Originally posted by AberVicar:
And you still have the nerve to call Rowan arrogant?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Thank you for the link. I have listened ( I use a screen reader) and really, I shake my head in disbelief when, in defiance of all the scientific knowledge available, it can still be believed that anything like a resurrection could have occurred. To teach about beliefs and their history is essential, but to say something is true, and happened via the auspices of 'god', all without evidence, should just not happen these days.
Originally posted by wilson:
Here - two paragraphs above 'Militant Secularisation'.
Meanwhile the pope tells us we're 'groping in the darkness'
quote:I agree, while I don't hate the Presiding Bishop, as some conservatives do, her Easter message this year was disappointing. Rather more of an equinox message.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Shame it has come to this. An Archbishop of Canterbury makes headlines on Easter by claiming God actually raised Jesus from the dead. Unfortunately, in this day and age, any Anglican archbishop outside the Global South making such a bold claim really is newsworthy. Our Presiding Bishop chooses to talk about "personal resurrections." Perhaps, she can take Rosie O'Donnel's place on OWN.
quote:I am puzzled why you should attack Rowan for theological arrogance when he is representing the defining point of what it means to be a Christian. It would help if you were not speaking from a viewpoint that has the arrogance to dismiss as irrelevant and damaging anything in the Church that does not conform to your own approach.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
This is only a reflection of the theological arrogance Rowan has shown as Archbishop. Rather than preach about what can be known and celebrated in the Christian tradition - the inspirational value of the Jesus story and its enduring effect on history - he resorts to making religious capital out of a populist appeal to a rump of Christian believers who remain literally faithful to the current institutional orthodoxy.
With his intellectual capacity to reconcile this kind of belief with rational thought, Rowan may be oblivious to the negative consequences such cop-outs have for the broader, long-term credibility of Christian faith. Not really much of an excuse, though, given his position and the opportunities and responsibilities that go with that.
quote:Well......traditionally it has been the other way around.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I am puzzled why you should attack Rowan for theological arrogance when he is representing the defining point of what it means to be a Christian. It would help if you were not speaking from a viewpoint that has the arrogance to dismiss as irrelevant and damaging anything in the Church that does not conform to your own approach.
quote:I thought it was the Nicene Creed that told God who was in and who was out. Now it's the resurrection is it?
Originally posted by AberVicar:
By all means aspire to a secular type of humanism that does not comprehend resurrection, but don't call it Christianity, because that it ain't.
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To teach about beliefs and their history is essential, but to say something is true, and happened via the auspices of 'god', all without evidence, should just not happen these days.
quote:That's the official line. It would make sense that you as a Church office-holder also believe it. It doesn't mean that, rather than open up and further the Christian tradition, the Resurrection as historical fact reinforces the impression that at best Christianity is now a massive irrelevance, and more likely a religion that cannot be trusted. If it can't be realistic about it's own stories and history, why should whatever else it says about the world be worth considering?
Originally posted by AberVicar:
the defining point of what it means to be a Christian.
quote:We all stand somewhere. I've probably posted enough about the convincing reasons there are for dismissing factual resurrection claims. I'm only hearing from Rowan Williams (and John Sentamu) more tired assertions that in effect Father Church knows best.
It would help if you were not speaking from a viewpoint that has the arrogance to dismiss as irrelevant and damaging anything in the Church that does not conform to your own approach.
quote:And you still have the nerve to call Rowan arrogant?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
[QBHowever they and the rest of the hierarchy dress it up, it's dragging the potential that remains within the Church into bin bags ready for disposal in the landfill of history. I think we've discovered before that you don't comprehend the idea of an alternative to traditional orthodoxy that is at least as authentically Christian. That doesn't mean such alternatives don't exist. [/QB]
quote:Both times I recited the Nicene Creed this morning it included the words The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures Which version are you using?
Originally posted by Evensong:
I thought it was the Nicene Creed that told God who was in and who was out. Now it's the resurrection is it?
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
And you still have the nerve to call Rowan arrogant?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Surely you're not claiming that your opinion about the limits of authentic Christianity is the only valid one? Kettles, black, etc?quote:That's exactly the problem. As historical fact it's cloud cuckoo land. Such claims may inspire hope in those who believe it - until they find they no longer do.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Surely to belief and witness to this, is to acknowledge there are no limits to the power of God or to the gospel. The empty tomb places no limits on our understanding, nor upon our integrity as rational people..
quote:So you want to remove anything from the whole Bible that cannot be replicated in your living room?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:That's exactly the problem. As historical fact it's cloud cuckoo land. Such claims may inspire hope in those who believe it - until they find they no longer do.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Surely to belief and witness to this, is to acknowledge there are no limits to the power of God or to the gospel. The empty tomb places no limits on our understanding, nor upon our integrity as rational people..
quote:So which do we prefer? An Archbishop who unequivocally declares the historic Christian message still believed - yes, literally - by many millions of faithful people, ora so-called "Easter" message which never once mentions Jesus?
Originally posted by jordan32404:While I don't hate the Presiding Bishop, as some conservatives do, her Easter message this year was disappointing. Rather more of an equinox message.
quote:As historical fact - it's not been scientifically proven. Which is something else altogether. 'Unproven in empirical terms' and 'cloud cuckoo land' are not actually the same thing. Or has scientific rigour taken a dive since I failed my 'O' Level physics? (Well, an 'E' grade anyway
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As historical fact it's cloud cuckoo land.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.)
quote:Indeed, bad news that this is great news.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Shame it has come to this. An Archbishop of Canterbury makes headlines on Easter by claiming God actually raised Jesus from the dead.
quote:And I shake my head in disbelief that you believe this is even remotely a relevant comment. The resurrection is a miracle, OK? It was perceived as a miracle back in antiquity as well. "Modern science" is not needed at all, not in the slightest. Everybody knows, and everybody has always known, that people do not come back from being dead. That's the very point.
Originally posted by Susan Doris:
I shake my head in disbelief when, in defiance of all the scientific knowledge available, it can still be believed that anything like a resurrection could have occurred.
quote:Nobody is establishing a "scientific theory" here. The resurrection of Jesus is not a "scientific" claim. At least not by your narrow understanding of "science". It is a historical claim, among other things, and in the way that history is a science (which is quite different from the way in which for example physics is a science), it is a well supported claim. No, really, it is at least as well supported as Caesar crossing the Rubicon, which you probably believe to have happened.
Originally posted by Susan Doris:
Of course these beliefs will be a part of human life and that is an absolute right I'd march to defend, but important religious leaders, educationalists, etc should realise that nowadays proofs and evidence are required for things to be established as scientific theory, i.e. until better evidence comes along, in which case the theory will be updated.
quote:Who said anything about changing the Bible? It's how we use it that's different.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you want to remove anything from the whole Bible that cannot be replicated in your living room?
quote:Then you are less than honest that Richard Dawkins and his ilk. He knows what the Bible teaches and chooses not to believe it. You, on the other hand, want to make the bible read in a very different way to its original intent.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Who said anything about changing the Bible? It's how we use it that's different.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you want to remove anything from the whole Bible that cannot be replicated in your living room?
quote:Your usual reasoned response to anyone who ascribes substance to Christian faith...
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Hmm. The pots and kettles seem to be having a field day.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Pleas correct me if I have mis-read your post, but it looks as if you are treating Physics with scorn here, and I cannot quote atual data because I'm not remotely a hysicist, but I've just finished listening to 'Why E=Mcsquared and why it matters' by Prof Brian Cox and his colleague. Would you dismiss all of that? I also read widely on JREF.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To teach about beliefs and their history is essential, but to say something is true, and happened via the auspices of 'god', all without evidence, should just not happen these days.
We should completely scrap theoretical physics as the best explanation of the universe.
quote:I will go to that link in a minute but did you know that the title of the 'God particle' book was intended to say 'goddamn particle' but the publishers felt it would be more likely to do well with the 'damn' removed!
It is a matter of faith after all. No evidence.
quote:Yes, I know!
Anyway, nothing the (still) ABC said there was in the least intellectually problematic. And you (as atheist) weren't even the target of all this. For the sake of this particular discussion, you are an outsider.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But I love reading and joining in discussions whether I am or not!
quote:Which is basically what Christianity was during the first 300 years of its existence. There are some who would argue that the Church shines as servant of the world precisely when it is irrelevant to contemporary society.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:That's the official line. It would make sense that you as a Church office-holder also believe it. It doesn't mean that, rather than open up and further the Christian tradition, the Resurrection as historical fact reinforces the impression that at best Christianity is now a massive irrelevance, and more likely a religion that cannot be trusted. If it can't be realistic about it's own stories and history, why should whatever else it says about the world be worth considering?
Originally posted by AberVicar:
[qb] the defining point of what it means to be a Christian.
quote:Oh, snap!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Shame it has come to this. An Archbishop of Canterbury makes headlines on Easter by claiming God actually raised Jesus from the dead. Unfortunately, in this day and age, any Anglican archbishop outside the Global South making such a bold claim really is newsworthy. Our Presiding Bishop chooses to talk about "personal resurrections." Perhaps, she can take Rosie O'Donnel's place on OWN.
quote:I happily believe all of that yet I don't need to believe in the Resurrection. FWIW. OliviaG
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... In the Resurrection:
Love is stronger than hate.
Peace is stronger than war.
Justice is stronger than oppression
Jesus is stronger than Caesar. ...
quote:Perhaps this is reassuring then. The 'headlines' here appear to include microchipping dogs in Ulster and Liam Neeson being inspired to act by Revd Iain Paisley. I've noticed the reference, in the smaller items, to the Archbishop's comments on RE. Though maybe if I do a search I'll find this shocking 'headline' of an Archbishop of Canterbury astounding the media with his belief in the Risen Christ.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Indeed, bad news that this is great news.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Shame it has come to this. An Archbishop of Canterbury makes headlines on Easter by claiming God actually raised Jesus from the dead.
quote:As someone who works with researchers in both the sciences and the humanities, I have to point out that there's a vast difference between scientific proof and historical proof. Scientific proof requires an experimental method that allows for repeatability and measurement. Historical proof is a different beast. You cannot repeat any historical event; you certainly cannot repeat a one-off event like the execution and burial of one particular person. So, you need to look at the documentary evidence, weigh the probabilities, and produce a reasoned argument for what is likely to have actually happened.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Of course these beliefs will be a part of human life and that is an absolute right I'd march to defend, but important religious leaders, educationalists, etc should realise that nowadays proofs and evidence are required for things to be established as scientific theory, i.e. until better evidence comes along, in which case the theory will be updated.
quote:Yes. It's the Christian core values at work. They will if visible naturally draw in others who share those values. They may in time overcome the opposite effect of an alien culture of wierd beliefs and practices. That doesn't mean the beliefs and practices become any less wierd or alienating, just that people can adjust if the incentive - the sense of belonging - is and remains strong enough.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
People join the Church when Christians live their faith in love and service to others. People conversely leave the Church when Christians don't practice what they preach.
quote:Of course not - to the elderly man. The reality of beauty is in the mind of the person who recognises it. It's not a historical fact. And some people make a case for the reality of the Resurrection in an analogous (eg. spiritual) non-historical sense. Recognising the whole Jesus narrative as story opens all that up. Along the way it relegates to academic interest only the claims and counter claims about the facts behind the 2000 year old historical record.
The Resurrection might not be empirically provable. But then again an elderly man who says his elderly wife is "the most beautiful woman in the world", isn't exactly empirical either. But that doesn't make what the elderly man says about his wife untrue.
quote:I don't think I've ever found this convincing. The bizarre things people believe for no good reason; the endless routine of present day cults of this and that; the what 20+ years minimum gap before the biblical authors started writing? No, Christianity is infinitely more likely the result of the undoubted charisma of Jesus the man, the commitment and inventiveness of his disciples and biographers, and some fortuitous quirks of history.
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Whatever else you think, something happened to turn a bunch of demoralised, cowardly, and leader-less Jesus-followers into the dynamic, evangelistic proto-church.
quote:I am honestly baffled whenever the issue of "relevance" comes into a discussion like this. I'll give you an example of why.
Dave Marshall mentioned:
... the impression that at best Christianity is now a massive irrelevance ...
quote:Dave's beliefs aren't Christian as the word has been defined for most of its history. Dave claims to be a member of the Church of England but not neccessarily a Christian. Whatever. Dave and I do not practice the same religion so I could care less if Dave defines his religion in a way that excludes me.
originally posted by Evensong:
Well......traditionally it has been the other way around.
Don't believe in the resurrection? You're not a Christian!
Can't really blame Dave for a bit of reciprocation
quote:Those who held a traditional view of the Resurrection and traditional Christian views in general ensured Christianity's survival through the most awful persecutions under, for instance, Communism.
Originally posted by Balaam:
...
If Christianity is becoming an irrelevance it isn'y because of those who hold a traditional view of the resurrection...
quote:Specially those who were martirized. I don´t think any of the apostles would bother having gone through what they did for the sake of spreading the "feel good" message that has become the "gospel" of the mainline USA churches.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is no one in the first century who would ever have believed that the resurrection of Christ meant anything different than an empty tomb and a man who was once dead but now bodily raised.
quote:How do you believe "love is stronger then hate" and "peace is stronger then war" when you believe there was nothing left for Jesus - and anyone else in history who died for love - after the tomb? If there was no ressurrection, Jesus was a big looser. Injustice and violence had the last say. To say "love wins" is just wishful thinking. Which makes these dull self-empowement sermons even more irrelevant.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:I happily believe all of that yet I don't need to believe in the Resurrection. FWIW. OliviaG
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... In the Resurrection:
Love is stronger than hate.
Peace is stronger than war.
Justice is stronger than oppression
Jesus is stronger than Caesar. ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:She has such a wonderful collection of chasubles; any of which are worth waking up early for (or even staying up late)!
Originally posted by gorpo:
Does she even think this type of message is strong enough to make people wake early on a sunday to atend a religious service?
quote:Yes, of course, I certainly have no argument there, and with historical proof, further research and evidence can confirm or alter and improve our understanding of events. the very big difference in the 'events' of the particular life of a man who is worshipped as part of 'God' is the effect it still has today. Historical events are reviewed by later generations in the light of new information and understood, not always correctly I dare say, with the benefit of hind sight. I would say, and it seems that atheists world-wide are saying, that scientific knowledge is providing explanations which can be checked, of events, 'miracles', experiences, and these explanations do not involve god.
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
As someone who works with researchers in both the sciences and the humanities, I have to point out that there's a vast difference between scientific proof and historical proof. Scientific proof requires an experimental method that allows for repeatability and measurement. Historical proof is a different beast. You cannot repeat any historical event; you certainly cannot repeat a one-off event like the execution and burial of one particular person. So, you need to look at the documentary evidence, weigh the probabilities, and produce a reasoned argument for what is likely to have actually happened.
quote:Yes, of course, I agree, but to maintain this 2,000-year-old explanation rather than an up-to-date one, where the way the brain works is far better understood. seems a pity to me.
Whatever else you think, something happened to turn a bunch of demoralised, cowardly, and leader-less Jesus-followers into the dynamic, evangelistic proto-church.
quote:Ah, yes, exactly so!
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think I've ever found this convincing. The bizarre things people believe for no good reason; the endless routine of present day cults of this and that; the what 20+ years minimum gap before the biblical authors started writing? No, Christianity is infinitely more likely the result of the undoubted charisma of Jesus the man, the commitment and inventiveness of his disciples and biographers, and some fortuitous quirks of history.
quote:Except that altruism has been an essential survival trait for the human species, combined with the emotions of caring and love.
Originally posted by gorpo:
To say "love wins" is just wishful thinking....
quote:This bothers me enormously, because it makes complete sense to me. It rings true.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think I've ever found this convincing. The bizarre things people believe for no good reason; the endless routine of present day cults of this and that; the what 20+ years minimum gap before the biblical authors started writing? No, Christianity is infinitely more likely the result of the undoubted charisma of Jesus the man, the commitment and inventiveness of his disciples and biographers, and some fortuitous quirks of history.
quote:Oh Dear. I'd assumed SusanDoris that this aws rather laboured irony. Dave Marshall and IngoB though, from different positions, have taken you literally, have assumed you mean what you say. So now I'm not sure which way you meant us to take this.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Thank you for the link. I have listened ( I use a screen reader) and really, I shake my head in disbelief when, in defiance of all the scientific knowledge available, it can still be believed that anything like a resurrection could have occurred. To teach about beliefs and their history is essential, but to say something is true, and happened via the auspices of 'god', all without evidence, should just not happen these days.
Originally posted by wilson:
Here - two paragraphs above 'Militant Secularisation'.
Meanwhile the pope tells us we're 'groping in the darkness'
Of course these beliefs will be a part of human life and that is an absolute right I'd march to defend, but important religious leaders, educationalists, etc should realise that nowadays proofs and evidence are required for things to be established as scientific theory, i.e. until better evidence comes along, in which case the theory will be updated.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Oh Dear. I'd assumed SusanDoris that this aws rather laboured irony.
Ah, well!! thank you for saing. I just read what's there and respond to the words. I'm quite a simple ancient person really!!I listened to the whole page, not just the paragraphs referred to.quote:Well, yes, that is correct. I try to say clearly what I mean.
Dave Marshall and IngoB though, from different positions, have taken you literally, have assumed you mean what you say.
quote:I said the Nicene Creed for years, but the older I got and the more I thought about the words, the less sense they made. So for many years now, I have been a non- believer.
On the resurrection, I'm with Rowan, Mudfrog, Beeswax Altar and the Nicene Creed.
quote:Then there's much we agree on Olivier
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:I happily believe all of that yet I don't need to believe in the Resurrection. FWIW. OliviaG
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... In the Resurrection:
Love is stronger than hate.
