, and some very interesting military service in Iraq, mean that I'm more qualified than most to voice my judgment on Islam: in my case, it's not pre-judice.
There are people with equal or greater experience who disagree with you. And as a rule of evidence, I think people who make blanket negative statements are absolutely less reliable than people who don't.
Also, I would have thought that service in an occupying army is not the ideal situation in which to generate the respectful empathy required for an unprejudiced understanding of someone else's belief system.

Read the Quran and study the hadiths, then see if you can still believe that Islam is a religion of peace; I think you will soon realise that it is a religion of war and conquest.

We live in the "Dar-ul-harb", the "domain of war", which is to be conquered by Islam and made subject to Islamic law. That's not "fundamentalism", that's plain old simole Islam. It's a wonderful religion in many ways - I've posted before on the things I like about Islam - but it is not, by any means, a religion of "peace" - it is a religion of "submission".

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :

Why can't we be honest enough to speak the truth about Islam? World conquest is an inherent part of the religion: Allah commands that all unbelievers (except Christians and Jews, who have to pay a special poll tax) are to be put to death.

Perhaps its because religions surround themselves with this undeserved wall of deference: you have to say nice things, because it's "their religion" and "must be respected". It's the same trick that the Christians and other religionists pull when their silly notions are held up to the ridicule they deserve: any criticism, no matter how true or how well informed, is met with a self-righteous barrage of, "Oh, how wicked and evil of you, you nasty horrible man - you criticised our religion. Now retract your truthful allegations at once or we'll cry 'intolerance' and 'oppression'". I call bullshit on all that.

[ 11. January 2011, 01:59: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Why can't we be honest enough to speak the truth about Islam?

Because you don't know what it is?

I grew up in Islam. Wanna fight about it? [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Why can't we be honest enough to speak the truth about Islam? World conquest is an inherent part of the religion: Allah commands that all unbelievers (except Christians and Jews, who have to pay a special poll tax) are to be put to death.

Gosh that sounds alot like:

quote:
Philippians 2.10:
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and

quote:
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’

Did it never occur to you that moderate Muslims, like moderate Christians, can put their sacred writings into a modern perspective?

p.s. No, I really don't want to fight about it. You've obviously had some very bad experiences during the war and are conveniently blaming the religion.

But that's cool and natural. People do the same to Christianity all the time.

[ 11. January 2011, 08:10: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
... I've posted before on the things I like about Islam - but it is not, by any means, a religion of "peace" - it is a religion of "submission".

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Why can't we be honest enough to speak the truth about Islam? World conquest is an inherent part of the religion: Allah commands that all unbelievers (except Christians and Jews, who have to pay a special poll tax) are to be put to death.

What Evensong said.
As a Christian, I know that I don't treat the Bible as a legal textbook, or even as a work of systematic theology. I don't read the Psalms and commend people who dash babies against rocks; I don't join in the imprecations in some of the shorter epistles at the end of the Bible. I do not regard those as central to the faith. I stand in a tradition of Biblical interpretation that tells me that those bits are peripheral. The interpretation of the Bible is to be organised around a different centre: God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, for example.

It may be a bit more difficult for Muslims than for Christians. The Bible announces itself as a motley collection of writings by different hands, whereas the Qur'an is supposed to be dictated by God to a single individual and to have pre-existed (in the style of traditional oral Arabic poetry) eternally. But it hardly seems to have been insuperable.
Looking at Muslim tradition, one doesn't see a lot of massacres of unbelievers. Commands to kill unbelievers have been more honoured in the breach than observance. The Mughals, for instance, did not kill all the Hindus under their rule. History would suggest that if an army is going to conquer your city you're probably safer with Muslims than with any other religion or ideology.

Obviously, there are radical fundamentalists in Islam, who are breaking away from traditional interpretation and substituting their own. One of the big problems of world politics is the house of Saud financing Wahhabi Islam to the detriment of older less modern more tolerant traditions.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't like your definition because it is pointless, and in the way you actually use it, wrong and offensive. Pointless, because in the intention of generality that you give all this there are only two reasonable interpretations: either all belief is "real", or none. All, because absolutely all belief has come about as a result of the consideration of some evidence or the other. And be it only that your dad beat you senseless when voicing contrary opinion.

