homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Religious Pluralism (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Religious Pluralism
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB

What I know about the "non-realist" position could be written down on the back of a very small envelope and would probably contain error. In general, I don't consider any self declared Christian apostate on the basis of my understanding of their faith bases. If I believe someone's opinions are out of line, and there is scope for a constructive exchange, I simply register disagreement with the things I disagree about. With reasons. That does not determine the matter. Listening to explanations sometimes provides surprising insights.

Apostacy is a judgment that the church corporate is sometimes required to make. I've been involved, congregationally and as a part of a leadership team, in considerations about a particular individual. It was a long, fair, process which led to a reconciled outcome.

Rev Ward's previous good character is relevant, as would anybody elses, in consideration of his questionable actions. It may be a measure to take into account in weighing the veracity of any statements he makes by way of explanation.

So far as issuing explanations, retractions, etc, I think he should speak to his bishop first. I don't know whether his bishop has asked for an explanation. He is the one entitled to an explanation first of all. The decision on whether such an explanation is made public is a matter for them after that. I have no right to an explanation.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Jewish / Christian God is not some entity that stands apart from human concerns, He's been involved in human affairs to the point of becoming human.

<snip>

If you tell somebody to stop giving you the finger, and they ignore you, would you conclude that they truly show their affection by it - as they claim?

Both of these arguments again fail to incorporate God's ability to see into the hearts and minds of men.

quote:
If you called your dad a dickhead to his face, would the violation of the commandment to honour your parents be hard to see? You don't have to slay your dad to make sure that he gets the message.
Probably not, though I doubt I would call down the consequences of a Mortal Sin upon the head of the angsty teen, especially if it was apparent that he did love his Dad through other means. Context and intention are so important to me for some reason. The fairest and most just judges seem to be intimately concerned with them also. It leads me to believe that our God is as well. I could be wrong.

quote:
Nonsense. There's zilch wiggle room here. The bible speaks against worshipping other gods time and again, including at the incident of the golden calf precisely against worshipping the God of Israel through some idol.
The bible speaks against worshipping other gods, including at the incident of the golden calf. The relevant scriptures you quoted about that incident aren't as clear to me as they are to you that they refer to the act of worshipping YHWH through the calf, as much as they refer to worshipping "gods" through the calf. In any respect, the hearts of the people count. The author goes to some length to give us the distinct impression that the calf wasn't just a way to further worship YHWH, but it was a symbol of the people's distrust in YHWH after Moses was up on the mountain for too long. After all that YHWH had done for them, distrusting him showed great intentional dishonor. That Aaron claimed they were still worshipping YHWH through the calf sounded a lot more like he was trying to protect his own ass against the rage of Moses that he knew was coming.

quote:
Such an inconvenient text, the bible, isn't it? Maybe you should just trash it. Who needs it, given that you know God's will so much better in your heart...
I haven't claimed to know any of God's will--this may be further confusion on your part. In fact, I tend to argue against its obvious clarity rather than for it. At any rate, my arguments on this thread have been aimed to consider the possibility that Hart's actions were not inherently evil. I still think that possibility exists.

If Rev. Hart ends up apologizing, or if he never does and he is rebuked by God in the end, I won't be completely surprised. If, however, he never apologizes but continues on, and we meet him in heaven under no rebuke, will you be able to handle it?

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What I know about the "non-realist" position could be written down on the back of a very small envelope and would probably contain error. In general, I don't consider any self declared Christian apostate on the basis of my understanding of their faith bases. If I believe someone's opinions are out of line, and there is scope for a constructive exchange, I simply register disagreement with the things I disagree about. With reasons. That does not determine the matter. Listening to explanations sometimes provides surprising insights.

Wuss. [Biased] Anyway, Rev. Hart is a leading member of Sea of Faith, UK, and he's been identified by one of his Sea of Faith peers as being "both philosophically and theologically non-realist", see my post on page three. So I'm sure we can apply the definition from the
quote:
Sea of Faith glossary:
Non-realist. SoF uses "non-realism" to refer to the belief that God has no "real", objective or empirical existence, independent of human language and culture; God is real in the sense that he is a potent symbol, metaphor or projection, but has no objective existence outside and beyond humanity.

I call a priest which claims that an outright apostate. I wonder how much disagreement you will register, about a five on the Richter scale?

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as issuing explanations, retractions, etc, I think he should speak to his bishop first. I don't know whether his bishop has asked for an explanation. He is the one entitled to an explanation first of all. The decision on whether such an explanation is made public is a matter for them after that. I have no right to an explanation.

Well, maybe not, because you are not an Anglican (I believe). Otherwise why shouldn't you have a right to an explanation if one of your clergy was the cause of grave public scandal?

quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
If, however, he never apologizes but continues on, and we meet him in heaven under no rebuke, will you be able to handle it?