Peace is stronger than war.
Justice is stronger than oppression
Jesus is stronger than Caesar. ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
. At one level, the disciple's belief in a bodily resurrected Jesus is a serious historical puzzle. How would you account for it?
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Then there's much we agree on Olivia
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:I happily believe all of that yet I don't need to believe in the Resurrection. FWIW. OliviaG
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... In the Resurrection:
Love is stronger than hate.
Peace is stronger than war.
Justice is stronger than oppression
Jesus is stronger than Caesar. ...
quote:Well perhaps I can reassure you that your belief is rather well founded. You shouldn't bee too concerned with Dave's observation that we know today of people who hold bizarre an irrational ideas. For the argument to have any substance one would have to show how a particular modern belief shares identical characteristics to belief in the resurrection. And in any case, we should ask ourselves whether belief in the resurrection is of the same order as some of the quirky notions (religious and otherwise) which we encounter today. The evidence suggest, to the contrary, that it is uniquely well attested in a variety of complementary ways.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:This bothers me enormously, because it makes complete sense to me. It rings true.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think I've ever found this convincing. The bizarre things people believe for no good reason; the endless routine of present day cults of this and that; the what 20+ years minimum gap before the biblical authors started writing? No, Christianity is infinitely more likely the result of the undoubted charisma of Jesus the man, the commitment and inventiveness of his disciples and biographers, and some fortuitous quirks of history.
But I want to cling on to the hope that the resurrection happened, and that there will be life after death for us too.
So I do.
quote:I always suspected 1 Corinthians 15 was missing from your Bible.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
This is only a reflection of the theological arrogance Rowan has shown as Archbishop. Rather than preach about what can be known and celebrated in the Christian tradition - the inspirational value of the Jesus story and its enduring effect on history - he resorts to making religious capital out of a populist appeal to a rump of Christian believers who remain literally faithful to the current institutional orthodoxy.
quote:Same one. It's just that's there's lots of other bits in it too wot? So they become by the by now. Resurrection is the new milestone.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:Both times I recited the Nicene Creed this morning it included the words The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures Which version are you using?
Originally posted by Evensong:
I thought it was the Nicene Creed that told God who was in and who was out. Now it's the resurrection is it?
quote:Not necessarily. Some people just can't believe all the miraculous stuff. They see it as a stumbling block and a cause for embarrassment.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the ones who want to 'limit' Christianity are those who want to mythologise, spiritualise, internalise, subjectify and deny that the tomb was empty and Jesus rose bodily from the dead.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
However they and the rest of the hierarchy dress it up, it's dragging the potential that remains within the Church into bin bags ready for disposal in the landfill of history. I think we've discovered before that you don't comprehend the idea of an alternative to traditional orthodoxy that is at least as authentically Christian. That doesn't mean such alternatives don't exist.
quote:People believe in homeopathy, astrology, auras, crystals, herbal cleansing, and that AIDS was invented by the CIA to kill black people. Getting people to believe improbable stuff is actually pretty easy. OliviaG
Originally posted by Ramarius:
... At one level, the disciple's belief in a bodily resurrected Jesus is a serious historical puzzle. How would you account for it?
quote:Observation and experience. OliviaG
Originally posted by gorpo:
How do you believe "love is stronger then hate" and "peace is stronger then war" when you believe there was nothing left for Jesus - and anyone else in history who died for love - after the tomb? ...
quote:But do you believe it is necessary to have bodily resurrection? Or would a spiritual one do?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If the resurrection didn't happen, Christianity should be put in the trash bin. Christians in both scripture and the early church recognized that. I see no rational reason for believing in the Incarnation or even God if you reject all the miraculous stuff. Gorp does a nice job of explaining why it makes no sense to call Jesus a great ethical teacher or spiritual guru if the resurrection never happened. The miraculous stuff is an essential part of the Jesus narrative and believing in the Jesus narrative means accepting the miraculous stuff. For those who can't accept the miraculous stuff, let me suggest Confucianism.
quote:Oh look:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Not necessarily. Some people just can't believe all the miraculous stuff. They see it as a stumbling block and a cause for embarrassment.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the ones who want to 'limit' Christianity are those who want to mythologise, spiritualise, internalise, subjectify and deny that the tomb was empty and Jesus rose bodily from the dead.
I think that is what Dave is saying here:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
However they and the rest of the hierarchy dress it up, it's dragging the potential that remains within the Church into bin bags ready for disposal in the landfill of history. I think we've discovered before that you don't comprehend the idea of an alternative to traditional orthodoxy that is at least as authentically Christian. That doesn't mean such alternatives don't exist.
quote:It seems that the Church has coped quite well with you right from the beginning. This supernatural stuff didn't stop the Apostles. It won't bother us now. We can't persuade you to believe but neither are we going to suggest that you can 'believe' on your own terms. The protests of unbelievers haven't changed the teaching of the church before. They won't now.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[a]
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
quote:Even by your own pithy elegance Beeswax, this is very well made.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Dave's beliefs aren't Christian as the word has been defined for most of its history. Dave claims to be a member of the Church of England but not neccessarily a Christian. Whatever. Dave and I do not practice the same religion so I could care less if Dave defines his religion in a way that excludes me.
If Dave's musings on the Church of England are correct, Rowan Williams, as an orthodox Christian who believes in the resurrection, should resign immediately as Archbishop of Canterbury and leave the apostate Church of England for a church that is actually Christian. If Dave's musings on the Church of England are utter nonsense, then neither the Church of England nor Rowan Williams should give a flying fig what Dave Marshall thinks the Church of England should teach in order to please Dave Marshall.
quote:I don't think anyone I know would accuse me of practicing a religion, so we sort of agree about that. But you seem to have me confused with someone whose opinion counts for much. And OK, I get that you really really don't like diversity and innovation within Christian theology. Why is that?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Dave and I do not practice the same religion
quote:Religion has many aspects. It can be a means of social control, but it can also enable community. From the point of view of someone considering whether to "appear religious" and participate, the question is whether on balance the positive aspects outweigh the negative.
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
All the time in China I get comments that "religion is good." People think it is good because it can offer psychological comfort or provide a motivation for doing good deeds. I tell them that the Bible is good and trusting in God is good only if is true. Otherwise, I am a fool to waste my life following it.
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Even by your own pithy elegance Beeswax, this is very well made.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
quote:And as far as they go, all those observations are correct. But the specific question is what on earth persuaded the disciples that Jesus had bodily risen from a sealed tomb after a public execution.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:People believe in homeopathy, astrology, auras, crystals, herbal cleansing, and that AIDS was invented by the CIA to kill black people. Getting people to believe improbable stuff is actually pretty easy. OliviaG
Originally posted by Ramarius:
... At one level, the disciple's belief in a bodily resurrected Jesus is a serious historical puzzle. How would you account for it?
quote:The notion of a spiritual resurrection assumes a view of theological anthropology that is hardly accepted by all Christians. Are humans souls with bodies? Do humans have a body, soul, and spirit? Are humans just bodies animated by the Holy Spirit? What part of Jesus was resurrected while his body decomposed in the tomb? How was what happened to Jesus different from what happened to those who died before him? Where is the evidence for such an event in scripture or Positing a spiritual rather than a bodily resurrection just opens up a whole can of theological worms for little reason other than avoiding the clear teaching of scripture and tradition.
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:But do you believe it is necessary to have bodily resurrection? Or would a spiritual one do?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If the resurrection didn't happen, Christianity should be put in the trash bin. Christians in both scripture and the early church recognized that. I see no rational reason for believing in the Incarnation or even God if you reject all the miraculous stuff. Gorp does a nice job of explaining why it makes no sense to call Jesus a great ethical teacher or spiritual guru if the resurrection never happened. The miraculous stuff is an essential part of the Jesus narrative and believing in the Jesus narrative means accepting the miraculous stuff. For those who can't accept the miraculous stuff, let me suggest Confucianism.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:I haven't a clue, I don't need to know, and I'm not going to spin hypotheses to dismiss other people's beliefs.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
... This particular historical question remains - why did these people believe these things?
quote:But do you believe it is necessary to have bodily resurrection? Or would a spiritual one do? [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:No, that's how you (and Beeswax, and others) define Christianity for your own social control purposes. You want to keep out of your churches anyone who positively does not agree with your theology.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
In Christianity, it is Christ who redefines our existence, purpose, and destiny, and through shared belief introduces us to a worldwide community of faith.
quote:Fear not! The world is very big (if you don't mind stepping outside your church).
I fear that your approach will, rather sadly, restrict you to a very small world indeed.
quote:It's certainly a mistake to believe a statement without reason. But surely it's equally a mistake to dismiss a statement without reason?
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:I haven't a clue, I don't need to know, and I'm not going to spin hypotheses to dismiss other people's beliefs.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
... This particular historical question remains - why did these people believe these things?
I do think it is a mistake to simply assume that "they believed it" proves "it must be true". Heck, "It's true" doeesn't mean "you have to believe it." I firmly believe I did a 5K run yesterday, you're entitled to doubt me, and I can't prove it to you. OliviaG
quote:You misunderstand me, Dave. I don't think your opinion counts for much at all. However, your posts reek of self importance.
originally posted by
Dave Marshall:
I don't think anyone I know would accuse me of practicing a religion, so we sort of agree about that. But you seem to have me confused with someone whose opinion counts for much. And OK, I get that you really really don't like diversity and innovation within Christian theology. Why is that?
quote:You must forgive me Dave, but when you post remarks like that I immediately recall images of Robert Lindsay as Wolfie Smith and the Tooting Popular Front.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
[QB] []No, that's how you (and Beeswax, and others) define Christianity for your own social control purposes.]
quote:No, that's something you're projecting onto my lack of deference to credal orthodoxy.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
your posts reek of self importance.
quote:No it doesn't.
The Nicene Creed defines the essentials of Christianity.
quote:Not necessarily. See? I can assert too.
Theological innovations that contradict the Creed are something other than Christian.
quote:Of course not. They recognise their friends and acquaintances have minds and lives of their own with which to make sense of the world.
Few people even put much effort in sharing the "something other" with their friends and acquaintances much less risk their lives sharing it with the world.
quote:Why? Millions of Christians every Sunday recite this Creed every Sunday. The Creed serves as a basis for ecumenical discussion and dialogue.
No it doesn't.
quote:No, Dave, it isn't. I'll never forget your response to Lamb Chopped when she dared to criticize that article you posted.
originally posted by Dave Marshall:
No, that's something you're projecting onto my lack of deference to credal orthodoxy.
quote:Yes, it does.
originally posted by Dave Marshall:
No it doesn't.
quote:You can. But, billions of Christians living and dead agree with me. You've got a few aging academics looking to make money off of skeptics fond of the external trappings of Christianity or in the habit of showing up at building on Sunday morning to drink coffee.
originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Not necessarily. See? I can assert too.
quote:Another reason why the "something else" isn't Christianity.
originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Of course not. They recognise their friends and acquaintances have minds and lives of their own with which to make sense of the world.
quote:Those people include (or at least, used to) Baptists, who generally had no problem with the doctrines expressed therein, but considered themselves to be a non-credal church.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Yes there are some people who claim to be Christian and do not subscribe to the Creeds ...
quote:Key point for this thread is the agreement as to the content of the creeds. Our lot in Newfrontiers are generally unfamiliar with the creeds but if you quoted most of the content they'd be fine with it. Creeds are handy summaries - it's the content, rather than the form, that's decisive.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:Those people include (or at least, used to) Baptists, who generally had no problem with the doctrines expressed therein, but considered themselves to be a non-credal church.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Yes there are some people who claim to be Christian and do not subscribe to the Creeds ...
It's easy to consider the Creeds the benchmark when they are part of our practice, but they aren't quite as widespread among Protestant groups as liturgical Christians often think.
quote:Yes, it's worrying. Every one of those who I remember talking to (and this goes way back through my evangelical days) had some reservation or other about it. The one I know best now doesn't join in most of the creed when she thinks about it.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Millions of Christians every Sunday recite this Creed every Sunday.
quote:I guess that's important if you want the endorsement of other churches. It's hardly central if you see church in terms of shared values, respect for diversity, and generally making sense of life.
The Creed serves as a basis for ecumenical discussion and dialogue.
quote:And there's the crux of it. Most Christians belong to trinitarian institutions. But to reliably refer to them as Christian you need the trinitarian label.
most Trinitarian Christians
quote:Huh? You have a very selective memory. Care to link to the thread so everyone can read the whole conversation?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'll never forget your response to Lamb Chopped when she dared to criticize that article you posted.
quote:I was
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:You must forgive me Dave, but when you post remarks like that I immediately recall images of Robert Lindsay as Wolfie Smith and the Tooting Popular Front.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
[QB] []No, that's how you (and Beeswax, and others) define Christianity for your own social control purposes.]
Were you a fan?
. I suspect Beeswax is too young to remember our pal Wolfe but I've attached the link in case he (and any of our other US cousins) want a little cultural enrichment. quote:There is a difference between honest doubt which is part of the journey of faith and using that doubt to jettison the faith completely. If people have reservations about the Creed then that is an opportunity to improve Christian formation, not an excuse to dump it as essential.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Yes, it's worrying. Every one of those who I remember talking to (and this goes way back through my evangelical days) had some reservation or other about it. The one I know best now doesn't join in most of the creed when she thinks about it.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
[qb] Millions of Christians every Sunday recite this Creed every Sunday.
quote:Good point Zac. Could even extend this further - the resurrection gives us hope that the universe will not end in a mush of high entropy soup, but will itself be redeemed and revolutionised.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think I agree with you, Mudfrog. The resurrection is about the power of the grace of God. It has something to do with the here and how because it is about the body. It's about the meat as much as the soul. Exiling the meaning of the resurrection to feeling, spirit, or meaning is just a way of making the doctrine safe by making it meaningless.
Zach
quote:Only if you consider "the faith" as some kind of standard. The only reason to think that would be if longevity counted as relevant evidence. There can be no evidence for unverifiable truth claims, so "doubt" here is simply a synonym of healthy scepticism.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
There is a difference between honest doubt which is part of the journey of faith and using that doubt to jettison the faith completely.
quote:You mean inculcate them with your doctrines? Rather than, say, encourage creative thinking?
If people have reservations about the Creed then that is an opportunity to improve Christian formation
quote:Who is suggesting doing that?
instead of sticking our heads in the sands and simply saying "We can't believe!"
quote:
Originally posted by Mary Marriott:
The op appears to be based on a false premise.
Namely, that Archbishops of Canterbury preach the Resurrection so infrequently at Easter, that it is news-worthy when it happens.
It is hardly that.
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Good point Zac. Could even extend this further - the resurrection gives us hope that the universe will not end in a mush of high entropy soup, but will itself be redeemed and revolutionised.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think I agree with you, Mudfrog. The resurrection is about the power of the grace of God. It has something to do with the here and how because it is about the body. It's about the meat as much as the soul. Exiling the meaning of the resurrection to feeling, spirit, or meaning is just a way of making the doctrine safe by making it meaningless.
Zach
And thanks to Mudfrog for the excellent and timely o/p
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Feel free. What is it you want to say?
Originally posted by poileplume:
Now can we get back to the original posting.
quote:I think to be fair to Archbishop Rowan, though he would not perhaps use for himself the label 'evangelical' his promotion of Fresh Expressions is a splendidly bold evangelistic initiative.
Originally posted by Balaam:
Christianity is becoming an irrelevance. At least in Rowan's (and my) denomination, the Church of England. Numbers are steadily declining.
But the CofE is a wide Church, with liberal, traditional evangelical and charismatics among its members. A recent survey has shown that people who who attend evangelical parishes are holding their own in numbers. I did the maths here. Similarly popeople going forward fot the priesthood from Evangelical parishes are not showing decline either.
Now I wouldn't claim that Dr. Williams is an Evangelical by any means. But I cannot think of anyone from within the growing evangelical wing of the CofE who would argue with the Archbishop's statement that God did something and physically raised Jesus from the dead.
If Christianity is becoming an irrelevance it isn'y because of those who hold a traditional view of the resurrection. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say liberalism is becoming an irrelevance?
quote:Perish the thought! All views are equally valid, even those that aren't.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I don't hate her, and I am rarely called a conservative, but I find her generally completely uninspiring and uninspired. She could get me to care if I myself were on fire.
