 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christus Victor, redux
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Good point, Lep.
Great to interact with you again about this, btw. I've always thought the CV thread, for all its gargantuan proportions, showed debate on the Ship at its finest; honest, thoughtful, respectful and, you know, somehow Christian!
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
cliffdweller. Again, Evil doesn't explain evil. Creation does. There is NO problem of evil.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Not so. The death is meaningless without the resurrection. Just as the passover meal ( the last supper's original incarnation) is meaningless without the salvation of the Jews from Egypt.
There would be no remembrance if there was no victory. Jesus would simply be another martyr or prophet among many that died for the cause.
If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith would be in vain ( St Paul's New Revised Evensong Version)
[ 21. October 2014, 10:24: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Not so.
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
When I celebrate Communion (being a member of one of those heretical sects that authorise lay presidency) my prayers always include a phrase like "in eating and drinking we remember the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ". But, that's because I'm very conscious that it can easily become an ordinance where we eat bread in memory of His body broken for us, drink wine in memory of His blood shed for us and totally forget that it's an ordinance given that we may eat and drink in remembrance of Christ - and that includes all that He did and was, not just the Cross. It's also an ordinance observed in anticipation of the Second Coming.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Not so.
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
I don't know what your tradition is for the sacrament of the Eucharist Leprachaun but mine is based on the BCP and as such is based on the resurrection and as Alan Creswell has pointed out, includes the entire scope of salvation history in its saying.
Without the resurrection however, it is meaningless.
Perhaps that is not the case with other liturgies but if you're calling the Last Supper a sacrament I would assume you have some sense of the catholic faith as handed down from the earliest times.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
The most obvious image (or sacrament, if you will) of the resurrection is baptism. The immersion under the water is symbolic of death and burial, but then we rise up out of the water.
Of course, if you don't have access to a river or large pool and have to resort to sprinkling, then the image is somewhat lost.
In my baptist days, the two parts of the communion were sort of split by the two parts of Easter. So in the breaking of bread we would remember Jesus' death, but in the taking of the grape juice (no wine due to the presence of ex-alcoholics and the desire to not have a divided communion) we took this as a symbol not only of the blood shed, but also of the new life given, which was only possible as a result of the completed victory at the resurrection. So the breaking of the bread was quite memorial in nature but the grape juice was much more celebratory.
Of course, other churches may well do things differently which are no more right or wrong than this. I just found it quite helpful.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
The most obvious image (or sacrament, if you will) of the resurrection is baptism. The immersion under the water is symbolic of death and burial, but then we rise up out of the water.
Well yes, but baptisms tend to be much less regular than communion in my shack at least - praying for more!
Of course Communion liturgies do and should mention the resurrection and return of Christ. But I think the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ. If you are so brilliant at leading the liturgy that you find ways of body and blood recalling the resurrection too - bully for you. I think that's unusual, and the symbolism actually makes it quite difficult.
Anyhoo, the point is that church praxis tends to make us think more about the death than the resurrection in all traditions. Nearly all churches I know have a cross on the wall - very few have an empty tomb. (And when they do, they tend to be rather kitsch.)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though there is a symbolism of an empty cross, that Christ isn't on the Cross but Raised.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Anyhoo, the point is that church praxis tends to make us think more about the death than the resurrection in all traditions.
Simply Bullshit.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
All seven of them, surely. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
In the specific case of the Eucharist I suppose it depends on one's theology thereof. If one holds that the Eucharist is purely a memorial then it is possible, I suppose, to hold that it is primarily a memorial of Christ's passion. A bit like the Stations of the Cross, the Stabat Mater and the Crucifix.
If one holds, however, that the Eucharist, in some meaningful sense, brings one into contact with the efficacious work of Christ then I think that it is impossible to separate out the incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension and, for that matter, his coming again in glory. Soteriologically, the acts of Christ are a unity. Like the Roman soldiers on Calvary, either we can have the lot or we can have nothing at all but we cannot divide them. The garment is seamless. The reason that there is no blessing between the liturgy of Maundy Thursday and the first Eucharist of Easter, in some traditions, is to stress this seamlessness in the work of God in Christ.
More generally dying is fairly commonplace. As Avon observes to Vila in Blake's 7, "it's the one thing we all can do". On the other hand Resurrection from the dead is pretty darn unique. I know that in Mark's Gospel John Wayne responds to the death of Christ with the words: "Truly, this man was the Son of God" but by and large the proclamation of the Early Church was "Christ is Risen". We know that during the period of the Acts of the Apostles there were people baptising in the name of John the Baptist and, indeed, the Mandeans of Iraq continue to do so to this day, assuming they have not all by now been slaughtered by embittered Sunni Muslims. I think that the reason that this is treated as a simple good-hearted misunderstanding in the New Testament is that the Christians knew that both John the Baptist and Jesus had died but only one had risen from the dead...