Obviously, I would be a saint after all.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rev. Hart is a leading member of Sea of Faith, UK, and he's been identified by one of his Sea of Faith peers as being "both philosophically and theologically non-realist", see my post on page three. So I'm sure we can apply the definition from the
quote:
Sea of Faith glossary:
Non-realist. SoF uses "non-realism" to refer to the belief that God has no "real", objective or empirical existence, independent of human language and culture; God is real in the sense that he is a potent symbol, metaphor or projection, but has no objective existence outside and beyond humanity.

I call a priest which claims that an outright apostate.
Nah. You're lifting one item of SoF terminology out of context. Read it alongside (from the same glossary)
quote:
Post-Modernist. The post-modernist believes that there are no objective facts; there is only language and interpretation. If "God" is a useful concept for structuring our experience, that makes him as real as anything else.
and God would be relatively more real to a post-modernist in a non-realist system than to a modernist in a realist alternative. It's all smoke and mirrors if there's no consistency.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So his non-realist theology, which is explicit apostasy, is excused by his non-realist philosophy, which is implicit stupidity? [Razz]

The Jewish / Christian claims about the reality of God - as brought to us by scripture and tradition - are not relative, they are absolute. It does not matter one bit whether Rev. Harts unreal god is consistent with other nonsensical ideas he holds about the world. This simply is not compatible with Christian belief in any remotely scriptural and traditional form. You may argue that as an Anglican he does not need to embrace that (although the oath he took sounds like he must). That's fine with me. I'm not particularly interested in a fight about what makes an Anglican Anglican.

However, I may then indeed be wrong in calling him an apostate, since he may never have believed in a real God in the first place. He could well be simply a postmodern atheist who was signed up as Anglican priest. To sort out the precise sins of that process is beyond me.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
To sort out the precise sins of that process is beyond me.

Amen.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
To sort out the precise sins of that process is beyond me.

Well, as they wouldn't have any reality in the first place, that wouldn't be a problem. [Smile]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB

Thanks for the education - and the clarifications provided by the exchanges with Dave Marshall. IMO, if Rev Ward confirmed that the non realist definition in the glossary did indeed represent his considered beliefs, he would be an apostate. In an odd way, it would explain his actions, but for me that confirmation would "cross the Nicene lines" which the C of E upholds, and so separate him from the faith he agreed to uphold when he became a priest.

No doubt you can see there is a process there which has not yet happened. It can lead to a finding. I enjoyed the "wuss" legpull but there's a decent point in that as well. If it makes me a "wuss" to believe that justice requires such processes and findings, I gladly accept the definition and can wear it without shame. IMO these processes are a better representation of our common faith than, for example, relying on the statements of a third party about the essence of someone else's faith. One person can easily and inadvertantly misrepresent another. So can press accounts of an event. The 9th commandment and Jesus' emphasis that our "yes be yes and our no be no" come very much to mind.

Finally, although I agree that any Anglican might have a concern and a right to ask questions, I don't think a member of the Anglican communion has an absolute right to know the exchanges between a bishop and a priest who is under him. Public interest and the rights of individuals are not the same thing.

Maybe all of this is too cautious for discussion boards? Generally I enjoy outspoken exchanges - otherwise I wouldn't be here. But this is an issue involving a man's reputation and career. So I admit to being very cautious - as cautious as if I was involved in the justice processes myself. Well, you get more cautious as you get older.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PerkyEars

slightly distracted
# 9577

 - Posted      Profile for PerkyEars   Email PerkyEars   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He's now in the Times this morning, although it puts a different spin on things, saying he has converted to Hinduism.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2348095,00.html

Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks PerkyEars

Here is a comment at the end of the article

quote:
However, not everyone in the Church of England is impressed by Mr Hart’s passion for Hinduism. Pauline Scott, the team vicar of St James, in Stretham, said that she would oppose any attempts by Mr Hart to celebrate in the Ely Diocese.

“We do tend to use Christian priests, surprisingly enough,” she said.

The Bishop of Ely’s office said that it had not known of Mr Hart’s conversion to Hinduism until this week.



[ 08. September 2006, 07:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And here's the Church Times article.

Here is a key quote from the Bishop's office


quote:
On Tuesday, the Bishop reported that he had not known about Mr Hart’s conversion to Hinduism when giving him permission to officiate. He said he had been sent a letter from a fellow bishop confirming that Mr Hart was a “safe” person to whom permission could be given.



The Bishop’s lay chaplain, Dr Bridget Nichols, said that the news was “a complete revelation to us”. “The first time we had heard that David Hart had converted to be a Hindu was yesterday,” she said. This was despite Mr Hart’s book, and an article in the Leicester Mercury in July.