Originally posted by jordan32404:
quote:I agree, while I don't hate the Presiding Bishop, as some conservatives do, her Easter message this year was disappointing. Rather more of an equinox message.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Shame it has come to this. An Archbishop of Canterbury makes headlines on Easter by claiming God actually raised Jesus from the dead. Unfortunately, in this day and age, any Anglican archbishop outside the Global South making such a bold claim really is newsworthy. Our Presiding Bishop chooses to talk about "personal resurrections." Perhaps, she can take Rosie O'Donnel's place on OWN.
quote:As I suspect you well know I've suggested nothing of the sort. The expectation is all on the side of traditional orthodoxy to conform or get out.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What does concern me, though, is his apparent expectation that everyone else ought to follow suit
quote:I don't think I've said or implied that either. On the other hand, some conservative posters do seem very committed to the the official teaching of their institutions. My experience is that makes it very hard to even consider the possibility of some alternatives.
people who do hold to a more traditional view are somehow closing all their options down.
quote:No, I don't need to exclude possibilities. I don't have 2000 years theological superstructure tottering on its back to worry about. I can build from the ground up, as far down as I need, so whatever is visible above ground is fit for purpose.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's why Dave cannot allow the resurrection to have happened.
quote:Pretty much completely wrong. But that's a topic for some other thread.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He'll correct me if I'm wrong , but essentially it's traditional CofE but with God taken out of the equation ...
quote:Give me the arrogance of saying the Nicene Creed without fingers crossed behind one's back, and taking one's ordination vows seriously, over the arrogance of publishing books that contemptuously deny what one should be teaching, like a bishop or two on this side of the Atlantic whom I need not name.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
This is only a reflection of the theological arrogance Rowan has shown as Archbishop.
quote:Which is Marshallspeak for I'll tell you what I don't believe, but never what I do believe. Gamaliel's called it right - Deism is a construct around which your posts can nicely be hung.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Pretty much completely wrong. But that's a topic for some other thread.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He'll correct me if I'm wrong , but essentially it's traditional CofE but with God taken out of the equation ...
quote:For the record your surmise can nicely be located in the clueless category. Start a thread on Deism if you're interested.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Deism is a construct around which your posts can nicely be hung.
quote:Then I see no reason why these people voluntarily join in a church that acepts that miraculous beliefs. Why not join a Unitarian Universalist Church, create their own denomination, or perhaps, not be in a church at all? And when it comes to clergymen, why not find a proper job instead of remaining there? Removing the ressurrection and the miraculous stuff from our creeds is not going to make the church any more relevant - the death of the Episcopal Church in the USA is to prove that. Do you think when people notice the Church finally doesn´t hold any "superstitious" belief they will flock into the churches and get baptized? It´s more likely christianity will become a matter of interest for a few just like Greek or Nordic mithology. It´s nice stories that you read, study, learn a bit about them, but nothing important enough to hold as your personal religion.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Not necessarily. Some people just can't believe all the miraculous stuff. They see it as a stumbling block and a cause for embarrassment.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[qb] It seems to me that the ones who want to 'limit' Christianity are those who want to mythologise, spiritualise, internalise, subjectify and deny that the tomb was empty and Jesus rose bodily from the dead.
quote:Yeah, you are, man. Buy a lava lamp. Put on some bell bottoms. Smoke some weed. Take an acid trip. Sit in the back of VW Van. Only then will you understand the righteousness of Dave Marshall's comment. Without all that, Dave's comment will continue to sound silly and dated.
originally posted by Balaam:
I believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and I have no position of authority in the Church, I'm not trying to control anyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:This bothers me enormously, because it makes complete sense to me. It rings true.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think I've ever found this convincing. The bizarre things people believe for no good reason; the endless routine of present day cults of this and that; the what 20+ years minimum gap before the biblical authors started writing? No, Christianity is infinitely more likely the result of the undoubted charisma of Jesus the man, the commitment and inventiveness of his disciples and biographers, and some fortuitous quirks of history.
But I want to cling on to the hope that the resurrection happened, and that there will be life after death for us too.
So I do.
quote:The way I see it is that Jesus lived his resurrection long before his crucifixion and physical death.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:This bothers me enormously, because it makes complete sense to me. It rings true.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think I've ever found this convincing. The bizarre things people believe for no good reason; the endless routine of present day cults of this and that; the what 20+ years minimum gap before the biblical authors started writing? No, Christianity is infinitely more likely the result of the undoubted charisma of Jesus the man, the commitment and inventiveness of his disciples and biographers, and some fortuitous quirks of history.
But I want to cling on to the hope that the resurrection happened, and that there will be life after death for us too.
So I do.
quote:And this is the crux, I think. It doesn't seem to me very honest to join an organization and then set about trying to change it so that it conforms to your idea of what it ought to be. I would think that the organization has at least as valid an expectation of you changing to suit it.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:As I suspect you well know I've suggested nothing of the sort. The expectation is all on the side of traditional orthodoxy to conform or get out.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What does concern me, though, is his apparent expectation that everyone else ought to follow suit
quote:I for one have never understood why you don't 'get out'.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The expectation is all on the side of traditional orthodoxy to conform or get out.
quote:Thank you for this light bulb moment. You have absolutely nailed the reason why I find Marshallspeak so frustrating, and why I never bothered engaging with DM the way I did with Radical Whig.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Which is Marshallspeak for I'll tell you what I don't believe, but never what I do believe.
quote:Are you saying Jesus is the only God that has risen from the dead? Because as far as I am aware there are plenty of others.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Among other things, the resurrection serves as a key marker: "this God, not any of the others". It is a demonstration of Divine power and support: listen to this Jesus Christ - the one Person who did what cannot be done.
If Christ is risen, then we are basically done with selecting the right God. It is not this god. It is not that god. It is the God of Jesus Christ.
quote:And I definitely remember going through all this with YOU as well. Because you constantly confused the question of "who is a Christian" with the question of "who is saved". And you've done it again, right here.
Originally posted by Evensong:
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt:
Two men went up to the church to pray, one a Salvation Army General and the other a Modern Church attendee. The Salvation Army General, standing by himself, was praying thus, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this liberal christian.
I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income. I believe in the Nicene Creed.”
But the Modern Church attendee, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!”
I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.’
quote:I take it this is from the episode of Q&A that I rigorously avoided.
Originally posted by Evensong:
No, no, no. I've moved on from that. Apparently atheists are saved. Heard it from Cardinal Pell last night when he was speaking to Richard Dawkins.
quote:The topic of "who is a Christian"? comes up from time to time. Some people have quite rigorous criteria for who they will accept, which usually is a way of saying "you must believe what I believe." Others will say that it's necessary to believe the contents of the Nicene Creed, though there are many things taught by the Church, and required belief in some churches, that are much more doctrinally developed than the contents of the creeds.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's simply not correct to imply that when I say to someone 'you are not a Christian', I mean 'you are not in God's favour'
quote:Myths would be a more appropriate label than fables for these. Christianity is unique in claiming an actual historical event with a real Person at center stage. And next time you cite a Wikipedia article, try reading it. In this case to the section "Criticism", where you'll find a number of good reasons why it is rather inconsistent to throw the lot of these together. (Mind you, other reasons than just the historical one I've just mentioned.)
Originally posted by Evensong:
Are you saying Jesus is the only God that has risen from the dead? Because as far as I am aware there are plenty of others. Or are they just fables?
quote:Is it so hard to check your sources? This whole section lists a number of heathen analogies to Christian claims, and Justin clearly says why he does that (just above): "If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others?" So indeed, Justin's rhetorical point here is basically: You accept all those myths, so why do you berate our similar realities? To twist this into making Justin, of all people, a modern "liberal" living in antiquity is shameful. He had good reasons to worry about being unjustly hated and to write an apology about Christian belief to the heathens. He's called "Martyr" for a reason, you know...
Originally posted by Evensong:
Apparently Justin Martyr argued:
"when we say … Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus." (1 Apol. 21).
quote:So Jesus is really the only one that rose from the dead? All the rest say they did but didn't really?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Myths would be a more appropriate label than fables for these. Christianity is unique in claiming an actual historical event with a real Person at center stage.
quote:There's not much to appreciate about your continued refusal to read your own references and sources, nor about your failure to engage with the actual argument.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So Jesus is really the only one that rose from the dead? All the rest say they did but didn't really?
quote:I honestly have no clue how the second sentence and the third belong together. Because I don't see how the parable has any relevance to where a person spends their time.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But Evensong is right. This is just like the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. Why shouldn't Dave Marshall belong to a church if it gives him some spiritual comfort?
quote:Although that's not what I've done - I'm fairly sure I wasn't being dishonest when my parents had me baptised at a few weeks old - I would have thought that depended on the kind of organisation. As far as it's more than a collection of reactionary jibes isn't that what this discussion is about?
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It doesn't seem to me very honest to join an organization and then set about trying to change it
quote:Neither. The best analogy for the Church is in fact a single living human being. Human beings certainly grown and develop a lot, from the original fertilized egg to the adult. They also do adapt to circumstances, learn new skills, etc. However, there is also a strong element of continuity, from memories to DNA. For all the changes that happen, this remains one and the same person. And typically the older that individual gets, the more identifiable they become by virtue of the steady accumulation of personal history.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Is the Church essentially an old beliefs defence network, or are its institutions trustees of an approach to life pioneered by Jesus that needs to evolve and adapt in every generation if it is to retain its value?
quote:So I've got a problem with my sources have I?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:There's not much to appreciate about your continued refusal to read your own references and sources, nor about your failure to engage with the actual argument.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So Jesus is really the only one that rose from the dead? All the rest say they did but didn't really?
To bring home the point I've just made: If tomorrow Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi would walk the streets of the world again, then that would be rather different from for example the death and rebirth of Adonis. Even if one actually believes in the latter. The story of Adonis is clearly intended as a myth - where myth is not a synonym for falsehood, but a certain kind of narrative. A myth can be true, but it is not speaking about a truth in the same manner as a resurrected Osama putting a bullet through your head.
quote:The problem with this choice you've set up is that they're not actual opposites. You've set up 'old' versus 'new', but you've done so by contrasting 'beliefs' with 'approach to life'.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Is the Church essentially an old beliefs defence network, or are its institutions trustees of an approach to life pioneered by Jesus that needs to evolve and adapt in every generation if it is to retain its value?
every time people comment on my approach to homosexuality. Plenty of people urged me to embrace my sexuality and just forget whatever outdated beliefs might prevent me from doing so. Conversely, I've now got people who think that being openly, happily gay is not compatible with Christian belief.quote:For the Roman Catholic Church perhaps. If we don't buy into the idea that a single human institution uniquely embodies the whole universal Church, I don't see much significant correspondence.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The best analogy for the Church is in fact a single living human being.
quote:Thus, the Church.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
For the Roman Catholic Church perhaps.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Hmm. You do realise, I hope, that if certain key pieces of DNA mutate, the end result isn't a new species but a dead individual?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Communities evolving over generations and epochs, on the other hand, the majority of their DNA preserved but adapted by naturally-selected innovation to remain viable and responsive across vast changes in mindset and context, that seems not such a bad model.
quote:If your parents had you baptised at a few weeks old, they and your godparents would have subscribed (on your behalf) to the Apostles' Creed, as well as making certain other commitments to your being brought up in the Church.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm fairly sure I wasn't being dishonest when my parents had me baptised at a few weeks old.
quote:I would be very interested if you could expand on this a little, please? Do you think of the resurrection as being an actual physical happening, or a symbolic 'event;? If you believe in this aspect of Christianity, it seems logical that you must also believe in the God associated with it. Where do you think that this God is? Do you accept the understanding of the univers that physicists give us?
Originally posted by Balaam:
(@Susan Doris - I studied Physics and Electronics at university, I can see no problem in believing in the resurrection and physics.)
quote:Which physicists? They don't all have the same understanding of the universe, you know.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you think of the resurrection as being an actual physical happening, or a symbolic 'event;?... Do you accept the understanding of the universe that physicists give us?
quote:***I'm not saying Jesus is a scam, I'm analyzing the argument.***
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Evensong, you're missing the point: how many of these other "dying god" claims are even pretending to be historical? None, as far as I can see. None involve identifiably historical human characters.
The Church claims that a historically existing human individual died on a particular day and rose again on a particular day, both the death and the resurection appearaces being witnessed by other named historical individuals. Apples and oranges.
quote:OliviaG
Myth vs. Legend
... Myths are tales about the acts of godlike or supernatural beings and/or magical animals which serve to explain the creation of the world or how certain elements of our world came to be (e.g., how the raccoon got its mask) and take place in the far reaches of time (often expressed as "In the days when the world was new"). By contrast, legends are accounts of purported incidents involving ordinary people in more recent times. Although both types of stories are told as true, they are not necessarily believed to be literal truth by either the tellers or their audiences.
Urban legend
Urban legends are a specific class of legend, differentiated from "ordinary" legends by their being provided and believed as accounts of actual incidents that befell or were witnessed by someone the teller almost knows (e.g., his sister's hairdresser's mechanic). These tales are told as true, local, and recent occurrences, and often contain names of places or entities located within the teller's neighborhood or surrounding region.
... Though the vast majority of such tales are pure invention, a handful do turn out to be based on real incidents, and whether or not something actually happened has no bearing on its status as an urban legend. What lifts true tales of this type out of the world of news and into the genre of contemporary lore is the blurring of details and multiplicity of claims that the events happened locally, alterations which take place as the stories are passed through countless hands. Though there might indeed have been an original actual event, it clearly did not happen to as many people or in as many places as the various recountings of it would have us believe.
quote:Or, perhaps this one .
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, did you have in mind physicists like this?
quote:I can appreciate that it sounds ridiculous to someone who's already made up her mind that it's all metaphor anyway.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Surely you can appreciate how ridiculous that sounds.
quote:Or to stay on board, like Alan Cresswell and yours truly...
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Or, perhaps this one .
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, did you have in mind physicists like this?
quote:The Bible itself offers this story. FWIW
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Olivia. Well as you say, even by the definition quoted, an urban legend genrally has some actual facts on which itbwas based. If the resurrection is akin to an urban legend, what would you say are the underlying facts that attracted the legendendary accretions?
quote:Or this one.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Or to stay on board, like Alan Cresswell and yours truly...
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Or, perhaps this one .
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, did you have in mind physicists like this?
quote:There have always been physicists who admit the possibility of a non-material universe around and behind the material one, as well as physicists who do not. Just as there have always been evolutionary biologists who admit the possibility of something greater and transcendent, and those who don't. And farmers who admit the possibility of greater design in determining which crops grow or don't grow, and those who see only the weather, the soil type and the pests.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you accept the understanding of the univers that physicists give us?
quote:I've already answered that question. This looks like an attempt at the Fox Mulder argument: if Scully doesn't have a scientific explanation, the non-scientific explanation must be true.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Olivia. Well as you say, even by the definition quoted, an urban legend genrally has some actual facts on which itbwas based. If the resurrection is akin to an urban legend, what would you say are the underlying facts that attracted the legendendary accretions?*
quote:I was also going to mention Amit Goswami ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Goswami ), an Indian nuclear physicist who claim that conscience is the "ground of all being" and that quantum science has evidence for the existence of God. He is not a christian, altough the God he claims to have found in science is not a metaphorical feel-good god of liberalism, but an actual existing conscious God. Most modern physicists are atheist or agnostic, but the minority that claims to believe in God seems to support a traditional "personal" God, not the liberal god.
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, did you have in mind physicists like this?
quote:But what mutations are making the species more viable, and what are leading it to extinction? I see no evidence that de-christianizing the Church will make it more viable.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Communities evolving over generations and epochs, on the other hand, the majority of their DNA preserved but adapted by naturally-selected innovation to remain viable and responsive across vast changes in mindset and context, that seems not such a bad model. [/QB]
quote:I never said they were opposites. They're shorthand for alternatives I thought we were discussing.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem with this choice you've set up is that they're not actual opposites. You've set up 'old' versus 'new', but you've done so by contrasting 'beliefs' with 'approach to life'.
quote:I haven't said or meant that. I believe what seems to me to be true. The resurrection as historical fact doesn't, for reasons I've given. How's that saying anything about what you should do with your life?
My beliefs are one of the things that inform my approach to life. It seems to me that you would prefer that we just pick a lifestyle and remove inconvenient beliefs accordingly.
quote:No it's not. This discussion has nothing to do with your sexuality. You're confusing totally separate issues.
That's your supposed dichotomy writ large
quote:Yes, you're a gay theologically conservative Christian. There are gay theologically liberal Christians. So what?
The truth as I see it is that I can be a gay Christian because a proper understanding of those 'old beliefs' allows it. It might look like a 'new approach' in practice, but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't involve throwing out anything old. I am still firmly a Bible-believing Christian. I just don't agree with some people about what the Bible says.
quote:I've explained my point of view on loads of threads in various contexts. As I recall you've sometimes been among the sneerers.
As far as I can work out from your general reluctance to state what you believe in positive form
quote:Not as I recall. Sarcasm? Sometimes, maybe. But usually only when it's clear someone doesn't give a shit about having a reasonable exchange of views.
(you much prefer just sneering at people for getting your beliefs wrong)
quote:I doubt that. But then I'm not sure how you can tell if I never say what I believe.
you've got beliefs about Jesus that are more in keeping with Islam than Christianity.
quote:Then again, if the rabbit was in fact a dog an observant fish might note the rabbit breeder was struggling with his species identification...
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm just pointing out that if you declare about a rabbit that "that's what a good modern fish should be like," then plenty of gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits (Wikipedia) will consider you a bit of a loony - no matter how severely their own numbers have been depleted and how well rabbits breed...
quote:Um, yes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You do realise, I hope, that if certain key pieces of DNA mutate, the end result isn't a new species but a dead individual?
quote:You do realise, though, what determines that significance? Clue: the ability to survive.
Only select mutations actually lead anywhere significant.
quote:You mean like all the church communities through history that either never got off the ground or were unable to survive the death of their founders?
A lot of other ones don't end up doing anything much, and a lot of other ones will kill the mutant offspring stone dead.
quote:Hmm. So 99.xx% survival of the Christian community genes is not enough...
More significantly though, you have these significant mutations and what do you get? That's right. A new species.
quote:Ah, of course. It's the name that counts.
With a different name.
quote:I'm not. I don't need to. I just am a member. As I understand it, according to the (Reformed Catholic) rules, the Church (of England) is stuck with me.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I find it hard to see why you are so determined to hold formally onto your membership
quote:Perhaps I missed the part where baptism (and confirmation) included promising to believe for ever...
yet are so happy to reject the conditions under which you were given that membership.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I'm not. I don't need to. I just am a member. As I understand it, according to the (Reformed Catholic) rules, the Church (of England) is stuck with me.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I find it hard to see why you are so determined to hold formally onto your membership
quote:Perhaps I missed the part where baptism (and confirmation) included promising to believe for ever...
yet are so happy to reject the conditions under which you were given that membership.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:But you're the one who thinks the name counts, in that you're the one who thinks the label 'Christian' needs to stay with a belief that... well, that isn't. You're the rabbit who wants to be called a fish.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Ah, of course. It's the name that counts.