Interesting choice of example. That's an extreme illustration of precisely the kind of belief that I'm suggesting is not 'real'. It's not based on any consideration of evidence for the belief; it will come about through being in a situation where holding the belief simply appears to be the sensible option. It is assumed to be correct for reasons other than relevant facts. It's what I labelled 'habitual' because it is acquired through ongoing exposure to social or environmental factors.

quote:
There is a whole library worth of discussion concerning what is "proper" consideration and "proper" evidence, which is getting swept under the carpet here. None, because by definition belief does not ultimately obtain its force by evidence and consideration thereof. Where that happens, we call it "knowledge".

I'm suggesting 'real' belief is based on knowledge, on reasonable extrapolations that result from the consideration of relevant evidence. That doesn't preclude differences of interpretation. But without an evidential basis, discussion of those differences has no common ground on which to build, only opinion and prejudice to exchange.

quote:
Your application of the term is wrong, because it cannot actually make the right distinctions for you in the discussion with others.

Of course there is distance between a word and the reality it refers. Language is the mapping of symbols to reality, and any particular use is always to some degree an approximation. 'Real' seems as good a good a use of language as I've come across to indicate a belief based on consideration of evidence, because that is how we determine 'how things are'. It also reflects the provisionality of belief for when either new evidence becomes available or our appreciation of it changes.

Beliefs we acquire by other means can only be still genuine beliefs by force of habit. That there is a difference in status between the descriptions 'real' and 'habitual' seems to me a good thing, in that if a belief can be identified as habitual it may be in our interest to revisit it. And of course, given that difference in status, we likely wouldn't go voicing our opinions on whether someone's beliefs are merely habitual in polite conversation.

quote:
it is idiotic to conclude that ... the question of the afterlife should be solved by chemistry. Rather it is intellectually valid to apply the best tool to the job at hand. And as far as intellectual analysis is relevant here anyhow, it just isn't modern natural science that will get you furthest. If you are not at least doing metaphysics, then you are simply sitting in a canoe trying to paddle up Mt. Everest. That you do not succeed does not indicate that Mt. Everest is an illusion... Nor does it follow that since paddling on a lake is easier than climbing Mt. Everest, canoes is all we ever shall need...

Equally, it makes no sense to develop extreme weather climbing gear and build a vehicle capable of conveying bread and wine to 29,000 feet when all that is required is a short walk down the road.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, "accept" in the sense that this is the reality of it; that's what Christianity is. It takes a major unproved axiom from Judaism - the existence of One God who favors his people - and adds a few of its own, based in events in the world, in a continuity. The theology works itself out logically.
Yes, that's the theology of Christianity. I think Christianity itself is more the strand of history that synthesised the theology, together with the institutions and traditions associated with it.

That makes Christianity something we're participating in now. I don't see it as a static story from the past to research or inhabit, but more history in the making. A present day attempt to critically evaluate the resources we've inherited, building on what is still of value in order to make sense in our time.

Well, I'd actually be interested in this. I'd like to hear a critical evaluation - and re-formulation - of the religion that generates ideas as interesting and fruitful as, for instance, the Incarnation (a fascinating and totally central doctrine with very important implications).

That's actually been the problem for me. When I listen to somebody like, for instance, Spong - who complains about many of these same formulations - I keep waiting to hear even one proposal about the way Christianity ought to be. I never do hear it; Spong (for instance) knows what he doesn't like, but never proposes anything to replace it.

So I'm quite interested in hearing about new ideas; I just wish somebody would articulate some.

[ 11. January 2011, 13:29: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
'Real' seems as good a good a use of language as I've come across to indicate a belief based on consideration of evidence, because that is how we determine 'how things are'.

I'm glad you've made that clear, Dave, because I was beginning to think you were saying that my Christian faith doesn't describe something real.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Why can't we be honest enough to speak the truth about Islam? World conquest is an inherent part of the religion: Allah commands that all unbelievers (except Christians and Jews, who have to pay a special poll tax) are to be put to death.

That is simply untrue and what you say had been rebutted several times before on The Ship.

In any case, I'd want to say that Christianity has been a religion of conqest and the USA seems to have assumed its mantle in this respect.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
... I've posted before on the things I like about Islam - but it is not, by any means, a religion of "peace" - it is a religion of "submission".
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So what? Maybe John and/or Jesus got it wrong.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I'd like to hear a critical evaluation - and re-formulation - of the religion that generates ideas as interesting and fruitful as, for instance, the Incarnation (a fascinating and totally central doctrine with very important implications).

Sounds like you want a new orthodoxy, same as the old orthodoxy. For me the incarnation is the central problem.

quote:
So I'm quite interested in hearing about new ideas; I just wish somebody would articulate some.

Yes, that would be good.

[ 11. January 2011, 19:29: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

In any case, I'd want to say that Christianity has been a religion of conqest and the USA seems to have assumed its mantle in this respect.

So true.

In the name jesusland and the new world order

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
So I'm quite interested in hearing about new ideas; I just wish somebody would articulate some.
Yes, that would be good.

How bout this one?

I should add Patterson is not a traditional believer in the incarnation. But he can still distill the basic idea quite well IMO.

[ 12. January 2011, 01:09: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

In any case, I'd want to say that Christianity has been a religion of conqest and the USA seems to have assumed its mantle in this respect.
So true.

So both you and leo accept the notion that the United States is a "Christian nation." IOW, you both are firmly in agreement with American right-wingers.

Have I stated that correctly?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

In any case, I'd want to say that Christianity has been a religion of conqest and the USA seems to have assumed its mantle in this respect.
So true.
So both you and leo accept the notion that the United States is a "Christian nation." IOW, you both are firmly in agreement with American right-wingers.

Have I stated that correctly?

No. I know it's more complicated that than. My sister lives in California and does not ascribe to the "Praise the Lord and pass the amunition" theology.

Perhaps this would be more accurate? [Big Grin]

The U.S. does have a terrible history of military foreign intervention tho!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It's not based on any consideration of evidence for the belief

Of course it is based on the consideration of evidence. Just not on evidence and considerations which you consider valid or appropriate. The question what then would be valid or appropriate is the one you keep avoiding, because while most people would agree that beating into submission is not, most people wouldn't agree with your restrictive ideas either.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm suggesting 'real' belief is based on knowledge, on reasonable extrapolations that result from the consideration of relevant evidence. That doesn't preclude differences of interpretation.

And I keep telling you that your definition cannot do any useful work on its own, and that your term is offensive. For example, I would consider all my religious beliefs to be "real" then. Again, the question is what is reasonable and relevant here. Furthermore, "real" already has an agreed upon meaning. If my beliefs are not "real" (well, "realistic" - my beliefs are guaranteed to be real merely by me having them), then they are false, not according with reality. That's an offensive claim if it is merely asserted, as you do by your labeling.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
'Real' seems as good a good a use of language as I've come across to indicate a belief based on consideration of evidence, because that is how we determine 'how things are'.

Well, try something else. This one really doesn't work at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Equally, it makes no sense to develop extreme weather climbing gear and build a vehicle capable of conveying bread and wine to 29,000 feet when all that is required is a short walk down the road.

Calling the sand heap down the road Mt. Everest doesn't make it so.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

In any case, I'd want to say that Christianity has been a religion of conqest and the USA seems to have assumed its mantle in this respect.
So true.
So both you and leo accept the notion that the United States is a "Christian nation." IOW, you both are firmly in agreement with American right-wingers.

Have I stated that correctly?

Not quite! The USA has a secular constitution but it has taken over the mantle of the leading superpower and many of its citizens use Christian language in their rhetoric.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How bout this one?

I'm not much drawn to any talk of incarnation as a reality. It can't help but draw in the old literal Jesus is God meaning. If you're ordained you're pretty much stuck with it along with other orthodox terminology. You can try to associate the old language in the liturgy with new meaning, but without that constraint I prefer secular words and ideas as far as possible.

It's all very well for Patterson to talk of 'incarnational faith' as 'the notion that God comes to us in the midst of human existence' in an attempt to avoid the old literalist interpretation, but why use a watered down religious label? Why not simply talk of how God is in secular terms?

'God comes to us' doesn't fit how I understand God because it implies a thinking intentional God. In general I think it makes more sense to leave the old orthodoxy with its literally-interpreted incarnation intact but step back and acknowledge that is how the Church has understood God in the past. Then it can be considered as a story that may or may not be useful for a particular purpose.

[ 12. January 2011, 13:55: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm not much drawn to any talk of incarnation as a reality. It can't help but draw in the old literal Jesus is God meaning. If you're ordained you're pretty much stuck with it along with other orthodox terminology.

Perhaps if I could help a little, otherwise this discussion is just going round in circles eternally. First off, I'm not sure that the orthodox doctrine is a simple 'Jesus is God', but more like Jesus has a dual nature, both God and man, so strictly speaking saying Jesus = God is heretical (docetism, or something, i.e. he's really God but only seems to be human).

You can try to associate the old language in the liturgy with new meaning, but without that constraint I prefer secular words and ideas as far as possible.

But are secular words adequate for speaking about religious mysteries and spiritual truths? How can you describe a religious experience in secular terms without reducing it to psychology or physiology? Or are you making an (unprovable) apriori assumption that all personal experiences are reducible to psychology or physiology, or are otherwise understandable in terms of current (or even future) scientific theory (i.e. that the only 'real' knowledge is scientific knowledge, or worse, scientific knowledge which is in line with the current scientific consensus)?

It's all very well for Patterson to talk of 'incarnational faith' as 'the notion that God comes to us in the midst of human existence' in an attempt to avoid the old literalist interpretation, but why use a watered down religious label? Why not simply talk of how God is in secular terms?

Same problem, because there aren't any suitable secular terms to describe God, because He is ultimately outside our everyday, mundane experience (even if He is here in our midst). Therefore one way of talking about Him is in terms of religious myth, which is what I believe the Bible does (both Old and New Testaments); 'literalism' is about taking the myths as objective factual history, but the alternative is not junking the myths and stories altogether, but treating them as ways of talking about the Divine in a roundabout fashion, which lead us towards experiencing the reality of God through our own direct experience.

'God comes to us' doesn't fit how I understand God because it implies a thinking intentional God.

Agreed it implies something of the sort (but not necessarily in an idiot-literal sense), but here again you are rejecting the notion out of hand, by making another apriori assumption, rather than keeping an open mind on the subject.

In general I think it makes more sense to leave the old orthodoxy with its literally-interpreted incarnation intact but step back and acknowledge that is how the Church has understood God in the past. Then it can be considered as a story that may or may not be useful for a particular purpose.

Here again, I'm not sure that the Church always has interpreted its doctrine in what we would understand as a modern literal interpretation - I think perhaps the medieval churchmen had a slightly different worldview - but that said, I still think you are completely missing the point as to the function of religious myth and story.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course it is based on the consideration of evidence. Just not on evidence and considerations which you consider valid or appropriate. The question what then would be valid or appropriate is the one you keep avoiding, because while most people would agree that beating into submission is not, most people wouldn't agree with your restrictive ideas either.

Evidence by definition implies consideration of what is relevant; it is always for or of something. That might include validity; I'm not sure that appropriate is, er, appropriate. It's stretching language past breaking point to claim that revelance in this context, which is all I was thinking of, is a 'restrictive idea'.

quote:
your definition cannot do any useful work on its own

It seems important to you that it not be allowed to.

quote:
your term is offensive.

You've said that several times, and I'm still at a loss to see any good reason why you should find it so.

quote:
If my beliefs are not "real" (well, "realistic" - my beliefs are guaranteed to be real merely by me having them), then they are false, not according with reality.

No. The alternative to real in general is not false. It might be imagined, or virtual, or not how things are in some other way. But if belief is mental assent to a statement or picture of how certain things are, and that assent has been given without reference to evidence for how those thing are, that statement or picture is simply not known to reflect evidence of reality. As such, that kind of belief provides our thinking with a different order of reliablity to that based on evidence. As 'not known to be real' and 'real' suggest.

quote:
Calling the sand heap down the road Mt. Everest doesn't make it so.

Who said anything about a sand heap. All see is a road.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm not much drawn to any talk of incarnation as a reality. It can't help but draw in the old literal Jesus is God meaning. If you're ordained you're pretty much stuck with it along with other orthodox terminology.
Perhaps if I could help a little, otherwise this discussion is just going round in circles eternally. First off, I'm not sure that the orthodox doctrine is a simple 'Jesus is God', but more like Jesus has a dual nature, both God and man, so strictly speaking saying Jesus = God is heretical (docetism, or something, i.e. he's really God but only seems to be human).

You can try to associate the old language in the liturgy with new meaning, but without that constraint I prefer secular words and ideas as far as possible.

But are secular words adequate for speaking about religious mysteries and spiritual truths? How can you describe a religious experience in secular terms without reducing it to psychology or physiology? Or are you making an (unprovable) apriori assumption that all personal experiences are reducible to psychology or physiology, or are otherwise understandable in terms of current (or even future) scientific theory (i.e. that the only 'real' knowledge is scientific knowledge, or worse, scientific knowledge which is in line with the current scientific consensus)?

It's all very well for Patterson to talk of 'incarnational faith' as 'the notion that God comes to us in the midst of human existence' in an attempt to avoid the old literalist interpretation, but why use a watered down religious label? Why not simply talk of how God is in secular terms?

Same problem, because there aren't any suitable secular terms to describe God, because He is ultimately outside our everyday, mundane experience (even if He is here in our midst). Therefore one way of talking about Him is in terms of religious myth, which is what I believe the Bible does (both Old and New Testaments); 'literalism' is about taking the myths as objective factual history, but the alternative is not junking the myths and stories altogether, but treating them as ways of talking about the Divine in a roundabout fashion, which lead us towards experiencing the reality of God through our own direct experience.

'God comes to us' doesn't fit how I understand God because it implies a thinking intentional God.

Agreed it implies something of the sort (but not necessarily in an idiot-literal sense), but here again you are rejecting the notion out of hand, by making another apriori assumption, rather than keeping an open mind on the subject.

In general I think it makes more sense to leave the old orthodoxy with its literally-interpreted incarnation intact but step back and acknowledge that is how the Church has understood God in the past. Then it can be considered as a story that may or may not be useful for a particular purpose.

Here again, I'm not sure that the Church always has interpreted its doctrine in what we would understand as a modern literal interpretation - I think perhaps the medieval churchmen had a slightly different worldview - but that said, I still think you are completely missing the point as to the function of religious myth and story.

I'm not the biggest fan of Brian McLaren, but one of his arguments is that the deity of Christ is meant to teach Christians that God is Christlike, not only that Christ is God.

As in when we confess that Christ is God, we are stating that He is not just a prophet pointing to the Truth, rather He is the Truth himself. This is the difficulty I suggest that some people have. It is not simply that Jesus had good teachings or that he was nice to people. Rather, Jesus DEFINES what being good and being ethical means. This makes him far more than an ethical philosopher or prophet. Goodness and justice are ultimately defined by Jesus Christ because as God, he is their ultimate source and end.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Davo. The little bit I quoted from Patterson probably wasn't enough to do him justice on the topic.

He's an interesting scholar.

He starts off the book with a situation where he was giving a lecture on the resurrection and someone up the back stands up and shouts at him, "you're not a Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection!!".

He calmly goes on to how he cannot believe in a literal resurrection or incarnation but can still draw truth from these "myths".

He goes much further than I would towards dismissing the "supernatural" but worth a read in his extractions of the big myths of Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I'd like to hear a critical evaluation - and re-formulation - of the religion that generates ideas as interesting and fruitful as, for instance, the Incarnation (a fascinating and totally central doctrine with very important implications).
Sounds like you want a new orthodoxy, same as the old orthodoxy. For me the incarnation is the central problem.

You say the incarnation is the central problem. Why is that? Irrational or just plain bad theology?

Or perhaps, if I may be so bold, may I ask what the meaning of the Jesus story is for you?

Just curious because you so obviously object to many of it's stories but still find it valid in some sense.

[ 13. January 2011, 02:30: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I'm not sure that the orthodox doctrine is a simple 'Jesus is God', but more like Jesus has a dual nature, both God and man, so strictly speaking saying Jesus = God is heretical (docetism, or something, i.e. he's really God but only seems to be human).

I'm not sure dual nature really covers it either. Fully God and fully man usually seems safe.

quote:
are secular words adequate for speaking about religious mysteries and spiritual truths? How can you describe a religious experience in secular terms without reducing it to psychology or physiology?

It depends what particular mysteries, truths and experiences you mean. I suspect if they can't be adequately described in secular terms they're probably not that useful.

quote:
Or are you making an (unprovable) apriori assumption that all personal experiences are reducible to psychology or physiology, or are otherwise understandable in terms of current (or even future) scientific theory (i.e. that the only 'real' knowledge is scientific knowledge, or worse, scientific knowledge which is in line with the current scientific consensus)?

No. Personal experience is what gives life meaning, but its interpretation is always subjective. Relying on subjective interpretation of experience for identifying what is objectively real is inherently unreliable.

quote:
there aren't any suitable secular terms to describe God, because He is ultimately outside our everyday, mundane experience

I'm not aware of any religious terms to adequately describe that either.

quote:
(even if He is here in our midst).

As you imagine God to be.

quote:
'literalism' is about taking the myths as objective factual history, but the alternative is not junking the myths and stories altogether

I agree.

quote:
but [instead] treating them as ways of talking about the Divine in a roundabout fashion, which lead us towards experiencing the reality of God through our own direct experience.

What reality would that be? How is it more than a subjective interpretation? We have no possible way of telling whether any experience is more God-related or God-inspired than any other. Each of us can use whatever labels we like for our experiences; there's no grounds for thinking a particular one was 'of God'.

quote:
you are rejecting the notion [of a thinking intentional God] out of hand, by making another apriori assumption, rather than keeping an open mind on the subject.

Not out of hand. It's the result of a lot of thought and several decades of experience that's more recently been affirmed through discussions here. But of course I might be wrong.

quote:
I'm not sure that the Church always has interpreted its doctrine in what we would understand as a modern literal interpretation - I think perhaps the medieval churchmen had a slightly different worldview

I'm sure they did, as would the authors of the biblical texts and the early church councils.

quote:
I still think you are completely missing the point as to the function of religious myth and story.

If the point is to perpetuate a received orthodoxy that no longer makes sense, at least for most people in the UK, then I'm not missing it. I've just let it go, because it seems I am not alone in no longer finding it helpful.

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

you are rejecting the notion [of a thinking intentional God] out of hand
Not out of hand. It's the result of a lot of thought and several decades of experience

Well, Dave, your experience is irrelevant, because

quote:
Relying on subjective interpretation of experience for identifying what is objectively real is inherently unreliable.

So you're just left with a 'lot of thought'. Which is not that much different from our position, based, as it is, on quite a considerable amount of thought, about a variety of non-subjective evidence. The only difference between you and us seems to be in what we accept as evidence and in our interpretations of that evidence. There are still many intelligent people for whom 'a received orthodoxy' makes perfect sense.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Well, Dave, your experience is irrelevant ... you're just left with a 'lot of thought'.

Isaac, which part of "that's more recently been affirmed through discussions here" (the words that completed the first sentence of mine that you quoted) do you think I meant to be ignored? I said I'd compared my (subjective) experience with what others (here and, although I didn't think I needed to spell it out, in various other contexts including what science publishes) think about theirs. That's how we arrive at a view of what is objectively real.

I'm not getting into the rest of your post because as you noted earlier our past discussions have been tedious and unhelpful.

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

The only thing that's tedious, Dave, is the repeated implication that only those who have rejected the orthodox consensus are the ones who have arrived at this view of reality by a process of reasoning and evidence-checking. Ironic, really.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

"Tedious" is polite for a constant barrage of insults.

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

Never underestimate the rage of a furious Englishman. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The little bit I quoted from Patterson probably wasn't enough to do him justice on the topic. He's an interesting scholar.

Yeah, I should've looked him up. From your other quotes it sounds like I might well identify with his perspective.

quote:
You say the incarnation is the central problem. Why is that? Irrational or just plain bad theology?

I guess mainly because it's so central to how traditional orthodoxy has come to be understood (ie. historically factual) that in practice it's hard to take the Jesus story any other way. Or separate the reality of what the story has inspired (all today's churches) from an ancient desire to proclaim this icon of Christianity not less than Roman emperor status. As far as church is dedicated to that idea it seems effectively locked out of contemporary secular thought and only ever destined for marginal relevance.

quote:
what the meaning of the Jesus story is for you?

It's the myth that has conveyed the values of the Christian tradition through history. I don't think it does that any more in most first world cultures - the role is taken by new stories and other art forms.

I watched the Jason Bourne trilogy this week over three evenings and felt lifted in exactly the way I suspect the Jesus story lifted past generations and maybe still some Christians. All it takes is the exploits of a fictional spy, or whatever story, music, or other creative expression speaks to us, to convey the values that Jesus illustrated to generations when his story was still their mythology.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It depends what particular mysteries, truths and experiences you mean. I suspect if they can't be adequately described in secular terms they're probably not that useful.

Well, that's entirely up to you if you chose to believe that. But isn't that a somewhat utilitarian approach to life?

quote:
Personal experience is what gives life meaning, but its interpretation is always subjective. Relying on subjective interpretation of experience for identifying what is objectively real is inherently unreliable.

OK, another assumption on your part. Two assumptions, in fact. For example, a Christian might say that God is what gives life meaning, and meaning is what leads to personal experience.

quote:
I'm not aware of any religious terms to adequately describe [God] either.

But how would you know?

quote:
As you imagine God to be [here in our midst].

There's no imagination involved; just a working hypothesis - provisional belief, if you like.

quote:
What reality would that be? How is it more than a subjective interpretation? We have no possible way of telling whether any experience is more God-related or God-inspired than any other. Each of us can use whatever labels we like for our experiences; there's no grounds for thinking a particular one was 'of God'.

There are not 'no grounds', just not the sort of evidence which you happen to like.

quote:
[I'm] not [rejecting the notion of a thinking intentional God] out of hand. It's the result of a lot of thought and several decades of experience that's more recently been affirmed through discussions here. But of course I might be wrong.

So, let me see, you're quite happy to refute a hypothesis by way of 'thought' and subjective 'experience', but you're not prepared to accept a hypothesis unless it is supported by scientific experiment and observation. Or have I got you wrong?

quote:
If the [function of religious myth and story] is to perpetuate a received orthodoxy that no longer makes sense, at least for most people in the UK, then I'm not missing it. I've just let it go, because it seems I am not alone in no longer finding it helpful.

But on what grounds do you suggest that that is the sole function of myth? 'Received orthodoxy' (in the conservative sense) is surely dependent on taking the NT narratives as historical fact, and rejecting a mythological interpretation; it is the liberal position to posit a separate 'Historical Jesus'.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It depends what particular mysteries, truths and experiences you mean. I suspect if they can't be adequately described in secular terms they're probably not that useful.

Well, that's entirely up to you if you chose to believe that. But isn't that a somewhat utilitarian approach to life?

quote:
Personal experience is what gives life meaning, but its interpretation is always subjective. Relying on subjective interpretation of experience for identifying what is objectively real is inherently unreliable.

OK, another assumption on your part. Two assumptions, in fact. For example, a Christian might say that God is what gives life meaning, and meaning is what leads to personal experience.

quote:
I'm not aware of any religious terms to adequately describe [God] either.

But how would you know?

quote:
As you imagine God to be [here in our midst].

There's no imagination involved; just a working hypothesis - provisional belief, if you like.

quote:
What reality would that be? How is it more than a subjective interpretation? We have no possible way of telling whether any experience is more God-related or God-inspired than any other. Each of us can use whatever labels we like for our experiences; there's no grounds for thinking a particular one was 'of God'.

There are not 'no grounds', just not the sort of evidence which you happen to like.

quote:
[I'm] not [rejecting the notion of a thinking intentional God] out of hand. It's the result of a lot of thought and several decades of experience that's more recently been affirmed through discussions here. But of course I might be wrong.

quote:
If the [function of religious myth and story] is to perpetuate a received orthodoxy that no longer makes sense, at least for most people in the UK, then I'm not missing it. I've just let it go, because it seems I am not alone in no longer finding it helpful.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

Apologies for the double post. [Frown]

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
isn't that a somewhat utilitarian approach to life?

More a way of thinking and talking that anyone can relate to and comment on, I think. It avoids the temptation to converse (and think) in religious jargon in groups where few really know what it is they're referring to.

quote:
For example, a Christian might say that God is what gives life meaning, and meaning is what leads to personal experience.

They might. And they'd be making assumptions about God for which I don't think there's any relevant evidence.

quote:
how would you know [if any religious terms adequately describe God]?

There's only limited verifiable information about God available to us. None of that is specifically religious.

quote:
There's no imagination involved; just a working hypothesis - provisional belief, if you like.

Believing God is "here in our midst" suggests you've gone one step beyond an abstract hypothesis. Which I think requires imagination.

quote:
There are not 'no grounds' [for thinking an experience is of God], just not the sort of evidence which you happen to like.

No, no grounds for which there is relevant evidence.

quote:
you're quite happy to refute a hypothesis by way of 'thought' and subjective 'experience', but you're not prepared to accept a hypothesis unless it is supported by scientific experiment and observation. Or have I got you wrong?

I thought I was implying more than I was. I meant "several decades of experience, that I have compared with what others (in various contexts including what science publishes) say about theirs, to discover what seems to me a reasonably objective view".

quote:
on what grounds do you suggest that [perpetuating a received orthodoxy] is the sole function of myth?

I wasn't. I said "if". In case you were a conservative.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0