|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What would a "Spongite" Church be like?
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How is a blanket assertion that miraculous events are impossible not a 'prejudged position'??
I can't speak for anyone else, but treating miracles of the water into wine kind as impossible seems the only sensible option based on the available evidence. I'm not committing to disregard any new credible evidence.
[ 03. August 2010, 14:55: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Dave Marshall:
There's some usual suspects here playing their usual reactionary games.
I was wondering if you'd show up. It did seem like your kind of thread. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
And yeah, like I just posted, we are talking about two different institutions. That's the point I've been trying to make all along. I'm really not that bothered by what he's doing; I just think it's odd that he still wants to call it "Christian."
Though another point I've been making is that there is no such thing as a non-doctrinaire church. As has been established, I think, we are all working on core doctrines and dogmas, yourself included. If there were no core dogma, there'd be no outrage when someone gets baptized in "the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." You're offended, as is RadicalWhig, because it creates cognitive dissonance with a preconceived set of core doctrines that you bring to the table, namely, that all of this is pre-modern superstitious mumbo-jumbo that's offensive to the sensible modern. It's the dogma of secular humanism and the elevation of Reason as the ultimate virtue. And I'm glad that RW has the integrity to admit that instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of false tolerance.
As you refer to us as reactionaries engaging in nefarious underhanded debate tactics, I find your claim that we are the only employers of "ridicule" a bit disingenuous. If you want a hell thread, please start one. It could be fun. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If you want to make an institutional war out of it, well, go ahead, but I think history shows that most movements to "Reform" the church succeed only in beginning new churches, even with folks who had far more devotion to the institution than I think you or RW demonstrate.
And it's been done. The UU church has been at it for decades, going back to my first post on this thread. What RW is trying to do has been done. He'd do well to learn from them, if not join one of their congregations. It's a lot easier to work with a preexisting group than to start from scratch (which I guess is why you're still in "reform" mode. Field preaching is grueling work.)
I'm a bit embarrassed that you think all of the reams of postings here are mindless and thoughtless. At the same time, I think that an obsession with "relevance" without a core dogma is sleazy.* Calling Jesus "liberal" or "conservative" is anachronistic in the extreme. He was more accurately radical, a fundamentalist you might say.
* And what I've been trying to do for this entire thread is to get RadicalWhig to nail his core dogmas down. I think he has. Now I think he'll have an easier time figuring out his liturgies once he works out who they're for and what they're intended to do.
--------------------
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
Well, as there is currently no 'credible evidence' for the existence of God, it seems you're setting your sights quite low if you're only going to look for evidence of God DOING things.
We've already been through that line of thinking anyway. As soon as you have a personal God as the basis for your thought, then miracles are a logical possibility. Without a personal God, there's no-one around to cause miracles to occur.
--------------------
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
Dave Marshall,
I agree entirely with your post above (the longish post on the previous page).
Only one question: is it worth bothering? Why don't we just leave Christianity to the creedalists and the biblicalists, and go our own way. People like Bullfrog might not see the point - it seems that to them acknowledging the fact that we just don't know and have to muddle through towards the light as best we can - but they are not our "target audience".
Bullfrog,
quote:
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.
You are so wrong. It's not saying that "we are Lord" - and it is completely denying that we have reached a "point of perfection" - I don't known where you get that idea. It's because of our imperfection, but our capacity for improvement, growth and transformation, as well as because of our ultimate yearnings, that we need religion. It just has to be a religion which, not being incredible, works for us - i.e. actually helps us to be better, and not worse. Incidentally, you say "secular humanism" like it is a bad thing: we are human beings living in the world - and we need to build our religions, philosophies, institutions, and other things that help us to cope with live and to live it well, around those realities. If making up stories helps, good. If demanding realist belief in those stories is deemed necessary, and the stories are deemed incredible, then they have lost their relevance and effectiveness.
In the latest episode of REV, Adam Smallbone says that as he stands outside church he feels like a "remnant" - a vestige of something that people used to believe. Outside the USA, that is the reality of the church in the Western world. We have two choices: a world dominated by consumerism and materialism (in which any sort of spiritual value or ethical religion has been pushed to the margins, where narrow, violent fundamentalist communities thrive) OR a world in which new approaches to religion, ethics and spirituality can improve the human condition and deepen human life. If we want to preserve Christian values - and I do, because those values are in many cases Very Good - then we have to package these values in something other than Christian truth-claims; we need to demonstrate their usefulness in human terms, and make only those God-claims which are compatible with our reason and with what we know about the cosmos, nature and humanity. None of that implies any claim to human perfection, or even perfectibility. Just muddling through as best we can: motivated by faith, hope and love; focusing on whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy; recognising that the God That Might Actually Exist is to be worshipped only in spirit and truth (and not through the multiplication of doctrines); trying to help the least of these; and being bold enough to admit that the metaphorical "kingdom of god" grows within and amongst us, and doesn't fall from the sky.
Finally, Bullfrog's point about me being so rude and I can come to his church but only if I play by the rules. Well I say, that if I cannot be honest in his church, if I cannot say what I have said above, then frankly I don't want to go. I'm so sick of pretending. Allowing my in on condition of silence is not hospitable. It is the narrowest, most condescending form of "toleration" imaginable.
[ 03. August 2010, 15:21: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930
|
Posted
I think it's a bit strong to say they are impossible or more traditional believers are definitely mistaken; I am not sure how you can be sure about it.
However I was thinking just now again about the validity of attempts to put a very liberal sort of spin on Christianity, and it seemed to me that as long as we have grown up in a country like the UK, in which Christianity is the state religion, we may have been to schools that drummed into us that is was true (and state schools are still legally supposed to have a daily act of worship or a mainly Christian nature), we have most likely been to church with our families at important milestones and festivals, because it is still a mainstream part of the culture etc, it is arguably only fair that churches should be broad and not say people are unacceptable if they, through honest enquiry, decide they no longer share mainstream theological interpretations.