[Yep, that's sarcasm. See above for why.]
quote:Wow. That last bit is a spectacularly cheap shot. I love the way you broke up my sentence so that you could completely ignore the first section of it while responding to the last section.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I've explained my point of view on loads of threads in various contexts. As I recall you've sometimes been among the sneerers.
As far as I can work out from your general reluctance to state what you believe in positive form
quote:Not as I recall. Sarcasm? Sometimes, maybe. But usually only when it's clear someone doesn't give a shit about having a reasonable exchange of views.
(you much prefer just sneering at people for getting your beliefs wrong)
quote:I doubt that. But then I'm not sure how you can tell if I never say what I believe.
you've got beliefs about Jesus that are more in keeping with Islam than Christianity.
quote:For what it's worth, that couldn't and doesn't include making promises about what we might believe in the future. For that we can only speak honestly for the present.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In Anglican services, the priest/bishop straight up asks you if you accept the Apostles' Creed as authoritative.
quote:You certainly missed the final paragraph of my post, so here it is again:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I'm not. I don't need to. I just am a member. As I understand it, according to the (Reformed Catholic) rules, the Church (of England) is stuck with me.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I find it hard to see why you are so determined to hold formally onto your membership
quote:Perhaps I missed the part where baptism (and confirmation) included promising to believe for ever...
yet are so happy to reject the conditions under which you were given that membership.
quote:
And yes, as others on this thread are saying, and as I have asked before, I would honestly love to know what you actually believe so that I have a chance of understanding why you write what you do.
quote:I don't think you realise how much you are shooting yourself in the foot with this argument. Clue: the forms of Christianity that are actually showing significant growth worldwide are evangelicalism (especially Pentecostalism) and the more conservative forms of Roman Catholicism. The ability to survive is not a point in favour of the kind of woolly liberalism you are endorsing.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:You do realise, though, what determines that significance? Clue: the ability to survive.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Only select mutations actually lead anywhere significant.
)
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:I don't think you realise how much you are shooting yourself in the foot with this argument. Clue: the forms of Christianity that are actually showing significant growth worldwide are evangelicalism (especially Pentecostalism) and the more conservative forms of Roman Catholicism. The ability to survive is not a point in favour of the kind of woolly liberalism you are endorsing.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:You do realise, though, what determines that significance? Clue: the ability to survive.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Only select mutations actually lead anywhere significant.
quote:Is that your same view when it comes to marriage vows? Considering that people claim to "fall out of love" with their spouses, shall we no longer ask couples to make promises because we can't predict people's feelings in the future?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:For what it's worth, that couldn't and doesn't include making promises about what we might believe in the future. For that we can only speak honestly for the present.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In Anglican services, the priest/bishop straight up asks you if you accept the Apostles' Creed as authoritative.
We can commit to doing stuff in the future, but not to what we might find true or false (ie. believe) in the light of experience we don't yet have.
quote:As far as I can see is a safe clause Chesterbelloc. IngoB doesn't even bother with it.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Ok, Olivia. But Evensong was talking about myths which, as far as I can see, are about mythical beings (not historical personages) and which do not make any kind of specific historical claim.
quote:Fr Weber. You must have missed my comment where I said I believe Christ rose from the dead.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:I can appreciate that it sounds ridiculous to someone who's already made up her mind that it's all metaphor anyway.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Surely you can appreciate how ridiculous that sounds.
quote:Um, Evensong, I honestly believe that your logic is falling down here. You don't have to be a history of religion expert to assess whether or not a story claims to include real-life people or not.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't realise you were both History of Religion experts.
How do you know no other resurrection claim (of which there are many) is historical?
quote:Without wishing to divert the thread, or offend Evensong (or orfeo), but this made me chuckle and has gone in the Quotes Thread...
Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't have to be a history of religion expert to assess whether or not a story claims to include real-life people or not.
All you need to do is read the story and see if it includes real-life people.
quote:As far as UK culture goes it is. All that remains is a small church-going minority whose beliefs are of marginal interest in most contexts. Give it twenty years and demographic data suggests that'll be reflected in the closure of most C of E parish churches across the country. It's almost already gone.
Originally posted by Orfeo:
As to the whole ability to survive thing... Orthodox Christianity is just totally dying out...
quote:Perhaps you use a different form of baptism. The one we have focuses on turning to Christ. I haven't gone back on that. But because I no longer find credible the premises on which the actual words of the current ritual are based, all I can be is true or not to the spirit. Of course you can say I'm not, but I suspect the consensus would be that's not your call.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes, you do, Dave.
quote:To be honest I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't think of "the church" as a sock drawer. I'm interested in church as community that is based on the core values of Jesus, and building institutions that encourage and support that. That's pretty much it.
Originally posted by KevinL:
Would that be a fair understanding of your view of the church?
quote:No, I ignored it. Like you're ignoring what I've posted before.
Originally post by AberVicar:
You certainly missed the final paragraph of my post
quote:I wasn't referring to the survival of orthodox belief. I don't think that's the essence of the Christian tradition. There'll always be conservative cults/religions with a simplistic message and some popular appeal. If that appeals to you, fair enough. It doesn't to me.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
the forms of Christianity that are actually showing significant growth worldwide are evangelicalism (especially Pentecostalism) and the more conservative forms of Roman Catholicism.
quote:Er, what? That's very patronising.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't think Dave Marshall realizes what a small slot on the Christian spectrum he inhabits.
quote:Which is all very well until we get to the bit where you suggest that your way is the future.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:As far as UK culture goes it is. All that remains is a small church-going minority whose beliefs are of marginal interest in most contexts. Give it twenty years and demographic data suggests that'll be reflected in the closure of most C of E parish churches across the country. It's almost already gone.
Originally posted by Orfeo:
As to the whole ability to survive thing... Orthodox Christianity is just totally dying out...
quote:Then let me try one last time. I can't see any argument put forward by you that offers a coherent rationale for rejecting the base claims of Christian tradition - including its truth claims. Perhaps you supplied something of this sort a long time ago, when I was not part of this community. If so, perhaps you could have the courtesy not to ignore a polite request, but to restate your position, or link to a clear statement of where you are coming from. Otherwise discussion with you is impossible.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
No, I ignored it. Like you're ignoring what I've posted before.
quote:The 1662 BCP is still officially in use by the COE. All subsequent authorized materials are based on it. What does the 1662 say? The child is baptized into the faith. What is the faith?
originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Perhaps you use a different form of baptism. The one we have focuses on turning to Christ. I haven't gone back on that. But because I no longer find credible the premises on which the actual words of the current ritual are based, all I can be is true or not to the spirit. Of course you can say I'm not, but I suspect the consensus would be that's not your call.
quote:And from the final exhortation.
DOST thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?
And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord? And that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost; born of the Virgin Mary; that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day; that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead?
And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick Church; the Communion of Saints; the Remission of sins; the Resurrection of the flesh; and everlasting life after death?
quote:You also mentioned Confirmation. Here is the vow taken at Confirmation.
FORASMUCH as this Child hath promised by you his sureties to renounce the devil and all his works, to believe in God, and to serve him: ye must remember, that it is your parts and duties to see that this Infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise, and profession, he hath here made by you. And that he may know these things the better, ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons; and chiefly ye shall provide, that he may learn the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's health;
quote:Bound to believe means you are bound to believe. Your parents and godparents had you baptized into the Christian faith and promised to teach you that faith. The Creed complete with the Divinity and Resurrection of Christ was part of the Christian Faith. At Confirmation, you gave your assent to those promises. You promised to continue in both action and belief. In other words, you promised to continue believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
DO ye here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your Baptism; ratifying and confirming the same in your own persons, and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe, and to do, all those things, which your Godfathers and Godmothers then undertook for you?
quote:I don't remember promising to not "fall out of love" when I got married. For what it's worth I think removing the "till death us do part" bit and leaving it open ("from this time forward") would be a good idea. But that really is another thread...
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Considering that people claim to "fall out of love" with their spouses, shall we no longer ask couples to make promises because we can't predict people's feelings in the future?
quote:My position about what? If you want to describe your position on the specific points you mean from first principles (eg. not simply "what the church teaches about x", ) I'll have a go at covering the same ground.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
If so, perhaps you could have the courtesy not to ignore a polite request, but to restate your position
quote:The C of E has moved on. Current baptism and confirmation stuff.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The 1662 BCP is still officially in use by the COE.
quote:I'd be fascinated to hear an informed legal opinion on how that would be interpreted in a current C of E context. It certainly shows the problems with legalistic literalism. If you can show how my objection above is not valid I'd be interested.
Bound to believe means you are bound to believe.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I don't remember promising to not "fall out of love" when I got married.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Considering that people claim to "fall out of love" with their spouses, shall we no longer ask couples to make promises because we can't predict people's feelings in the future?
quote:I won't respond to you personally either, seeing as you feel the need make your reply into a personal attack.
Originally posted by Enoch:
The CofE view is that you promise to be faithful. What you feel like hasn't got much to do with it.
quote:No, it will be the Liturgical Commission's (or whoever's) most recent expression of legal opinion on C of E theology and practice now.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Common Worship was not intended to replace the Book of Common Prayer or change the theology of the Church of England.
quote:Literalism rules, huh.
Look at page 70 and 71. Sound familiar. Take a look at page 73. What do you think it means by the apostles teaching?
quote:I loved the Science and Nature programmes when I was younger, but have learnt the names of a few physicists
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, did you have in mind like this?
quote:No, I have not read any of his books and see no reason why I should accept his opinions on the resurrection and would strongly refute such an idea. However, since seeing him referred to here by you both, I have looked him up, asked the opinions of sceptics and those who are some of today's physicists who can find out such information much more rapidly.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Which physicists? They don't all have the same understanding of the universe, you know.
If the nuclear physicist John Polkinghorne can accept the physical Resurrection, then you and I should be able to do so. Have you read any of his books?
quote:If belief in God and resurrection etc has to be such a struggle, then it would seem to be severely flawed. One piece of conclusive evidence would absolve the need for such 'struggles'. (On another forum, whenever this statement comes up, someone will always ask what would constitute such evidence, but then the discussion starts going round in circles!)
Some of the finest people I've known, people who have seen much more of life in this world than I have, grapple with this tenet. Kenneth Leighton wrote a major organ piece, Et Resurrexit, as a bow to "the individual's" struggle to believe it.
quote:When one has grown up with a belief system, or has been persuaded to join such a thing, and is part of a group then it is not the easiest thing to step outside and realise that all the beliefs are based on faith, not evidence, and the faith has had to change and be re-interpreted all the time. If God existed, he could straighten the whole thing out at a stroke!
If I don't particularly struggle, is it only because my faith is too facile? If the best a person can do in good conscience is to see the Resurrection as something other than bodily, why should we chuck them out of the church as long as they keep thinking and praying about it?
quote:In case you hadn't noticed, I and a considerable number of people on this thread from a wide variety of church backgrounds have described our position on the resurrection of Jesus, and supported the statement of one of the best-read and highly intelligent theologians of our day. Yes, that's the one whom you dismissed as arrogant, without any supporting argument, from first principles or not. (I'd love to see how you'd fare locked in argument with Rowan himself...)
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you want to describe your position on the specific points you mean from first principles (eg. not simply "what the church teaches about x", ) I'll have a go at covering the same ground.
quote:I'm a mere biologist but the quotes from Rowan Williams in the OP look fine to me.
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Just butting-in to add my name to the list of illustrious and, now, less illustrious scientists and engineers who feel really good about Rowan's statement in the OP
quote:You seem to have a funny idea of the 1930s. Maybe if he was born in the 1830s what you say might be true.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I see from the wikipedia page that he was born in 1930 so he's a few years older than I am. That means he spent the first part of his life in an era when it was the height of bad manners to doubt that God was of course there, in his heaven etc and that the CofE was the right and proper way of the world, as was talking about religion, let alone questioning a person's belief.
quote:So have I. Does having lots of people agree with you make your position right?
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I ... have described [my] position on the resurrection of Jesus
quote:Sigh. RTFT. I explained the reason for my criticism in the same post. I've been expanding on it ever since.
you dismissed [Rowan Williams] as arrogant, without any supporting argument
quote:Yeah, that would be interesting...
(I'd love to see how you'd fare locked in argument with Rowan himself...)
quote:No, I just haven't wasted time on pointless generalisations. If you'd bothered to ask I could have told you I probably reject all the truth claims you're thinking of. But unless you specify which you mean I can't be sure.
You have consistently ducked away from telling any of us what is your rational basis for accepting certain truth claims and not others.
quote:Am I supposed feel hurt by this? Since you've gone off on the personal stuff I'll suggest you get over yourself. Whatever status you have as an Aber Vicar your standing here like mine is zilch beyond the value of our posts. The trick is to realise - wait for it - you can ignore posts if they don't interest you. Give up on the bluster; you must have better uses for your time and energy.
I am beginning to think that you are neither as sincere nor as sophisticated as you present yourself.
quote:I think I'll pass on taking advice from you on how to post.
don't answer this with a flip dismissal or arrogant challenge, because then I'll know I haven't got you wrong.
quote:The problem is that it is asking the impossible of the candidate, in that, on any objective examination of the evidence, (i.e. by the standards of academic history) it is really not possible to make a definite statement one way or the other on the exact historical circumstances of Jesus's death and its aftermath, even if one assumes that Jesus was an actual historical figure - there are, for example, just too many questions and discrepancies and alternative explanations, e.g. was the Resurrection stage-managed by unnamed associates, were the appearances of Jesus initially just wishful thinking and rumour? So then one is either asking for a degree of intellectual dishonesty of the candidate, or one is asking the candidate to try to 'convince' himself of the 'truth' of the proposition (i.e. screw up his eyes really tightly and pretend to believe), or, possibly the least bad option, one is finessing the meaning of the word 'believe', to mean something like trust in Jesus, have faith in the church, or the like - that is probably the nearest to a liberal approach to Christianity - but at the risk of being accused of bad faith on the part of more conservative believers.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Bound to believe means you are bound to believe. Your parents and godparents had you baptized into the Christian faith and promised to teach you that faith. The Creed complete with the Divinity and Resurrection of Christ was part of the Christian Faith. At Confirmation, you gave your assent to those promises. You promised to continue in both action and belief. In other words, you promised to continue believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:So have I. Does having lots of people agree with you make your position right?
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I ... have described [my] position on the resurrection of Jesus
quote:Sigh. RTFT. I explained the reason for my criticism in the same post. I've been expanding on it ever since.
you dismissed [Rowan Williams] as arrogant, without any supporting argument
quote:Yeah, that would be interesting...
(I'd love to see how you'd fare locked in argument with Rowan himself...)
quote:No, I just haven't wasted time on pointless generalisations. If you'd bothered to ask I could have told you I probably reject all the truth claims you're thinking of. But unless you specify which you mean I can't be sure.
You have consistently ducked away from telling any of us what is your rational basis for accepting certain truth claims and not others.
quote:Am I supposed feel hurt by this? Since you've gone off on the personal stuff I'll suggest you get over yourself. Whatever status you have as an Aber Vicar your standing here like mine is zilch beyond the value of our posts. The trick is to realise - wait for it - you can ignore posts if they don't interest you. Give up on the bluster; you must have better uses for your time and energy.
I am beginning to think that you are neither as sincere nor as sophisticated as you present yourself.
quote:I think I'll pass on taking advice from you on how to post.
don't answer this with a flip dismissal or arrogant challenge, because then I'll know I haven't got you wrong.
quote:More pots and kettles. I find many of your posts quite patronising to individuals who believe in more traditional forms of Christianity. And over the years of reading your posts, I get the impression that you believe that your more philosophical than faith-based approach is the wave of the future in Christianity. I don't see it. From my experience on the Ship as well as in RL, most people either follow and refine their beliefs in a context that believes in some form of Godhead that preserves his prerogatives to touch the world with his own power, or the believer ceases to believe, and goes their way living their life with the experience of having been Christian, but no longer concerned with studying and living life from a specifically Christian POV. Having been a Christian will affect their base of experiences, but they generally don't have the idea that they are hanging on to a better version of Christianity.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Er, what? That's very patronising.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't think Dave Marshall realizes what a small slot on the Christian spectrum he inhabits.
If by "Christian spectrum" you mean church-goers and the odd sympathetic-but-doesn't-attend then of course I realise I'm in a minority. What's that to do with anything?
quote:It is sometimes hard not to respond in kind, but I'd be interested to see examples of what you mean.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I find many of your posts quite patronising to individuals who believe in more traditional forms of Christianity.
quote:Not of Christianity. I think you'll find where I've argued at other than the level of personal faith, it's about only the Church of England. Whether anyone else followed would be up to them.
And over the years of reading your posts, I get the impression that you believe that your more philosophical than faith-based approach is the wave of the future in Christianity.
quote:I agree. It would be a complete waste of time. But arguing for a national Church not exclusively defined by theological orthodoxy, not so much. My experience is that church as non-worship-based community does have potential, whatever it might turn out to look like. A truly mixed-economy institution that reflected theological as well as organisational diversity could resource that alongside traditional forms.
