|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Did Moses exist and does it matter?
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, as you pull experience later on, let me do so now ![[Biased]](wink.gif) My particularly varied christian background has shown me that such things come and go in waves, you are as likely to either encounter rationalism of one sort or another in the circles you move in - at some point these things come back into vogue.
Yes, I am. It doesn't bother me. Most of my friends are Leftist atheists. I already told you that. Have you read what you're replying to? Can you not comprehend what you're reading?
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, let me say that I see where you are coming from there. Yes, there are a number of fairly militant atheists who come from evangelical backgrounds of one sort or another - and who usually explain their change in beliefs as a collapse of the supernatural into the rational. A number of these people also never seem to leave the cage phase of belief.
I don't incidentally believe that "All religious faith is the triumph of belief over reason." At least not in the sense you seem to use it. Ultimately, all faith will require belief and will have to move beyond the rational (however this doesn't mean that faith is completely without foundations and consists of believing five impossible things before breakfast).
That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'. Faith begins with the experiential but it doesn't begin with the empirical. By definition, it can't do.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So I'm not particularly sympathetic to where the rest of the discussion has been headed re moses particularly. A lot of the people arguing along these lines (in the world more widely rather than this forum) aren't even doing so on particularly rational grounds - no historian would automatically disbelieve an ancient source. So there are plenty of things in the Bible that I would hold to as historical fact, but equally there are others (such as a six day creation) that I would take as mythological or christological based on the scientific evidence. It seems to me that *EVERYONE* except the most wooden of literalists does somethign similar.
Yes. Why are you saying this as though you were arguing with me? I'm talking about exactly what I said I was, the subject of this thread, no more, no less.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Equally, I'd say to you that you have opened Pandora's box - and I'd re-iterate that you can't magically forget what you may have read - the only way through is to critically examine it and re-intergrate that part of your personality into yourself.
No I haven't, I've read some information. Information I will naturally forget, though I can't forget having known it - I had to check the names, remember? Get through what? There's nothing to get through. I'm staying out of the way of the fear of doubt, because although it was given to me to recognise that I wouldn't be capable of real doubt with the experiences I've had and remember, I don't want to spend hours in anxiety when I could spend them in praise and thanksgiving. There's nothing to reintegrate. Remorse and misgivings are not signs of split personality disorder, as you seem bizarrely to be implying, they're part of any life that (this phrase again) aspires to moral seriousness.
[ 22. September 2013, 00:07: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It would be very instructive if those who study these things in great depth could plainly tell us which bits of the Bible they think deserve to be treated as useful myths, and which we need to approach with faith that they bear some kind of relationship with facts. (I suppose there could be a third category for 'results pending'.)
It's rather more nebulous than that, I think (or at least it is for me and some people I have talked to or read). I have given lists before on this thread of things that I flat out do not believe, either because they are SO impossible as to be beyond believing even if you do believe that there are some miracles. Events such as the sun standing still, or claims such as the earth being immovable, fall into this category.
There are things that I'm skeptical of because they contradict known facts, but which I could change my mind about if the facts on the ground were to change. That the Hebrews were a massive work force in Egypt seems unlikely from the historical record, and the Egyptians kept pretty good historical records. There is a possibility of something turning up, some new Rosetta Stone or something, that would change this. So my skepticism is not set in stone, so to speak.
C S Lewis somewhere talked about the Bible moving from "pure myth" in the Genesis creation stories, through to things he considered mostly historical, such as the court records of Israel and Judah, through to things he was confident about, such as the Gospels and the Acts. This seems reasonable to me. Can I make thick black lines, and say "on this side are stories about events that never happened, and on the other side are records of events that did happen, although perhaps embellished"? No, I cannot. Nor is that important to my faith. I can't even see why it would be, absent an "all or nothing" hermaneutic that says if any part of it isn't historically accurate to a pin, then none of it is reliable.
I don't think the purpose of the Bible is to be a compendium of history, or a guide to chemistry or physics or medicine, or even (in the case of the NT and the Church) a guide for how to "do church" (if the early Christians thought that, they wouldn't have written the Didache). I can understand the temptation to treat it in these ways, because it beats thinking. ("Come, let us not reason together, for you can't trust your reason," says the Lord.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't think the purpose of the Bible is to be a compendium of history, or a guide to chemistry or physics or medicine, or even (in the case of the NT and the Church) a guide for how to "do church" (if the early Christians thought that, they wouldn't have written the Didache). I can understand the temptation to treat it in these ways, because it beats thinking. ("Come, let us not reason together, for you can't trust your reason," says the Lord.)
