|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Core Beliefs
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sorry - just spotted a typo form last night. I mean to say:
quote:
we only reach [Mary's] destination, if at all, after our bodies are separated from our souls and raised from the corruption of the grave - a fate which she never suffered in the first place.
Strange how all the Roman Catholics I quoted seemed to misunderstand it too.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Really? Alright then, leo - show me where they said we would all be assumed bodily into heaven at our deaths then.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe Jesus is God.
Why not? I'm afraid you've stated the idea often but haven't explained why it's so crucial to a Christian identity.
He has, actually, and so have I:
quote:
Try: numbers x years x centrality x across other jurisdictional/denominational differences x definedness/settledness x explanatory success x some other stuff = core. If it ain't core NOTHING is. Hard-core, in fact.
This sounds like it's core because it's tradition.
That still doesn't explain why it's core because it doesn't explain what it means to believe Jesus is God.
And btw, that's different from what sharkshooter said, which was:
quote:
If Jesus is God is not a core belief of Christianity, then there is no such definable thing as Christianity. For there is no other belief which differentiates it from all other religions (or lack of religions).
But I apparently misunderstood.
It's not that Jesus was God that is definitive, it's that Jesus was God.
And that's fair enough.
Since we have lots of different Gods floating around.
Gotta choose one.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...It's not that Jesus was God that is definitive, it's that Jesus was God.
And that's fair enough.
Since we have lots of different Gods floating around.
Gotta choose one.
You must live in Ontario and be enjoying your new-found freedom to smoke marijuana, because you seem to be unable to understand simple concepts.
Jesus is* God.
There are no other Gods**.
* was, is, and always will be.
** there are many false gods, but Christians dismiss them all as not being God.
This is what differentiates Christianity from all other religions.
Well, I think I have said that more than a dozen times, so I'll stop here.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
That still doesn't explain why it's core because it doesn't explain what it means to believe Jesus is God.
I've already explained what is meant by "Jesus is God": that He was God from everlasting (with the Father and the Holy Ghost), our Creator, who whilst remaining God became a human being named Jesus.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Missed this bit:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This sounds like it's core because it's tradition.
So how did it become such an important part of the tradition?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I see you've ceded the "everybody's god ascended into heaven and is sitting down at the right hand of the father" nonsense, Evensong. Well and good.
Dying and rising to life is part of the fabric of the world. Small wonder it should be echoed in other religions. Lewis has it right here.
The sole invisible creator God becoming a man? Not nearly so prevalent, if only because religions having a sole invisible creator God are thin on the ground. But being *A* god and being *GOD* are completely different, as I pointed out and which you have not addressed. Calling Caesar "a god" and saying Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate aren't even on the same page.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
BalddudePeekskill
Shipmate
# 12152
|
Posted
Isn't the Rapture (not that I believe it, per se, the way it's thought of) the physical assumuption of the bodies of the righteous? Why then do Evo's have a hard time accepting that the BVM just went ahead of us?
--------------------
Christos Aneste
Posts: 308 | From: Peekskill, NY | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Really? Alright then, leo - show me where they said we would all be assumed bodily into heaven at our deaths then.
They said her destiny was ours also - as I have already quoted
Come off it, leo - you know what I'm talking about. I've made my point very explicit.
You said that protestants believed in the Assumption of Mary because that's exactly what happens to all of us. I pointed out repeatedly that that's false: we are not at death immediately assumed body and soul into heaven. I mean, that's glaringly obvious. We first have to suffer a separation of our souls and bodies, which she never did. Her Assumption was very special and all but unique.
None of the writers you quoted supported your claim - only that we would one day, after death and the general resurrection be with Our Lord and Mary body-and-soul in heaven (if judged fit).
So which is it: you misunderstood the doctrine of the Assumption and the authors you quoted, or you think everyone is "raptured" at death?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I would simply ask Chesterbelloc what is the Biblical evidence for either the bodily assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary.
I fully expect to be told that this is the Tradition which is to be believed.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
Why then do Evo's have a hard time accepting that the BVM just went ahead of us?
I doubt many would say it's impossible. Rather, that there is no scriptural support for such a fleshed out doctrine (the RCC thinks there is though, but it's pretty...ermmm...sketchy in comparison to most things). Add in the general avoidance of Mary-related things in the prot. churches, such as anything about Mary being sinless, perpetual virginity, etc,...
Note that you talk about the Blessed Virgin Mary, and most others just say Mary. She holds a special place for Protestants, but generally far lower than the RCC would place her.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I would simply ask Chesterbelloc what is the Biblical evidence for either the bodily assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary.
I'll give you an answer as soon as I've heard back from leo.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Not sure how the answer to my question is contingent on Leo's response to another.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I would simply ask Chesterbelloc what is the Biblical evidence for either the bodily assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary.
I fully expect to be told that this is the Tradition which is to be believed.
I don't look to the bible, solely, for 'evidence' but there are plenty of hints:
Revelation 12
2 Corinthians 3:18: we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another
John 17 22, 24: The glory which thou hast given to me, I have given to them . . . Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given to me, may be with me where I am.
Ephesians 2:6 (God) raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
And Romans 8:30 “those whom God predestined he also called; those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified”
Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. And before you were born, I consecrated you’ Jer. 1:5
God….had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace Galatians 1:15
God chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless. Ephesians 1:4
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Not sure how the answer to my question is contingent on Leo's response to another.
To repeat: As we celebrate her Assumption – which prefigures our own reception into heaven at the general resurrection on the Last Day (Fr. Allan McDonald)
Or a sermon in the Archdiocese of Washington:The assumption of our bodies, prefigured by Christ in his own power and also in Mary by the gift of God, will one day be our gift too.
Are these RCs preaching heresy?
Or are you misunderstanding the teaching of the church?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Not sure how the answer to my question is contingent on Leo's response to another.
To repeat: As we celebrate her Assumption – which prefigures our own reception into heaven at the general resurrection on the Last Day (Fr. Allan McDonald)
...
Are these RCs preaching heresy?
Or are you misunderstanding the teaching of the church?
But they are not saying the same thing as you appear to be saying.
According to your posts above
a) What happened/happens/will happen to Mary, when?
b) What happened/happens/will happen to everyone else, when?
According to Chesterbolloc?
a) as above
b) as above
According to Fr Allen
a) as above?
b) as above?
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Leo: I fail to see how any of the texts you quoted (as hints admittedly) have any direct or specific reference to the doctrines of the bodily Assumption or the immaculate conception of Mary.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Answer my questions, leo, or at least have the decency to tell me you have no intention of doing so, so that I can stop wasting my time.
Please start with this one: where do any of the sources you quoted* say that we are all (or any of us) assumed body and soul into heaven at our deaths as Our Lady was at (or before) hers.
Thanks.
*I agree with every one of them. None of them, as far a s I can see, is in tension with the doctrine of the Assumption as the Church defines it.
[ 14. April 2011, 21:53: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I would simply ask Chesterbelloc what is the Biblical evidence for either the bodily assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary.
I'll give you an answer as soon as I've heard back from leo.
There are texts which the Church uses to support the doctrines, but they are not presented as proof-texts.
Catholics believe these doctrines because: they are in accord with Tradition (including the Scriptures and most of the Fathers); they speak eloquently of Mary's place in the salvation of her Son's people; concerning some points they have been the subject of visions of Our Lady which the Church has recognised as authentic; and, conclusively for Catholics, they have been most solemnly defined by the Church excercising her divine teaching charism.
I doubt any of these of these will count as convincing reasons by non-Catholics or non-Orthodox.
But to say any more would radically derail the thread, as even Catholics do not claim these doctrines (though they be infallibly proclaimed and as such require the assent all Catholics) constitute the "core" of Christian belief.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Leo: I fail to see how any of the texts you quoted (as hints admittedly) have any direct or specific reference to the doctrines of the bodily Assumption or the immaculate conception of Mary.
If you want the bible to spell everything out, then you'll be disappointed.
Some of the references, e.g. the Revelation one, speak symbolically of the church in heaven and, thereby, of the mother of the church.
Others talk about prevenient grace.
The ARCIC document on Mary spells out the scriptural material. You might find it helpful to read in full.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe Jesus is God.
Why not? I'm afraid you've stated the idea often but haven't explained why it's so crucial to a Christian identity.
He has, actually, and so have I:
quote:
Try: numbers x years x centrality x across other jurisdictional/denominational differences x definedness/settledness x explanatory success x some other stuff = core. If it ain't core NOTHING is. Hard-core, in fact.
What other meaningful criteria for "core" do you suggest? You've mentioned the Sermon on the MOunt - all of it - as being core, but since many Chritians call into many of the hard sayings there, and since many non-Christians would accept huge chunks of it, what criteria are you using to judge that "core" and the Incarnation/Trinity not?
Good question about criteria.
I think I've figured it out for me.
When Jesus was asked a similar question, he said it was to love God and love neighbour.
I think that's core.
And I think Matthew 5 and the Kingdom of God both come under that.
But each to their own.
As you were.
Personally, I don't find church doctrine particularly satisfying.
Strange that. Must make me an Evangelical.
Which is weird. Because Gamaliel recently called me a liberal fascist. *
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(* which I thought was kind of cool)
[ 15. April 2011, 14:18: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
When Jesus was asked a similar question, he said it was to love God and love neighbour.
I think that's core.
...
Personally, I don't find church doctrine particularly satisfying.
I think two separate concepts are involved in this discussion. Let me put it this way:
There are people who call themselves Christian, recite creeds or statements of faith, read the Bible, attend church, and through all that describe a god whose personality is not the God I worship. A God who is looking forward with glee to finding excuses to send as many as possible to a hell of eternal torment so he can enjoy listening to their screams of pain, for example, is not the God I admire and enjoy. It seems to me there are Christians who use the story of Christianity to worship a god who cannot be described by the phrase "God is love."
And I expect there are people participating in worship in the style and using the stories of other religious systems who have concluded what matters is love - not just for family and friends and times when there's no cost, but also for neighbors and enemies and times when it means giving up everything. I.e., from God's viewpoint, they "get" what life and God is all about.
If there is a limited admission to heaven (whatever "heaven" means), I expect the ones admitted will be the ones who "get" it, who adopt (or try to) love as the guiding principle in all circumstances with all people, rather than the ones who run their lives by principles inconsistent with love, even if they claim to agreed with the ancient creeds of the Christian church.
The set of those who are "Christian" in the list of intellectual beliefs (including the historical story about Jesus walking this earth), and the set of those who understand God as love and try to live in accordance with love, overlap; but neither set wholly includes the other.
Which leaves the puzzle that has intrigued me for some years - what about the atheist who embraces love as the rule but naturally fails to "love God" because s/he does nor believe in any gods. (I know my answer.) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 15. April 2011, 15:48: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
[x-p'd with Belle Ringer]
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Good question about criteria.
I think I've figured it out for me.
When Jesus was asked a similar question, he said it was to love God and love neighbour.
I think that's core.
I agree that this, Jesus's new formulation of the law, is a core teaching. But I'm not sure that it yields a criterion for other "core" doctrines.
This in part is because it requires an idea of God - who He is, what being is being referred to by the apellation "God" - to cash it out. So Christianity's answer to who God is takes us right back to the Incarnation and the Trinity.
But also, pretty much everything else is down to either love of God and/or love of neibour depending on interpretation - which might make the "core" a bit big!
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc to leo:
Please [answer] this one: where do any of the sources you quoted say that we are all (or any of us) assumed body and soul into heaven at our deaths as Our Lady was at (or before) hers.
Thanks.
quote:
leo's response:
[*tumbleweed*]
I'll take this as a "no", shall I?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Which leaves the puzzle that has intrigued me for some years - what about the atheist who embraces love as the rule but naturally fails to "love God" because s/he does nor believe in any gods. (I know my answer.)
I'm with you.
Going to Church (or believing certain things but not living them) Doesn't Make You a Christian Any More Than Standing in a Garage Makes You a Car.
The only trouble with the above scenario of the Atheist is they're missing out on the love God part; which is the bonus and the grace. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But also, pretty much everything else is down to either love of God and/or love of neibour depending on interpretation - which might make the "core" a bit big!
What's the problem with a big core?
Are you after a small, select club in heaven?
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe Jesus is God.
Why not? I'm afraid you've stated the idea often but haven't explained why it's so crucial to a Christian identity.
He has, actually, and so have I:
quote:
Try: numbers x years x centrality x across other jurisdictional/denominational differences x definedness/settledness x explanatory success x some other stuff = core. If it ain't core NOTHING is. Hard-core, in fact.
What other meaningful criteria for "core" do you suggest? You've mentioned the Sermon on the MOunt - all of it - as being core, but since many Chritians call into many of the hard sayings there, and since many non-Christians would accept huge chunks of it, what criteria are you using to judge that "core" and the Incarnation/Trinity not?
Good question about criteria.
I think I've figured it out for me.
When Jesus was asked a similar question, he said it was to love God and love neighbour.
I think that's core.
And I think Matthew 5 and the Kingdom of God both come under that.
But each to their own.
As you were.
Personally, I don't find church doctrine particularly satisfying.
Strange that. Must make me an Evangelical.
Which is weird. Because Gamaliel recently called me a liberal fascist. *
(* which I thought was kind of cool)
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
What distinguishes Christianity IMHO is that it states that Jesus is more than just a teacher. Plenty of non-Christians would readily admit that Jesus was a great teacher, including quite a few atheists and agnostics. The exclusivity at the core of the Christian claim is not simply that Jesus is a great teacher, but as Lord he superceeds all other teachers.
The divinity of Christ is a further development from this core concept. Most Christians confess that he is God, because as God, Jesus Christ is not just a teacher pointing to Wisdom, but Wisdom himself. As in, He does not say "Here is Truth", but he says "I am truth, I am the way."
Having written that, I just hit the nail on the Christian difficulty with interfaith relationships. Does Christian engagement with other faiths necessitates a putting aside of this core belief? It's an interesting theological question, and no, I don't know the answer. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
So why did he say it then?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Depends on what you mean by engagement.
It doesn't prevent learning about what others believe and why. However, like I've said before, claiming the divinity of Christ prevents us from accepting the nice and respectable elephant analogy as a justification for interfaith dialogue.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
So why did he say it then?
Coz he was asked what the (OT) Scriptures said.
More seriously, in variations this has been recognised as a key belief by not only (Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, etc...), the other Rabbi's they were interacting also taught variations, and even Confucius has something similar.
However as you and JPastor have observed, the question of what is God? who is my neighbour (Christian's have that one answered)? how do I love? then spin into play.
Even before this is overlaid by my greed and self-interest.
Pretty much every thread on the board is on implementation, and clashes of this.
Which is where the 'case law'/'background' we recognise as authoritative starts to distinguish us, along with temperament, local history etc....
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc to leo:
Please [answer] this one: where do any of the sources you quoted say that we are all (or any of us) assumed body and soul into heaven at our deaths as Our Lady was at (or before) hers.
Thanks.
quote:
leo's response:
[*tumbleweed*]
I'll take this as a "no", shall I?
It's getting like the Spanish Inquisition here.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
Totally unexpectedly...
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Our fate is very different and we only reach her destination, if at all, after our bodies are separated from our souls
What's with all this body/soul dualism?
All very Greek, not Christian.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
leo, even if I could be certain of getting you to answer my questions by the judicious use of thumscrews and the rack, I'm equally sure that my time could be better (if not more satifyingly) spent. It is your prerogative to evade my queries. It makes for a rather frustrating dialogue though.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Our fate is very different and we only reach her destination, if at all, after our bodies are separated from our souls
What's with all this body/soul dualism?
All very Greek, not Christian.
Says you. Not so says, for example, defined Roman Catholic teaching.
But in a triumph of hope over experience, let me ask you just a couple more questions (bolded for your convenience): what do you think happens at our deaths and before the general resurrection then?
On another recent thread you admitted that it only made sense to ask the prayers of the saints if they were in some state of conscious awareness of our requests, but they are not (Our Lady excepted) currently embodied, yes?
So how do you square your condescending scepticism above with your practice of asking the saints' intercession?
[ 16. April 2011, 17:01: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But also, pretty much everything else is down to either love of God and/or love of neibour depending on interpretation - which might make the "core" a bit big!
What's the problem with a big core?
Are you after a small, select club in heaven?
I don't see how these two question follow. By "big core" I meant that if you include everything in the Sermon on the Mount in the "core" you'll end up with a lot of belief requirements. I'd have thought it would be the opposite to what you suggest - the more stuff is in the core of Christianity, the more challenging believing it all will be.
And I still don't see how, say, the absolute prohibition on divorce makes your "core" whilst the Incarnation/Trinity doesn't.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
,,,
And I still don't see how, say, the absolute prohibition on divorce makes your "core" whilst the Incarnation/Trinity doesn't.
According to evensong, everyone who has divorced is not a Christian.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My ears itched and I discovered that Evensong has name-checked me.
I'm glad you thought my comment was cool. But I made it on a bad day when I was all Mr Angry.
I'm trying to be all sweet and cuddly now.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Our fate is very different and we only reach her destination, if at all, after our bodies are separated from our souls
What's with all this body/soul dualism?
All very Greek, not Christian. [/qb][/QUOTE]Says you. Not so says, for example, defined Roman Catholic teaching.
But in a triumph of hope over experience, let me ask you just a couple more questions (bolded for your convenience): what do you think happens at our deaths and before the general resurrection then?[/b] [/QB][/QUOTE]
The 'soul' is not an idea in Hebrew or Greek scriptures - though the word is use to mistranslate various words like nephesh and psyche.
God is outside time so the question is irrelevant.
I assume that we live on in the mind of God until he recreates us - on the lines of 1 Cor 15.
You seem to want certainty - faith is more exciting.
We are now at the start of Holy Week where we are invited to live the issues rather than speculate about them and natter endlessly.
[ 16. April 2011, 19:09: Message edited by: leo ]
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Could someone kindly fix leo's code? I really wouldn't want our respective comments confused.
Thanks.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't see how these two question follow. By "big core" I meant that if you include everything in the Sermon on the Mount in the "core" you'll end up with a lot of belief requirements. I'd have thought it would be the opposite to what you suggest - the more stuff is in the core of Christianity, the more challenging believing it all will be.
Who said Christianity was easy? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
,,,
And I still don't see how, say, the absolute prohibition on divorce makes your "core" whilst the Incarnation/Trinity doesn't.
According to evensong, everyone who has divorced is not a Christian.
No.
Drawing the line in the sand in judgment of who is in and who is out of the Kingdom is anathema to me; that's God's business.
And to show my magnanimity, I even think you are a Christian sharkshooter.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My ears itched and I discovered that Evensong has name-checked me.
I'm glad you thought my comment was cool. But I made it on a bad day when I was all Mr Angry.
I'm trying to be all sweet and cuddly now.
Fear not. Beeswax Altar has taken me down a peg or two privately. He called me a fogey radical.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
May the Lord have mercy on my soul
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
So why did he say it then?
Did he only say new and unique things otherwise?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
So why did he say it then?
Did he only say new and unique things otherwise?
No. He just got them right.
You know, fulfilled them. All that messiah stuff.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what do you think happens at our deaths and before the general resurrection then?
I assume that we live on in the mind of God until he recreates us - on the lines of 1 Cor 15.
Setting aside the fact that we are not "recreated" but resurrected, how is your "living on in the mid of God" different from my (temporarily) disembodied existence in a conscious state? I assume you accept that we lose embodiedness at death but that we remain in a state to hear and say prayers, since you ask the saints for theirs, so is this not hair-splitting? Or is your "living on in the mind of God" something very different?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We are now at the start of Holy Week where we are invited to live the issues rather than speculate about them [...].
False dichotomy. I find I can manage both.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what do you think happens at our deaths and before the general resurrection then?
I assume that we live on in the mind of God until he recreates us - on the lines of 1 Cor 15.
Setting aside the fact that we are not "recreated" but resurrected, how is your "living on in the mid of God" different from my (temporarily) disembodied existence in a conscious state? I assume you accept that we lose embodiedness at death but that we remain in a state to hear and say prayers, since you ask the saints for theirs, so is this not hair-splitting? Or is your "living on in the mind of God" something very different?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We are now at the start of Holy Week where we are invited to live the issues rather than speculate about them [...].
False dichotomy. I find I can manage both.
I used the term 'recreated' because that is how Paul envisages it in 1 Corinthians 15, especially 37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. ....So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable
It is also behind the talk of a 'new creation' in the Apocalypse.
As for living the questions in Holy Week, you may also have time for speculation. I don't - too many liturgies to prepare for and lead/assist.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I used the term 'recreated' because that is how Paul envisages it in 1 Corinthians 15, especially 37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
I hope I'm not being obtuse, but I just don't see creation language here at all. The new bodies that Paul is talking about are clearly to be joined to existing souls - those of the dead. In fact, Paul seems to me explicitly to be using the kind of "not Christian" concepts(dishing out new bodies to souls) you criticised above.
A new heaven and a new earth are to be created by God at the end of time, certainly: but not a new people. It's we "old" (already existing/having been born) people who inherit it in our resurrected (new, glorified) bodies.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for living the questions in Holy Week, you may also have time for speculation. I don't - too many liturgies to prepare for and lead/assist.
Well, I don't want to add to your burden, but could I repeat my question from above: how is your "living on in the mind of God" different from my (temporarily) disembodied existence in a conscious state?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
We actually don't need Jesus for the Two Great Commandments. The first part is in Deuteronomy 6 and the second part is in Leviticus 19.
So why did he say it then?
Did he only say new and unique things otherwise?
No. He just got them right.
You know, fulfilled them. All that messiah stuff.
Okay, let's try again, more directly. Why do you ask, "Why did he say it then?"? In what way does it run counter to your expectations?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Actually I took him to be saying that it's a crappy definition of Christianity because it's not distinctively Christian.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