“We cannot keep an eye on all our non-resident clergy who have permission to officiate. We cannot know what is going on. They maybe will celebrate communion five or six times a year.” A personal letter did not mean the Bishop knew the recipient. “We take an application for permission to officiate in good faith,” she said.

Clearly, its now up for judgment.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759

 - Posted      Profile for centurion   Author's homepage   Email centurion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Im shocked that an Anglican Priest can enodorse any other faith, surely the man is apostate now that he's converted to hinduism and thus is trying to have two religions both Christianity and Hinduism, what did Jesus Christ say about serving two masters... Does he want to serve YHWH or BRAHMAN if BRAHMAN then please leave the priesthood.

I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD WHO TOOK YOU OUT OF EGYPT YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.

YOU SHALL NOT CREATE AN IMAGE OF ANY CREATURE ABOVE IN THE SKY OR BELOW THE SEA TO WORSHIP.

I ALONE AM GOD, THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BESIDES ME.

1Jo 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

Thanks
Centurion

Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And his interview with the Leicester Mercury. Google is my friend.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
None of this, of course, will harm the sales of his book in the slightest.

--------------------
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
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
IMO, if Rev Ward confirmed that the non realist definition in the glossary did indeed represent his considered beliefs, he would be an apostate. In an odd way, it would explain his actions, but for me that confirmation would "cross the Nicene lines" which the C of E upholds, and so separate him from the faith he agreed to uphold when he became a priest.

You seem to be confusing Rev Hart with someone called Ward (wasn't that the Profumo affair?). But your comment about the "Nicene lines" illustrates the fundamental problem the Church of England has regarding its identity.

Those Nicene lines probably do mark out the Church's official position in terms of the practices it authorises. But its considerably more enlightened philosophical position regarding thinking about God and personal faith has no authorised expression. It relies on a nod and a wink tradition that looks, if current political machinations get even a little out of hand, very fragile.

That for me suggests a need for the Church as whole to devise a new framework for itself, within which each strand - evangelical, catholic, liberal, (hindu? [Eek!] ) - is officially delegated responsibility for "being the Church" within their own tradition. They pretty much seem to do it unofficially anyway.

The established Church as a whole need not be tied to Nicea, any more than it is to Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or of any other faith tradition. Its responsibility could be to provide standards for faith traditions - a commitment to God and to truth, perhaps, expressed as a requirement for explicit statements of the axioms in their system and reason in their theology in order to be "officially recognised".

I guess as a non-conformist you'd not see that as your concern, but I quite like the thought, however far-fetched, of Baptists having as much legitimacy in the Church of England as Anglo-Catholics. Hinduism would take a bit of getting used to, though.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dave

Thanks for the correction - apologies for any confusion. This sort of thing is happening more as I get older.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dave, what would be the point of the umbrella organisation of British religions, sects and cults which you would call a "Church"? Just to dissolve the special ties of the British government with the Christian faith? Disestablish the CofE, give them some bridging financing for a decade or two (and permanent financing for those church building the state wishes to retain as cultural heritage), and then let the CofE fend for itself.

If other religions feel like entering into an umbrella organisation with the CofE, they can do that anyway - and I'm sure they wouldn't pick the historically loaded term "Church" for it. Do you seriously believe Sikhs, Muslims, and even RCs would be interested in joining an umbrella organisation called "Church" with the CofE? No freaking way...

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
More to the point it ain't going to happen. Those agin include:

C of E:

Con Evos.
Open Evos.
Charismatic Evos.
Forward in Faith.
Aff Cath.
MOR types.
Liberals.

The Anglican Communion:

Pretty much everyone (with the possible exception of the raisin cake tendency in ECUSA.)

Other Christian bodies:

Pretty much all of them.

Non-Christian Groups:

Yep. Them too.

Okay. Hands up all those in favour.

Mr D. Marshall esq.

I'd say that the nays have it.

--------------------
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
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'd say that the nays have it.

I don't know what would constitute a quorum for deliberations about the nature of a national Church, but leaving aside international considerations I'd be surprised if the groups you mention amount to 10% of the population.

I'd have thought the other 90% ought to count for something.

[ 08. September 2006, 11:27: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The established Church as a whole need not be tied to Nicea,... Its responsibility could be to provide standards for faith traditions - a commitment to God and to truth, perhaps, expressed as a requirement for explicit statements of the axioms in their system and reason in their theology in order to be "officially recognised".

"Officially recognised" to what end?

What - and whom - is this "established Church" for?

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dave,

Do you really think that 90% of the population would subscribe to your idiosyncratic notion of what the C of E should be. IME, non-churchgoers fall into one of the following three groups:

1/ People who reject religion on serious intellectual grounds.
2/ Wistful C and E types who quite like the C of E to be there for weddings and funerals.
3/ People who don't really give a stuff (the overwhelming majority).