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
All seven of them, surely.
Seven? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) quote:
Westminster Catechism:
Q. 164. How many sacraments hath Christ instituted in his church under the New Testament?
A. Under the New Testament Christ hath instituted in his church only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Anyhoo, the point is that church praxis tends to make us think more about the death than the resurrection in all traditions.
Simply Bullshit.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
All seven of them, surely.
Seven? quote:
Westminster Catechism:
Q. 164. How many sacraments hath Christ instituted in his church under the New Testament?
A. Under the New Testament Christ hath instituted in his church only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper.
Brace yourself, Bridget, but not everyone in Christendom regards the Westminster Catechism as definitive.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Some would consider two sacraments as two too many.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Brace yourself, Bridget, but not everyone in Christendom regards the Westminster Catechism as definitive.
I wouldn't. I have issues with Q1's disparity from Ecclesiastes 12:13,14. And as for its advocacy of infant baptism.... ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
cliffdweller. Again, Evil doesn't explain evil. Creation does. There is NO problem of evil.
You have a parent in your office whose 2 year old is suffering from a horrific debilitating disease, in enormous pain. He will probably die before his 5th birthday. How does the creation of a world where this sort of thing is "natural" explain God's goodness?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Horseman Bree: Just reviewing some of the "Quotes" file, and came across this post by LeRoc which seems to be appropriate here
(Thanks for this. I was a bit busy yesterday so I only just saw this.)
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy. Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Please define "average Christian".
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy.
It's in most liturgies, most of us will have said some variation on "Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again" during the Communion service. The biggest problem is that last words before the distribution of the elements, and therefore the ones most easily associated with the act of eating and drinking the bread and wine/juice, do tend towards the death of Christ only. In the more commonly used liturgies, at any rate. A variation on
quote:
Draw near with faith.
Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you,
and his blood which he shed for you.
Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you,
and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
only mentions his death.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy. Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Out of interest, Leprechaun, does your church celebrate Holy Communion on Good Friday?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jolly Jape - missed you! - I love Open Theism without the irrational, unnecessary predicate that the Demiurge ruined creation.
It's psychologically, indeed SPIRITUALLY fascinating that Boyd clings to this utterly heterodox idea. That his identity is tied up with it, not realising that it's a zero-sum game that he should confess his PRIDE in and slough off. Be pruned of. He's just digging a hole deeper.
The straw man is entirely his: Open Theism IS NOT predicated on the Demiurge.
The problem of evil is that Jesus recalled Satan. Is that despite being unnecessary, he is. That the dice are loaded even more against us than just contingently. It is not necessary to invent Satan to explain anything, yet he exists. And once he exists, by Jesus' memory, he does in the other NT accounts, first of Jesus' exorcisms.
They go beyond Walter Wink's excellent synthesis.
I seek a theology that embraces that openly, progressively and until then I lay it at the foot of the cross. Because there isn't one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Anyhoo, the point is that church praxis tends to make us think more about the death than the resurrection in all traditions.
True, but this isn't a good thing.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy.
It's in most liturgies, most of us will have said some variation on "Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again" during the Communion service. The biggest problem is that last words before the distribution of the elements, and therefore the ones most easily associated with the act of eating and drinking the bread and wine/juice, do tend towards the death of Christ only. In the more commonly used liturgies, at any rate. A variation on
quote:
Draw near with faith.
Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you,
and his blood which he shed for you.
Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you,
and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
only mentions his death.
Which is Cranmer, writing at the the height of the C. of E's protestant phase and at his most Zwinglian. I has survived up to the present day because the evangelicals on Synod won't let it go but it is only one of several options and is never used by many of us who prefer 'Jesus is the lamb of God....'
The majority of Christians are RC or Orthodox and never use this 'died for you' language.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy. Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Out of interest, Leprechaun, does your church celebrate Holy Communion on Good Friday?
This question isn't addressed to me but I can't help commenting that the Eucharist was never celebrated on Good Friday for the first 15 centuries of the Church. They just used the synaxis, which survives in the current Good Friday Liturgy, albeit with communion from the reserved sacrament tacked on.
Cranmer provided a collect, epistle and gospel for Good Friday (and Holy Saturday) but there is little evidence that he expected anything more than 'table prayers' on these days as he required everyone to present themselves for communion on Easter Sunday.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy. Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Out of interest, Leprechaun, does your church celebrate Holy Communion on Good Friday?
Yes. Is that bad?
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jolly Jape - missed you! - I love Open Theism without the irrational, unnecessary predicate that the Demiurge ruined creation.
