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: What would a "Spongite" Church be like? (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: What would a "Spongite" Church be like?
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Oh yes, and talking openly and loudly about Christian belief in terms of "magic and hokum" is seriously aggressive per se. That you can't see that is entirely your problem.


What part of "talking snake" do you not think is "magic and hokum"?

Supernatural <> Magic and hokum. You just want to be nasty, don't you? You want to slam traditionalist Christians, and then whine that they're persecuting you. Puh-leeze. Get a mirror.

And even if you think it's magic and hokum, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THOSE WORDS to describe it. It's the words that are aggressive. Lots of people don't believe in the supernatural. We can get along just fine with them because they're not trying to be nasty about it. If you are nasty about it, people will react in the way that they react to people who are being nasty (go figure). And you're being nasty.

[ 02. August 2010, 22:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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 RadicalWhig:
quote:
And I am not convinced if this is an attractive package, apart from a person already coming from a Christian background and trying to salvage something.

It's a hard sell, to be sure. Brittle certainties sell like hot cakes. Yet I am convinced that there are many "unchurched" people out there waiting for something credible like this, which does not offend their sense or reason, yet impresses a call to new life on their hearts. I see it as, potentially, quite a (small-e) evangelical and missionary movement - going out to "save the lost", showing that there's a reasonable way of wholeness between the contemporary extremes of consumer hedonism and religious fundamentalism.

The problem is, Christianity just isn't cool anymore. Branding your strain of humanism with Christian words will do you no favours with the British population, from the reactions of Mousethief and Ingo it doesn't sound like you'll have much luck in Germany or the USA either. In fact, I think your new religion's attachment to Christianity will harm you. Christianity isn't sexy, it isn't going to win you members and it isn't going to make people respect you. Most people's view of Christianity involves some fundie nutters, some hippies with sandals and rainbow strap guitars, an annoying preacher down their street and the odd Anglican vicar who is a bit wishy washy really.

The only people who jump into an organisation with this sort of image problem are the ones who decide that it's really all true, God is a real person and they can speak to him. Without this, do you really think that associating your nontheistic dogma with this PR disaster of a church will win you any converts from the public? I don't see that happening, which is why non-realism will always be largely parasitic on mainstream belief.

--------------------
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
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930

 - Posted      Profile for Orlando098   Email Orlando098   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for the further thoughts and clarifications RadicalWhig.

I did for a short while attend a C of E church with a very liberal reputation - which was clear from its library and small group reading, prayer and discussion sessions, but not so obvious to the casual observer from the main services, which followed usual C of E style. I did find it a little tricky to recite all the prayers/creeds etc, while having come to a non-literalist and doubting position in my head (I was reading Borg and Crossan and so on at the time).

I guess you can see it as basically traditional and communal and a form of poetry and drama etc from which metaphorical meanings can be extracted (and which you can enjoy taking part in if you suspend your overly rational and critical side) but this is not intuitively all that straightforward. But I guess your SORT church would be more radically revised than that and no one would be reciting the Nicene Creed?

After that though, I moved to France and have nothing similar around here, so drifted away from any sort of regular Christian practice. I now waver from being bascially atheist/Humanist to being a somewhat agnostic SORT of some vague kind. Considering an atheist outlook seems quite sensible, looked at logically and rationally, but it also depresses me. I recently came back to hoping more that there may be some sort of life after death and loving higher power after reading Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel's new book about NDEs, Consciousness Beyond Life. And I have an emotional/cultural link with Christianity that doesn't go away (I guess it comes down to the "give me a child until he is seven..." thing). The problem is I can't read the Bible anymore without coming across things that seem incredible or wrong or unhelpful mixed in with the inspiring and uplifting bits (and studying the Bible and theology and church history etc, has made it harder rather than easier, which seems perverse if God exists and wants people to be Christian), am not even sure if there is a God listening if I pray and am doubtful Jesus was more than human, so I am not able to be much of a Christian in any usual sense. I don't know if much will change short of some Road to Damascus type of thing.. But perhaps I could still be some sort of SORT if I had a SORT church near me.. [Frown]

Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
And now I don't get what Bullfrog is saying at all.

That is, on the one hand he seems to be saying that Christianity is not a human invention and therefore it should be accepted, and on the other hand he seems to be saying that it is a human invention and that its humanness should be embraced.

Not that it matters much anymore.

I was at that point starting to come down with a migraine, and dealing with a sweet-but-rascally 2 year old. Forgive me my lack of coherence. Feeling a bit better now..

Jesus Christ is, by bog-standard Christian teaching, fully human and fully divine. I think even Spong thinks so, though he's ashamed of the whole "God" thing he talks about Jesus as if he were somehow irreplaceable. The person that he was and the life he lived were then filtered through the more or less direct experiences of him into the gospels and epistles. These were then picked apart and interpreted into the core dogmas of the Church. It's a human process, often embarrassingly human, but still human. And this is the only way anyone can reach Christ, indirectly, filtered through human experience.