Having been a Christian will affect their base of experiences, but they generally don't have the idea that they are hanging on to a better version of Christianity.
quote:This is a moved goal-post and probably a circular one as well. Earlier you implied that belief in the resurrection ran counter to the understanding that the physicists gave us.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are none so far who convince me that they have taken their beliefs and their science to an unblinkered conclusion
quote:There are no "unblinkered" scientists, SusianDoris. But then again I suppose you believe that materialism is about as "unblinkered" as it gets and that the universe somehow validates your humanist ideas.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I loved the Science and Nature programmes when I was younger, but have learnt the names of a few physicists during the last ten years; I have followed enough discussions and learnt enough always to look further into the record of those who are flagged up as being theists of some sort. There are none so far who convince me that they have taken their beliefs and their science to an unblinkered conclusion
quote:Agreed. Although I think that medical doctors outside research tend to be less atheistic and more religious. Interesting to speculate on why the differences occur, but perhaps on another thread.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And as far as my own anecdotal observations go, I've found that physicists and mathematicians tend to be above average religious among the natural sciences, whereas biologists and medical doctors are above average atheistic.
quote:Not to mention that his longing for a "non-worship" community seems positively bizarre when considering that the Church of England only survived the last centuries because it was a religion of "common worship". To say that liturgy isn't important for the CofE is like saying oxygen is unimportant for the composition of water.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK...let's try this.
Could you provide a link to a single, authoritative statement that says that the Church of England isn't Christian or that the Nicene Creed is not a statement of the faith of the Church of England? Reading the liturgies and canons of the Church of England, I'm having a hard time understanding where you get what you believe about the Church of England. My guess is people have given you a view of the Church of England that you like and decided to accept. Unfortunately, your view doesn't describe the actual Church of England. It isn't not now nor ever has been what you think it is. You are free to say I'm wrong. However, if I'm wrong, all you have to do is provide the aforementioned link.
quote:How is it a low blow? She all but said that's what she did. It's not the first time she's said basically the same thing. Her posts follow a basic pattern.
Originally posted by Squibs:
I presume that Susan is just now asking the Freetinkers what she should think about all of this.
(Yes, that was a low blow)
BTW, you can click here (mp3) to listen to the findings of very resent research into the religious beliefs of scientists. The talk, which is quite detailed, was given by Dr Elaine Howard Ecklund at a recent conference hosted by the Faraday Institute. (Loads more resources available there.)
quote:.....or better still...
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:For the record your surmise can nicely be located in the clueless category. Start a thread on Deism if you're interested.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Deism is a construct around which your posts can nicely be hung.
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:.....or better still...
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:For the record your surmise can nicely be located in the clueless category. Start a thread on Deism if you're interested.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Deism is a construct around which your posts can nicely be hung.
How about a thread on Marshallism?
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Well to be fair, the original question was different. The first question was about why you thought the disciples reckoned Christ rose from the dead. The second question was about the underlying events from which the disciples formed their beliefs.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:I've already answered that question. This looks like an attempt at the Fox Mulder argument: if Scully doesn't have a scientific explanation, the non-scientific explanation must be true.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Olivia. Well as you say, even by the definition quoted, an urban legend genrally has some actual facts on which itbwas based. If the resurrection is akin to an urban legend, what would you say are the underlying facts that attracted the legendendary accretions?*
OliviaG
*But if you're interested in other people's hypotheses, Umberto Eco has a good one in Foucault's Pendulum: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were having a writing contest amongst themselves. Each started from the same basic elements, but created a slightly different versions. Then John started really believing the stuff ...
quote:I'm of the opinion that I should be more restrained with somebody like SD because she seems nice, and that at least demands a measured response. And then there is always 1 Peter 3:15, which is, of course, easier to apply to somebody like SD than it is to some others. Still, I can't say I disagree with anything you have said.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How is it a low blow? She all but said that's what she did. It's not the first time she's said basically the same thing. Her posts follow a basic pattern.
-Make bold assertion. Ask silly questions
-Others explain why bold assertion is flawed and questions are silly
-She doesn't respond for awhile
-Comes back to say she's asked her "friends" and they assure her she's correct
-Disappears for awhile
-Repeat
Does she ever engage in actual debate? I've yet to see it. From her posts, it appears she expects us all to decide we are ignorant because she and her friends believe us to be ignorant.
I don't find that argument to be particularly convincing. Who knows? Maybe, Balaam has become an atheist based on the fact Susan Doris and her friends think he is ignorant. I kind of doubt it though.
quote:I think that we can call her response an example of begging the question as well. If I refuse to read what Polkinghorne writes, on the grounds that any Christian physicist has to be blinkered, then it is no surprise that I have found Polkinghorne unconvincing. This attitude is probably not at all unusual among determined unbelievers, by the way, but they don't usually make it so laughably obvious.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:This is a moved goal-post and probably a circular one as well. Earlier you implied that belief in the resurrection ran counter to the understanding that the physicists gave us.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are none so far who convince me that they have taken their beliefs and their science to an unblinkered conclusion
Now you imply that the physicists who do believe in the resurrection are those who are blinkered. On what basis? Presumably that if they weren't blinkered they wouldn't believe in the resurrection.
quote:I always had the impression that christians with a degree on natural science tend to have more traditional beliefs concerning the ressurrection and Jesus´s miracles. While christians who advocate a simbolic meaning for the ressurrection and the virgin birth, for example, tend to have degrees on humanities. Of course there are execeptions on both sides, but that´s how I think it is (might be wrong, tough).
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Just butting-in to add my name to the list of illustrious and, now, less illustrious scientists and engineers who feel really good about Rowan's statement in the OP -
Best Regards
Dr MiM, MIoA
(Honestly - as it is I'm probably a bit of a c*nt, but imagine what would be left if I tried to construct a me based on materialistic premises
quote:The problem arises when you ask at what point does history become myth? Are they separate things? I think this is what OliviaG was trying to get at.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Um, Evensong, I honestly believe that your logic is falling down here. You don't have to be a history of religion expert to assess whether or not a story claims to include real-life people or not.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't realise you were both History of Religion experts.
How do you know no other resurrection claim (of which there are many) is historical?
All you need to do is read the story and see if it includes real-life people. People like Roman emperors and Roman governors and Jewish high priests who are recorded as having been high priest.
That's all. Just a claim. Chesterbelloc isn't asserting that the historical claims aren't ACCURATE. He's simply asserting that the historical claims don't exist in the first place, ie there is nothing to test the accuracy OF.
You actually have the easier task. All you have to do is pull out a single story that purports to include historical figures and you win this argument. I'm finding it a bit mystifying why you think your opponents have to research each story to demonstrate it doesn't. Just produce one that does.
quote:Um. Thanks for that response Honest Ron but I'm afraid I'm a little confused by it.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Its persistence is probably down to confirmation bias. If you ask a simplistic question that is only capable of finding either confirmation or not of the existence of a category - which is what you seem to have done here - then all you will learn is how many examples fit into your category. It will tell you nothing about whether your category reflects anything real at all. It's a standard and recurring problem in the sciences. Any serious enquiry needs to look at the other side of the equation too - the evidence that some other explanation might be a lot better. Of course that brings with it the risk of disproving your thesis, but that's logic for you. The Wikipedia article on confirmation bias is quite detailed, and I recommend it.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:would you prefer that I pretended that I had not asked the opinion of others?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:-
She doesn't respond for awhile
-Comes back to say she's asked her "friends" and they assure her she's correct
quote:The reason it takes me quite a while to respond to posts is that I cannot read them and although my software is brilliant and I'm a fast touch typist, it does take a whole lot longer to have to listen to everything I'm typing and what I'm responding to.
-Disappears for awhile
-Repeat
quote:I think in fairness the Bodhidharma claim does look more like a historical claim. The Aristeas one seems a bit more towards myth. And perhaps they demonstrate that actually the division between history and myth is not straightforward, particularly when all you have to go on is a single 3/4 line story.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Provable? No. Historical claim? Sure. Same as Christianity.
quote:The point is rather that the whole Christian religion centers on a specific claim about the resurrection of a real historical person. So if that factual claim is incorrect, then indeed Christianity is one massive fail. Maybe you don't think so, but I - and most of Christianity - agree with St Paul on this matter:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So if I can provide evidence for even one historical claim to resurrection from the dead, Christianity comes crashing down?
quote:No other major religion has in a like manner made a specific historical claim of resurrection the very centerpiece of its spiritual claims.
1 Cor 15:12-20
Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
quote:Bodhidharma?! A typical case of Wikipedia talking out of its ass, I would say. I've spent quite a bit of time in Zen and never heard or read about this. If somebody has made such a claim about Bodhidharma, then it is certainly not a particularly mainstream claim. Anyway, there is a theory that says that all the novel Mahayana concepts of "Bodhisattva" (i.e., an enlightened being which forgoes Nirvana to be reborn again to help others) arose because the first Christian missionaries came down the Eastern trade routes around 100 AD and were making inroads among the population. Basically, then this would be a translation of the Christian savior into Buddhist terms to steal Christian thunder. That brings us back to Bodhidharma, who lived long after Christ. Whatever may have been claimed about him, one certainly would have to check whether those claims were not "contaminated" by the impact of Christianity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Try Bodhidharma. Or maybe Aristeas the Proconnesian. Or maybe some others.
quote:Apotheosis is not the same as resurrection. And the resurrection claims there firstly nobody but specialist ever heard of. That already tells us about the significance of these claims to their "host religion". Secondly, they are all AD, and certainly Jewish stories that arose as Christianity was seriously on the rise or dominant are suspect of reflecting Christian claims.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Or some more recent historical claims are included in this article: Rescurrection claims in non-Christian religions.
quote:So far, you have at best shown that there were other popular claims of resurrection in antiquity. That's still not the "same as Christianity". But let's say that you manage to find some ancient sect that derived from a historical claim of a resurrection a central spiritual significance to their own lives. Then what? Well, we simply would have a contender for the particular religious spot that Christianity so far appears to occupy alone. Clearly, Christianity would win by contemporary popularity. But we may well consider other measures that could tell us about which one is more believable. Like the available historical record, other spiritual claims, logical consistency, etc. In my opinion, Christianity would be rather hard to beat on all criteria one could reasonably come up with...
Originally posted by Evensong:
Provable? No. Historical claim? Sure. Same as Christianity.
quote:That's not what you were arguing previously. You said only Jesus rose from the dead therefore he is the one true God. And this is how we can know.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:The point is rather that the whole Christian religion centers on a specific claim about the resurrection of a real historical person. So if that factual claim is incorrect, then indeed Christianity is one massive fail.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So if I can provide evidence for even one historical claim to resurrection from the dead, Christianity comes crashing down?
quote:I didn't realise I had to prove the claim. Can you prove Christ was risen?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Bodhidharma?! A typical case of Wikipedia talking out of its ass, I would say. I've spent quite a bit of time in Zen and never heard or read about this. If somebody has made such a claim about Bodhidharma, then it is certainly not a particularly mainstream claim.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Try Bodhidharma. Or maybe Aristeas the Proconnesian. Or maybe some others.
quote:Possible. So all the others imitated Christ as well.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, there is a theory that says that all the novel Mahayana concepts of "Bodhisattva" (i.e., an enlightened being which forgoes Nirvana to be reborn again to help others) arose because the first Christian missionaries came down the Eastern trade routes around 100 AD and were making inroads among the population. Basically, then this would be a translation of the Christian savior into Buddhist terms to steal Christian thunder. That brings us back to Bodhidharma, who lived long after Christ. Whatever may have been claimed about him, one certainly would have to check whether those claims were not "contaminated" by the impact of Christianity.
quote:I call bullshit again.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Aristeas the Proconnesian is a better case. If a serious religious movement had sprung up around the claims of his resurrection, then we would have something that could be compared to Christianity.
quote:Indeed. The article states that. Don't you read your sources?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Apotheosis is not the same as resurrection.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Or some more recent historical claims are included in this article: Rescurrection claims in non-Christian religions.
quote:So?
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the resurrection claims there firstly nobody but specialist ever heard of.
quote:Then your previous claim of Jesus being the only historical resurrection claim is false. Fullstop.
Originally posted by IngoB:
So far, you have at best shown that there were other popular claims of resurrection in antiquity.
quote:I didn't say it was. I'm arguing against that idea. I said it was the same as Christianity in that they are historical claims and they are unprovable.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's still not the "same as Christianity".
quote:*whoooosh* there go the goalposts again.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But let's say that you manage to find some ancient sect that derived from a historical claim of a resurrection a central spiritual significance to their own lives. Then what? Well, we simply would have a contender for the particular religious spot that Christianity so far appears to occupy alone. Clearly, Christianity would win by contemporary popularity. But we may well consider other measures that could tell us about which one is more believable. Like the available historical record, other spiritual claims, logical consistency, etc. In my opinion, Christianity would be rather hard to beat on all criteria one could reasonably come up with...
quote:As far as I am aware the instances of being raised from the dead in the Bible (and there are a few) are not instances of resurrection. They are instances of resuscitation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
On further reflection over a side-topic I hadn't really been focusing on... Really, Evensong, if you wanted to produce a non-Christian historical resurrection claim, you only had to go as far as 2 Kings 13!
quote:Could you elaborate a bit, please? Obviously, we all have widely differing experiences when young.
Posted by KenYou seem to have a funny idea of the 1930s. Maybe if he was born in the 1830s what you say might be true.
quote:for many - yes of course. For me, once I'd been put on the track of no God - and I'd been pretty close to that for some time - , I had to keep finding out which was the right' answer! And I've learnt only in more recent years, with the much wider availability of info not to say, ah, well, that goes to show that such and such must be true, and to say 'we don't know yet' instead.(I confess that one of the things that was the most persistent to linger at the back of my mind was astrology! Quite daft, of course!)
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know a great deal about him, but he seems to have a developed a way of hold scientific observation and faith together without losing sight of either. Not either/or but both/and.
It's good when you can do that.
quote:Yes, I can see that I have done this! However, I'm not sure that I can untangle that knot! Apologies!
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:This is a moved goal-post and probably a circular one as well. Earlier you implied that belief in the resurrection ran counter to the understanding that the physicists gave us.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are none so far who convince me that they have taken their beliefs and their science to an unblinkered conclusion
Now you imply that the physicists who do believe in the resurrection are those who are blinkered. On what basis? Presumably that if they weren't blinkered they wouldn't believe in the resurrection.
quote:I wish I had a even half-way sufficient knowledge of physics to be able to give you an authoritative answer, but may I ask inf there is an aspect of physics that allows it? And I'm not being sarcastic here, I can absolutely assure you, I am genuinely interested, as I am in all the discussions I join in on SofF.
[QB[What I'm unclear about is what aspect of physics it is that you feel rules out a resurrection, ...[/QB]
quote:I think it would be a simple question of a fact about the resurrection which could be repeated.
and what test you apply to determine if someone is blinkered or not.
quote:Fair enough, yes but the whole system of being open to criticism and testing of the work is to try and minimise the errors, isn't it? Do you think that resurrection beliefs are subject to the same scrutiny?
Originally posted by Squibs:
There are no "unblinkered"scientists...
quote:No, I hope I am not a fool! Yes, I do hope that humanism is validated, but I'm also a practical person; it's great to think about 'ideal' situations from all points of view, but then there's the real world out there, muddling along as usual! One of the books I am going through at the moment is called 'What Are You Optimistic About?' edited by John Brockman and the chapter yesterday was one called Humankind Is Particcularly Good At Muddling' by Paul Saffo. I liked that one!
QB]... SusanDoris. But then again I suppose you believe that materialism is about as "unblinkered" as it gets and that the universe somehow validates your humanist ideas. [/QB]
quote:You see, there's the difference. Christians rather hope we are...
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No, I hope I am not a fool!
quote:The first rule of being Christian: don't generalise about being Christian.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
You see, there's the difference. Christians rather hope we are...
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:You are actually repeating your own interpretation there, rather than my words. But anyhow, for the record, it is my opinion that only Jesus rose from the dead (or, perhaps better, that He was the first to rise from the dead) and for those who believe this as I do, it is the key event that identified Him as the one true God. This does not exclude others from claiming a resurrection - falsely, of course, in my opinion. Though so far most examples you've dragged up do not pass muster at all. And for those few that might, we do not have an indication that people who believed in that resurrection gave it a similar interpretation. Hence so far, Christianity remains unique in its religious structure.
Originally posted by Evensong:
That's not what you were arguing previously. You said only Jesus rose from the dead therefore he is the one true God. And this is how we can know.
quote:Rather, what you would have to prove here is that it is a reasonably common claim that Bodhidharma was resurrected. I'm saying that it isn't. I can indeed show that it is a reasonably common claim that Jesus Christ was resurrected. Do you really require proof of that?
Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't realise I had to prove the claim. Can you prove Christ was risen?
quote:Show me a convincing argument for that, and I might. It is anyhow rather obvious that most religions have strong commonalities. I think religion is a lot like music, a cultural activity that people naturally engage in, which has certain universal characteristic due to the make of the human being. Unlike music however, religion makes truth claims - and there is only one truth. Hence religion can be more or less true. My belief is that Christian religion is most true because Christ is the Truth. That does not imply that other religions have no share in truth.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But only fair if you you can accept the massive commonalities between mystery religions and Greek religion that "contaminated" Christianity.
quote:Christ's resurrection may be a falsehood, but it is not a myth. Adonis' resurrection may be a truth, but is is a myth. Myths have a particular narrative structure, a manner of conveying truth, and the Christian claim simply does not have this structure - whether it is true or false.
Originally posted by Evensong:
That dying and rising gods wiki page states Christ's resurrection as a myth. What makes all the others dissimilar to the claims of the early church?
quote:I'm not. Again you are merely banging on about what you think I've claimed, not about what I actually said. In the context of the Christian story, Christ's resurrection has been and still can be considered as confirmation that His claim to be the Son of God was correct. In general, the miraculous and positive nature of such an event would be considered as some kind of Divine support. But in a different context it might merely mean that the gods were so pleased with the resurrected person's poetry that they wanted to give the poet a chance to write some more.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I thought it was just a historical claim of resurrection that defined God. You are changing the goalposts.
quote:No, but spiritual significance is demonstrated by popular uptake. There may be a belief somewhere that Christ's left earlobe is the proper object of particular worship if one wants to achieve pregnancy. But since neither you nor me nor pretty much anybody else has ever heard of that, we can conclude that this is likely not a central tenet of Christianity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Legitimation of God only occurs when it is affirmed by the majority?
quote:Firstly, I was talking about religions who give such a historical claim centre stage. One can claim that a person was resurrected without making this a matter of religion, or at least, without making this a foundational property of a religion. Secondly, I was thinking of sizeable religions, present and past. Spiritual organizations large and/or influential enough so that a reasonably informed person at least would have heard about them. You have not actually so far named any religion that had a historical resurrection claim at its core. But who knows, maybe you can find some odd sect somewhere. Let us know when you do. However, that wouldn't change the fact that their spiritual impact was minimal. Which does not prove their claim wrong as such, but largely irrelevant for comparing religions.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Then your previous claim of Jesus being the only historical resurrection claim is false. Fullstop.