It's psychologically, indeed SPIRITUALLY fascinating that Boyd clings to this utterly heterodox idea. That his identity is tied up with it, not realising that it's a zero-sum game that he should confess his PRIDE in and slough off. Be pruned of. He's just digging a hole deeper.
.
Um... could you possibly be projecting just a wee bit here???
Seriously, what the heck is going on with you? Simple disagreement is to be expected. As I mentioned, I happened to be at the SBL/AAR meeting when Boyd first presented his paper, and there were LOTS of questions about positing a real and personified evil and I'm certain many walked away unconvinced. But I don't recall anyone finding the need to question Boyd's psychological and/or spiritual health. I find your need to do so... well, let's say, psychologically and spiritually interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The straw man is entirely his: Open Theism IS NOT predicated on the Demiurge...
They go beyond Walter Wink's excellent synthesis.
Boyd is certainly going beyond Wink, as is Open Theism in general. Boyd in particular, though, is heavily influenced by Wink.
Wink declares himself to be agnostic on the question of whether or not evil is personified. But the existence of a real force that is evil, that is opposed to the work of God, is very much central to Wink's work. There is a force for evil that is very much behind "the myth of redemptive violence" and is working-- corrupting-- the world as we now see it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy. Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Out of interest, Leprechaun, does your church celebrate Holy Communion on Good Friday?
Yes. Is that bad?
If you see Holy Communion as purely a memorial of the Passion it makes perfect sense.
The thing is, however, that most Christians world wide and, I suspect, the majority of churches don't celebrate on Good Friday which indicates that something else is going on.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Because it's whack, as they say round these parts cliffdweller. Wink isn't. Boyd is. Why does he cling on to the old Marcionite - Zoroastrian - gnostic - Scientologist - dualist heresy as if it were new and explanatory in any way? It isn't. Marcion is forgivable as that was part of the necessary evolution of ideas.
I beg his pardon for imputing (Satanic) pride for believing his own bad sci-fi fantasy, because it isn't his; clinging on to stuff that's way past its sell-by date is understandable if you've invested in it. Until you realise it's worthless and need to move ahead without it. Been there. With Anglo-Israelism for one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Because it's whack, as they say round these parts cliffdweller. Wink isn't. Boyd is. Why does he cling on to the old Marcionite - Zoroastrian - gnostic - Scientologist - dualist heresy as if it were new and explanatory in any way? It isn't. Marcion is forgivable as that was part of the necessary evolution of ideas.
I beg his pardon for imputing (Satanic) pride for believing his own bad sci-fi fantasy, because it isn't his; clinging on to stuff that's way past its sell-by date is understandable if you've invested in it. Until you realise it's worthless and need to move ahead without it. Been there. With Anglo-Israelism for one.
I suggest you read his work before you make such snap decisions. If his systematic theology God at War is too much of a bite, try Satan and the Problem of Evil.
The reason Boyd is so well regarded among Open Theists is because he is willing to take on the hard questions no one else is. Boyd is the only Open Theist-- indeed, pretty much the only theist period-- willing to take on the question of natural evil (or suffering, if you will). It's fine to poke holes at his theory but you gotta appreciate his willingness to wade into the question.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All he's got to do is dump the pagan NONSENSE. I don't need to read tomes predicated on that. There's nothing that can't be said in SIMPLE theology like his - he isn't Kant - on the back of a fag packet.
As the excellent Roger Olson does.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
All he's got to do is dump the pagan NONSENSE. I don't need to read tomes predicated on that. There's nothing that can't be said in SIMPLE theology like his - he isn't Kant - on the back of a fag packet.
As the excellent Roger Olson does.
Surprisingly, Olson doesn't seem to share your view.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What view?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What view?
The one I quoted in my post, obviously. Did you read your link?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
I was thinking that was odd to, the linked article seemed very appreciative of Boyd's viewpoints.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oh, the pagan nonsense. He does.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oh, the pagan nonsense. He does.
Citation needed - like cliffdweller and Green Mario, I didn't get what you got from that Roger Olson article.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So you all think that someone with the balance of Olson would go for the demiurge of Boyd-Zoroaster?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So you all think that someone with the balance of Olson would go for the demiurge of Boyd-Zoroaster?
It's up to you to make your case, Martin60. Three people have said they don't share your take on the Olson article you linked to, so you have a case to prove. You can't just make bald assertions and expect people to suddenly understand what you're getting at...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yes I can. It's obvious Olson, like Wink, doesn't believe in the Demiurge and Boyd does.
If three people won't see that, I can't make them.
[ 23. October 2014, 21:01: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes I can. It's obvious Olson, like Wink, doesn't believe in the Demiurge and Boyd does.