To try to talk to the historical Jesus now is impossible because the historical Jesus has been dead to this earth for almost 2000 years now. If you separate Jesus from the Bible, you're probably on some level making a projection of yourself. To do something like that, to me, is very, very dangerous. Most of the nastiest "Christians" in history were only doing exactly that. They wanted a Jesus who ultimately reflected them to the exclusion of all others. In a sense, keeping the dogma together protects people from fashioning Jesus into a personal idol. And a lot of Christians today who have forgotten Jesus do exactly that...you've got white straight American Jesus, etc. It's disgusting.

At the same time, I'm fascinated that a humanist can only tolerate humanity when it does things that are deemed acceptable by humanism, and wishes to jettison everything else merely because it doesn't fit neatly into the humanist's worldview. We're every bit as human as the pre-moderns were. Our thoughts will probably look just as silly in 2000 years. It gives me a little humility.

And yeah, we are in some ways very close. I guess the difference is I've made the shift into post-modernity, which is how I can simultaneously say the Creed has its place, that it is fully sacred, and at the same time a product of a pre-modern worldview and full of things that obviously aren't scientific.

The things that seem to get Spong's and your knickers in a twist really don't bother me that much. I guess at some point I decided being authentically Christian was more important than crossing all of my epistemological t's and dotting all of my i's. The goal for me (as I think it is for you) is formation, not verifying truth claims (thank Dr Barry Bryant for that line, though I'm bending it a bit.) The issue (or one of them) is that the myth, I think, is critical to Christian formation, and it's quite possible to take it deadly-seriously and not take it literally. There are all kinds of people who can respect tradition and orthodoxy without being what Spong derides as fundamentalists. I'm kind of gobsmacked that a person with enough brains to write a whole book isn't able to get his head around this and continues to insist on this ridiculous war between reasonable people and fundamentalists. Most people are somewhere in between. Believe it or not I can simultaneously preach the gospel like I mean it for what it is and not deny the theory of evolution.

I think Anglican_Brat kind of made the same point. I think the Virgin Birth as it relates to the incarnation is important as a matter of Christian dogma and understanding Jesus Christ's role as the foundation of the Church. Whether they happened historically is really kind of irrelevant at this point in my life and faith journey (if you'll pardon the cheesy expression.) Much of the gospel carries meanings that go a lot farther than just pointing out an historical event. But you can't get at these by just throwing the whole thing away as a bunch of shit.

In a funny way, to try to make something that follows "Christ" while, at best, treating the bible as an inconvenient guest is incredibly unscientific. It's like...I dunno...trying to be a Marxist while insisting that the Communist Manifesto was an unfortunate product of its times and we should all just ignore it until it goes away.

You don't have to take it literally or claim to follow every letter, because in reality almost nobody does, because that would be impossible.

But at least take it seriously and work out what it means to you.

Meh, I'm also probably taking this conversation too seriously, and you're right that much of it is pointless. Still, I appreciate the chance to work these things out for myself and perhaps for others. [Smile]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Been gone for a page and a bit...

Bullfrog continues to regularly hit the nail on the head. I was sitting here reading the parts on the last page and nodding my head enthusiastically several times - precisely on the bits that Radical Whig said he didn't get.

There is no dichotomy at all between 'being saved' and 'living well'.

I also agree with Bullfrog and Anglican_Brat that an obsession with the mechanics of, say, the Virgin Birth is not really the point.

It's ironic because in order to be focused on saying that such things could NOT happen, you really do have to be looking at the mechanics and decide that the mechanics are impossible.

There are some people who conversely spend a great deal of time working out the mechanics of the miraculous in order to demonstrate HOW a miracle would have occurred.

I do occasionally think such things, but most of the time I've got better stuff to do. Most of the time I just accept that I don't think the writers of the Bible were all trying to create some massive con job/conspiracy, and so wrote things down as they saw them.

I'm pretty set on that whole Resurrection business, though. Seeing as how people were willing to be killed for saying that it happened. I look forward to the day, though, when a Roman record emerges that reports that, just as he was being martyred, someone said "No wait, wait! I was only speaking metaphorically!"

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By the way, I do recognise it's perfectly possible to take something seriously while not believing it's literally true.

It's called a parable. Jesus used them lots.

But to then go on and say that the idea of Jesus telling a parable is ITSELF a parable... now that's interesting. Not sure what the point is, but it's interesting.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 RadicalWhig:
What part of "talking snake" do you not think is "magic and hokum"?

First, I have answered this question above at length concerning the content. Second, right now this is not about content, but about respect and manners, or rather the lack thereof. And thus none of this should be called "magic and hokum", whether the talking serpent is symbolic or literal (or both).

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
That's not a fair comparison. A better comparison might be if you were wanting to join an Atheist Society because, despite believing in God, you want to work with them on issues like church-state separation and secularisation of the public realm.

It was a fair comparison. But OK, you are more fully saying the equivalent of "I don't believe in God and atheists tent to have pride in their stupidities and poison society. Nevertheless, you lot do get it right on church-state separation and secularization of the public realm, albeit of course for the wrong reasons. How about I give you some lectures on why these are important apart from your silly claims? Not that I'm terribly optimistic about atheists getting my points, but I sure would like to get my fingers on your resources." And let's be clear, you do not get to decide whether you sound like that to traditional Christians. Traditional Christians do. Now, the sample thereof on this thread is admittedly small, but their responses are rather consistent, wouldn't you say?