Originally posted by IngoB:
So far, you have at best shown that there were other popular claims of resurrection in antiquity.
quote:Do Muslims give a historical resurrection claim centre stage in their religion? No. Do Hindus? No. Do Buddhists? No. Do Daoists? No. Do Confucians? No. Do Shintos? No. Do Sikhs? No. Do Jews? No. Do Jains? No. Do Baha'is? No. Do Cao Dais? No. Do Chendoists? Do Tenrikyos? No. Do Wiccans? No. Do Zoroastrians? No. Do Yogis? No. ... Did Greek/Roman pagans? No. Did Egyptians? No. Did Germanic pagans? No. ...
Originally posted by Evensong:
*whoooosh* there go the goalposts again.
quote:Evidently, though, like a lovely Russian family I got to know in the early 1990s fin St Petersburg, you did not need to have a religious belief to grow to be a caring, thoughtful person.
Originally posted by IngoB:
SusanDoris, I was born in 1971. I grew up in Germany, which is definitely more secular than the USA and in my reckoning more secular than the UK as well. My upbringing at home was atheist, though apathetic would be more accurate: religion just didn't particularly feature one way or the other.
quote:Sounds like a thoroughly sensible situation!
My parents and brother remain atheist and are mildly bemused by my religious adventures. My peers at school were largely indifferent to religion, though again it didn't particularly matter to anyone what you believed.
quote:You obviously chose your academic studies wisely. With hindsight, it is easy to see that I should have gone to university, but when I was 18, my father earned just too much to qualify for my being given a grant, I had an older sister for whom
I was supported by the German National Merit Foundation in my studies, thanks to my performance at university.
quote:for which I have great respect and admiration.
I have a PhD in theoretical physics with "summa cum laude". I'm well published in high energy physics, and since I've switched to computational neuroscience, even better there. I'm now a Senior Lecturer at one of the better universities in the UK and am doing reasonably well as mid-career academic by most measures.
quote:I've seen your posts during the years since I've been a member here and have no reason to doubt your character.
(If you are doubting any of this, send me a PM and I will give you my full credentials.)
quote:I wonder why you needed such an added level of complexity in your life? Was it some kind of 'spiritual experience' and if it was, I wonder why you did not give it a rational explanation? Or, of course, a 'don't know'.
I'm an adult convert to Christianity, making this decision long after the need of any kind of teenage rebellion.
quote:I presume this was coincidental?!
I converted while being a postdoctoral fellow in Australia, ...
quote:Did you make it known, or keep it to yourself?
...with absolutely nobody among my friends or at work being in the slightest involved in this decision.
quote:Presumably, you had been reading much around these subjects and I wonder if this study was triggered by some particular event?
Before that I was an adult convert to Zen Buddhism, which I practised rather intensely for quite some time.
quote:How much did you consider that all writings about religions have come from human ideas and hands, and as far as I know, no believer has said that they saw the writing doing itself, (if they did, of course, they would, today, have no doubt it was a clever magic trick).
... So I do have more than theoretical knowledge of other religions. My wife is Catholic, but was lapsed, and would have much preferred if I had stuck to Zen. She certainly did not encourage this at all, and while her family might have, they were many thousand miles away (as was my family). My conversion was not a snap decision, but followed well over a year of studying Christian writings and visiting various churches across Melbourne.
quote:I'm sorry you think my 'reasons' ar facile, because that would imply a character who likes to be unkind to another person, in however minor a way. I've been the victim of that sort of nastiness in my 20s and I'd never do it to anyone. On a message board such as this, I sincerely hope I read other people's posts without looking for sub-plots but this forum is not a let's-all-agree one, is it, so I post my opinions and hope they are read in the way I have written them. I'm pretty good at maintaining harmonious relationships around me.
So, try to find one of your facile reasons why I would end up being a Christian.
quote:Of course I would not attempt to do so; if there exists a factor, or experience, or whatever, you are the only one who could possibly know.
Tell me what intellectual or emotional malfunctions must have forced my hand. Go on then.[QB]
quote:Having stepped outside of belief from within it, I find it very puzzling, but the situation will only evolve slowly , one way or the other. As I said in another post, I'm a practical person, and hope that I see the world clearly as it is, not through rose-tinted specs!
[QB]Or perhaps you could finally realize that emotionally stable people with brains and a good education can reasonably decide to become and/or remain Christian, in spite of not being indoctrinated out of their sane minds.
quote:I will do my best to look it up and read.
And incidentally, in this talk (from about 12:50) by Prof. Ian Hutchinsion (who was mentioned by Squibs above), you will find some statistics showing that the most atheist academics are sociologists, followed by the humanities, with natural scientists being the most religious! Not particularly surprising to me, but it should give you pause. ...
quote:I'd have to ask people who are good at looking up these sort of statistics, as I can't do it myself, so I'll pass on this one!!
And as far as my own anecdotal observations go, I've found that physicists and mathematicians tend to be above average religious among the natural sciences, whereas biologists and medical doctors are above average atheistic.
quote:Evening E. doesn't this answer your question? Elisha's account is a resuscitation (also Lazarus), the Greek god examples are claims of assumption ( went on to live in heaven) whilst Christ's resurrection is in a class of its own.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:As far as I am aware the instances of being raised from the dead in the Bible (and there are a few) are not instances of resurrection. They are instances of resuscitation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
On further reflection over a side-topic I hadn't really been focusing on... Really, Evensong, if you wanted to produce a non-Christian historical resurrection claim, you only had to go as far as 2 Kings 13!
Different things.
Resuscitation is a purely bodily return from the dead.
Resurrection (as it applies to Christ) is both physical (Thomas is told to touch him) and spiritual (he caFn walk through walls).
I doubt Lazarus et all could have walked through walls.
quote:Yes, I expect my posts do follow a basic pattern - I've never claimed to be a creative writer!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How is it a low blow? She all but said that's what she did. It's not the first time she's said basically the same thing. Her posts follow a basic pattern.
-Make bold assertion. Ask silly questions
-Others explain why bold assertion is flawed and questions are silly
-She doesn't respond for awhile
-Comes back to say she's asked her "friends" and they assure her she's correct
-Disappears for awhile
-Repeat
Does she ever engage in actual debate? I've yet to see it. From her posts, it appears she expects us all to decide we are ignorant because she and her friends believe us to be ignorant.
I don't find that argument to be particularly convincing. Who knows? Maybe, Balaam has become an atheist based on the fact Susan Doris and her friends think he is ignorant. I kind of doubt it though.
quote:I thank you!
Originally posted by Squibs:
I'm of the opinion that I should be more restrained with somebody like SD because she seems nice, and that at least demands a measured response
Take a look at my web site!quote:Could you please quote it for me - the screen reader won't read it when I googled it.
. And then there is always 1 Peter 3:15, which is, of course, easier to apply to somebody like SD than it is to some others.
quote:I think that isn't a reasonable question. One doesn't need to ask which law allows one to be sitting at home posting on the internet in order to be comfortable doing so. One simply has to know that there is no law that prohibits it.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wish I had a even half-way sufficient knowledge of physics to be able to give you an authoritative answer, but may I ask inf there is an aspect of physics that allows it?
quote:Ah, yes, I see what you mean. However, a detailed explanation could be given of our biology and the construction of the tools we use to do so!!
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I think that isn't a reasonable question. One doesn't need to ask which law allows one to be sitting at home posting on the internet in order to be comfortable doing so. One simply has to know that there is no law that prohibits it.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wish I had a even half-way sufficient knowledge of physics to be able to give you an authoritative answer, but may I ask inf there is an aspect of physics that allows it?
quote:Would you say that this view is gaining strength, the more that is discovered that explains, confirms and adds to existing knowledge?
[QBB]I think the point is that you have referred to the "understanding that physicists give us of the universe" as a shorthand for the belief that there is only the scientifically-provable material world around us. That is not an unintelligent or inconsistent view. A priori I don't attack it.[/QB]
quote:*The following is a mild question of genuine interest*... Can you think of an example?
However it isn't really an understanding given by any particular scientific discipline. It might be an understanding that is perfectly consistent with science...
quote:Agreed of course, but it is unlikely to be reversed I think; modified, no doubt, but not reversed.
, and one might draw comfort from the fact that various events such as the origin of the human species or the functioning of the brain which previously seemed unexplainable are now explained by a scientific line of reasoning. But that is only evidence "consistent with" rather than "proof of".
quote:Yes, I see what you mean here too (although this applies to other major religions too) and I can, in fact, see this from a believer's point of view because in the early 70s I got to know a group who had a monthly discussion meeting which they had set up, following their original acquaintance at a Philosophy evening class. We continued to meet for many years. At that time I was one whose view 'Well, there must be a power, God, somewhere', and this view remained firm for many years after that too, while most, but not all, of the others had already moved to an atheist position. (For various reasons, the group finally stopped meeting, but most of us are still around and remain friends.)
But in the end it isn't an understanding that is directly the product of physics. ...[//QUOTE]
Okay, agree, and yes, it must include many other disciplines and the accumulated knowledge., acquired in an often two-steps-forward-one-step-back sort of way.
[QUOTE]...And the reason for making a big deal out of it is that when you put it like that, you make it sound as if Christians are people who necessarily wilfully ignore attested scientific fact. Whereas that isn't the case.
quote:
And in order to support that view you've needed to adopt the view that physicists who believe in the resurrection are blinkered. And in fairness, if I read you correctly, I think you have admitted the circularity of that argument.
I find it more difficult to understand why those with a scientific and, I would say, necessarily an analytical approach to understanding life (the universe and everything) should retain a beliefin God, as opposed to those who hadn't been involved in any science. My personal 'excuse' for why a God belief remain in my mind as long as it did is that I had not studied Science and was busy with the rest of living!! quote:Well, to the extent that I am that, sure. One could ask deeper question as to what role Christianity has played in shaping the society I grew up in, and what role that society played in shaping how I was brought up by my parents. But at any rate, I'm not advocating religion because of its behavioral effects, but simply because of its truth.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Evidently, though, like a lovely Russian family I got to know in the early 1990s fin St Petersburg, you did not need to have a religious belief to grow to be a caring, thoughtful person.
quote:Can you see that this is a loaded question, which already implies your convictions?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder why you needed such an added level of complexity in your life?
quote:Frankly, I'm no particularly interested in sharing my spiritual experiences with you, since you are not particularly interested in them as such. You are merely interested in finding some handle for dismissing them as just experiences.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Was it some kind of 'spiritual experience' and if it was, I wonder why you did not give it a rational explanation? Or, of course, a 'don't know'.
quote:I made it known to one colleague (who was then a PhD student). And I made it known to the Ship, with people actually attending my baptism. Why are you interested?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Did you make it known, or keep it to yourself?
quote:No, Susan, you won't find some trauma there that triggered a desperate grabbing for straws...
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Presumably, you had been reading much around these subjects and I wonder if this study was triggered by some particular event?
quote:How much have you considered the question where human ideas come from? I'm not doubting that religious writings flow from human activity in a mechanistic sense. However, I do not believe that human ideas are limited to ratiocination. There is more to that, both naturally (as in poetry) and supernaturally (as in inspiration).
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How much did you consider that all writings about religions have come from human ideas and hands, and as far as I know, no believer has said that they saw the writing doing itself, (if they did, of course, they would, today, have no doubt it was a clever magic trick).
quote:Not much. It would be more proper to say that the reality of Christian communal worship didn't quite manage to put me off Christian religion, though it came bloody close on occasion. Luckily, I found a traditional joint where they largely shut up, other than for singing beautiful Gregorian chant, and left me alone for well over a year. I've grown a lot more tolerant with time, and of course I now have an appreciation of the Eucharist itself. But I could do without a lot of this stuff...
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
What was it about visiting the churches that helped to cause the change?
quote:Unkind is the wrong word, and I doubt that you intend much of the offense that you do give.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'm sorry you think my 'reasons' ar facile, because that would imply a character who likes to be unkind to another person, in however minor a way.
quote:The situation may be puzzling to you concerning finding an explanation, but it should not be puzzling at all concerning the facts. Plenty of people with brains and education do become or consciously remain religious without any obvious emotional trauma or other dysfunction. That's plain fact. One doesn't start looking for an explanation by denying facts. So don't. I'll happily admit the reverse, by the way, that is: Plenty of people with brains and education become irreligious without any obvious emotional trauma or other dysfunction. Again, that's plain fact. I think these people are ultimately mistaken, obviously, and I do have some ideas why they make this mistake. But I do not go around pretending that every non-religious person is a walking malfunction.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Having stepped outside of belief from within it, I find it very puzzling, but the situation will only evolve slowly , one way or the other.
quote:I was talking about anecdotal observations, I did not make a statistical claim. Anyhow, I share the impression of others here that you pass on rather too much of your thought processes...
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'd have to ask people who are good at looking up these sort of statistics, as I can't do it myself, so I'll pass on this one!!
quote:Only if you had a "God of the gaps" belief in the first place. When I talk about the limits of uncertainty in current scientific thought I'm not expecting the whole edifice to come crushing down with a new discovery, or God to eventually become firmly established as a gap that won't quite go away.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Would you say that this view is gaining strength, the more that is discovered that explains, confirms and adds to existing knowledge?
The immaterial - thoughts and beliefs - all originate in the brain - is this something you accept? Value judgements, of beauty for instance, tend to be raisedat this point , but they are still ideas and explicable in scientific terms.
quote:When the questions are based on complete obliviousness to the fact any intelligent person could possibly have a different worldview than you do. When you've asked the same basic question in the past, received an answer, and failed to engage meaningfully with the answer to received. When they smugly assume the validity of philosophical system rejected 70 years ago.
originally posted by Susan Doris:
How do you decide whether a question is silly?
quote:I don't. You make a bold assertions and generalizations that you assume are common sense which only the stupid and mentally fragile could deny. Others question your bold assertions and generalizations giving you reasons why you are wrong. At this point, I expect one of two things. One, say you made an unwise assertion and false generalization then refrain from making them in the future. Two, continue argue for your bold assertion and generalization be refuting the arguments against them. Instead, you go with choice three. Ask your friends if you are right. Get their reassurance you were correct. Restate bold generalization and assertion while basically ignoring the content of what anybody else said to the contrary.
originally posted by Susan Doris:
I would be interested to know why you think I should agree with other's explanations that what I say is flawed?
quote:Debate does not follow the format below.
originally posted by Susan Doris:
Is there a guideline against which you assess whether what I say is, or is not, discussion or debate?
quote:So all claims to resurrection are purely "mythical" or imitating Christ (and therefore can't be real).
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:You are actually repeating your own interpretation there, rather than my words. But anyhow, for the record, it is my opinion that only Jesus rose from the dead (or, perhaps better, that He was the first to rise from the dead) and for those who believe this as I do, it is the key event that identified Him as the one true God. This does not exclude others from claiming a resurrection - falsely, of course, in my opinion. Though so far most examples you've dragged up do not pass muster at all. And for those few that might, we do not have an indication that people who believed in that resurrection gave it a similar interpretation. Hence so far, Christianity remains unique in its religious structure.
Originally posted by Evensong:
That's not what you were arguing previously. You said only Jesus rose from the dead therefore he is the one true God. And this is how we can know.
quote:Sorry for the delayed reply but I'm actually covering this very topic in university at the moment. Our text book is The Resurrection of the Messiah by Christopher Bryan (Oxford University Press 2011) and it speaks directly to this question.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Evening E. doesn't this answer your question? Elisha's account is a resuscitation (also Lazarus), the Greek god examples are claims of assumption ( went on to live in heaven) whilst Christ's resurrection is in a class of its own.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:As far as I am aware the instances of being raised from the dead in the Bible (and there are a few) are not instances of resurrection. They are instances of resuscitation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
On further reflection over a side-topic I hadn't really been focusing on... Really, Evensong, if you wanted to produce a non-Christian historical resurrection claim, you only had to go as far as 2 Kings 13!
Different things.
Resuscitation is a purely bodily return from the dead.
Resurrection (as it applies to Christ) is both physical (Thomas is told to touch him) and spiritual (he caFn walk through walls).
I doubt Lazarus et all could have walked through walls.
What do you reckon?
quote:Morning E (or early evenin' in Osland?). To both your previous posts - yes I reckon you've hit the nail on the head. What ran counter to Jewish expectation was that Jesus rose before the general resurrection. That helps explain why the disciples couldn't get their heads around him 'rising on the third day.' "But we ain't all dead yet Master!"
Originally posted by Evensong:
p.s. The other interesting point that is fundamental is that Platonic ideas of life after death are purely spiritual.
Only the rational soul comes from God - therefore only the rational soul will exist with God after death.
Plato wouldn't argue that eternal life existed. He would just say it was purely in a spiritual form.