Remaking the C of E to your prescription on the assumption that some of them will suddenly perk up and start paying attention strikes me as a somewhat eccentric idea, to use a political metaphor, it's an attempt to construct a popular front but without popularity.

--------------------
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
R.D. Olivaw
Shipmate
# 9990

 - Posted      Profile for R.D. Olivaw   Email R.D. Olivaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Perkyears posted:
He's now in the Times this morning, although it puts a different spin on things, saying he has converted to Hinduism.

I posted earlier that I thought that he was a Hindu and I find it interesting that he withheld that information.

--------------------
We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness -Thich Nhat Hanh

Posts: 496 | From: I'm a leaf on the wind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872

 - Posted      Profile for the coiled spring   Author's homepage   Email the coiled spring   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This weeks Church Times article this week mentions about Swami David Hart conversion.

Part of article does seem to give impression that matey of Ely is not one regulars on this site so missed the news of the latestest in multi-faith mission.
Let us pray for Ely

"On Tuesday, the Bishop reported that he had not known about Mr Hart’s conversion to Hinduism when giving him permission to officiate. He said he had been sent a letter from a fellow bishop confirming that Mr Hart was a “safe” person to whom permission could be given.

"The Bishop’s lay chaplain, Dr Bridget Nichols, said that the news was “a complete revelation to us”. “The first time we had heard that David Hart had converted to be a Hindu was yesterday,” she said. This was despite Mr Hart’s book, and an article in the Leicester Mercury in July.

“We cannot keep an eye on all our non-resident clergy who have permission to officiate. We cannot know what is going on. They maybe will celebrate communion five or six times a year.” A personal letter did not mean the Bishop knew the recipient. “We take an application for permission to officiate in good faith,” she said"

There might be a chance for me yet to become an Anglcian little matey

[ 08. September 2006, 15:37: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]

--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.

Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358

 - Posted      Profile for humblebum   Email humblebum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Part of article does seem to give impression that matey of Ely is not one regulars on this site

It took me about ten times through that sentence before I worked out what you were talking about, Coiled Spring.

Could you please stop referring to bishops as "matey"? It's really confusing.

--------------------
humblebum

Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You've worked it out? What did he mean?

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh dear. The best current evidence in the public domian appears to be in the Leicester Mercury article - 24 July 2006. (Link repeated). It is consistent with the possibility that Rev Hart told his family and friends about his conversion, but not his Bishop. I suppose the Bishop's office will be able to explain how they missed the Mercury article (24 July) so that Hart's publically declared conversion to Hinduism came as "a complete surprise" some 5-6 weeks later.

Even more startling for me were the quotes from 1994 (when Rev Hart was chaplain at Loughborough University).

quote:
David, the Mercury's cuttings files reveal, enjoyed what might euphemistically be called a colourful time as chaplain of Loughborough.

In 1994, he told this newspaper he was glad he didn't believe in heaven because he thought he would be "bored rigid" sitting around on a white cloud playing a harp for eternity, saying: "Obviously, the Virgin birth and the miracles were all tall stories made up by early Christians to give the faith credibility.

"Oh and, by the way, God doesn't literally exist either."

So that is the "non-realist" POV? Clearly I've led a sheltered life. Those statements look to me to be an open declaration of apostacy. (If that term is to mean anything at all.)

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While of course I could say "told you so" concerning his idolatry and apostasy, this bit from the Mercury:
quote:
David's move to India was, he admits, prompted by a crisis in his life. He had been made redundant and was barely muddling through the days. "I had quite a big bout of depression," he says. "I was treated by the doctor. I felt I had to do something. "Three days after arriving in India, I threw my tablets away and I've not suffered with it since."
actually makes me a lot more cautious than I was before. Clearly Ananda Krishna Das (Ex?-Rev. David Hart) set himself up for the way this has turned out in the end. But apparently, he got pushed a fair bit as well. I assume that he had been made redundant as chaplain of Loughborough University and was then left out in the cold? I was under the impression that he was fairly "high-flying" as far as clergy go, but in that I was apparently quite mistaken. Note to myself: involvement in comittees and organisations does not automatically equate to job prospects... [Disappointed]

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Disestablish the CofE, give them some bridging financing for a decade or two (and permanent financing for those church building the state wishes to retain as cultural heritage), and then let the CofE fend for itself.

You're missing the point, I think, perhaps assuming the C of E is some kind of mini-RCC. That's the impression it's liturgy often conveys. But if you work through Callan's list, there's almost no common ground between some of those groupings.
quote:
Do you seriously believe Sikhs, Muslims, and even RCs would be interested in joining an umbrella organisation called "Church" with the CofE? No freaking way...
Um, I agree. Who said they would?
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
"Officially recognised" to what end?