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Oh for the 7000th time: just because you don't take it literally doesn't mean you don't take it seriously.

Let me put it this way: there is a strict time limit on the usefulness of metaphorical belief in the afterlife. Death is as literal as it gets.

By the way, out of pure interest: Do you believe that the crucifixion of Christ was accidental? Or do you believe that he provoked His death in order to establish some really nifty metaphors?

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
And all that, despite the fact that Jesus was killed and never rose again. ... I cannot substantiate this, I'm speaking here only from my own interpretation of my own experience.

Unless you are two millennia old, your own experience has nothing to do with the question whether Jesus rose again or not.

quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
In other words, we make it up because we really, really, really want to believe it.

It's a bit more complicated. But anyhow, wishing for something doesn't render it untrue or non-existent.

--------------------
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
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190

 - Posted      Profile for RadicalWhig   Author's homepage   Email RadicalWhig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me put it this way: there is a strict time limit on the usefulness of metaphorical belief in the afterlife. Death is as literal as it gets.


As far as I'm concerned there is no afterlife, and heaven and hell talk is irrelevant. No heart, no oxygen, no brain, no mind, no life.

quote:
By the way, out of pure interest: Do you believe that the crucifixion of Christ was accidental? Or do you believe that he provoked His death in order to establish some really nifty metaphors?
He got killed because he reinterpreted Jewish tradition in ways which didn't please the Jewish authorities, and because the Romans were fearful of political upstarts. He was killed for the same reason as many other radicals, revolutionaries and reformers were killed. He wasn't "setting up" a metaphor. The idea of the resurrection was constructed by others after the event. They might very soon afterwards (certainly after Paul's mystical experience) have believed in some sort of bodily or quasi-bodily resurrection(*), but I believe that is best interpreted metaphorically.

(*) He can eat fish, but also appear in the middle of locked rooms. Go figure.

--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)

Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
RadicalWhig, the more I think about it, your problem with the miraculous - and conversely my NOT having a problem from it - really does come from an axiomatic level.

As soon as you move from a personal God to an impersonal force underlying the universe, then the rationale for allowing 'God' to act outside the rules completely collapses. The option for a miraculous story being true disappears as a matter of basic definitions. The only options left are 'false' or 'metaphorical'.

Conversely, though, you need to recognise that for those of us who believe in a personal God, there is no reason to automatically rule out the 'true' option. The concept of something being 'impossible' for God, just because it doesn't normally happen, makes no sense. Only logical impossibilities make sense, not physical impossibilities.

Persons can decide to act in unusual ways. Rules can't.

This is why shouting 'talking snakes!' at someone doesn't really achieve anything. Whether or not I believe the snake talked isn't the issue so much as the fact that I have no AUTOMATIC reason to believe that the snake COULDN'T have talked.

A more fruitful line of discussion would be to explore why you've concluded that God is a force rather than personal. I assume there's more to that decision than watching too many Star Wars movies. [Biased]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190

 - Posted      Profile for RadicalWhig   Author's homepage   Email RadicalWhig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps it ultimately comes down to this:

Your faith is in, "Father Son and Holy Spirit" and/or "The Bible".

My faith is in "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité", with The God That Might Actually Exist as a sort of vague notional idea in the background. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité seems to sum up "the whole of the law and the prophets" pretty well. What is Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité but the Christian's "love thy neighbour" and the Stoic's "live according to Nature" combined into one pure distillation?

As I see it, the value of your Father, Son and Holy Spirit story goes only so far as it supports and validates my Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.

As you see it, the value of my Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité obsession goes only so far as it reflects and acknowledges your Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

To me, the Gospel, Jesus, dharma, natural law, living well, all that stuff - points us back to humanity, to our inter-human relationships, and towards liberté, egalité, fraternité. To you, it all points past and beyond that, to the God-man who is going to miraculously put it all right one day.

In other words, we follow different religions. But I nick quite a lot from yours (which I then reinterpret), in the same way as yours nicked a great deal from Judaism (and, for all we know, the Jews nicked theirs from the Babylonians and the Summarians).

The central ritual of my religion will be the sharing of bread and wine - for what great symbol of liberté, egalité, fraternité can there be?

The central figure of my religion will be Jesus of Nazareth, a brave (if ultimately failed, in his own time) radical reformer, who introduced a sublime grace-based, love-based ethic, reflecting the principles of liberté, egalité and fraternité which are key to natural law/dharma. Many others besides will be honoured as saints (those who have worked for Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité) and as prophets (whose who have discovered its principles).

The central book of my religion will be the Bible. The New Testament will now be known as the "Middle Testament", with the Gospel of Thomas included and the Pauline letters removed. Although important, it is to be acknowledged as a patchy and partial record, to be approached and studied in the same way any other piece of ancient literature. Rousseau's "Social Contract", Mazzini's "On the Duties of Man", and Paine's "Age of Reason" will form part of the corpus of our devotional literature.

The central private devotion of my religion will contemplative prayer, understood as a sort of honest meditative self-talk, where the only one actually listening is our own conscience.

The central motif will be the idea of resurrection, understood as a metaphorical way of describing something that happens all the time, whenever grace, love and peace are experienced.

The central institution will be the church, or assembly, which is to be understood as mutual-aid and benevolent society for the encouragement of well-living and for the service of humanity.

The sad thing is, I'm only half joking. Maybe not even half.

NB: The "you" in this is not addressed to any one person. It might not fit orfeo, mousethief, bullfrog, IngoB, or anyone else 100%, but I think it is a fair summation of the creedalist position as advanced by several people on this thread.

--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)

Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

In other words, we follow different religions. But I nick quite a lot from yours (which I then reinterpret), in the same way as yours nicked a great deal from Judaism (and, for all we know, the Jews nicked theirs from the Babylonians and the Summarians).

But what we nicked was the centrepiece.

What you're nicking is what WE regard as the casing.

[ 03. August 2010, 01:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190

 - Posted      Profile for RadicalWhig   Author's homepage   Email RadicalWhig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
RadicalWhig, the more I think about it, your problem with the miraculous - and conversely my NOT having a problem from it - really does come from an axiomatic level.

As soon as you move from a personal God to an impersonal force underlying the universe, then the rationale for allowing 'God' to act outside the rules completely collapses. The option for a miraculous story being true disappears as a matter of basic definitions. The only options left are 'false' or 'metaphorical'.

Conversely, though, you need to recognise that for those of us who believe in a personal God, there is no reason to automatically rule out the 'true' option. The concept of something being 'impossible' for God, just because it doesn't normally happen, makes no sense. Only logical impossibilities make sense, not physical impossibilities.

Persons can decide to act in unusual ways. Rules can't.

This is why shouting 'talking snakes!' at someone doesn't really achieve anything. Whether or not I believe the snake talked isn't the issue so much as the fact that I have no AUTOMATIC reason to believe that the snake COULDN'T have talked.

A more fruitful line of discussion would be to explore why you've concluded that God is a force rather than personal. I assume there's more to that decision than watching too many Star Wars movies. [Biased]

Hmm. Interesting.

You are right - I reject the idea of a Personal God. It's just too obviously a human invention, and a fairly primitive one at that. (Now, to address Bullfrog's point, I have absolutely no problem with human things - except when we pretend they are God).

--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)

Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The point is, without the Resurrection, all high-flying rhetoric about "liberty, equality, and fraternity" is foolishness. The meaning of the Crucifixation without the Resurrection is that Caesar has won and has crushed the power of justice.

So, while I understand the desire to see the Resurrection as purely metaphorical, I would argue that in the end, you rob any effective power in the Resurrection story if you see it simply as a purely fictional narrative.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190

 - Posted      Profile for RadicalWhig   Author's homepage   Email RadicalWhig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

In other words, we follow different religions. But I nick quite a lot from yours (which I then reinterpret), in the same way as yours nicked a great deal from Judaism (and, for all we know, the Jews nicked theirs from the Babylonians and the Summarians).

But what we nicked was the centrepiece.

What you're nicking is what WE regard as the casing.

No, I'm nicking what you think is the casing - but it's actually the centrepiece! Living well, dharma, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - the grace-based ethic - those are the real centrepieces. All the God-stuff is just irrelevant casing!

Checkmate Creedalists!!!

--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)

Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190

 - Posted      Profile for RadicalWhig   Author's homepage   Email RadicalWhig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The point is, without the Resurrection, all high-flying rhetoric about "liberty, equality, and fraternity" is foolishness. The meaning of the Crucifixation without the Resurrection is that Caesar has won and has crushed the power of justice.

I disagree: the man died, but the teaching and example live on, and are "resurrected" through a community of inspired people.

quote:

So, while I understand the desire to see the Resurrection as purely metaphorical, I would argue that in the end, you rob any effective power in the Resurrection story if you see it simply as a purely fictional narrative.

I disagree - you rob it of power if you rely on its unlikely and unverifiable historical truth. You realise its power when you free it from such claims.

--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)

Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

In other words, we follow different religions. But I nick quite a lot from yours (which I then reinterpret), in the same way as yours nicked a great deal from Judaism (and, for all we know, the Jews nicked theirs from the Babylonians and the Summarians).

But what we nicked was the centrepiece.

What you're nicking is what WE regard as the casing.

No, I'm nicking what you think is the casing - but it's actually the centrepiece! Living well, dharma, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - the grace-based ethic - those are the real centrepieces. All the God-stuff is just irrelevant casing!

Checkmate Creedalists!!!

Yes, that's what I said - what WE regard as the casing. Not what YOU regard as the casing.

Which is precisely why you find people on this thread expressing the views to you that your religion is devoid of meaning.

I was merely making the point that when Christians 'nicked' their religion from the Jews, what they nicked was central to both religions.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

In other words, we follow different religions. But I nick quite a lot from yours (which I then reinterpret), in the same way as yours nicked a great deal from Judaism (and, for all we know, the Jews nicked theirs from the Babylonians and the Summarians).

But what we nicked was the centrepiece.

What you're nicking is what WE regard as the casing.

No, I'm nicking what you think is the casing - but it's actually the centrepiece! Living well, dharma, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - the grace-based ethic - those are the real centrepieces. All the God-stuff is just irrelevant casing!

Checkmate Creedalists!!!

That is the basis for the argument. Metaphysics versus ethics.

Though chess has objective rules so you always know when "checkmate" happens. In theology...objective rules... [Killing me]

Freedom is a very strange word. Egalitarianism usually runs at precise cross-purposes to freedom. Brotherhood is a basic virtue of the Church going back to Acts. That's why they called each other "brothers" in the bible. It was also the basis for pagan attacks that Christianity was incestuous.

Grace is another word that can mean totally different things depending on which theologian you read. Is this Lutheran grace or Wesleyan grace we're talking about? Depending on what tradition you follow, grace can take you in almost exactly opposite directions.

And I just couldn't resist noticing that "grace" is much more a Pauline concept than a gospel one. I thought you were ditching the epistles...?

[ 03. August 2010, 01:33: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In pretending or establish a religion, you are pretending to be God, or at least God's personal spokesperson, or the closest thing we have.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I disagree: the man died, but the teaching and example live on, and are "resurrected" through a community of inspired people.

It's funny. At moments like these, I imagine that if I had your... I suppose 'theology' is the right word... I'd be sitting here with my drafter's hat on wondering why on earth anyone ever chose to use such an appallingly ambiguous reference to 'resurrection'.

We do often talk in our language about ideas or 'living on' or 'outliving' someone.

The thing is, we don't talk about the IDEAS having been 'resurrected' unless the IDEAS died.

So saying that Jesus was 'resurrected' instead of saying that his ideas 'lived on'... well, maybe I shouldn't ascribe modern English idioms to 1st Century Greek/Aramaic. But from your perspective they must look damned silly to have chosen that expression.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eh, it's because, on some level, everyone realizes that a resurrection-less Christianity ceases to be meaningful. Making up this stuff about the perfect idea or morality or somesuch secondary attribute is a workaround, a way to try to capture the joy of the resurrection without that embarrassing pre-modern worldview. Heck, even the pre-moderns had their gnostics.

Even Spong has to find something to say on Easter morning.

I think a lot of people do it in some sense, and I'll grant Spong and RW credit for being so frank about it.

[ 03. August 2010, 01:47: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Freedom is a very strange word. Egalitarianism usually runs at precise cross-purposes to freedom. Brotherhood is a basic virtue of the Church going back to Acts. That's why they called each other "brothers" in the bible. It was also the basis for pagan attacks that Christianity was incestuous.
The atheist philosopher Thomas Hobbes made the exact same point. "Freedom", "Equality" and "Fraternity" are words frequently contested by everyone. Free market libertarians interpret Freedom to support a minimal state which allows corporations free rein to do anything they want, whereas socialists claim that true freedom requires an active State to limit the power of corporations.

Hobbes' view is that ultimately the Sovereign must put an end to the endless contestation of ideas and impose a uniform interpretation to maintain security and prevent chaos.

Loyalty to any abstract ideas such as "justice", "freedom", and "equality" always runs the risk of subjectivism. Do you really believe in justice, or do you really believe in your own interpretation of what justice is, which incidentally and not surprisingly often comes off as self-serving and petty.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Don't get me started on justice...

Would you like yours retributive or restorative?

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, you're not going to get a 'pax' out of me if you follow it up with comments to someone else along the lines of "I'm a Christian and, unfortunately, I have to call you one".

At least I'm calling you and Dingy Sailor one. You two probably wouldn't even give RadicalWhig the benefit of the doubt.

So who's evolved? Who is grown up? I'm trying to meet people half way even if I don't agree with them.

You just excommunicate them.


quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But who is going to follow an invented religion, if they know it's an invented religion?

Bingo.
Perhaps that explains our emptying churches.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
frankly Dingy Sailor. I couldn't care less. Worship your own God. Carry on. As you were. I'm still a Christian, and unfortunately, I have to call you one.
Well thankyou, what have I ever done to offend you?
You dared to disagree with her. But take heart, she's already apologized to orfeo for her nastiness to him. Perhaps she will apologize to us as well.

Although I'd settle for a cessation of the hate and spite. I try not to ask too much.

Likewise. I try not to ask for too much. But expecting love, inclusion and kindness from the Creedal Onslaught campaign probably might be.

Actually, its all got to the point of hilarity.

But I suppose drawing lines in the sand and saying who is in and who is out can be an entertaining pastime for some.

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Who is in and who is out of WHAT, though?

That's the question you don't seem to want to wrestle with.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It truly is pointless throwing around concepts of 'in' and 'out' as abstracts without identifying what you're 'in' and 'out' of. They are relational words, not absolutes.

I'm drawn back to the fact that you were suggesting I would be 'included' in a particular kind of church, without considering whether or not it was something that I actually wanted to be 'included' in, or whether it was otherwise a suitable fit for me.

'Inclusion' is not some overriding absolute good. Being 'in' something is not automatically better than being 'out' of it, regardless of what the something is.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Actually, its all got to the point of hilarity.

Personally I don't find hate and spite hilarious. Silly me.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Who is in and who is out of WHAT, though?


Christianity

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

That's the question you don't seem to want to wrestle with.

Yes.

And when I question the arrogance of some, I'm told I'm a hatemonger and spiteful.

Well pardon me roy....I have a weakness....I fight back when someone tells me I'm not a Christian or other people try tell other people they are not Christians.

There really is something very wrong about it. It's like obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit.

On the weekend, we welcomed a Catholic into our church. He wanted to become part of the Anglican communion.

When the bishop "received" him into our church, he said "As a baptised Christian, Bob is already part of the body of Christ, he's just coming to our part of it".

Wise bishop.

I don't know why it bothers me but it does and if I've been short and snappy on this thread its because it gets my back up. I'm a sucker for the underdog. Especially christian ones. That's what the odd painting was about. You were Jesus and you know who the prostitute.

I like role reversal.

I love lines like whoever is the first will be last.

Sprayed liberally with a bit of the foolishness of God is better than human wisdom...

So sue me.

[ 03. August 2010, 05:04: Message edited by: Evensong ]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, you're not going to get a 'pax' out of me if you follow it up with comments to someone else along the lines of "I'm a Christian and, unfortunately, I have to call you one".

At least I'm calling you and Dingy Sailor one. You two probably wouldn't even give RadicalWhig the benefit of the doubt.

So who's evolved? Who is grown up? I'm trying to meet people half way even if I don't agree with them.

You just excommunicate them.


quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But who is going to follow an invented religion, if they know it's an invented religion?

Bingo.
Perhaps that explains our emptying churches.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
frankly Dingy Sailor. I couldn't care less. Worship your own God. Carry on. As you were. I'm still a Christian, and unfortunately, I have to call you one.
Well thankyou, what have I ever done to offend you?
You dared to disagree with her. But take heart, she's already apologized to orfeo for her nastiness to him. Perhaps she will apologize to us as well.

Although I'd settle for a cessation of the hate and spite. I try not to ask too much.

Likewise. I try not to ask for too much. But expecting love, inclusion and kindness from the Creedal Onslaught campaign probably might be.

Actually, its all got to the point of hilarity.

But I suppose drawing lines in the sand and saying who is in and who is out can be an entertaining pastime for some.

I suppose insisting that Jesus actually existed might exclude atheists who contend that he was a figment of our collective imagination.

I suppose insisting that Jesus was a Jew might offend some anti-semites in our congregations.

I suppose insisting that we should give a damn about the poor would exclude some of our corporate CEOs in the church.

It's difficult pleasing everyone [Big Grin]

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Conclusion: it's impossible for some people to disagree with others about the definition of a word, and remain civil.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Who is in and who is out of WHAT, though?


Christianity

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

That's the question you don't seem to want to wrestle with.

Yes.

And when I question the arrogance of some, I'm told I'm a hatemonger and spiteful.

Well pardon me roy....I have a weakness....I fight back when someone tells me I'm not a Christian or other people try tell other people they are not Christians.

There really is something very wrong about it. It's like obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit.

On the weekend, we welcomed a Catholic into our church. He wanted to become part of the Anglican communion.

When the bishop "received" him into our church, he said "As a baptised Christian, Bob is already part of the body of Christ, he's just coming to our part of it".

Wise bishop.

I don't know why it bothers me but it does and if I've been short and snappy on this thread its because it gets my back up. I'm a sucker for the underdog. Especially christian ones. That's what the odd painting was about. You were Jesus and you know who the prostitute.

I like role reversal.

I love lines like whoever is the first will be last.

Sprayed liberally with a bit of the foolishness of God is better than human wisdom...

So sue me.

Your bishop recognizes your friend as a fellow Christian because he comes from a tradition that affirms the ecumenical Creeds. Our baptism in the Holy Trinity signifies our common membership in the catholic Church universal. If a person comes from a group that rejects the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, either the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, Anglicans insist that he or she be baptized in the name of the Holy Three.

But let's consider a different scenario. Suppose you wanted to become Jewish. But in your conversations with your Rabbi, you stated "I believe that Jesus is God, that the Sabbath should be observed on a Sunday, and that we should include the New Testament in our Sabbath readings. But I still want to be Jewish." Would it be fair to expect your rabbi to suddenly change the teachings of his faith to accommodate to your point of view?

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Who is in and who is out of WHAT, though?


Christianity

That's right. Now define Christianity.

Note, not define who's going to Heaven, or who God loves.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I note, by the way, that you did make a previous stab at defining Christianity. It had to do with 'following Christ'.

We've had to rule out literal 'following' on the grounds that it's got nothing to do with geographical location.

So it must be metaphorical 'following' then. Following teachings.

Is it only the teachings that required to DO something? Does it include the teachings that just claim something - the ones that claim something about God's nature, about Jesus' nature, about Jesus dying for sins, about Jesus rebuilding a temple in three days? Do you have to believe the same things that Jesus appears to have believed? Does it matter whether you think Jesus was divine, good, bad, so-so, or completely deluded, so long as you follow his teachings?

If it's purely about the teachings that require doing things... is this a works-based definition of Christianity?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
*sigh*

I've had enough people. I've said my piece. We're just going to go around in circles if I answer again and as Mousethief has pointed out, this is a contentious issue. One that does not bring out the best in me.

Pax

p.s. try not to crucify RadicalWhig too much more. [Two face]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't remember labelling the issue. Just taking issue with being slandered.

[ 03. August 2010, 06:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think RadicalWhig is being crucified. I've often felt the conversation has been quite productive. We've discussed a wide range of things. Disagreeing is not crucifying.

The key difference being, RadicalWhig has expanded and discussed in ways that you are unwilling to imitate.

EDIT: And that's twice the pax has come out when I pose a question that I suspect you can't actually answer.

[ 03. August 2010, 06:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Disagreeing is not crucifying.

Clearly somebody must think it is. It would be arrogant to make the claim you are making, orfeo. Words have no meanings that Evensong doesn't allow them to have.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Disagreeing is not crucifying.

Clearly somebody must think it is. It would be arrogant to make the claim you are making, orfeo. Words have no meanings that Evensong doesn't allow them to have.
[Confused] Mousethief... are you... are you crucifying me? [Eek!]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Om ॐ ओंकार
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Disagreeing is not crucifying.

Clearly somebody must think it is. It would be arrogant to make the claim you are making, orfeo. Words have no meanings that Evensong doesn't allow them to have.
[Confused] Mousethief... are you... are you crucifying me? [Eek!]
Look, I'm just a sucker for those perennial underdogs, Logic and Reason.

So sue me.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's okay Mousethief, I forgive* you.

Here, have a banana.**


*Meaning of 'forgive' subject to change.

**Alternative meaning of 'banana', as previously outlined on this thread, chemical formula H2SO4. Not to be confused with the traditional 'banana' in terms of nutritional value.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147

 - Posted      Profile for sebby   Email sebby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On the other hand, a colleague remarked that she wouldn't want to be a Christian (or join a church) as there simply isn't enough mumbo-jumbo these days. Not enough saints bones and spooky bits and guttering candles, weeping madonnas and amazing miracles. She was a little tempted when visiting Malta on holiday - especially as the services were in Maltese and she couln't understand them.

She has also popped into an English cathedral from time to tome for choir practice but left before the service began as the thought of a sermon horrified her.

She added what REALLY puts her off are the tedious moral bits of Christianity. Wouldnt it be fun to have some sort of church without all that balderdash? Instead of that book entitled (by I can't remember whom) 'Morals without Religion' a more interesting one be 'Religion without Morals.'

--------------------
sebhyatt

Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
To me, the Gospel, Jesus, dharma, natural law, living well, all that stuff - points us back to humanity, to our inter-human relationships, and towards liberté, egalité, fraternité. To you, it all points past and beyond that, to the God-man who is going to miraculously put it all right one day.

In other words, we follow different religions.

I agree with you. And I can see a great deal of value in your religion, and much that you have in common with mine.

What I don't really understand is your apparent expectation that traditional Christianity ('my' religion) should broaden its definitions to include you, when you yourself say that you follow a different faith.

And I'm an inclusivist. I want to set the bounds of acceptable belief in the Church as widely as possible. But you seem to want to have it both ways - to be counted within the definition of Christian while explicitly arguing for a view that says that the things that Christians believe are hokum. You aren't saying that the Church should be wide enough to include those who take his teachings figuratively was well as literally, you are saying that it should include those who are openly scornful of the literal teachings and purport to follow another religion. I don't get it.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Before expecting Christianity to offer itself for RW type syncretism, we should remember that it has previous form in this area. Back in the day, the Romans liked to match up their gods with the local gods of the peoples they conquered, so merging the religions. The Jews, of course, were having none of it, they had one God who they jealously guarded. All this made Palestine was a tough colony to govern and was part of the cause of the Jewish-Roman war that involved the siege of Jerusalem and the fall of Masada that I'm sure we're all familiar with.

It's worth noting that Judaism's other descendant, Islam, is even more strictly monotheistic thn is Christianity. So RW (and anyone else), do you really expect Christianity to be accepting of your attempt to throw Christianity into the mix as one partner among many in your new wisdom religion?

--------------------
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
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190

 - Posted      Profile for RadicalWhig   Author's homepage   Email RadicalWhig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Egalitarianism usually runs at precise cross-purposes to freedom.

We could start a whole other thread on why that's not so!

--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)

Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190

 - Posted      Profile for RadicalWhig   Author's homepage   Email RadicalWhig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
In pretending or establish a religion, you are pretending to be God, or at least God's personal spokesperson, or the closest thing we have.

Nope. I don't see how you could say that. Religion is a human thing, made up by people, in societies, for temporal purposes.

--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)

Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190

 - Posted      Profile for RadicalWhig   Author's homepage   Email RadicalWhig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I don't really understand is your apparent expectation that traditional Christianity ('my' religion) should broaden its definitions to include you, when you yourself say that you follow a different faith.

And I'm an inclusivist. I want to set the bounds of acceptable belief in the Church as widely as possible. But you seem to want to have it both ways - to be counted within the definition of Christian while explicitly arguing for a view that says that the things that Christians believe are hokum. You aren't saying that the Church should be wide enough to include those who take his teachings figuratively was well as literally, you are saying that it should include those who are openly scornful of the literal teachings and purport to follow another religion. I don't get it.