This is a strong demarcation between Jewish (and Christian) eschatalogical hope and Platonic ones.
quote:I provided a lot more nuanced and detailed discussion. Try reading it.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So all claims to resurrection are purely "mythical" or imitating Christ (and therefore can't be real).
quote:Who has claimed that Christianity is purely unique due to the resurrection of Christ? Nobody.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Talk about blinkered faith Ingo....... Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead.
quote:Actually, during the main Graham Kendrick heyday, especially the March for Jesus period (87-89 IIRC), non-creedal churches may not have RECITED it - but they bloody well SANG it if We Believe was on the running order.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Key point for this thread is the agreement as to the content of the creeds. Our lot in Newfrontiers are generally unfamiliar with the creeds but if you quoted most of the content they'd be fine with it. Creeds are handy summaries - it's the content, rather than the form, that's decisive.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:Those people include (or at least, used to) Baptists, who generally had no problem with the doctrines expressed therein, but considered themselves to be a non-credal church.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Yes there are some people who claim to be Christian and do not subscribe to the Creeds ...
It's easy to consider the Creeds the benchmark when they are part of our practice, but they aren't quite as widespread among Protestant groups as liturgical Christians often think.
quote:That is interesting to know.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Evensong - this was pretty standard stuff when I was studying 30 years ago (not to put it down because of that), and it's certainly helpful in understanding the way the resurrection appearances are described.
quote:Really? I must have been fooled by these comments:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Who has claimed that Christianity is purely unique due to the resurrection of Christ? Nobody.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Talk about blinkered faith Ingo....... Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Among other things, the resurrection serves as a key marker: "this God, not any of the others". It is a demonstration of Divine power and support: listen to this Jesus Christ - the one Person who did what cannot be done.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But anyhow, for the record, it is my opinion that only Jesus rose from the dead (or, perhaps better, that He was the first to rise from the dead) and for those who believe this as I do, it is the key event that identified Him as the one true God. This does not exclude others from claiming a resurrection - falsely, of course, in my opinion.
quote:Because it doesn't read credible biblical theologians. Jesus was not a Platonist, and even C.S. Lewis is only a neo-Platonist.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why then, does popular Christianity resemble the Platonic understanding of eternal life?
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Maybe because it allows a vague cop-out in the face of challenge by those whose axiomatic basis won't allow a physical understanding to the resurrection of the body. We can do Origen's perfect spheres or whatever we like instead.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:That is interesting to know.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Evensong - this was pretty standard stuff when I was studying 30 years ago (not to put it down because of that), and it's certainly helpful in understanding the way the resurrection appearances are described.
Why then, does popular Christianity resemble the Platonic understanding of eternal life?
quote:I think Dave would fare well. Because ++++Rowan is one of those rare individuals who has the grace to make all his interlocutors appear dignified and commodious. In many ways that in itself is proof of grace.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
(I'd love to see how you'd fare locked in argument with Rowan himself...)
quote:I was under the impression it was the responsibility of ministers to read credible biblical theologians and educate the masses. There is a discrepancy here.
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:Because it doesn't read credible biblical theologians. Jesus was not a Platonist, and even C.S. Lewis is only a neo-Platonist.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why then, does popular Christianity resemble the Platonic understanding of eternal life?
quote:So most ministers don't believe in the resurrection of the bible?
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Maybe because it allows a vague cop-out in the face of challenge by those whose axiomatic basis won't allow a physical understanding to the resurrection of the body.
quote:Well then you are to be commended for hitting home a unique resurrection.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Although if you look in any of my churchyards you'll find plenty of evidence that popular undertanding does take seriously a physical continuity. Both the inscriptions on most memorials and the junk that some people like to leave on the graves suggest exactly that.
quote:That isn't what I said. I didn't apply it to anyone in particular; I simply suggested that where people used a Greek 'spiritual' understanding of resurrection that might be the reason why.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So most ministers don't believe in the resurrection of the bible?
quote:I don't think so. That seems to be already in their 'folk' consciousness. In the same way, friends who work in Africa find that people brought up to ancestor worship have a ready understanding of physical resurrection. There isn't a huge difference in the real attitudes found in a considerable number of our local population. I would hesitate to extrapolate to the whole of the UK, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that a large proportion either believe or would like to believe the same.
Well then you are to be commended for hitting home a unique resurrection.
quote:But the question I asked you was why popular Christianity believed in a Platonist understanding of resurrection. And you said it was a cop out.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:That isn't what I said. I didn't apply it to anyone in particular; I simply suggested that where people used a Greek 'spiritual' understanding of resurrection that might be the reason why.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So most ministers don't believe in the resurrection of the bible?
quote:Bishop NT Wright seems to affirm the platonic view is the common view. And he is English.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:I don't think so. That seems to be already in their 'folk' consciousness. In the same way, friends who work in Africa find that people brought up to ancestor worship have a ready understanding of physical resurrection. There isn't a huge difference in the real attitudes found in a considerable number of our local population. I would hesitate to extrapolate to the whole of the UK, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that a large proportion either believe or would like to believe the same.
Well then you are to be commended for hitting home a unique resurrection.
quote:IF I were convinced that bishops have a better understanding of what people in these communities believe, and IF you were not referring me to a quotation from a secondary source on a limited aspect of an interview, I would be inclined to prolong the discussion.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bishop NT Wright seems to affirm the platonic view is the common view. And he is English.
quote:According to some posts on the 'Preaching Notes' thread nobody remembers any sermons anyway
Originally posted by AberVicar:
And don't assume that people just take in and repeat what is preached/taught to them. They don't.
.quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It would be interesting to know if some of the folk who accuse preachers of brainwashing and indoctrinating their congregations with sermons, telling them what to think and do, overlap with those who also say that sermons are never remembered or paid attention to, anyway.
quote:This comes back to where the value in Christianity resides. Is it in the preservation of pre-Enlightenment axioms? Do they have some intrinsic value, even though either superceded or shown to be false in any context except religion? Or is the value in the biblical stories and communities that embody their wisdom in the light of axioms that reflect present-day knowledge and mindsets.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
[popular Christianity] allows a vague cop-out in the face of challenge by those whose axiomatic basis won't allow a physical understanding to the resurrection of the body.
quote:I don't think anyone disputes Rowan's grace in his public dealings. What is being called into question is his judgement, and the wisdom if not the ethical basis for how he's gone about implementing some of his policies.
Originally posted by Zappa:
++++Rowan is one of those rare individuals who has the grace to make all his interlocutors appear dignified and commodious. In many ways that in itself is proof of grace.
quote:I couldn't agree more.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
don't assume that people just take in and repeat what is preached/taught to them. They don't. They think things through (at whatever level), discuss them among themselves, and come up with something that makes sense to them.
quote:If you choose to hold that opinion, then of course I cannot stop you.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:When the questions are based on complete obliviousness to the fact any intelligent person could possibly have a different worldview than you do.[/QB
originally posted by Susan Doris:
How do you decide whether a question is silly?
quote:Okay, fair comment!
...... When you've asked the same basic question in the past, received an answer, and failed to engage meaningfully with the answer to received.
There is no way I can keep a record of my responses on any particular subject, so cannot refer to them. It is, therefore, quite likely that when a similar topic arises, my opinions will be similar. quote:You are of course free to choose to ascribe smugness to me and/or my opinions. Yes, I am a confident person, but smug? No.
... When they smugly assume the validity of philosophical system rejected 70 years ago.
quote:Well, yes, I do think my views are common sense!! However, one of the great benefits I have found from joining in forums for the last six or severn years is that I hope I have improved and added to my what I think of as common sense, thanks to reading others' views.
originally posted by Susan Doris:
I would be interested to know why you think I should agree with other's explanations that what I say is flawed?
[QUOTE]I don't. You make a bold assertions and generalizations that you assume are common sense ...
quote:The experience of being demeaned, being told I was stupid, etc during my 20s decided me, I would not do that to others. On message boards, I assume - and correct me if I'm wrong here - that members contribute as independent adults.
...which only the stupid and mentally fragile could deny.
quote:Surely that should read 'why others think you are wrong'?
Others question your bold assertions and generalizations giving you reasons why you are wrong.
quote:Presumably that is in the opinion of the person responding? to my posts, or who are reading
At this point, I expect one of two things. One, say you made an unwise assertion and false generalization ...
quote:I would never claim to be a good, competent or experienced debater. I very much enjoy reading all other opinions and hope that some might find some interest in mine.
...then refrain from making them in the future. Two, continue argue for your bold assertion and generalization be refuting the arguments against them.
quote:I consider I am very fortunate to have good friends whose opinions I respect and value, and which both agree or disagree with mine! I would imagine you too ask friends about what they think, and possibly, if you like what they have to say, include something of these views in your posts sometimes? It's similar to looking up reference books really, only more interesting.
... Instead, you go with choice three. Ask your friends if you are right. Get their reassurance you were correct. Restate bold generalization and assertion while basically ignoring the content of what anybody else said to the contrary.
quote:I think you wIll find it pretty hard to find a post of mine where I have said I was debating. Friendly discussion and interesting expressions of views are what I like.
originally posted by Susan Doris:
Is there a guideline against which you assess whether what I say is, or is not, discussion or debate?
[QUOTE]Debate does not follow the format below.
Person A states a position.
Person B offers a rebuttal of Person A's proposition
Person A asks friends if Person A's original proposition was correct
Person A ignores Person B's rebuttal
Here is how debate looks...
Person A states a position
Person B offers a rebuttal
Person A addresses rebuttal
Person B responds and so on
See, we have an exchange of ideas between two people arguing in good faith. Both sides can offer evidence to support their case. However,...
quote:The use of these last three adjectives I do object to. I've never taken a thread to Hell - definitely not my style - and I don't intend to start now, but if you can find any of my posts where I have used those words about people, then please let me know.
... if both sides don't agree on what is evidence, then the focus has to be what counts as evidence. Chances are Person B will not accept the opinions of Person A's anonymous friends as evidence for Person B being ignorant, stupid, or mentally fragile.
quote:Just so! We will remain as memories in the minds of those still living who knew and thought well about us - or even not so wel!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You are but dust and to dust you shall return.
quote:Now here's a thought Susan. Can you remember the name of your great grandfather?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Just so! We will remain as memories in the minds of those still living who knew and thought well about us - or even not so wel!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You are but dust and to dust you shall return.
quote:Huh? Nothing in those comments of mine contradicts your statement "Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead," i.e, there are other things that are unique about Christianity as well, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which its denial of both Modalism and Tritheism.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Really? I must have been fooled by these comments:
quote:Though it is the be all and end all of being God. And a servant of God, too, I guess.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Grace is not the be all and end all of being Archbishop of Canterbury.
quote:I think God welcomes home whatever part of us is compatible with eternity.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What happens when we die?
quote:I think it's more than that.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Just so! We will remain as memories in the minds of those still living who knew and thought well about us
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You are but dust and to dust you shall return.
quote:Only for a certain literally-personal way of thinking about God. It doesn't work for me.
Originally posted by Zappa:
Though it is the be all and end all of being God.
quote:Translating the Bible into English, that's where it all went wrong. The buggers can read the thing for themselves and get it only half right.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But Evensong, doesn't what you're saying presume that Christians get all their understanding from their ministers and that they remember accurately everything their ministers teach them?
quote:I can only remember one grandfather let alone a great-grandfather! as the other died when my father was 9, but that one must have had the same surname as my father!
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Now here's a thought Susan. Can you remember the name of your great grandfather?
quote:I think I agree with this, but the phrase 'block of time] sounds as if both 'ends' are closed, , but I think I'd say that since the universe started, we have arrived at this moment and continue moment by moment; i.e. the next moment does not exist already. Hope that makes sense!
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If we get past the idea that history is a block of time through which we move, and see reality as simply the now that results
quote:That all sounds about right to me.
...from an interaction between all "creators" and the now that has just past, our involvement each instant in this life becomes literally part of the process that directly determines (to some small degree) the future of the universe. We don't just "live on" human memories. Every atom our choices affect are irreversibly influenced, as is every atom those atoms subsequently influence, and so on.
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I already said - magazines, books, CDs, DVDs, some vague idea of "going to heaven when we die" that's as much taken from general culture as it is from any reading of the Bible (films etc.). And yes, probably preachers who, for whatever reason, have got it wrong - either 'cos they were never taught it in the first place, or 'cos they were and found a different explanation or description that, to them, was more compelling.
quote:I guess I'm curious as to when the Platonic version of life after death took place. It seems to me the early church did not defeat Gnosticism after all.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
And don't assume that people just take in and repeat what is preached/taught to them. They don't. They think things through (at whatever level), discuss them among themselves, and come up with something that makes sense to them.
quote:Bad phrasing on my part perhaps but I meant resurrection was not unique to Christianity.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Huh? Nothing in those comments of mine contradicts your statement "Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead," i.e, there are other things that are unique about Christianity as well, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which its denial of both Modalism and Tritheism.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Really? I must have been fooled by these comments:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Cara:
Is there any ambiguity in the original Greek?
quote:I think at least for people other than you, we have now established sufficiently what my actual opinion is and that it is entirely reasonable given available historical data.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bad phrasing on my part perhaps but I meant resurrection was not unique to Christianity. Whereas you seem to believe it is.
quote:The Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body is certainly very different to the immortality of the soul being touted by most religions of the era and area in which Christianity was born, and was indeed anathema to most religionists of the time. I would like to hear some examples of other religions that propose resurrection of a carnal being in the way the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is carefully portrayed by the gospel writers, or in the way the Christians spoke of their own expectation of resurrection.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Bad phrasing on my part perhaps but I meant resurrection was not unique to Christianity.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Huh? Nothing in those comments of mine contradicts your statement "Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead," i.e, there are other things that are unique about Christianity as well, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which its denial of both Modalism and Tritheism.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Really? I must have been fooled by these comments:
Whereas you seem to believe it is.
quote:Other than the "people of the book", i.e. the 3 great monotheistic religions, the only one I am remotely aware of is Zoroastrianism.
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:The Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body is certainly very different to the immortality of the soul being touted by most religions of the era and area in which Christianity was born, and was indeed anathema to most religionists of the time. I would like to hear some examples of other religions that propose resurrection of a carnal being in the way the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is carefully portrayed by the gospel writers, or in the way the Christians spoke of their own expectation of resurrection.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Bad phrasing on my part perhaps but I meant resurrection was not unique to Christianity.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Huh? Nothing in those comments of mine contradicts your statement "Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead," i.e, there are other things that are unique about Christianity as well, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which its denial of both Modalism and Tritheism.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Really? I must have been fooled by these comments:
Whereas you seem to believe it is.
quote:Yes, it does. The key feature of the now-focused model follows from exactly the point you make about the 'block of time' model needing to be open-ended. The traditional Christian view is that it's precisely not open-ended; the assumption is it will end (prior to judgement day or whenever). The resurrection idea is therefore required in order to imagine the 'soul' surviving physical death for that judgement and beyond.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
the phrase 'block of time' sounds as if both 'ends' are closed, but I think I'd say that since the universe started, we have arrived at this moment and continue moment by moment; i.e. the next moment does not exist already. Hope that makes sense!
quote:Punctuation wasn't present in the original Greek text.
Originally posted by Cara:
I have always thought it very important and interesting that Jesus said to the "good thief" :
I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.
(I'm quoting from memory, lazy, sorry, but close enough I think?)
Some interpreters however say that we read it wrong and it should be, "I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise."
!!! A comma making an absolutely colossal difference.
Is there any ambiguity in the original Greek? Greek scholars?
quote:
Wright: There is Luke 23, where Jesus says to the good thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." But in Luke, we know first of all that Christ himself will not be resurrected for three days, so "paradise" cannot be a resurrection. It has to be an intermediate state.
quote:Not at all. I gave you instances of "historical" resurrection and you just rejected it cos nobody paid any attention and no one knew about therefore it must not be real.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I think at least for people other than you, we have now established sufficiently what my actual opinion is and that it is entirely reasonable given available historical data.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bad phrasing on my part perhaps but I meant resurrection was not unique to Christianity. Whereas you seem to believe it is.
quote:I don't think that understanding is biblical. I think the bible sees the interim period as sleep or rest.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And that theology does not require that souls lie dormant after death for many thousands of years till bodily resurrection. I do not think that such "freezing of the dead" can maintain personal continuity, which is based on temporal life (this is basically the same as the philosophical "identity vs. teleportation" problem). Instead the traditional "Aristotelian" picture argues for a "handicapped" existence after death, in which we subsist transiently in our intellectual principle alone - which after all is the reason why we are immortal and for example cats are not - until given back a resurrection body to attain the fullness of human life once more. This is fully compatible with the practice of the faithful "on the ground" (apart from some unfortunate victims of the Reformation), who certainly do not imagine that they speak to some kind of eternal answering machine in their intercessory prayers to the dead. Lex orendi, lex credendi - as we pray, so we believe.
quote:Was this comment aimed at me Zappa?
Originally posted by Zappa:
The Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body is certainly very different to the immortality of the soul being touted by most religions of the era and area in which Christianity was born, and was indeed anathema to most religionists of the time. I would like to hear some examples of other religions that propose resurrection of a carnal being in the way the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is carefully portrayed by the gospel writers, or in the way the Christians spoke of their own expectation of resurrection.
quote:Looking at this from a worldly point of view, our concept of time is inextricably linked with the miniscule part of the universe we're aware of, and would end as we know it should the physical world end, as in the projected judgement day of apocalyptic literature.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The key feature of the now-focused model follows from exactly the point you make about the 'block of time' model needing to be open-ended. The traditional Christian view is that it's precisely not open-ended; the assumption is it will end (prior to judgement day or whenever). The resurrection idea is therefore required in order to imagine the 'soul' surviving physical death for that judgement and beyond.