As something like having a commitment to God and to truth, having had their system of faith audited by the authority appointed for the purpose (nominally anyway) by the government of the day. A bit like the Charity Commissioners, perhaps.
quote:
What - and whom - is this "established Church" for?
All of the people in all of the parishes in all of the country. Just like now, but with the possibility of avoiding the current Nicean Christianity filter that effectively excludes the majority of the population.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Remaking the C of E ... on the assumption that some [non-churchgoers] will suddenly perk up and start paying attention strikes me as a somewhat eccentric idea, to use a political metaphor, it's an attempt to construct a popular front but without popularity.

I wasn't looking at it from the popularity angle.

There seems a clear case for some kind of reorganisation, just so the structure of the Church bears at least a passing rememblance to the nature of what actually goes on within it. But there's also the rightness of how a national Church should go about its business. A tiny minority of the population clinging to a form of religion that is at best perceived as irrelevent by the majority doesn't justify establishment status.

If the Church were considering a proactive strategy for change, there would be two broad options. Either hold that the Church as it is has supernatural powers that enable it to be right about certain stuff, reject fundamental change, disestablish, and become one more religion in the marketplace.

Or take the view that the Church of England is in fact more about meeting the spiritual needs of the people entrusted to its care, the curing of their souls, than about reflecting for all time the current management's attachment to one story and one system of faith.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
"Officially recognised" to what end?

As something like having a commitment to God and to truth, having had their system of faith audited by the authority appointed for the purpose (nominally anyway) by the government of the day. A bit like the Charity Commissioners, perhaps.
Okay, so we have all the thousand year old, mutually exclusive faiths line up to be audited by the government for soundness, PCness or likelihood to espouse the government's pet policies as the work of whatever God you happen to belive in on that particular day of the week?


quote:
the current Nicean Christianity filter that effectively excludes the majority of the population.
Who, as has been observed, mostly couldn't give a fig about it anyway. And since when has inclusion been the highest of all values? I thought faithfulness to God occupied that place, personally.


quote:
A tiny minority of the population clinging to a form of religion that is at best perceived as irrelevent by the majority doesn't justify establishment status.
But according to you, what does justify this is some sort of national supplier of warm mushy 'spiritual' feeelings on demand. Great. There are, of course, those people in all the faiths who would rather serve God than give some people (who don't really care - otherwise they'd have come to church anyway) warm mushy feelings.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
While of course I could say "told you so" concerning his idolatry and apostasy, this bit from the Mercury:
quote:
David's move to India was, he admits, prompted by a crisis in his life. He had been made redundant and was barely muddling through the days. "I had quite a big bout of depression," he says. "I was treated by the doctor. I felt I had to do something. "Three days after arriving in India, I threw my tablets away and I've not suffered with it since."
actually makes me a lot more cautious than I was before. Clearly Ananda Krishna Das (Ex?-Rev. David Hart) set himself up for the way this has turned out in the end. But apparently, he got pushed a fair bit as well. I assume that he had been made redundant as chaplain of Loughborough University and was then left out in the cold? I was under the impression that he was fairly "high-flying" as far as clergy go, but in that I was apparently quite mistaken. Note to myself: involvement in comittees and organisations does not automatically equate to job prospects... [Disappointed]
Thanks for not rubbing it in and I appreciate your caution. On a point of fact only, the Mercury article makes it clear that he was employed in Derby University after Loughborough. There have been lots of economies in academic employment in the UK in recent years. I doubt whether a chaplaincy/project manager role in building a world faiths centre was top of the list of continuing roles at Derby University. Maybe he was made redundant from that job - or a later one? I don't necessarily see anyone pushing. The only thing which is clear is that he seems to have been out of parish pastoral work for many years from 1990 (and may never have got back to it).

However one looks at these things, his reported views in 1994 probably did not help his mainstream prospects. The move to India does seem harmonious with his long term interest in Hinduism (going back at least to 1990 according to the Mercury). You can see clearly enough that a move there must have seemed attractive.

But there are lots and lots of gaps - inevitably - and I'm done speculating. One thing is for sure. I'm glad I'm not the Bishop of Ely.

[Votive]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Okay, so we have all the thousand year old, mutually exclusive faiths line up to be audited by the government for soundness, PCness or likelihood to espouse the government's pet policies as the work of whatever God you happen to belive in on that particular day of the week?