I'd like to be counted "in", and to have my non-literalist, non-revealed, agnostic, deistic, humanitarian, ethical view of Christianity accepted and acknowledged as - at least -as valid as the traditional approach. Not to be confused with the traditional approach, but to be accepted alongside it. The church is big enough for Evangelicals and Catholics. I believe it should be big enough for people like me too.

In terms of criticising others from the inside, that's what the different parties of the church do all the time: my only unpardonable sin is to challenge a few things on which both Catholics and Evangelicals are agreed, and which they both agree are essential - like the trinitarian creeds.

But, as my experience in real life has shown, and as this thread has demonstrated, it isn't. So if you can't join them beat them. If the church isn't big enough for people like me, then out I must go.

--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)

Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Huh. There's some usual suspects here playing their usual reactionary games. We're talking about two kinds of institution. One reinforces our personal take on God - perhaps simply provides a religion to fit our personality. The other is a genuinely open community that is actively searching for truth wherever it may be found.

For the reactionary tendency, defence of the foundations of their prejudices ("prejudgements") takes precedence. Of course that's not an attractive position to state openly, so it comes out as treating discussions like this as sport. Any vulnerable open-to-change participant is legitimate prey for misrepresentation and ridicule. The idea of a non-doctrinaire church is inconceivable, so they fall back on random bits of their tradition's orthodoxy and use it as weapon (it's only a paint scatter gun, but it makes constructive dialogue messy and difficult).

For the rest of us, like I suspect Spong, certainly like Richard Holloway and others, who don't feel the need to commit to prejudged positions, who find security in acknowledging the provisionality of human understanding, we want an institution that provides a framework for community that will enable us to keep growing our knowledge for living. The fixed points we look for are what will build constructive, respectful relationships with whoever is willing to engage with us, whether or not they inhabit our tradition.

I don't know how much value there is in this kind of discussion. It probably only confirms most reactionaries in their prejudices. For me it reinforces what I guess should be obvious anyway - if we want change in the institutions of Christianity they're not going to roll over and give it to us. We have to work harder than the conservatives, write books that make better sense, engage in church politics at every level of decision-making, in order to overcome the dead-weight inertia of institutional opposition to change.

I'm not especially hopeful that fundamental change is a real possibility. But mindless conformity and ensuing total irrelevence to all right-thinking people is the certain outcome if no-one within the church is seen to be giving it a go. And anyway, what line would Jesus take. I don't recall him being very conservative.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Likewise. I try not to ask for too much. But expecting love, inclusion and kindness from the Creedal Onslaught campaign probably might be.

Actually, its all got to the point of hilarity.

But I suppose drawing lines in the sand and saying who is in and who is out can be an entertaining pastime for some.

Last I checked, RadicalWhig was the one starting a church.

I've been tempted to say for a while (though it seemed less than relevant,) that he'd be perfectly welcome at my church, which is actually pretty light on the creedal stuff, us being very liberal Methodists and all. What I'm debating here is more from my own views than my church's. I'd hope he'd feel quite welcomed, and I figure he would.

On the flip side, if he shows the same disrespect for the Church in his services that he shows here, as a confessing Christian, I'd feel quite unwelcome. The "inclusivity" thing cuts both ways.

And IMO, yes, the fact that the Church willfully neglects God and the Holy Spirit and its core dogmas and practices is one reason why it's declining.

[ 03. August 2010, 14:25: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Egalitarianism usually runs at precise cross-purposes to freedom.

We could start a whole other thread on why that's not so!
That would be interesting.

But to do that, you need to clarify what you mean by those words. Vertical and horizontal equity are totally different animals as well, as I'm sure you're aware. [Big Grin]
quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
In pretending or establish a religion, you are pretending to be God, or at least God's personal spokesperson, or the closest thing we have.

]Nope. I don't see how you could say that. Religion is a human thing, made up by people, in societies, for temporal purposes.
I think we've hit on a fundamental difference. And please appreciate that, if humanly possible, I say this without the slightest tinge of condemnation. You've just left the bible, tradition, and 2000 years of Christian experience completely and are basically founding a religion that is post-Christian.

This is not necessarily a bad thing (though to be fair, it wouldn't appeal to me any more than my church would appeal to you,) but I think on a fundamental level you've left the church. What you establish may be the new church (and I'm skeptical.) In essence rather than "Christ is the Lord," the fundamental value seems to be "We are the Lord," which is the essence of secular humanism. What you're teaching is a post-Christian doctrine.

If you're right, and humanity is really at that point of perfection, then the Church isn't necessary, which is why what you're doing, to me, looks really awkward. If humanity is so great as to either be at-one with God or to be God such that God external to us is unnecessary, then I see no sense in trying to build a new religion. We are the religion. The eschaton is here. Party like it's 1999 and all that. Why keep the old governess hanging around?

And again, please understand that I'm trying to say this with very neutral objectivity.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
For the rest of us, like I suspect Spong, certainly like Richard Holloway and others, who don't feel the need to commit to prejudged positions

How is a blanket assertion that miraculous events are impossible not a 'prejudged position'??

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12 
 
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