It seems a good thing that there would still be room for everyone, so even doubting liberals don't have to reject the whole of their religious culture because of the ideas their adult selves come to hold. So also, a religious culture that is still imposed by default on many people, should be flexible, open to new ways of looking at things, as not all those people are going to end up as natural conservatives. Unless they decide they are uninterested in anything to do with religion and spirituality, or happy to seek it in a completely different direction (Buddhism etc), in which case that's fine too.
It would be different of Christian churches were closed clubs, open only to adult members who choose to join them, in which case it would seem fairer to only accept people who agree with all the same tenets as no one is obliging them to take part.
Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Thanks for the further thoughts and clarifications RadicalWhig. 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 like your post, and thoughtI'd like to respond too. I know exactly what you mean here! As soon as one knows that there is no god and that all the attributes s/he/it "has" are those thought up by human brains as being appropriate, then one can no longer say the words, elegant as they are, without thinking, 'this is illogical and nonsense'....
quote:
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 ...
Yes, agree.
quote:
(and which you can enjoy taking part in if you suspend your overly rational and critical side) ...
I've been trying to go into the Parish Church on a Sunday morning on my way home from walk, to see if my feelings are in any way changed, but know all too well that I could never go back to faith/belief in God or anything else. For a very long time I knew all the services so well, as a member of the choir and a member of the congregation, and even though there may be some variations, I know I couldn't sit through more than a very short time!
quote:
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, ...
Absolutely right - couldn't agree more!
quote:
...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 ...
Yes, I can understand that too. HoweverI hope you can rationalise away the feeling of depression, since now you probably know that you have, all your life, been relying on your own brain, thoughts, etc etc, assisted and developed by the brains and thoughts and ideas of others, but no outside supernatural power has been weighing in anyway.
Since imagining a life after death (of whatever sort) is not actually going to make it happen, I think the best thing to do is to deliberately think of things actual, the daily things you are alive and doing now, rather than spending time on what you'd like said after-life to be. I find, with many friends, like myself, in the 70s age range, that most tacitly acknowledge that when we die, that's the end; so we do the best we can to make these years as interesting and harmonious as possible. Have you read any of Richard Holloway's books?
quote:
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, ...
Not surprising of course, since the whole thing was written by people a very long time ago.
quote:
which seems perverse [[if God exists]] and wants people to be Christian...
Tricky one, that! What about all the other religions who talk of God? The bracketed part, including the word IF is the clincher, I think.
quote:
), am not even sure if there is a God listening if I pray and am doubtful Jesus was more than human, ...
Life, the universe and everything certainly makes 100% more sense to me without such beliefs!
quote:
...so I am not able to be much of a Christian in any usual sense.
Is it possible to tell the difference between a moral, law-abiding, middle-of-the-road, had-an-average-sort-of-life-with-ups-and-downs sort of person, and a law-abiding, moral person ditto who believes there is a God and that Jesus 'saves' or something?
quote:
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]](frown.gif)
Have you browsed/lurked on sceptic forums?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
You're offended, as is RadicalWhig, because it creates cognitive dissonance with a preconceived set of core doctrines that you bring to the table, namely, that all of this is pre-modern superstitious mumbo-jumbo that's offensive to the sensible modern. It's the dogma of secular humanism and the elevation of Reason as the ultimate virtue. And I'm glad that RW has the integrity to admit that instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of false tolerance.
It's odd. I spend most of my real-life time fighting the assumptions of modernism, arguing that the ancients are relevant to us today. I'm really much more of a classicist than a modernist, you know!
quote:
And it's been done. The UU church has been at it for decades, going back to my first post on this thread. What RW is trying to do has been done. He'd do well to learn from them, if not join one of their congregations. It's a lot easier to work with a preexisting group than to start from scratch (which I guess is why you're still in "reform" mode. Field preaching is grueling work.)
One of the things I've got out of this thread is a few tips. I'm going to investigate the Unitarians again. I was put off a few years ago because they seemed very staid: liberal, even a bit radical, but in a very nineteenth century way. If we were living in 1880 I'd totally be a Unitarian Minister, but today they seem to suffer from the same aging congregations and lack of vision that affects the mainstream creedalist church. It is too early for me to tell whether this is an inherent problem with the idea of a Unitarian church, or just a contingent/accidental problem.
I'm also going to try out the Quakers. And I've been reading up on the Deists, and I wouldn't necessarily mind crossing the line between Über-Liberal Christianity and a sort of Jeso-centric ethical Deism.
quote:
nd what I've been trying to do for this entire thread is to get RadicalWhig to nail his core dogmas down. I think he has. Now I think he'll have an easier time figuring out his liturgies once he works out who they're for and what they're intended to do.
That's another useful thing about this thread. It has really made me think about what I believe, and I've almost come up with my own creed. I'm not opposed to that idea, either. At least my creed does not make too many speculative claims and remains rooted in the realities of human life and human interactions.
As far as calling myself "Christian" goes, I can now take it or leave it. Nevertheless, my beliefs, and how I'd express them, remain rooted in a Christian tradition, mythology, narrative and culture, in a way that they are not rooted in any other religion. That is why, to me, the Christian label still seems appropriate.
"Trans-Christian Jeso-Centric Ethical Agnostic Dharmic Deist with Stoic and Aristotelian Tendencies" is quite accurate, but a bit of a mouthful.
Psychologically, I happen to find labelling and categorisation very helpful, and I find placing myself within a tradition or school of thought helpful too. For about a decade and a half, being "Christian" was central to my identity. For about two months now I have been going through a sort of existential crisis, which has really come to a head during the last week. If I am no longer a "Christian", then who and what am I? Where do I fit? What do I do on Sundays?
--------------------
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
Ok, so there's me, Susan Doris, Dave Marshall and Orlando. There are also some sympathetic fellow-travellers like Evensong.
I vote we apply for a private board and see whether anyone else is interested and get a little online sub-community of shipmates who are into this kind of approach. We could call it All SORTs!
PM me if you are interested.
[ 03. August 2010, 15:50: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
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.
OK. As far as I'm concerned that's a valid approach. But it is, as you say, a different religion. It's as different (in some ways more different) from my religion as are Islam or Hinduism, which are also valid approaches.
quote:
The church is big enough for Evangelicals and Catholics. I believe it should be big enough for people like me too.
The difference is that I (as a notionally non-Catholic-or-Evangelical Christian) may think that Catholics and Evangelicals are doing is sub-optimal, you think that their (and my) whole purpose is going to church is a colossal mistake. I might think it nonsense to try to live forever with God, by speaking in tongues, or by personal study of scripture detached from the traditions of the Church, or by amystical interpretation of the sacraments, or whatever, but you think it is a nonsense to try to live forever with God at all. Evangelicalism and Catholicism are similar, but different, ways at trying for the same goal. You have a different goal altogether.
I would have no objection at all to you turning up at my church and getting from it all the good you can. I think it is a wonderful thing that the story of Jesus inspires you to do good even if you don't believe what I think is the most important part of the story. What I don't think you should do is re-make the Church so that it preaches that belief in resurrection, supernatural transformation and renewal, eternal life, the hope of glory, a new heaven and new earth, and all the rest are optional add-ons. They aren't optional to me. I want to belong to a church whose official doctrine and majority view is that they are realities. A church which said "This is the traditional story, and one take on it is that this really will happen one day, but we don't have to believe that. Accept it if you find it helpful, otherwise you might want to see in it the prospect of improving your neighbourhood for your children" wouldn't feed me as I want to be fed. I want the Church to proclaim as true what most Christians hope for. If some Christians take that proclamation in some different sense then good for them, but let it be proclaimed as true, because for me the whole value of it is that it is true.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
RadicalWhig:
Yeah, this debate is getting to me. hmm...
I don't think orthodoxy is what you think it is. When I say the Creed, or read the Bible, or pray or meditate or work on a sermon, I'm not looking for epistemological truth claims. You accuse the tradition of being non-real when for me it's sort of no-brainer. It was never meant to be a scientific study of reality. Trying to make it into one is an abuse to science and to tradition. In that sense, Spong's obsession is both obvious because it's something I'm at peace with and offensive because it's destructive to what the tradition is supposed to be and to science, forcing both to do things that they were never meant to do.
And I have a similar beef with fundamentalists (in the more common sense) and people who are more conservative than me. When it comes down to it the Resurrection is a lot more and a lot less than a divine magic trick. Whether it happened or not physically as a verifiable fact isn't as important to me as the realized myth that God, who is not of the world or in the world (doesn't exist,) acts through the world for our redemption. It's not merely our obedience to a set of ethical guidelines. It is the action of the Holy Spirit that is in us and among us (again, we're not that different in some ways.)
That might be where we diverge. I'm at a point now where Spong is neither inspiring nor upsetting to my faith. He's just frustrating because he's continually trapped in a space that I broke out of a while ago. It's like the con-evo who can't accept a non-literal reading of the bible and so calls himself an atheist rather than accepting a more liberal expression of Christianity. I don't think you're quite at that point, but Spong seems to hover over it forever. In a somewhat post-modern sense, it's possible for me to be orthodox and at the same time accept that the Bible is a text of myths and stories grounded in an historical moment yet filtered through fallible human reasoning.
And contra Dave Marshall and yourself, I don't think it's that hard. You don't have to throw the Risen Christ under a bus to continue to engage people in the world. You just have to find a new understanding of the Risen Christ, which I suspect you might be trying to do (and if not, I'll blame it on the weakness of relying on online communication.) If it's about numbers, you can find a way to work with the Scripture and Tradition that's non-literal but still reverent, you'll find an easier conversation than if you start out by saying "Oh, it's all a load of crap and we need to get rid of it!"
And to this: quote:
Finally, Bullfrog's point about me being so rude and I can come to his church but only if I play by the rules. Well I say, that if I cannot be honest in his church, if I cannot say what I have said above, then frankly I don't want to go. I'm so sick of pretending. Allowing my in on condition of silence is not hospitable. It is the narrowest, most condescending form of "toleration" imaginable.
Do you even know what the rules of my church are? Ever read Micah 6:8? There's really not much more than that. I know people whose faith is more or less in the same space as yours who come every Sunday. Much of the congregation, methinks, is closer to you than they are to me. There'd be no expectation that you keep silence, well, as long as you don't think homosexuality might be a sin or vote republican.
And I'm long in the habit of tolerating all kinds of things because I love the community. What strikes me is this insistence on not doing anything that might squeak of orthodoxy (no doubt coming from your own experience) that would make people at my side feel excluded, and justly so. If traditional Christianity makes you that uncomfortable, then you'd probably have to muzzle me from saying anything public in church, because I am, after my own fashion, a traditional Christian.
Again, the "inclusive" thing cuts both ways. A more orthodox church would muzzle you, and a more liberal church would muzzle me.
You've got a decent start here. Naturally, I don't think it's complete, and I still debate whether something can so completely sever itself from its own history and still claim the name of that history as its own, but it's not inherently bad.
I do endeavor to worship in spirit and in truth. So do you. As we are, we'd have to do so in different churches. This is fine as well. I figure the God who is not bound by Existence, who May or May Not Exist (for certain definitions of "exist") honors all of us.
And feel free to stop pretending. Just don't assume that the rest of us are the pretending the same things in the same ways that you used to. Orthodoxy does not have to be so rigid.
--------------------
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
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
A church which said "This is the traditional story, and one take on it is that this really will happen one day, but we don't have to believe that. Accept it if you find it helpful, otherwise you might want to see in it the prospect of improving your neighbourhood for your children".
That's the place I'm looking for.
Does it exist?
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Missed this bit: quote:
People like Bullfrog might not see the point - it seems that to them acknowledging the fact that we just don't know and have to muddle through towards the light as best we can - but they are not our "target audience".
I think I see the point. I'm doing the same thing. I just accept that a big part of this muddling is working with the evidence that's been handed down to us instead of getting rid of it completely with the assumption that we can do better.
That might be the huge gap you notice. I'm a muddler who thinks that orthodoxy is part of the solution. You're a muddler who thinks it's part of the problem. I'm happy to co-muddle, though I think our muddling will lead us in different directions.
This discussion is really gonna feed into the sermon I'm going to preach this Sunday on Hebrews 11. If for that and nothing else, you have my gratitude.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
A church which said "This is the traditional story, and one take on it is that this really will happen one day, but we don't have to believe that. Accept it if you find it helpful, otherwise you might want to see in it the prospect of improving your neighbourhood for your children".
That's the place I'm looking for.
Does it exist?
The potential is there. I think it exists in a lot of mainline churches that don't have the guts to admit that that's what they believe.
--------------------
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
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The potential is there. I think it exists in a lot of mainline churches that don't have the guts to admit that that's what they believe.
And not only do they not have the guts to admit it, but they turn away people who do have the guts to admit it, and who want to be able to partake and contribute without lying to themselves or others.
No wonder I'm feeling a bit bitten at the moment.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The potential is there. I think it exists in a lot of mainline churches that don't have the guts to admit that that's what they believe.
And not only do they not have the guts to admit it, but they turn away people who do have the guts to admit it, and who want to be able to partake and contribute without lying to themselves or others.
No wonder I'm feeling a bit bitten at the moment.
Yep. That sucks. You have my sympathy.
I'd rather people were more up front in general. While I'm obviously critical of your project, I respect what you're trying to do.
Perhaps the reason I'm critical of you on orthodoxy is because IMO that's the big problem with the UU church. They've ditched Christian orthodoxy but failed to establish anything in its place other than a vague commitment to social liberalism, or New Age, or whatever is popular at the moment. Again, shallow metaphysics.
[ 03. August 2010, 16:43: 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
|
|
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930
|
Posted
Originally posted by SusanDoris: quote:
I like your post, and thoughtI'd like to respond too.
Thanks very much for your helpful posts SusanDoris. Actually, I have explored atheism/skepticism/humanism etc rather extensively in the last couple of years, but do seem to have wavered back to thinking I want a " spiritual" and possibly "Christian" aspect to my life still at the moment.
I am in a more religious/spiritual phase right now, but that's not to say I have jettisoned my skeptical and rational side either. A year ago I thought of myself as atheist, now I am not sure, more a sort of agnostic seeker type person of a Christian cultural background.. I probably seem a bit indecisive to you.. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Oh and yes, I have read some of Richard Holloway's books. I like his honesty and find him a likeable person who I can identify with in many respects.
I am glad for you that you and your friends are able to have come to peace with a non-religious outlook and are making the most of life.
---
Re. UUs and Quakers, Unitarians are much thinner on the ground in the UK than America, though I did go to a service once, the group was far from my home and though I quite liked it, it didn't inspire me enough to keep going. I found it a little bit dry and unemotional I think - readings from various religious traditions and a talk about something or other, I think it might have been about the theory that Jesus went to India, though it was a long time ago and I might be wrong on that. I also attended a Quaker meeting once in which we sat in silence in a circle - for an hour! No one said anything! They did say afterwards that this was a bit unusual and they were in a reflective mood as someone had recently died or something, but although it was quite calming, that didn't grab me enough to go back either,not all that suprisingly. And where I live now, in France, I am not sure if there is anything much of either UU, Quaker or progressive Christianity etc.
[ 03. August 2010, 17:02: Message edited by: Orlando098 ]
Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
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.
Exactly!
This Spong/RadicalWhig/Dave kind of non-realist vague deism is the default folk religion of most people. But it doesn't cause them to go to church. And why should it? What would be the point?
By and large, the reason people get involved in churches is because they are Christians, because they actually believe all this stuff to be true.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Reading through to the current end of the thread, I see there are many things I'd like to go back and comment on, although it will prorbably take me a while!
Bullfrog
quote:
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.
The Humanists and atheists I know would certainly dispute that statement. What would the BHA say in response, I wonder? Have you asked them?!
quote:
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.
I don't think the thoughts of those whose words date from thousands of years ago and were told, re-told, made into constantly-changing stories, etc can be considered in any way silly. They were of their time. What could be considered silly is saying that they were the truth and must still remain the same; despite the world knowledge that has accrued since then, particularly with regard to evolution, genetics etc. In the same way, people in 2000 years time will understand that we did the best we could with the information available. They might well shake their heads in disbelief, though, at the fact that so many still relied on the unverified words of a man whose actual existence is also unprovable. Also that people had to keep on trying to interpret the words of what were called 'holy' books to try to make them sensible and applicable to this day and age. Of course there was much wise advice which could be used to help people to understand how to behave in a way that promotes harmony rather than destroying it, but that's something that must have been present right the way throughout our evolution in one form or another.
I bet there were humanist/atheist types everywhere who had worked out the fact that evidence for the God being worshipped was lacking and that belief relied on anecdotal 'evidence'.
(Bit long - apologies.)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I just think it's odd that he still wants to call it "Christian."
You know, I think that if the name Christian remained attached to whatever the non-God, humanist organisation turned out to be, that name could become sort of generic, rather like Christmas is now a world-wide word for that time of year.
quote:
...namely, that all of this is pre-modern superstitious mumbo-jumbo ...
More appropriate perhaps to say - is now considered as mumbo-jumbo in view of our knowledge that is so much more advanced.
quote:
...that's offensive to the sensible modern. It's the dogma of secular humanism and the elevation of Reason as the ultimate virtue.
I disagree that humanism has a dogma. Any ideals and prnciples that are stated must of course be rational and testable.
quote:
If you want to make an institutional war out of it, well, go ahead, but I think history shows that most movements to "Reform" the church succeed only in beginning new churches, even with folks who had far more devotion to the institution than I think you or RW demonstrate.
This is where a pragmatic note must come into things. It would be counter-productive to remove something (like the CofE being sort of always there in the background) without having a strong replacement ready, in order to avoid a vacuum.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by SusanDoris:
I disagree that humanism has a dogma. Any ideals and prnciples that are stated must of course be rational and testable.
Respectfully, what you just described there is a dogma. It's the central tenet upon which everything else hangs.
And you can do that, and build an institution around it, but it wouldn't be authentically Christian.
This might be hard to grasp, but what if I decided to set up a church that preached the gospel every Sunday but hung a sign on the door saying "Weekly Secular Humanist Meeting," that'd be pretty tacky, eh? Somehow, I think the Dawkins brigade just might take offense. So, to carry the name "Christian" without the substance is false advertising. RW thinks he has the Christian substance. We've been arguing that up and down this whole thread, but I'm at a point where I figure if it works it's worth a shot, though I also think it'll drift away from Christianity into something different. Perhaps better, perhaps worse, but different.
Far as the "mumbo jumbo," I figure I'm smart enough not to put too much stock in human knowledge. I'm aware that taking "Reason" off the top pedestal in life is probably outrageous, even blasphemous to humanists such as yourself, but that's where I am. And on a certain level it's beyond negotiation, though you can certainly make jokes about it to your heart's content if that's your preference. To an extent I've chosen to take on this life and it's part of who I am. If it means being crazy in some ways, well, that's okay. I've always thought most people are a little crazy anyway. I think my postings above have proven this as well.
Finally, building a metaphysics for the purpose of having a metaphysics is pointless and I think most people will be able to see through it. I think RW would do better to focus on the actual dogma, which doubtless includes what you enunciated above.
--------------------
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
To the previous post:
I'm aware it's not reasonable. I guess, for someone who doesn't really care ultimately about getting all of my logical ducks in a row, it doesn't bother me.
Far as jettisoning the bits that aren't reasonable, you said yourself: quote:
I disagree that humanism has a dogma. Any ideals and prnciples that are stated must of course be rational and testable.
If it doesn't fit the current state of scientific knowledge, it goes away. That's what I was saying before. "Rational an testable" is the dogma of secular humanism. Much of Christian teaching isn't that, so it should be jettisoned, regardless of its profoundly human roots.
Secular Humanists of various stripes have been around forever, inside the church, outside the church, before and perhaps after the church. That doesn't really bother me much.
Like I said, provability isn't what I set my life on. Science is extremely useful in its place, and I don't really hate people who think it's central, but that's not what I understand to be Christianity. I also have no beefs whatsoever with the theory of evolution, DNA, historical criticism, etc. Science naturally influences how I read and interpret the Bible and really that's just fine by me.
What we've got is a basic ontological disagreement. I've chosen on some level to be a Christian and after that point what I see is filtered through what I've accepted. You've chosen logical positivism or secular humanism or atheism (using multiple terms because I dislike labeling other people.)
--------------------
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
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
RW thinks he has the Christian substance.
Thank you. We don't have to agree, but it is important to me to feel understood. I'm glad that you understand my honest conviction that I do, in fact, have the substance of a (very different, very re-interpreted, but still sincere) Christian faith.
quote:
....I also think it'll drift away from Christianity into something different. Perhaps better, perhaps worse, but different.
Finally, building a metaphysics for the purpose of having a metaphysics is pointless and I think most people will be able to see through it. I think RW would do better to focus on the actual dogma, which doubtless includes what you enunciated above.
Yes. I'd want to keep the metaphysics thin and minimal, and perhaps explicitly agnostic on all points beside the existence of the divine, because that way there is the least room for error and incredible beliefs. I can see the point in a dogma - a fairly well elaborated dogma, even - to give institutional unity and purpose - although the dogma would be expressed in terms of our response to the divine and to humanity, through such ideas as natural law/dharma, which would link a well-developed ethics to a bit of thin metaphysics and alot of observable human reality.
Then I'll write these down in a book of Articles, and anyone who wants to join my religion will have to submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof: and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
My faith is in "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité", with The God That Might Actually Exist as a sort of vague notional idea in the background.
Ah, yes. But are you Citizen Robespierre and his Cult of the Supreme Being, or Citizen Hébert and his Cult of Reason?
The problem with history repeating itself is that most of history is ugly. On balance, I think it is best to leave you in the capable hands of Dave Marshall. He will really move things along, I assure you. Meanwhile, here's my suggestion for an appropriate hymn. (Mind you, I love that song, I really do. Maybe this could replace the Pauline epistles you are ditching...)
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Yeah, push come to shove (and you've got to push hard to get me to say this) Christian identity isn't grounded in dogma. I might say what you're planning to teach isn't Christian. But your self personally? That's unknowable. It's basically between you and your ultimate concern (if the word "God" bugs people that's usually a good fallback.)
But when it gets to teaching and putting out what you've got in you as a catechism...that's another level of expectation and that's where the objections start coming.
It'll be interesting. I think you're right to start hardline and let people soften things up as they will need to later. Sets a solid example, that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I was wondering if you'd show up. It did seem like your kind of thread.
Yeah, well, I don't have as much time for discussing as I used to.
quote:
another point I've been making is that there is no such thing as a non-doctrinaire church. As has been established, I think, we are all working on core doctrines and dogmas, yourself included.
What core doctrines and dogmas I am working on? I'm not interested in starting a new church - I'm Church of England. But neither am I interested in reciting the results of a 1500 year old political fudge as part of a "worshipping community". If you limit your analysis of where people are coming from to pre-existing categories, you may overlook what some of us might actually be imagining.
quote:
As you refer to us as reactionaries engaging in nefarious underhanded debate tactics, I find your claim that we are the only employers of "ridicule" a bit disingenuous. If you want a hell thread, please start one. It could be fun.
Ooo, almost a Hell call.
For what it's worth I wasn't thinking of you as reactionary, although embracing post-modernism as a virtue effectively could support those who are. As far as post-modernism insists on proper regard for context it's a positive. If it tips over into a disregard for the limits of applicability for any particular context, for example by suggesting a pre-modern take on the Christian tradition is as valid for a twenty-first century church as one grounded in contemporary ways of thinking, then for me its as unhelpful as simple reactionary conservatism.
quote:
I'm a bit embarrassed that you think all of the reams of postings here are mindless and thoughtless.
I wasn't aware I'd said or implied that.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, as there is currently no 'credible evidence' for the existence of God
What?? For that to make sense, by 'God' you must mean some deity that is NOT the creator and sustainer of the universe, NOT the One in who we live and move and have our being. If that's the case, you are not referring to God as understood by the Church since its beginning.
Our existence, the becoming of space with time, is as credible and sufficient evidence for the reality of God as I can imagine. What some of us doubt or reject are the little (and not so little) add-ons that the church, being a human institution, has found it advantageous for a time to include in their religious package. Unfortunately they didn't think to put use-by dates on the extras.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
My faith is in "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité", with The God That Might Actually Exist as a sort of vague notional idea in the background.
Ah, yes. But are you Citizen Robespierre and his Cult of the Supreme Being, or Citizen Hébert and his Cult of Reason?
Probably closer to Jesus and his Cult of the Divine Father, actually.
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
My faith is in "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité", with The God That Might Actually Exist as a sort of vague notional idea in the background.
Ah, yes. But are you Citizen Robespierre and his Cult of the Supreme Being, or Citizen Hébert and his Cult of Reason?
The problem with history repeating itself is that most of history is ugly.
They excluded women in their lef, wouldn't be a church I'd go to.
They got beaten up for presuming even to think it applied to them.
I hope this isn't one of those freudian slippy things..?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, as there is currently no 'credible evidence' for the existence of God
What?? For that to make sense, by 'God' you must mean some deity that is NOT the creator and sustainer of the universe, NOT the One in who we live and move and have our being. If that's the case, you are not referring to God as understood by the Church since its beginning.
Our existence, the becoming of space with time, is as credible and sufficient evidence for the reality of God as I can imagine. What some of us doubt or reject are the little (and not so little) add-ons that the church, being a human institution, has found it advantageous for a time to include in their religious package. Unfortunately they didn't think to put use-by dates on the extras.
I was merely making the point that for many, many people, there is no evidence that there is any deity at all.
--------------------
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
Dave Marshall
Well, you did refer generally to people who defended orthodoxy, and I was among these, I figured I fell into your critique somewhere. If you made an exception for me, I'll accept that, I guess, and apologies if I read more disdain for "the opposition" in your post than was intended.
Post modernism is an interpretive tool, not a virtue. I also figure that it's an equalizer in the sense that all Christians from Peter onward have been doing the same thing in their own ways and places. I figure i can learn things from these old dead folks and work with them rather than trying to reinvent the wheel 2000 years later. And I'm really not alone in this. YMMV, obviously.
Far as mindlessness, etc. your post was quote:
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.
Now, I suppose you were talking about the orthodox church in general, but again, last I checked I was still more or less under that tent. It seems to me taht there are plenty of people who engage orthodoxy thoughtfully and consistently without coming across as pre-modern neanderthals. We've been giving it a go for a while and reached different conclusions than you have, and it seems pretty healthy so far. There's a huge range of belief and practice between Spong and the Pope that neither seems willing to even consider as relevant. And that's something about Spong that bothers me more than his theological liberalism. He seems to think that anyone who doesn't share his hermeneutic must be an orthodox fundamentalist creep. As someone who's neither reactionary-conservative nor liberal to the point of gutting the entire history of the church, I feel kind of left out of these conversations.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Most people do. And Spong knows its a false dichotomy. He sells books to people who don't.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Only one question: is it worth bothering? Why don't we just leave Christianity to the creedalists and the biblicalists, and go our own way.
Traditional orthodoxies have an institutional continuity kind of claim on Christian identity. What I think we're talking about has a different but equally authentic claim, something like "identification with the values of Jesus" in my case.
If a reasonable test is whether history will consider us Christian rather some other religious or philosophical classification, I suspect if we value the Christian story as identifying our tradition we'll be Christian. But like you I'm not that bothered in most situations.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
This Spong/RadicalWhig/Dave kind of non-realist vague deism is the default folk religion of most people. But it doesn't cause them to go to church.
Nothing non-realist about my understanding of God. Why should church be about "going to church" in opposition to the "default folk religion"? Why insist church communities are built around what virtually no-one does any more?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I was merely making the point that for many, many people, there is no evidence that there is any deity at all.
Might that not be because too many churches only ever talk about God in terms of what there is no evidence for?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Dave, to tie this in to another recently started thread, the main source of irritation here is the desire to take a Theistic institution and Theistic language and convert them to a Deistic cause.
If you want to spend your life doing the mental gymnastics that's required to 'reinterpret' all the Theism and give it Deistic meanings, then knock yourself out.
Personally, if I was ever minded to discard a personal, active God and move to Deism, I would much rather openly acknowledge that that's what I've done, and head over to something like Buddhism.
--------------------
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
Well, if one presumes that theists virtually don't exist, I guess that's the end of the discussion, as this is a virtual community. I'll just, I dunno, g o back to my church with its own blended approach to a generous orthodoxy.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
its own blended approach to a generous orthodoxy.
Our previous Primate of Australia, Peter Carnley, (responsible for the ordination of women in Australia) used to label himself "dynamic orthodox".
I quite like that. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Most people do. And Spong knows its a false dichotomy. He sells books to people who don't.
Except that this thread has shown that it is not really a false dichotomy at all.
Imagine we were to draw a line from rabid fundamentalism/traditionalism on one side to absolutely cold dry naturalistic atheism on the other. Now imagine we were to dissect that line at right angles with a second imaginary line. There might be many gradations, but ultimately people fall on one side or the other of this second line.
On one side of the dissecting line are those who believe in a revealed theology coming from an activist God who works directly and miraculously in human history. On the other are those who believe in a natural theology which is a product of the human mind's attempt to understand and come to terms with the nature of existence.
Two people might be very close, and closer than those on the same side of the line, but nevertheless be on opposite sides. Several times on this thread I've had the impression that Bullfrog and I, to give one example, are actually very close. I'm probably closer to Bullfrog than I am to Richard Dawkins, and Bullfrog is probably closer to me than he is to, say, the Pope or Ted Haggard. But ultimately, although we are standing very close to each other, we are on opposite sides of that imaginary second line: he believes in a revealed, miraculous theology, and I in a naturalistic, humanistic theology. We might get to a very similar place, but we cannot get to the same place because of this line separating us.
Maybe one thing I've learnt from this thread is that as soon as one crosses this second line, and passes from revealed and miraculous to natural and humanistic religion, one has passed from Liberal Christianity to some sort of Trans-Christian belief.
What annoys and confuses those on the revealed and miraculous side of the line is that people on the naturalistic and humanist side like me really like lots of the elements of the religion that the "revealed-miraculousists" (I'm trying to find words other than Believers in Magic and Fairy Tales, so please bear with me while I mangle the English language in the name of politeness), while simultaneously denying its revealed and miraculous character. That seems to be very disorientating for them - a bit like being told that, yes, money under the pillow does appear, and has a useful role in helping children through teething, but that the Tooth Fairy was a human cultural construct all along.
Finally, for the umpteenth time, I chose Spong not because I think Spong is necessarily great, but because he was representative of a post-theistic, "Trans-Christian" approach, and because he had a nice little list of objections which I thought, in the OP, would frame the boundaries of the discussion: i.e. if we accept all this as pretty much self-evident, then where do we go from here. The discussion has moved on from that a long way - and I think for the better. But there's simply no point in Spong-bashing, because the rightness or wrongness of Spong was never the subject of discussion.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
the main source of irritation here is the desire to take a Theistic institution and Theistic language and convert them to a Deistic cause.
What has that got to do with anything I've posted? I've no idea what a Theistic institution is. If you mean the Church of England, it is whatever those whose institution it is, in consultation with parliament, decide it should be. Theistic language? I use the words that seem to best convey what I mean. You want to censor my vocabulary?
quote:
If you want to spend your life doing the mental gymnastics that's required to 'reinterpret' all the Theism and give it Deistic meanings, then knock yourself out.
Why feel the need to say this kind of thing? What both I and RadicalWhig have been talking about is precisely avoiding the need for unnecessary mental gymnastics.
If you find orthodox trinitarianism helpful, fine. What is not fine is your apparently requiring everyone else who is or might be a member of the Church of England to assent to your forms of words in order to satisfy your desire for institutional affirmation.
You find that irritating? It works both ways.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
And in a rare moment of compromise...
It's a spectrum informed by a dichotomy. And I think there multiple spectra in play. Kind of like how in some political quizzes there's liberal/conservative versus libertarian/authoritarian...
There's God-action versus human-action, human Jesus versus risen Christ, institutional church versus invisible church, human reason versus divine revelation, etc.
Most Christians and probably trans-Christians would accept the existence of both ends of each of these dichotomies, but the emphasis will be in different places. I can say that God acts and we act, but I tend to emphasize God's action over (or through) ours.*
And in some cases it might change by the hour or conversation. Arguing with Spongism drives my christology higher, but mostly because I'm reacting to Spong. If I was dealing with a higher christology (or one that over-emphasized the crucifixion,) I might argue more from Jesus' humanity, because I think you have to regard both as important.
Context determines meaning. At this point my thinking is often pretty fluid, and if this conversation had happened before I entered seminary, I'd probably have said very different things. In ten years I may say very different things then as well. In a certain pragmatic sense I think my views slide around according to what I think is needed or useful or merely interesting at the moment. Watch this space.
* If the word "God" bugs you, substitute "nature" here.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LiberalWhig:
What annoys and confuses those on the revealed and miraculous side of the line is that people on the naturalistic and humanist side like me really like lots of the elements of the religion that the "revealed-miraculousists" (I'm trying to find words other than Believers in Magic and Fairy Tales, so please bear with me while I mangle the English language in the name of politeness)
That's not any more polite -- it's almost worse. It comes across as downright passive-aggressive. The are words for us. Try "supernaturalist".
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Why is supernaturalist a good word?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by LiberalWhig:
What annoys and confuses those on the revealed and miraculous side of the line is that people on the naturalistic and humanist side like me really like lots of the elements of the religion that the "revealed-miraculousists" (I'm trying to find words other than Believers in Magic and Fairy Tales, so please bear with me while I mangle the English language in the name of politeness)
That's not any more polite -- it's almost worse. It comes across as downright passive-aggressive. The are words for us. Try "supernaturalist".
And then there are the folks (which I'm pretty close to) who are skeptical of the historicity of the miracles but refuse to deny their importance to the tradition.
For instance: A good sermon on the water-to-wine routine, I would think, would emphasize the bleeding-obvious symbolic overtones and meanings of the story rather than merely saying either "Oh, it's a steaming pile of fiction" or "Oh! Wonderful! Look how God so blithely defies the laws of physics!"
To focus on the unreality or the reality of the story is putting the emphasis in the wrong place. That Spong denies the historicity of miracles doesn't bug me much. What bugs me is that he blows them off as if their meaning were absolutely dependent upon their historicity.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Why is supernaturalist a good word?
It means "someone who believes in the supernatural" -- it is neutral, not condescending.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Why is supernaturalist a good word?
It means "someone who believes in the supernatural" -- it is neutral, not condescending.
For some "supernatural" is in the same category as "fairy tales," "ghosts," and "invisible green dragons." It can certainly be used as a slam in some contexts.
--------------------
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
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Why is supernaturalist a good word?
It means "someone who believes in the supernatural" -- it is neutral, not condescending.
Except that by that definition I'm a supernaturalist too. But I don't believe in revelation or miracles. We'd need a more precise term to distinguish those who believe in supernatural existing alongside and through the natural universe without violating any natural laws, and those who believe in a supernatural which can violate natural laws at will: i.e. between those who see the supernatural as being able to dominate the natural, and those who see the supernatural as ultimately subordinate to the natural. For one, as orfeo points out, talking snakes are a very real possibility, for the other they are the height of lunacy.
Also, who is this LiberalWhig fellow?
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Respectfully, what you just described there is a dogma. It's the central tenet upon which everything else hangs.
Hesitant yeees.... I should have added that such principles are always open to revision if better evidence turns up.
quote:
This might be hard to grasp, but what if I decided to set up a church that preached the gospel every Sunday but hung a sign on the door saying "Weekly Secular Humanist Meeting," that'd be pretty tacky, eh?
Well, I don't know! It could be that the two groups would socialise on a different day and communicate.
quote:
Somehow, I think the Dawkins brigade just might take offense.
I hope they would consider that taking offence is always a waste of time. Practical, positive steps are much more likely to make progress in understanding.
quote:
And on a certain level it's beyond negotiation, though you can certainly make jokes about it to your heart's content if that's your preference.
I think it is never right to laugh at people
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
We'd need a more precise term to distinguish those who believe in supernatural existing alongside and through the natural universe without violating any natural laws, and those who believe in a supernatural which can violate natural laws at will
Fair enough. But basically saying, "I'm trying not to be rude to you stupid people" isn't any less rude than calling us stupid.
And if you think believing in miracles is the height of lunacy, you have very little experience of lunacy. And very little tolerance of your fellow man. But I knew that.
quote:
Also, who is this LiberalWhig fellow?
Sorry about that. Memory fart.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Somehow, I think the Dawkins brigade just might take offense.
I hope they would consider that taking offence is always a waste of time.
Given their behaviour to date, I wouldn't put any money on it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Why is supernaturalist a good word?
It means "someone who believes in the supernatural" -- it is neutral, not condescending.
Except that by that definition I'm a supernaturalist too. But I don't believe in revelation or miracles. We'd need a more precise term to distinguish those who believe in supernatural existing alongside and through the natural universe without violating any natural laws, and those who believe in a supernatural which can violate natural laws at will: i.e. between those who see the supernatural as being able to dominate the natural, and those who see the supernatural as ultimately subordinate to the natural. For one, as orfeo points out, talking snakes are a very real possibility, for the other they are the height of lunacy.
Also, who is this LiberalWhig fellow?
To make "supernatural" subordinate to the merely natural is simply to break the meaning of the word "super."
It's like saying that "I believe in obeying the federal government of the USA, but only when it does things that I support."
SusanDoris: I agree that taking offense is usually a waste of time, but I also think that Dawkins or someone would get offended if I started an "Atheists for the propagation of orthodox Christianity" organization. It'd have to be taken as a joke on Christians, because no serious atheist (at least in Dawkins' particular camp) really wants religion to flourish.
I think laughing at beliefs and laughing at the people who hold them is to walk a real tightrope. And I respect people who are good at walking it, but most IMO can't pull it off. It's hard to say, with conviction, "Christianity is stupid" without also saying that "You, the Christian who embraces Christianity, are stupid." It can be done, but it takes some serious nuance.
[ 04. August 2010, 18:10: 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
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
To make "supernatural" subordinate to the merely natural is simply to break the meaning of the word "super."
It's like saying that "I believe in obeying the federal government of the USA, but only when it does things that I support."
No, not at all.
It's like saying that "I believe in obeying the federal government of the USA, but only when it does things that are legal and constitutional".
Therein lieth the difference.
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
RadicalWhig wrote: quote:
Except that by that definition I'm a supernaturalist too. But I don't believe in revelation or miracles. We'd need a more precise term to distinguish those who believe in supernatural existing alongside and through the natural universe without violating any natural laws, and those who believe in a supernatural which can violate natural laws at will: i.e. between those who see the supernatural as being able to dominate the natural, and those who see the supernatural as ultimately subordinate to the natural. For one, as orfeo points out, talking snakes are a very real possibility, for the other they are the height of lunacy.
OK. My point was really to probe where this whole "supernatural" stuff comes from. It's not a term I either find helpful or useful.
For starters it posits a sort of divine detachment - that God is somehow semi-detached from his creation save for when he decides to intervene (which mysteriously always seems to involve upsetting the apple cart). Is that theism? Sounds more like deism to me.
Secondly, all this stuff about "miracles" - where did that come from? The gospel narratives speak of a range of things, most notably "signs", "wonders" and "mighty works". Most notably what the writers were keen to speak about were things that drew attention to God, that pointed towards God, that put you in awe of what he is. Interfering with the laws of physics wasn't high on their list of activities they wished to draw attention to.
If you want to criticise something for being inappropriate then by all means criticize those who dreamed up this strange dualism of natural and supernatural. Is anything above nature in God's domain? Isn't this the same as asking that meaningless old conundrum of whether God can lift an infinitely heavy rock, or whatever the hell it is? Logically meaningless.
So with respect, RadicalWhig (and that is not an idle gloss - I sort of admire what you are trying to do here), I'm not sure your dimensional analogy works, except for people who fall into the same way of thinking as yourself.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Have read up to here. Closing down now. Back tomorrow or Friday.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