Er, I suppose you could push for that. It wasn't what I was thinking of.
quote:
since when has inclusion been the highest of all values?
Inclusion's got nothing to do with it. It's about not being excluded by having to submit to an alien culture in order to participate. So most people have a realistic chance of opting in - if they want to.
quote:
I thought faithfulness to God occupied that place, personally.
How do you decide what that means. From the Mercury article it looks like David Hart has been and is being faithful to God. It's all about the personally.
quote:
But according to you, what does justify this is some sort of national supplier of warm mushy 'spiritual' feeelings on demand.
No. You're lying. I've not said that at all.
quote:
There are, of course, those people in all the faiths who would rather serve God than give some people (who don't really care - otherwise they'd have come to church anyway) warm mushy feelings.
Some people don't go to church because people there spout drivel about warm mushy feelings. My local parish church is not like that at all, but I don't go because the services assume I want to hear traditional Christian things about God.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As something like having a commitment to God and to truth, having had their system of faith audited by the authority appointed for the purpose (nominally anyway) by the government of the day. A bit like the Charity Commissioners, perhaps.

You are going to have government bureaucrats decide what systems of faith have a proper commitment to God and to truth? Are you out of your mind? At best you will get a mountain of entirely pointless red tape. At worst you will get a state-determined spiritual phasing, patrolled by police and tax office.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
What - and whom - is this "established Church" for?
All of the people in all of the parishes in all of the country. Just like now, but with the possibility of avoiding the current Nicean Christianity filter that effectively excludes the majority of the population.
An "established" church is a violation both of the fundamental democratic principle of separating church and state (which developed out of Christian ideas) and of the fundamental ecclesial principle of spiritual self-governance. To solve this specifically British problem by establishing all other religions, cults and sects is like containing the fire in one house by burning down the entire city around it...

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Or take the view that the Church of England is in fact more about meeting the spiritual needs of the people entrusted to its care, the curing of their souls, than about reflecting for all time the current management's attachment to one story and one system of faith.

As soon as you provide any spiritual content, you'll simply be creating a new state-sponsored religion. (Or is your aim free psychotherapy for the masses?) If your suggestion is that the state should invest into the spiritual care for its citizens, and that access to the funds should not be limited to the CofE, then that's a suggestion worthy a discusson. But please stop calling that funding body a "church".

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Some people don't go to church because people there spout drivel about warm mushy feelings. My local parish church is not like that at all, but I don't go because the services assume I want to hear traditional Christian things about God.

How very dare they!

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eh, my favorite church that I've lived near was extremely liberal and gave out many strange and non-traditional opinions about God. I found many of them meaningful indeed.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You are going to have government bureaucrats decide what systems of faith have a proper commitment to God and to truth? At best you will get a mountain of entirely pointless red tape. At worst you will get a state-determined spiritual phasing, patrolled by police and tax office.

Neither Church nor government like to think of it in those terms, but that's not far from what the Church of England is now. All bishops and archbishops have to be approved by the state. The system works because both sides choose to not intervene (too much, too visibly) in each other's affairs.
quote:
An "established" church is a violation both of the fundamental democratic principle of separating church and state (which developed out of Christian ideas) and of the fundamental ecclesial principle of spiritual self-governance. To solve this specifically British problem by establishing all other religions, cults and sects is like containing the fire in one house by burning down the entire city around it...

I'm thinking the opposite. Freeing the different Christian traditions within the existing Church of England from establishment, giving them self-governance, but with a newly-constituted body whose business is the oversight of how they and possibly other faith organisations present themselves. If their presentations meet certain standards - for example, a commitment to God and to truth, a rational theology, and explicit acknowledgement of what's a faith claim and what is not - they'd qualify for whatever benefits might come from being part of the national Church. But only if they want to.
quote:
As soon as you provide any spiritual content, you'll simply be creating a new state-sponsored religion. (Or is your aim free psychotherapy for the masses?) If your suggestion is that the state should invest into the spiritual care for its citizens, and that access to the funds should not be limited to the CofE, then that's a suggestion worthy a discusson. But please stop calling that funding body a "church".

I'm not thinking of it as a funding body, although if funds were available that might be one of the benefit of being part of the national Church, along perhaps with use of Church buildings.

But as it is, the Church of England is already not a church. If anything it's several, mostly working round each other, sometimes not. It's the ChurchOfEngland, a totally unique institution. I think that would still be the right name for the kind of new body I'm imagining.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dave, I have to admit I still don't have a very clear idea of what you think the New CofE would look like... can you identify any institution in the world that resembles it? Or a series of institutions that resemble it in certain regards?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If their presentations meet certain standards - for example, a commitment to God and to truth, a rational theology, and explicit acknowledgement of what's a faith claim and what is not - they'd qualify for whatever benefits might come from being part of the national Church.

So who is to be the censor or inquisitor who decides if these "presentations" meet your standards? Maybe yourself?

Such government control of religion is a non-starter. It didn't work in the old Soviet Union, it doesn't work in China right now.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Dave, I have to admit I still don't have a very clear idea of what you think the New CofE would look like... can you identify any institution in the world that resembles it? Or a series of institutions that resemble it in certain regards?