Do I read the Bible as though it were chemistry? I didn't think so, but perhaps it's all relative.
'Thinking' is great, but we don't all think the same thing when it comes to the Bible. I'm coming to the conclusion that theology and Bible studies have their place, but that they frequently serve to create divisions and hierarchies in the body of believers. I don't feel that my taking the mythologising route would help me or the church in general, but it would certainly help some.
I'd rather study novels, where the exploration of alternative perspectives is less fraught with consequence, and where grassroots readers are under no obligation to take the insights offered by specialists as gospel (if you'll excuse the irony).
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Yes, I am. It doesn't bother me. Most of my friends are Leftist atheists. I already told you that.
Perhaps I should have been clearer, I think the chances are good that you'll encounter the same arguments/information that you are currently avoiding one way or another - either in their original or garbled form via one of your circles.
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'. Faith begins with the experiential but it doesn't begin with the empirical. By definition, it can't do.
Actually I didn't say that it started with the empirical either - that's you reading stuff into what I said. It's based ultimately on a mixture of experience and scripture, filtered through varying amounts of reason and tradition. If it was purely experiantial, then I wouldn't have much to differentiate it from the faith of my contemporaries growing up - many of whom were converts to experiential forms of other religions.
TBH, I suspect a little amateur psychology on your part here. From what you said it sounds like many of your 'leftist athetist' friends had a christian background of some kind or another. And I imagine in common to a lot of people in that situation they would describe their 'conversion' to atheism in terms of a conversion to pure rationalism. So you believe that's the dangerous end of the human condition.
It is possible to possess a faith that isn't divorced from reason - millions of people manage it, without slipping into atheism.
Equally, plenty of people find experience a very unstable place to stand on - especially when they faced with people with experiences which are more powerful than their own.
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
No I haven't, I've read some information. Information I will naturally forget, though I can't forget having known it - I had to check the names, remember? Get through what? There's nothing to get through. I'm staying out of the way of the fear of doubt, because although it was given to me to recognise that I wouldn't be capable of real doubt with the experiences I've had and remember, I don't want to spend hours in anxiety when I could spend them in praise and thanksgiving.
Sure, but then on the other hand there was still part of you that led you to read it - and then lead you to read this thread.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ad Orientem: The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
But do I get to wear sandals during this process?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
I don't know. We had a shipmate who went straight from sanctimonious, seek-ye-theosis Orthodoxy to atheism after after reading one book. So beware, Ad Orientem, beware!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Perhaps I should have been clearer, I think the chances are good that you'll encounter the same arguments/information that you are currently avoiding one way or another - either in their original or garbled form via one of your circles.
No, they aren't.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
TBH, I suspect a little amateur psychology on your part here. From what you said it sounds like many of your 'leftist athetist' friends had a christian background of some kind or another. And I imagine in common to a lot of people in that situation they would describe their 'conversion' to atheism in terms of a conversion to pure rationalism. So you believe that's the dangerous end of the human condition.
No, I don't. None of my Leftist atheist friends have any religious background that I'm aware of. Nothing I've said would hint otherwise to someone who wasn't trying to force what I'm saying into a box. My social milieu is literally a Leftist atheist one. You've decided you can explain my life to me, so you aren't paying attention to what I'm telling you.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It is possible to possess a faith that isn't divorced from reason - millions of people manage it, without slipping into atheism.
I didn't say 'divorced'. Read what I said again, thinking about it and not trying to categorise the person who wrote it.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Equally, plenty of people find experience a very unstable place to stand on - especially when they faced with people with experiences which are more powerful than their own.
No idea what you're talking about here.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Sure, but then on the other hand there was still part of you that led you to read it - and then lead you to read this thread.
There is no division. I know you were brought up a Christian, but how do you have the nerve to lecture me from a position of total ignorance? This isn't science, nor is it faith - it's what you want me to agree to so you can dismiss my experiences. No, son.
[ 23. September 2013, 00:37: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
There is no division. I know you were brought up a Christian, but how do you have the nerve to lecture me from a position of total ignorance? This isn't science, nor is it faith - it's what you want me to agree to so you can dismiss my experiences. No, son.
Actually I think you'll find that you did that first back here:
"That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'."
and here:
"Again, I think this is what people brought up within Christianity (as you've mentioned that you were) aren't getting - I know where you're headed. I recognise the scenery you're describing."
I would apologise for mischaracterising your friends, but it rather appears that you are getting your characterisation of those brought up within christianity from somewhere, so I'd ask where?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
There is no division. I know you were brought up a Christian, but how do you have the nerve to lecture me from a position of total ignorance? This isn't science, nor is it faith - it's what you want me to agree to so you can dismiss my experiences. No, son.
Actually I think you'll find that you did that first back here:
"That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'."
and here:
"Again, I think this is what people brought up within Christianity (as you've mentioned that you were) aren't getting - I know where you're headed. I recognise the scenery you're describing."
I would apologise for mischaracterising your friends, but it rather appears that you are getting your characterisation of those brought up within christianity from somewhere, so I'd ask where?
I'm not characterising you. I was responding to what has been said, on this thread, by people brought up within Christianity.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No most of them became Muslims.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.
And those countries are?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Egypt. Syria. Turkey. Iraq. Afghanistan and beyond in to China: Turkestan.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.
And those countries are?
Mousethief is obviously referring to Russia and to some of the East European countries that were majority Orthodox yet turned to Communism and atheism. Only for a while, though.
Maybe it's biblical religion as a whole that contains the seeds of atheism. It's a controversial idea, but there's a hint of it in Mousethief's reference to C. S. Lewis and his sense that the Bible becomes more credible as it progressed from the OT to the NT. This is an admission that the divine becomes less obvious, more hidden over time. And this process has apparently continued beyond biblical times up to the present day, particularly in the West, where for many people God (if they still 'believe' in him) has a become a vague 'something out there' with little apparent impact on their lives.
This reading of things potentially fits into mainstream theories of secularisation quite well. Whether it's sufficiently 'Christian' is another matter. I suppose it could fit into some type of millenarian, end-times theology. Maybe the mythologising process is something we have to go through before Jesus returns.....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.
And those countries are?
Mousethief is obviously referring to Russia and to some of the East European countries that were majority Orthodox yet turned to Communism and atheism.
Oh good, SOMEbody got it.
quote:
Only for a while, though.
If Putin and Kirill represent Russia's movement back to Christianity, maybe Russia would be better off staying atheist.
quote:
Maybe it's biblical religion as a whole that contains the seeds of atheism. It's a controversial idea, but there's a hint of it in Mousethief's reference to C. S. Lewis and his sense that the Bible becomes more credible as it progressed from the OT to the NT. This is an admission that the divine becomes less obvious, more hidden over time.
I don't see how this can be doubted. We simply do not see the kind of miracles every day (real miracles, not babies and puppies being born, which is foolishly called "miracles" by people who don't quite grasp the concept) that are recorded in times of old. I read an excellent book on this: Richard Friedman's "The Disappearance of God: A Divine Mystery." His thesis is that the beginning books of the Bible start very God-heavy, and by the end of the OT, God is seen primarily in things that people do, and not interacting directly. There is a brief Jesus interlude, then it's back to the distant God. Fascinating read.
quote:
And this process has apparently continued beyond biblical times up to the present day, particularly in the West, where for many people God (if they still 'believe' in him) has a become a vague 'something out there' with little apparent impact on their lives.
The entirety of the impact of God on my life has been through the sacraments, and through other Christians and non-Christians.
quote:
This reading of things potentially fits into mainstream theories of secularisation quite well. Whether it's sufficiently 'Christian' is another matter. I suppose it could fit into some type of millenarian, end-times theology. Maybe the mythologising process is something we have to go through before Jesus returns.....
I'm not sure what you mean here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
If that is so, then believing in God is irrational. Why would I want to be irrational?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
No most of them became Muslims.
quote:
Originally posted by EE:
And those countries are?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not (ignoring the fact that EE quoted mt's post not his):
Egypt. Syria. Turkey. Iraq. Afghanistan and beyond in to China: Turkestan.
Assuming I have put Martin's comments in the correct context, I was not aware that Orthodoxy got as far as Afghanistan or Western China.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Oh good, SOMEbody got it.
Oops. My sarcasm radar was obviously having an off day yesterday. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
Well, firstly atheism is, in my view, not rational (assuming, of course, a "non question begging" definition of 'rational').
But even if Protestantism - which in principle involves thinking for oneself - does lead to atheism, then it can only mean that unthinking religious people, who were probably atheists at heart, have come to acknowledge it by finally getting their brains working (without feeling guilty about it). If that is the case, then it implies that there are many locked into conformity to dogma (those religionists who rail against the freedom of Protestantism) who are simply "atheists in denial".
So therefore, if this hypothesis is correct (the only plausible hypothesis if there is any truth in your comment), we have:
1. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
2. Orthodoxy leads to denial of reason, which leads to covering up latent atheism.
Not a happy situation, IMHO.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
What's so difficult to understand, AO?
If thinking (i.e. 'rational') people turn to atheism, as you claim, then what protection do unthinking (non-rational) people have against that world view?
Your claim that reason leads to atheism is tantamount to an admission that you are, at heart, an atheist, because whatever position is supported by reason is most likely to be true. I can't really see how anyone can deny that.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Reason and rationalism, though linked, aren't quite the same thing or at least not necessarily. Faith is above reason because it is from God. When faith is subjected to rationalism it is no longer from God but from man.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Reason and rationalism, though linked, aren't quite the same thing or at least not necessarily. Faith is above reason because it is from God. When faith is subjected to rationalism it is no longer from God but from man.
OK, on the basis that reason and rationalism are not quite the same thing, then perhaps you would like to explain how Protestantism leads to the latter. You made this serious (and really quite offensive) claim, so it's not unreasonable to ask you to back it up. Thank you.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Science isn't rationalism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Reason and rationalism, though linked, aren't quite the same thing or at least not necessarily. Faith is above reason because it is from God. When faith is subjected to rationalism it is no longer from God but from man.
OK, on the basis that reason and rationalism are not quite the same thing, then perhaps you would like to explain how Protestantism leads to the latter. You made this serious (and really quite offensive) claim, so it's not unreasonable to ask you to back it up. Thank you.
It begins with subjecting faith to human reason. The Reformation and then the Enlightenment and then atheism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How do you decide what to have faith in? Surely reason plays a part here? How did you decide to believe the whole Bible literally? Somebody told you to? How did you decide to trust that person? "Faith" on its own is indiscriminate. I can have faith that my garbage can is an incarnation of Shiva and I should feed it scraps of raw meat. "Faith" isn't a good thing unless you have faith in the RIGHT thing. And how do you determine what that is?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oh and I missed out Iran.
Afghanistan
[ 24. September 2013, 19:47: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
China
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
It begins with subjecting faith to human reason. The Reformation and then the Enlightenment and then atheism.
So all Protestants are atheists then?
Don't bother to answer this question. That would involve something called 'reason', and using the mind God has given you,which would obviously cause you to deny His existence.
By the way... please give me an example of 'faith' not subjected to reason.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ye gods, look at this -- I'm on EE's side! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
My enemy's enemy ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
It begins with subjecting faith to human reason. The Reformation and then the Enlightenment and then atheism.
So all Protestants are atheists then?
Don't bother to answer this question. That would involve something called 'reason', and using the mind God has given you,which would obviously cause you to deny His existence.
By the way... please give me an example of 'faith' not subjected to reason.
I never claimed all protestants are or are doomed to become atheists, only that protestantism and rationalism, in an historical context (the Reformation and Enlightenment) have led to it. We see this also in the liturgical reform which blighted the twentieth century.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Can't see much atheist involvement in liturgical reform! Or is this a case of "Atheism = bad, Liturgical Reform = bad, therefore there must be a connection."
I'd love you to come to our Sunday Eucharist. Your head would explode.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
I never claimed all protestants are or are doomed to become atheists, only that protestantism and rationalism, in an historical context (the Reformation and Enlightenment) have led to it. We see this also in the liturgical reform which blighted the twentieth century.
OK, so then perhaps you may be so good as to explain how the Reformation leads ineluctably to the Enlightenment and thence to atheism.
Which doctrines characteristic of the Reformation will cause someone to disbelieve in the existence of God? Perhaps you would like to list them? I personally cannot think of any, given that they all, in fact, presuppose the existence of God. But, hey, maybe you can plug a serious gap in my education?
I'm truly intrigued by your thesis, and I am very keen to see some evidence to support it. Somehow, unsubstantiated assertions don't really 'do' it for me. Or are you expecting me to accept your assertions by (reason-free) faith*??
* aka pseudo-faith
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
I never claimed all protestants are or are doomed to become atheists, only that protestantism and rationalism, in an historical context (the Reformation and Enlightenment) have led to it. We see this also in the liturgical reform which blighted the twentieth century.
OK, so then perhaps you may be so good as to explain how the Reformation leads ineluctably to the Enlightenment and thence to atheism.
Which doctrines characteristic of the Reformation will cause someone to disbelieve in the existence of God? Perhaps you would like to list them? I personally cannot think of any, given that they all, in fact, presuppose the existence of God. But, hey, maybe you can plug a serious gap in my education?
I'm truly intrigued by your thesis, and I am very keen to see some evidence to support it. Somehow, unsubstantiated assertions don't really 'do' it for me.
To be fair, this thesis isn't original to Ad Orientem. It broadly fits in with the theory of secularisation. Sociologists and church historians tend to agree that secularisation has happened in the West, but they disagree on the date. Some put it as far back as the founding of Protestantism and some as recently as the 1960s. It depends on the criteria you use and your analysis of the causes. I suppose you could see the process as ongoing with different phases.
As far as I understand it, the general point is that Protestantism, and of course the Enlightenment, were about individual freedom and inspiration, as opposed to church tradition and priestly authority. Personal freedom to be inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit may for some people be freedom to move beyond and away from the Holy Spirit; it certainly leaves those who don't don't feel the Holy Spirit in their lives vulnerable to disillusionment, because church authority on its own can't replace experiential religion. Moreover, the freedom to attend the church of your choice, or to found your own church, becomes the freedom to attend no church at all, and the pluralism that arises from everyone doing and believing a different thing helps to foster confusion, and eventually a loss of faith.
'Effects of Modernity on Religion in Eighteenth and Ninteenth-Century Britain' by Rev. William Kay is a very interesting (but long) article that might illuminate these points. It mentions the Enlightenment as a generator of both religious enthusiasm and of secularisation. John Wesley represents the former, of course, but his emphasis on experiential religion in the access to religious knowledge is seen as a concept that ultimately fits into a secularising view of society:
http://www.eauk.org/_efb/downloads.html
I think we can remain Protestants while acknowledging the viability of these theories, but we ought to ask what cosmic purpose the process outlined might serve. I hinted at this in my last post. Is it a process that culminates in Jesus' return? If this mythologisation process is happening regardless of what we think how is that a part of God's plan? What is our theology of secularisation?
Mousethief says:
quote:
The entirety of the impact of God on my life has been through the sacraments, and through other Christians and non-Christians.
This is instructive, but it wouldn't be sufficient for most of the world's Protestants, would it? We're left with more work to do....
[ 25. September 2013, 12:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2
As far as I understand it, the general point is that Protestantism, and of course the Enlightenment, were about individual freedom and inspiration, as opposed to church tradition and priestly authority. Personal freedom to be inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit may for some people be freedom to move beyond and away from the Holy Spirit; it certainly leaves those who don't don't feel the Holy Spirit in their lives vulnerable to disillusionment, because church authority on its own can't replace experiential religion. Moreover, the freedom to attend the church of your choice, or to found your own church, becomes the freedom to attend no church at all, and the pluralism that arises from everyone doing and believing a different thing helps to foster confusion, and eventually a loss of faith.
This is the reason I suspected, but I hoped that Ad Orientem would acknowledge this.
Of course, blaming freedom for the choices that result from freedom is really no argument at all (and I am certainly not suggesting that you are saying this!). If this is what AO is suggesting (only s/he can confirm that), then one can only assume that s/he is advocating enslavement as the only antidote to atheism. This enslavement would be to dictatorial clericalism.
Freedom is risky and costly. The cost is that people will make wrong choices. But freedom is so precious that it is surely worth the risk. And that is why I am a Protestant, who will not submit to any doctrine purely on the say-so of a religious authority figure or an overbearing institution, but will only submit to it once I am satisfied that it is actually true.
Funnily enough, this freedom has led me well away from atheism...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, there's not much point in crying over spilt milk! Christians of all kinds have to remember that.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I'm not characterising you. I was responding to what has been said, on this thread, by people brought up within Christianity.
Sure, but when you react to a few throw away comments rather than someone's entire argument across the thread, don't be surprised if people assume your own position is a lot more simplistic than you may wish it to be.
Son.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Karl--
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd love you to come to our Sunday Eucharist. Your head would explode.
Hmmm...may I give you a list of people to invite to your church?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 27. September 2013, 07:53: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I'm not characterising you. I was responding to what has been said, on this thread, by people brought up within Christianity.
Sure, but when you react to a few throw away comments rather than someone's entire argument across the thread, don't be surprised if people assume your own position is a lot more simplistic than you may wish it to be.
Son.
Stop lying. Go away.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Stop lying. Go away.
This is entirely personal and as such is completely out of bounds in Purgatory. Also, ddressing other shipmates as "son" (which you did on the previous page) is patronizing and bound to provoke ire, so therefore inadvisable.
You and chris stiles are invited to develop what is becoming a personal dispute in Hell, but not here.
RuthW
Temp Purg Host
[ 27. September 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
A lie is a lie regardless of who's telling it. It's not remotely personal.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
You may complain about the call in the Styx.
RuthW
Temp Purg Host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Also, ddressing other shipmates as "son" (which you did on the previous page) is patronizing and bound to provoke ire, so therefore inadvisable.
You and chris stiles are invited to develop what is becoming a personal dispute in Hell, but not here.
RuthW
Temp Purg Host
It's not becoming anything, his post was clearly a half-hearted parting shot and I gave it the token response it invited.
I'm not interested in complaining about the call.
[ 27. September 2013, 15:53: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Host Hat Firmly On
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's not becoming anything, his post was clearly a half-hearted parting shot and I gave it the token response it invited.
I'm not interested in complaining about the call.
You have no idea whether or not chris stiles would have more to say, and your response was out of bounds.
However you wish to characterize your discussion of my call, it belongs in the Styx.
RuthW
Temp Purg Host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's not becoming anything, his post was clearly a half-hearted parting shot and I gave it the token response it invited.
Nothing of the sort - I quoted the particular segments of your argument I found wanting, and you chose how to respond.
"That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'."
and here:
"Again, I think this is what people brought up within Christianity (as you've mentioned that you were) aren't getting - I know where you're headed. I recognise the scenery you're describing."
[Characterising those who oppose you from being one step away from atheism may not be the best way to continue a dialogue.]
You don't state why you think that second bit is a justified assumption - and your comments since then seemed to indicate that your own background was somewhat different (and that you personally didn't know many people with that background yourself).
The reason I was expanding on my own position in my previous posts was that it seemed to me that you were getting the wrong end of the stick (based on the above remarks).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's not becoming anything, his post was clearly a half-hearted parting shot and I gave it the token response it invited.
Nothing of the sort - I quoted the particular segments of your argument I found wanting, and you chose how to respond.
You know what you wrote. I know what you wrote. There can be no profit for you in continuing this. Do not mistake RuthW's intervention for a new opportunity for you to tell me what my life means, chris. Do not continue to misrepresent what I have said to you when what I said is plainly visible to all.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Host hat still on
Do not continue this personal dispute in Purgatory.
RuthW
Temp Purg Host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Admin
Plique-a-jour, a Host should not have to direct you to the Styx that many times., Either take your beef about the call to the Styx or drop it.
This is an official warning, BTW.
Kelly Alves
Admin
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So, 400 years later, did David exist?
As I lurch ever further liberalward I'm stopped in my tracks and the pendulum swings back. Rationalism just doesn't cut it. The account of David bringing the ark back to Jerusalem is just so deep (as are all of the even more disturbing accounts in Exodus and Judges). How do you make up a myth like that in the Bronze Age? A just-so story that WORKS? That just shatters Occam's razor so.
My oscillations are on going and inclusive anyway. I've expressed here recently that I'm done with engaging with the Killer God either side of the Incarnation, that I want to relate to God in Christ the pacifist, the servant, the law abiding subversive, the submissive liberator.
And I must. But one cannot get away from the breath taking pragmatism, the danger of God without denying God's right to be ... God.
Does yer 'ead in don't it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