If three people won't see that, I can't make them.
hmmmm... might I suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's possible that it is you (gasp!) that could be wrong re: your take on Olson-- and Boyd. Wink as well is far less negative re: Boyd's view than what you seem to be suggesting. In fact, the only real difference between Boyd & Wink is that Boyd is more likely to see evil as personified, while Wink simply declares himself to be agnostic on that point. Similarly, Olson's only concern w/ a personified evil is that we avoid the excesses of the spiritual warfare movement (a concern I-- and Boyd-- would very much share). Which is quite a far cry from declaring that personifying evil is "unbiblical" (I'm still quite curious how you get there) and pagan to the point of pathological.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You say that Boyd says (in the thousands of pages of his work - no ads please) that the universe went to Hell in the first Planck tick:
You: "Boyd places the "corruption of nature" at the second nanosecond of creation (Big Bang/ evolution). ymmv."
Sorry that makes it at 0.1855 x 10^35 Planck ticks.
Am I wrong?
No.
He is.
Furthermore this was done by Satan, no? Sapient evil. Part of ... creation.
According to Boyd?
Am I wrong?
Answers on a fag packet please.
(Yeah, yeah, creation was perfect for the first arbitrary nanosecond (a very long time in the story of the universe), so there is no infinite regress, but then sapiently corrupted itself at t+10^-9. So God is panentheistic but Satan is pantheistic. Nature is (malevolent, personal, evil, cooperative, sapient, social) supernature. Riiiiiigggghhhhht.)
If I'm not, that is dualism, that is the Demiurge.
That is WRONG. False. Untrue and absolutely unnecessary regardless.
Clinging on to it for no rational reason is also WRONG. Now I'm an understanding sort, I'd rather judge as I would be judged, so I put it down to ... nature (if things can go wrong, they will, and they can). Not moral choice.
And it will be transcended by grace as it was from the beginning in Christ crucified.
[ 24. October 2014, 10:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
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
Hmmmm. I'm wrong. It's 1.855094832e+34 Planck ticks. It's de rigueur to use the units.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nature is (malevolent, personal, evil, cooperative, sapient, social) supernature.
No. Nature is fallen-- as we are.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
From where?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
Martin, what do you make of passages like this one?
'For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.' Ephesians 6:12
The Bible often deals in metaphor - well, duh. But what it often presents as metaphor it often also takes seriously as some kind of objective reality. Satan, or ‘the satan’, is portrayed in the Bible as a personal entity with a particular animus against God and against God's people – he is never portrayed as an equal opponent to God, but definitely as a spiritual entity who wants to corrupt and muck things up.
Here's an example of the Boethian view of evil: “The Shadow that bred [the orcs] can only mock, it cannot make: not real things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them.” Frodo, in ‘The Lord of the Rings’.
Evil doesn't create anything, it can only twist what's already there. (Tolkien found his sometimes-friend CS Lewis too ‘dualist’. Which is not to say that Lewis couldn't also portray evil in a compelling way ...)
[ 24. October 2014, 16:03: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Martin, what do you make of passages like this one?
'For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.' Ephesians 6:12
The Bible often deals in metaphor - well, duh. But what it often presents as metaphor it often also takes seriously as some kind of objective reality. Satan, or ‘the satan’, is portrayed in the Bible as a personal entity with a particular animus against God and against God's people – he is never portrayed as an equal opponent to God, but definitely as a spiritual entity who wants to corrupt and muck things up.
Which should, at the very least, put to rest all this nattering about Boyd's view being "unbiblical". One might very well disagree with Boyd's interpretation of these biblical texts, but clearly his starting point is biblical, not pagan as Martin would suggest.
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Evil doesn't create anything, it can only twist what's already there.
Yes, this would be the view that Boyd (and I) are suggesting.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The starting point of the Biblical is pagan.
As for what I make of Ephesians 6:12, see above. I like what Walter Wink makes of it that's for sure. It's at LEAST a suprahuman synergy of us, of memes, of society.
The problem of evil for me is that on the authority of the 100% human Jesus, there IS a Devil. And the New Testament accounts are IMMENSELY credible of supernatural, sapient, evil persons that corrupted themselves in heaven, possessing and afflicting and influencing.
As are the scant Old Testament references, to the Prince of Persia for one.
But as it is impossible to point to God so it is impossible to point to the Devil, to blame him for anything we do. He may well say that the Holocaust and Rwanda were nothing to do with him. If he were behind Hitler then why did he make so many stupid mistakes?
I have no idea what to make of there actually being a Devil. Apart from the creation goes wrong and it is ALL redeemed in Christ.
If there is a Devil what difference would it make if there weren't?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