Not off the top of my head. I don't know what it would look like, just imagining possibilities.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So who is to be the censor or inquisitor who decides if these "presentations" meet your standards? Maybe yourself?

Yep. Calvinists needn't bother to apply.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having read this thread I have to say that I've more respect for the guy now that he has openly become a Hindu. I, like others, do not feel it is right to vow to teach and uphold Anglican teachings (which in their normal and traditional understanding are, I think really very clear on matters such as praying to images of other religions).

I too feel disquiet at a good deal of religious syncretism. Frequently there is an attempt to minimise the differences in a way that can unwittingly be disrespectful to the other religion in question, and misleading to Christian laity. I am old fashioned enough to believe that the clergy's role is to lead the people towards Christ. I, (being Anglican) think it is not too much to expect that this should be done within the established doctrines and principles within Scripture, reason and tradition, and I rely on them to do so. I therefore feel unsettled when a priest steps outside this tradition without being open about what he or she is doing. Furthermore, it seems to me to be nonsensical to say that it is impossible to say that David Hart behaved in an un-Anglican way. Yes, Anglican doctrine is flexible but at the end of the day it must have meaning beyond a simple word that people impose entirely different and non-overlapping values upon. Otherwise the concepts such as church, Christianity, worship, Christ etc etc etc are simply meaningless and we might as well spend our Sunday mornings sleeping in late and having a large cooked breakfast (which is what I am increasingly doing these days).

By contrast, what David Hart decides to do as a private individual is his own affair and his own responsibility.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Duh....

quote:
I, like others, do not feel it is right to vow to teach and uphold Anglican teachings...
Let me add to this "...and then flatly contradict them in word or deed".

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358

 - Posted      Profile for humblebum   Email humblebum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yep. Calvinists needn't bother to apply.

How very broad minded and inclusive of you, Dave. [Roll Eyes]

I must say I can't see that there's any value at all in setting up a government office who's job it is to decide what a commitment to God and truth looks like in practice. There's just no way any civil servant would go near that one with a ten foot barge pole. And even if such a body could be assembled, calling it the "Church of England" would stretch the definition of "Church" many times further than you claim it is stretched by the existing CofE, Dave.

Just disestablish and be done with it. I somehow doubt that RCs, Quakers, Sikhs, Muslims etc have any particular interest in any further privileges of establishment than what they currently enjoy.

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
You've worked it out? What did he mean?

I believe that The Coiled Spring's sentence that I quoted translates as
quote:
It seems like the Bishop of Ely isn't a regular reader of the Ship of Fools discussion boards, or else he would have heard about the latest news of Rev Hart's interfaith experimentation.


--------------------
humblebum

Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yep. Calvinists needn't bother to apply.

How very broad minded and inclusive of you, Dave. [Roll Eyes]
My comment may need a sense of the ridiculous to appreciate.
quote:
I must say I can't see that there's any value at all in setting up a government office who's job it is to decide what a commitment to God and truth looks like in practice.
I agree. It would be a bizarre idea.

If on the other hand the job was to decide whether written submissions from faith groups were, say, decent and honest, whether their advertising matched their practice, or whether their constitutions met requirements for charitable status, I believe both civil servants and on occasion the judiciary do it all the time.

The definition of the Church of England is already enshrined in law. Why not update that law to reflect current practice, as parliament tends to do now and again in other areas when someone uses an out-of-date piece of legislation to make the law look an ass?

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Barnabas:
quote:
I'm glad I'm not the Bishop of Ely.
Oooh, if I could be the bishop of Ely for just one meeting.... [Mad] I'd have his guts for flaming garters.

[ 11. September 2006, 12:59: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By the way Dave, please can I pitch my tent in your fantastic Big Top of faith? Yeah, like I have any inclination whatsoever to be part of the hideous freak show known as "Dave Marshall's Faith Circus". It sounds like something out of The League of Gentlemen. David Hart has the spiritual credibility of Papa Lazarou. "Hello Dave! Ganesh is my wife now!"
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
people need symbols with fixed meanings to allow communication to happen reliably.

Almost. Yes, people need to agree on the meaning of the symbols (words, gestures, whatever) they use in order for clear communication to occur between them. But that doesn't fix an objective meaning to that symbol that is true for all persons everywhere. Other people elsewhere in time and space may attach a different meaning to the same symbol. Meanings are never fixed in the absolute sense.

quote:
they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it... ...my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them;
Yes, it is clear from the tradition that God forbids idolatry. But what does this actually mean ?

I'm sure you see that there is some difference between worshipping a statue of a golden calf and worshipping the one true God using a statue of a golden calf as some sort of aid or focus. You don't seem to think that difference a very significant one.

I see the offence of idolatry as being precisely that difference - confusing the medium with the message, so to speak. (Jesus' beef with the Pharisees was that they'd kept the form/medium and lost the substance/message).