If now and the "creators" are all ultimate reality is, and the process by which now is created has no beginning or end, resurrection becomes artificial and redundant. Our "creative essence" is inherently and naturally eternal. Resurrection myths, and whether Christianity's myth is unique, become of academic and historical interest only, whether or not we choose to relate to the "primary creator" as God or merely an unidentified first cause of existence.
quote:I went to give a simple answer to this but I honestly don't what you're asking. Do you mean the hope isn't a myth? I haven't said it is. The hope is obviously real for many people.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What makes you think the hope in life after death isn't a myth?
quote:What makes you think reconciliation with God is needed, or that life's "chain flows" need counteracting?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I suggest that the act of reconciliation with God the Creator brings new positive life out of a harmful action or word, to counteract its chain flows.
quote:Trying to make sense of your answer to my original question of what you think happens when we die. What's the basis for your hope (however slim) that some "part of us might continue after physical death."?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I went to give a simple answer to this but I honestly don't what you're asking. Do you mean the hope isn't a myth? I haven't said it is. The hope is obviously real for many people.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What makes you think the hope in life after death isn't a myth?
Or do you mean life after death isn't a myth? If so, what makes you think I think it's not? I haven't said anything about "life after death". Whatever part of us might continue beyond physical death cannot be life in any sense we can imagine, just a continuation of our "creative essence", whatever that might mean.
quote:I said "welcomes home", not "might continue". And "whatever part", not "some part". There's a subtle but significant difference in that your versions assume things mine carefully do not.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What's the basis for your hope (however slim) that some "part of us might continue after physical death."?
quote:Er, no. We can't know anything by pure reason.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
We don't know from pure reason that there is a God.
quote:Because that's the essence of what "God" means, at least in the English language and the Judeo-Christian tradition.
how would we know that what we call God created the universe
quote:If you have evidence that God is inconsistently creating the universe you really ought to get your paper peer-reviewed and published in Science or Nature. Preferably before you cease exist as a result of some inconsistency in the laws of nature.
and is consistent?
quote:No, that'd be wishful thinking. There'll always be those who wouldn't recognise logical thought if it was spelt out to them in words of one syllable.
You think all people who believe in God believe God created the universe and is consistent?
quote:It's rather interesting that you invoke the Christian tradition as authoritative whenever it coincides with your particular opinion.
quote:Because that's the essence of what "God" means, at least in the English language and the Judeo-Christian tradition.
how would we know that what we call God created the universe
quote:Evensong, thank you. (I have omitted to quote the Greek in your post because the quote function seemed to render it gobbledygook). Haven't my books with me and so couldn't check this in the Greek with English translation.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Woodenly and literally (word for word in order) it goes like this (please excuse tenses those of you that are legends at Greek).
And he said to him amen to you I say today with me you will be in paradise
Bishop Tom Wright speaks to this very question in the previous link I quoted in Time magazine. For those of you interested in this question I seriously suggest you read it. It's a great article.
quote:[/QB]
Wright: There is Luke 23, where Jesus says to the good thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." But in Luke, we know first of all that Christ himself will not be resurrected for three days, so "paradise" cannot be a resurrection. It has to be an intermediate state.
quote:And the reasonable alternative would be what?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It's rather interesting that you invoke the Christian tradition as authoritative whenever it coincides with your particular opinion.
quote:Obviously you prefer the Beeswax book of rules for determining Christian theology. My impression is that God has always been understood in the major Christian churches as creator of all that is. I thought it was in at least one of the creeds. And if that's the case, I don't know how the Beeswax rules manage to explain the process of creation as different to "what is happening".
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
We don't have evidence that God is creating the universe period unless you call whatever exists, God, and whatever is happening the process of creation.
quote:If you mean I don't believe in some Beeswax god (ie. not the creator of the universe) then that's true. But as no mainstream branch of Christianity does either it doesn't seem unreasonable.
All you are doing is borrowing some religious terms to describe what is essentially practical atheism.
quote:Ah, I see. All this crap you're posting is your way of not admitting you don't understand a conversation I've been having with someone else. Therefore it can't possibly have any value and you feel justified in attacking it. In good faith of course.
Practical atheism is more honest and easier to explain.
quote:What makes you think I think they do? It's not something I've claimed or implied.
What makes you think the average non-attending member of the Church of England even has the time or patience to figure out just what it is your saying?
quote:Christianity does believe God is creator of all that is. You can't rationally prove God is the creator of all that is unless you say God is all that is. Christians don't believe that everything that exists is God. Christians do believe God creates and sustains all that is. However, the God of Christianity is and does much more. Creation, for Christians, is much more than what scientists can observe and explain. Of course, you only care about Christian theology when it agrees with what David Marshall believes. Why should anybody care about David Marshall's own private religion that differs from atheism in that he sometimes uses religious language?
originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Obviously you prefer the Beeswax book of rules for determining Christian theology. My impression is that God has always been understood in the major Christian churches as creator of all that is. I thought it was in at least one of the creeds. And if that's the case, I don't know how the Beeswax rules manage to explain the process of creation as different to "what is happening".
quote:I understand what your saying Dave. What your saying is silly and convoluted. Susan Doris says, "I don't believe in God." You say, "I believe in God if by God you mean," and end with an understanding of God that is compatible with Susan Doris' atheism. What you believe isn't new or innovative Dave. It's been around for a long time. No religion is based on it. You know why, Dave? Because it really is the textbook definition of irrelevant.
originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Ah, I see. All this crap you're posting is your way of not admitting you don't understand a conversation I've been having with someone else. Therefore it can't possibly have any value and you feel justified in attacking it. In good faith of course.
quote:As others have said, you seem to imply that orthodox Christianity is irrelevant but your view of God is meaningful to all the people in the Church of England who don't believe in orthodox Christianity. We can now agree that the average person wouldn't have the time or interest to try and understand what you believe and even if they eventually did understand they wouldn't care. With that, I'll join orfeo in ignoring your posts. If others want to continue the tedious and mind numbingly boring process of responding to your posts, bless their hearts.
originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What makes you think I think they do? It's not something I've claimed or implied.
quote:Yes. So it seems reasonable, given that we experience the universe as reality, to adopt that meaning of God as axiomatic for my personal theology.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Christianity does believe God is creator of all that is.
quote:Since this is axiomatic it doesn't need proving.
You can't rationally prove God is the creator of all that is unless you say God is all that is.
quote:The main orthodox institutions of Christianity have traditionally taken this line. Their theology, however, creates fundamental inconsistencies between God as creator and what they claim God is also being and doing.
However, the God of Christianity is and does much more.
quote:You don't speak for all Christians, of course, and I doubt many scientists, Christian or not, claim to have completely explained much at all.
Creation, for Christians, is much more than what scientists can observe and explain.
quote:What obvious nonsense. If I didn't care I wouldn't bother arguing about it.
Of course, you only care about Christian theology when it agrees with what David Marshall believes.
quote:Beats me. Everyone's entirely free to ignore it.
Why should anybody care about David Marshall's ... religion
quote:Yet in all your posts on this thread you haven't once been able to show how or why. I think you just don't like it, perhaps because it doesn't endorse your legalistic version of religion.
I understand what your saying Dave. What your saying is silly and convoluted.
quote:Er, I'm sure that's right. Why is that a problem?
What you believe isn't new or innovative Dave. It's been around for a long time.
quote:Depends what you mean. In as far as Christianity is defined by its institutions I'd probably agree. But in the sense of personal commitment to the ideals and outlook of its founder, you may have been misinformed.
No religion is based on it.
quote:For someone who makes accusations of not debating in good faith you post a lot apparently intentional misrepresentation. I've done nothing of the sort. You are recycling distortions of my point of view that you and others have posted.
you seem to imply that orthodox Christianity is irrelevant but your view of God is meaningful to all the people in the Church of England who don't believe in orthodox Christianity.
quote:Since I never suggested they would I'll just note this as one more example of the Beeswax philosophy - shit all over anyone you fundamentally disagree with.
We can now agree that the average person wouldn't have the time or interest to try and understand what you believe
quote:Bye.
With that, I'll join orfeo in ignoring your posts.
quote:Well, the matter has been dealt with to my satisfaction.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not at all.
quote:I do not think that the bible is conclusive on this. FWIW though, there is the parable of Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), which describes an instant assignment to heaven and hell, respectively, after death.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think that understanding is biblical. I think the bible sees the interim period as sleep or rest.
quote:And therefore this vision must be wrong. For we know that this practice is as old and as widespread as the Church herself, and therefore is necessarily correct - according to both the infallible ordinary magisterium (that which the successors of the apostles have always taught) and the prophetic office of the faithful. Furthermore, as mentioned, temporal continuity appears to be necessary for human personal identity, philosophically speaking.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Praying to the dead saints doesn't make much sense in this vision of resurrection.
quote:Word order is not as important as it is in English. Words get grouped by cases. "Today" is listed in my dictionary as an adverb. But I haven't the faintest idea what that means. My grammar sucks.
Originally posted by Cara:
I did know there were no commas in the original Greek, but what I wondered was whether the word order or something gave Greek scholars a clue about the meaning of the word "today" in the sentence.
quote:That's a much more correct statement.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Well, the matter has been dealt with to my satisfaction.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not at all.
quote:Yeah, I think this is true. I was reading Ephesians this morning that implies we are already raised:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I do not think that the bible is conclusive on this. FWIW though, there is the parable of Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), which describes an instant assignment to heaven and hell, respectively, after death.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think that understanding is biblical. I think the bible sees the interim period as sleep or rest.
quote:Clearly!!
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:And therefore this vision must be wrong. For we know that this practice is as old and as widespread as the Church herself, and therefore is necessarily correct - according to both the infallible ordinary magisterium (that which the successors of the apostles have always taught) and the prophetic office of the faithful. Furthermore, as mentioned, temporal continuity appears to be necessary for human personal identity, philosophically speaking.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Praying to the dead saints doesn't make much sense in this vision of resurrection.
(Indeed, undoubtedly praying to the dead is much older and much more widespread than the Christian Church. Clearly, this is a law of spiritual conduct written straight onto the human heart by God.)
quote:My original post provides the answer to your question:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What makes you think reconciliation with God is needed, or that life's "chain flows" need counteracting?
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
However, we know by observation that what we do and say impacts upon the world and its people both spiritually and physically. We know that once an event has taken place it can never be altered, and although its chain of reaction might be steered its impetus will continue.
Whether or not there will be any continuity or revival of consciousness for us as individuals, we remain fully responsible for what we do and say. I suggest that the act of reconciliation with God the Creator brings new positive life out of a harmful action or word, to counteract its chain flows. The resurrection idea is vital.
quote:No, I won't be apologizing. If you think I'm alone in my opinion of your posts, read how they are viewed by everybody else except Dave. Call me to Hell if you want.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Beeswax Altar
I note that you have not responded to my last post to you so should I then assume that you have not been able to find any instance of where I used or implied the three adjectives I referred to at the end of my post? Perhaps you might consider an apology is due to me?!
quote:Thank you for at least responding!!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, I won't be apologizing. If you think I'm alone in my opinion of your posts, read how they are viewed by everybody else except Dave.
quote:Not my style, as I said before.
Call me to Hell if you want.
quote:Well I do know what an adverb is, but that doesn't help with knowing whether Jesus said "Today I say to you,..." Or, "today you will be with me..."
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Word order is not as important as it is in English. Words get grouped by cases. "Today" is listed in my dictionary as an adverb. But I haven't the faintest idea what that means. My grammar sucks.
Originally posted by Cara:
I did know there were no commas in the original Greek, but what I wondered was whether the word order or something gave Greek scholars a clue about the meaning of the word "today" in the sentence.
Glad you like the article.
quote:That seems to be the majority scholarly opinion. It's in my Greek New Testament with the comma indicating the latter.
Originally posted by Cara:
Well I do know what an adverb is, but that doesn't help with knowing whether Jesus said "Today I say to you,..." Or, "today you will be with me..."
I lean towards the latter, as I said; seems the more common-sense reading--in the first instance, the "today" would seem a bit redundant...
quote:I find the word "paradise" curious enough. It's usually heaven. My New Testament grammatical aid says it has Persian influence.
Originally posted by Cara:
And then the interesting question is where was "paradise," the place Jesus would be with the thief just after death...
quote:I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
Originally posted by Cara:
Perhaps all we need to know is that we are in God's hands, safe and beloved, even if we die--hard enough to believe, especially in our day when death seems to be the end of everything and the worst possible outcome, however inevitable...
quote:I've an idea than adverbs generally immediately precede their verb in both Latin and Greek (but I'm not an expert in either language). On the meaning, I would guess that the saying comes from an earlier version of the Gospel, before the Resurrection story was elaborated - much like Mark's Gospel in its original form - with Jesus going immediately to heaven on his death. Wright's explanation seems a little contrived, to say the least.
Originally posted by Evensong:
That seems to be the majority scholarly opinion. It's in my Greek New Testament with the comma indicating the latter.
quote:IIRC it's a loan word from Persian meaning 'garden'
Originally posted by Evensong:
I find the word "paradise" curious enough. It's usually heaven. My New Testament grammatical aid says it has Persian influence.
quote:Now see that's funny.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Wright's explanation seems a little contrived, to say the least.
Abervicar says it was being taught as "correct" decades ago.quote:"...today, with me, you will be in paradise" - the 'with me' is also adverbial.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Now see that's funny.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Wright's explanation seems a little contrived, to say the least.
And it is currently what I am being taught is "correct".
p.s. the adverb doesn't precede the verb in this case.
quote:!!! yes indeed, better than TV.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
Originally posted by Cara:
Perhaps all we need to know is that we are in God's hands, safe and beloved, even if we die--hard enough to believe, especially in our day when death seems to be the end of everything and the worst possible outcome, however inevitable...
I don't know what will happen.
But I believe God is good. And all will be well.
But it's fun to speculate in the meantime.
Better than watching TV.
quote:Well, of course you're right, HS, it isn't enough to construct a whole theology of the afterlife. But i can't help finding it comforting...
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:"...today, with me, you will be in paradise" - the 'with me' is also adverbial.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Now see that's funny.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Wright's explanation seems a little contrived, to say the least.
And it is currently what I am being taught is "correct".
p.s. the adverb doesn't precede the verb in this case.
I think its one of those things in which, if you look at it without doctrinal blinkers on, you can see a stage in the development of the Jesus story (or legend, to be more accurate). It just amazes me that someone would take that one line and use that to construct a whole theology of the after-life.
quote:So you think that line is an early construct. But you think NT Wright's understanding is contrived and you think Mark's gospel has Jesus going straight to heaven?
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I think its one of those things in which, if you look at it without doctrinal blinkers on, you can see a stage in the development of the Jesus story (or legend, to be more accurate). It just amazes me that someone would take that one line and use that to construct a whole theology of the after-life.
quote:So two adverbs precede the verb "will be"? Does that work in grammar?
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
...today, with me, you will be in paradise" - the 'with me' is also adverbial.
quote:Thanks for reminding me of the bedrock of my faith. I said it without realising it.
Originally posted by Cara:
You say, "I believe God is good. And all will be well."
I love the echo of Julian of Norwich and I love this simple but powerful statement you've made---in itself not easy to believe and hold on to. Especially if one reads the news (which, ostrich-like, I tend to avoid!).
cara
quote:No you're right, I was getting confused. But perhaps the line in question belongs to an even earlier stratum then Mark's gospel, with whichever ending. At any rate, I'm not buying Wright's theory.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So you think that line is an early construct. But you think NT Wright's understanding is contrived and you think Mark's gospel has Jesus going straight to heaven?...
quote:Why not?
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
At any rate, I'm not buying Wright's theory.
quote:OK, as actual hard substantiated fact, I don't think St Luke (or St Paul for that matter) is sufficiently reliable to start formulating theories about the afterlife, nor do I think that Wright's hypothesis is remotely credible on any grounds - I would personally lean towards some sort of reincarnation, for example.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Why not?
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
At any rate, I'm not buying Wright's theory.
It seems to have the most biblical evidence.
quote:Thanks for reminding me of the bedrock of my faith. I said it without realising it.
Originally posted by Evensong:
[/QB][/QUOTE]quote:I don't think it's veering off topic at all. I think it's an excellent point.
Originally posted by Cara:
You affirm your credo "because of experience." Others on this thread, and other threads of course, say things like this as well.
I sometimes wish that someone would compile a book of personal experiences, of real faith-strengthening testimony from "ordinary" people who have no agenda...
perhaps it has been done....There is a wonderful book called Conversions (hate being away from my books, can't tell you any more about it)--first person accounts of conversions in various directions...but what i have in mind would be more a collection of these life experiences that solidify people's faith. The kind of experience about which you can say: I hold this belief because of what happened to me...
Or perhaps it is more often an accumulation of experiences...
Anyway, I'm veering off topic.....
quote:Don't get too excited yet! They don't happen very often. But when they do they're awesome.
Originally posted by Cara:
I am so glad to have found this Ship where such things happen.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Back to the original post (sorry about that) - I read the whole sermon, and yes it is all in there (if you look hard enough) - Well done Rowan, all is forgiven!
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Great news - not just that Christ is risen either!
This from today's news:
Dr Williams, who will resign as Archbishop of Canterbury at the end of the year to take up a post at Cambridge University, will also tell followers that the ultimate test of the Christian religion is not whether it is useful, beneficial or helpful to the human race but whether or not its central claim - the resurrection of Jesus Christ - actually happened.
"Easter makes a claim not just about a potentially illuminating set of human activities but about an event in history and its relation to the action of God," he said.
"Very simply, in the words of this morning's reading from the Acts of the Apostles, we are told that 'God raised Jesus to life'."
He will also add that any understanding of the significance of the resurrection which fell short of this truth would be to misunderstand it.
Dr Williams will say: "We are not told that Jesus 'survived death'; we are not told that the story of the empty tomb is a beautiful imaginative creation that offers inspiration to all sorts of people; we are not told that the message of Jesus lives on. We are told that God did something."