You obviously don't agree. So where are the boundaries of idolatry for you ? If someone chooses to worship the one true God by prostrating themselves before
- a crucifix,
- a cross,
- a statue of a white dove,
- a statue of a blue dove,
- a "sacred heart" poster,
- a statue of St Peter,
- a cubist portrait intended to represent Jesus,
- a poster of a burning bush
- a piece of abstract art
which of them is committing idolatry by your definition ?

By my definition, any of them might be - each starts to commit idolatry if and when their attachment to the symbol gets in the way of following Christ (eg. by causing them to become uncharitable to their neighbour).

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm sure you see that there is some difference between worshipping a statue of a golden calf and worshipping the one true God using a statue of a golden calf as some sort of aid or focus. You don't seem to think that difference a very significant one.

Rather, God doesn't think that the difference is a very significant one, as mentioned above and as obvious precisely from the story of the golden calf - because the Israelites were using it basically in the latter sense. They wanted to give thanks through the calf to their "gods" who were in the process of leading them out of Egypt, i.e., they were addressing Yahweh and not some alien god like Baal. And just so that you have no chance to think that God was angry because they were fuzzy about the number of "gods" that were leading them, Aaron the high priest declares it officially to be a celebration for the Lord. Nevertheless God wasn't happy, He wasn't happy at all...

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You obviously don't agree. So where are the boundaries of idolatry for you ? If someone chooses to worship the one true God by prostrating themselves before
- a crucifix,
- a cross,
- a statue of a white dove,
- a statue of a blue dove,
- a "sacred heart" poster,
- a statue of St Peter,
- a cubist portrait intended to represent Jesus,
- a poster of a burning bush
- a piece of abstract art
which of them is committing idolatry by your definition?

I've already mentioned it above. Latria can be paid "through" any depiction of a Person of the Holy Trinity in an "incarnation" that God has actually chosen. That is primarily Jesus Christ, but it will do for the Holy Spirit as dove (as per Christ's baptism, when the Holy Spirit was perceived in this form) and I guess the burning bush will be OK, too. Hyperdulia can be paid "through" any depiction of Mary. Dulia can be paid "through" any depiction of a saint (and angel), in particular to those the Church has officially canonized. In short: If God stepped into the world in this form, you can use a depiction of it for worship (latria). God has "realized" this symbol for us to use. If you can meet the person as part of the communion of saints in heaven, you can use a depicition for veneration ([hyper-]dulia). They are alive in God and hence can receive our admiration and can pray for us. In your list, abstract art would generally not work, neither would say a landscape painting. However, those can of course still be used for "meditation" (in the Western, not Eastern, sense). I can for example marvel at the greatness of God's creation through the aid of an impressive landscape painting.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
By the way Dave, please can I pitch my tent in your fantastic Big Top of faith?

Nope, sorry. Your presentation would have to show that you had a reasoned theology and explicitly stated faith claims.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
By the way Dave, please can I pitch my tent in your fantastic Big Top of faith?

Nope, sorry. Your presentation would have to show that you had a reasoned theology and explicitly stated faith claims.
Are you suggesting that having a reasoned theology and explicitly stated faith claims is a good thing or a bad thing Dave? From what I've read of your posts I think I'll plump for the latter. Which leads me to the following question: would you grant me a pitch if I worked really hard at having a completely unreasonable and intentionally obscurantist faith claim?

[ 11. September 2006, 21:20: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
would you grant me a pitch if I worked really hard at having a completely unreasonable and intentionally obscurantist faith claim?

I cannot believe you can't let this go. Look back at the context of my original comment. It was a fair exchange.

You've no interest in what I believe because it happens to contradict what you believe. The same reason I guess you're so antagonistic towards David Hart. From very different perspectives, we both say your narrow evangelicalism is completely unreasonable.

I don't know what you'd like the Church of England to become. If you're at all interested, I suspect it'd be something evangelical, something spelt out, so you know who's in and who's out, who's saved and who's toast. I don't expect the Church to reflect my faith, just to not exclude it. But of course you have a problem with that.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358

 - Posted      Profile for humblebum   Email humblebum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
I must say I can't see that there's any value at all in setting up a government office who's job it is to decide what a commitment to God and truth looks like in practice.
I agree. It would be a bizarre idea.

If on the other hand the job was to decide whether written submissions from faith groups were, say, decent and honest, whether their advertising matched their practice, or whether their constitutions met requirements for charitable status, I believe both civil servants and on occasion the judiciary do it all the time.

I guess. Just can't see them making decisions about anything more complicated than charitable status, though. Specifically, I just can't see them making any sort of theological decisions.

And without any theological decision making power, I see no meaningful reason at all to call this government agency "the Church of England".

--------------------
humblebum

Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools