|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Core Beliefs
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually I took him to be saying that it's a crappy definition of Christianity because it's not distinctively Christian.
Oh, you mean, like the resurrection is not distinctively Christian?
I think crappy definitions of Christianity are those ones that have to be different from everything else.
It's too reductionist.
But beyond that, Jesus was asked what was necessary to inherit eternal life. In the synoptic gospels the response is invariably love God and love neighbor (follow the commandments).
Is eternal life not a Christian thing either because Jews could inherit it too?
Do you see the problem?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think crappy definitions of Christianity are those ones that have to be different from everything else.
That's how definitions work. If it doesn't help you pick out Christianity in a line-up, it's not a definition of Christianity. Maybe what you want to say is you don't want to define Christianity. But if you're going to define Christianity, you're going to have to say what is specifically Christian.
quote:
Do you see the problem?
Yes. That's why we have the Creed.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
When Jesus was asked a similar question, he said it was to love God and love neighbour.
I think that's core.
Here is your original post that sparked this new turn of the thread Evensong. From this post, I interpreted your view that the only thing that matters is the Great Commandment, that theology is unimportant. My response would be that this teaching is not exclusive to Christianity, indeed, any Jew would look up Leviticus and Deuteronomy and perhaps tell you that it is somewhat offensive to insist that this is a teaching thought up by the Christians.
This is my frustration with liberals. In their attempt to be inclusive (after all, being exclusivist is the only sin that still matters in our secular and pluralist world), they attempt to offer a diluted Christianity where the Creeds are watered in their importance and the major doctrines of Christianity are dismissed as mere metaphor. The consequence is that there is nothing essentially appealing about Christianity. If Christianity is nothing more than an ethical religion with little theological content, that there is no reason to be a Christian as opposed to a Buddhist, a Jew, or even a secular humanist.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Indeed. Take the word Christianity out of the following statement and replace with any other word and see how it sounds.
quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
I think crappy definitions of Christianity are those ones that have to be different from everything else.
I think crappy definitions of the color red are those ones that have to be different from everything else.
I think crappy definitions of water are those ones that have to be different from everything else.
See? Language is divisive. It's why we use it.
--------------------
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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I dont understand this denigration of liberals for being inclusive.
Jesus was, after all, the most inclusive person who ever lived.
As I understand it Jesus himself is not exclusively unique but inclusively so. He is the Truth in a definitive sense, not an exlusive sense.
Nor do I forget that, when he called the first disciples he did not plonk an A4 copy of the Creed(s) in front of them and say "believe that and follow me". He simply called them to follow him. It was in the following that they came to learn the truth of Who he was.
Which is not to say that the developed understanding of Christology is wrong or to be ignored as an add-on. Far from it. And I am not advocating that we re-invent the wheel when it comes to doctrine.
But I do question whether total allegiance to a Creed formulated over 1600 years ago and expressed within the philosophical assumptions of that day is required of us today.
Surely we can continue to express the conviction that Jesus is Truly Divine and Truly Human within other categories of thought today.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I think you are mistaking compassion and forgiveness for being inclusive. You must ignore large portions of the gospels to accomplish that feat. What you have is a canon within a canon within a canon. All that means is you like some of the stuff attributed to a guy named Jesus.
Everybody is welcome to follow Jesus. Followers of Jesus are Christians. Not everybody is a Christian. It is then necessary to define what it means to be a Christian. How can we agree on what it means to follow Christ if we don't first come to an agreement about who Christ is? Hence, we have Creeds.
--------------------
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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
So anybody who accepts Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life is just a follower and not necessarily a Christian?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
how is your "living on in the mind of God" different from my (temporarily) disembodied existence in a conscious state?
It’s part of A’ Level Religious Studies and the textbook is 'Death and Eternal life,' John Hick. John Hick argues that in certain circumstances the dead can exist after death. If an exact replica of them were to appear complete with memories and characteristics. As God is all powerful this recreation of the dead is totally possible although death can destroy us God can recreate us. He bases this on 1 Corinthians 15 verse 35-44
Imagine a computer and CD Roms – each CD Rom is a person who a great number of ‘experiences’ and the hard drive is God. At death, a person’s body is destroyed. In the analogy, a CD Rom is destroyed – but it is backed up in the hard drive – the mind of God – and can be recreated.– it saved on its hard drive. God could produce an exact ‘reprint’ using every piece of information about us. This new ‘us’ would be an exact copy, using new materials. Only one copy is made in order to preserve the identity of the original.
(Hick believes that the body and soul are one, inseparable. Therefore he does not think that the soul can exist separate to the body after death. However, he still believes in Life after Death. This is in the form of resurrection. Hicks description of resurrection would therefore be There being a replica or duplicate of the person made by God in heaven, after the persons life on Earth has ended. It is the same person, as they have the same memory and emotion etc.)
Peter Vardy claims that this is in line with traditional Christian teaching. St Paul talks about a transformed body. (This view is compatible with Hick’s view, which incorporates resurrection. “When buried it is a physical body; when raised it will be a spiritual body. There is of course a physical body, so there has to be a spiritual body.” – 1 Corinthians 15:35-44. Life after death will be as a spiritual body. This is because, unlike its earthly form as the seed, is from the plant into which it grows. They keep their personal identity, but can achieve eternal life in a bodily form.)
The syllabus overview states: In modern Christian thought, a person is usually regarded as a psycho-physical unity. Thus, in order to maintain a belief in the existence of heaven and hell, Hick's replica theory is necessary to the Christian doctrine of life after death. Indeed, when one examines the biblical accounts of the afterlife, this line of thought runs parallel to the Christian conception of heaven and the 'resurrected body.' For example, Hick describes the replica body of the deceased as one that is in good health, explaining the possibility of growing younger to the optimum age, becoming more like God and evolving in a life of 'soul making.' This portrays the image of a new 'spiritual' body, exactly as St Paul describes in his first letter to the church in Corinth
--------------------
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
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I thought Hick had gone back on that idea?
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Thanks, leo. But if all that is left of me is the information required for future replication that seems much more like a re-creation rather than my resurection with a new spiritual body. [I also have in mind (no pun intended) the classic "tele-transporter" problems of personal identity/survival.]
How can someone ask the prayers of such an entity? Surely a stored set of person-info is not conscious. What is the communion of saints if the Church Triumphant is just stored data?
[E.T.A. to Emma Louise: given how laden it is with philosophical and theological problems, I hope Hick has rethought it.]
[ 18. April 2011, 17:23: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
So anybody who accepts Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life is just a follower and not necessarily a Christian?
Depends on what you mean by the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Zackly.
Also:
quote:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Beeswax Altar
Professor Joad would have been proud of you.
The classic response to avoid answering the question
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No, I didn't. The Creeds explain why Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and why no person comes to the Father except through Him. What do you think it means?
--------------------
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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I wonder if the following (from the Athanasian Creed) explains in any way how Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. "
The key word repeated often is "imcomprehensible" which doesnt explain much.
Furthermore the said Creed makes salvation dependant upon belief, not faith.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
You quoted less than a 1/3 of it. The 1/3 you quoted mentions both faith and belief. I know where you are going with differentiating between the two. I just think the claim is rather silly.
The Athanasian Creed, like the other Creeds, tells us who Jesus is in relation to God. It explains the incarnation and its purpose. Jesus being God incarnate is why He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no person comes to the Father but through Him.
Again, what do you think it means?
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Thanks, leo. But if all that is left of me is the information required for future replication that seems much more like a re-creation rather than my resurection with a new spiritual body. [I also have in mind (no pun intended) the classic "tele-transporter" problems of personal identity/survival.]
How can someone ask the prayers of such an entity? Surely a stored set of person-info is not conscious. What is the communion of saints if the Church Triumphant is just stored data?
[E.T.A. to Emma Louise: given how laden it is with philosophical and theological problems, I hope Hick has rethought it.]
Hick deals with 'tele-transporter'.
You seem to like certainties where everything meshes in with everything else. I don't think we can have it this side of the grave.
If course, Kick is a protestant so he won't have much interest in the prayers of saints.
However, I see no reason why his view is inconsistent with the notion that the saints are already in heaven while those of us who are destined for purgatory will await the general resurrection.
--------------------
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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Beeswax Altar: I think you are being disingenuous. You say the Athanasian Creed mentions faith and belief. But the faith it speaks of is the "Catholic Faith" which is not faith in the NT sense at all. It is faith in a belief system which is then elaborated.
Faith in the NT sense of the word is a matter of trust and obedience to Jesus.
When the Creeds and Tradition are taken to supercede the plain Biblical sense (because they go way beyond anything the Bible itself teaches) then you have lost me.
I say that as someone who respects and values both the Creeds and Tradition. I am not a Biblical literalist. Nor am I am Credal literalist. Nor am I a wooden Traditionalist.
I fear that between you and me there is a great gulf fixed. And I regret that, on your definition, I am not to be regarded as a Christian.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Surely we can continue to express the conviction that Jesus is Truly Divine and Truly Human within other categories of thought today.
Go for it. I'd love to see how that would look.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Beeswax Altar: I think you are being disingenuous. You say the Athanasian Creed mentions faith and belief. But the faith it speaks of is the "Catholic Faith" which is not faith in the NT sense at all. It is faith in a belief system which is then elaborated.
Faith in the NT sense of the word is a matter of trust and obedience to Jesus.
When the Creeds and Tradition are taken to supercede the plain Biblical sense (because they go way beyond anything the Bible itself teaches) then you have lost me.
I say that as someone who respects and values both the Creeds and Tradition. I am not a Biblical literalist. Nor am I am Credal literalist. Nor am I a wooden Traditionalist.
I fear that between you and me there is a great gulf fixed. And I regret that, on your definition, I am not to be regarded as a Christian.
Again, it depends on how you determine the plain biblical sense. You'd be surprised at some of the weird stuff I've heard taught as nothing more than the plain truth of scripture. The plain sense of scripture, properly interpreted mind you, supports anything you want it to support.
That's why tradition is important.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hick deals with 'tele-transporter'.
Ok, fine. I'd be interested to see how - because I think it throws up precisely the serious inadequacies of the "soul-as-software" model - but it's not my principal issue here. It sounds as if he might have abandoned it anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You seem to like certainties where everything meshes in with everything else.
I like 'em where they can truly be had, of course - because I'm a human being and we are (albeit crookedly) truth-seeking missiles. But what I find I need from arguments or theories is, as a bare minimum, coherence. From your posts on this thread so far, that doesn't seem to be a priority for you.
If I'm honest, I don't think you've thought your ideas through properly at all - and that's why you resist straight answers to my questions. But I can take as good as I get. If you think that's not fair, go for it.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Of course, Hick is a protestant so he won't have much interest in the prayers of saints.
Right. So we can drop him, if you like. Let's concentrate on your ideas instead. You claim not to be a protestant and to seek the active intercession of the saints. How is that consistent with a theory that says the dead (inc. the Church Triumphant) are unconscious bits of software in God's hard-disk?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, I see no reason why his view is inconsistent with the notion that the saints are already in heaven while those of us who are destined for purgatory will await the general resurrection.
I see plenty - and I've expressed one in particular repeatedly. Show me, by answering my question above, how the saints' intercessory reponse to our petitions is consistent with Hick's theory.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Beeswax Altar: I think you are being disingenuous. You say the Athanasian Creed mentions faith and belief. But the faith it speaks of is the "Catholic Faith" which is not faith in the NT sense at all. It is faith in a belief system which is then elaborated.
Faith in the NT sense of the word is a matter of trust and obedience to Jesus.
When the Creeds and Tradition are taken to supercede the plain Biblical sense (because they go way beyond anything the Bible itself teaches) then you have lost me.
I say that as someone who respects and values both the Creeds and Tradition. I am not a Biblical literalist. Nor am I am Credal literalist. Nor am I a wooden Traditionalist.
I fear that between you and me there is a great gulf fixed. And I regret that, on your definition, I am not to be regarded as a Christian.
The problem with stating that the Bible has an a priori status over Tradition is that the Bible was canonized within that tradition. The Bible wasn't fully canonized until the fourth century about the same time as Nicaea. The Creeds and the Scriptures are both codified within the same living Tradition of the Church.
--------------------
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 Chesterbelloc:
Zackly.
Also:
quote:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Zackly X 2
This is one of my favourite lines of scripture.
So all of us that are self-righteous enough to think we know what it truly means to follow God and pronounce judgement on others (be it via creeds, via scripture, via reason, via experience, via tradition etc.) are easily in for a big surprise.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hick deals with 'tele-transporter'.
Ok, fine. I'd be interested to see how - because I think it throws up precisely the serious inadequacies of the "soul-as-software" model - but it's not my principal issue here. It sounds as if he might have abandoned it anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You seem to like certainties where everything meshes in with everything else.
I like 'em where they can truly be had, of course - because I'm a human being and we are (albeit crookedly) truth-seeking missiles. But what I find I need from arguments or theories is, as a bare minimum, coherence. From your posts on this thread so far, that doesn't seem to be a priority for you.
If I'm honest, I don't think you've thought your ideas through properly at all - and that's why you resist straight answers to my questions. But I can take as good as I get. If you think that's not fair, go for it.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Of course, Hick is a protestant so he won't have much interest in the prayers of saints.
Right. So we can drop him, if you like. Let's concentrate on your ideas instead. You claim not to be a protestant and to seek the active intercession of the saints. How is that consistent with a theory that says the dead (inc. the Church Triumphant) are unconscious bits of software in God's hard-disk?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, I see no reason why his view is inconsistent with the notion that the saints are already in heaven while those of us who are destined for purgatory will await the general resurrection.
I see plenty - and I've expressed one in particular repeatedly. Show me, by answering my question above, how the saints' intercessory reponse to our petitions is consistent with Hick's theory.
I think you need to read Hick's book.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
But I'm not interested in Hick's theories - I'm interested in YOURS! I really don't think I could have made that any clearer.
According to YOU, how is a belief that the dead are mere dormant data-streams compatible with asking them for their prayers? You dismissed my idea as "not Christian" - which is perfectly within the rules of engagement, as far as I'm concerned - so let's hear how yours works. Fair's fair, innit.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
And Hicks a protestant not concerned with the intercession of saints. How will reading Hick's book explain something Hick isn't interested in explaining? Surely, Chesterbelloc isn't supposed to read Hick's book in hopes that he can figure out what Leo got from reading it. It would be helpful if Leo would just explain it.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
No. You really haven't, leo. Where's the "create poll" button when you need it?
1. I'd be surprised if Hick even addressed the issue of the intercession of saints in his work.
2. If he hasn't, how is directing us to his book helping?
3. If has addresed praying to/for the faithful departed, why don't you just tell us what he said about that?
4. Most importantly, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN HICK AS SUCH BUT IN YOUR IDEAS. How do YOU think asking for the saints' intercessions is compatible with a theory that says they are just bit of unconscious data waiting to be "re-created"? Where SPECIFICALLY have you addressed that question, which I have now asked about half a dozen times?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Last response, repeating what I said earlier:
Let's take those we consider to be in Purgatory. They are in the mind of god, stils awaiting recreation/resurrection.
The Church Triumphant, the saints, have been fast-tracked into heaven and already partake of the beatific vision, are conscious and, thus, can intercede for us.
No more on this please - the Triduum is soon to start - Chrism Mass in the morning then the big liturgies. By Easter Monday, I might have more time.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Let's take those we consider to be in Purgatory. They are in the mind of god, stils awaiting recreation/resurrection.
If this is true they are not conscious, so how are they being "purged" at all, and what's the point in praying for them?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Church Triumphant, the saints, have been fast-tracked into heaven and already partake of the beatific vision, are conscious and, thus, can intercede for us.
Honestly, leo - why on earth (pun foreseen but otherwise unintended) could you not have said this when I first (six or seven times back) asked about it days ago?
--------------------
"[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 leo:
The Church Triumphant, the saints, have been fast-tracked into heaven and already partake of the beatific vision, are conscious and, thus, can intercede for us.
Honestly, leo - why on earth (pun foreseen but otherwise unintended) could you not have said this when I first (six or seven times back) asked about it days ago?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I did.
You didn't. If you had, you would have been able to point it out long before now, and I wouldn't have had to ask it half a dozen times. So: where precisely did you say it then? Please quote.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Furthermore I said that Peter Vardy said that Hick's thesis was in line with Pauline theology. It may have passed you by that Vardy is the Vice Principal of Heythrop (Jesuit RC) College.
Nothing passes me by - I am vast and contain pulchritudes.
And I couldn't care if Vardy were the Successor of Peter himself: if he's wrong, he's wrong - and I will judge him on his actual words, and not on the say so of you. Where did Vardy (in his own words, please) say that Hick's theory (that body and soul are inseperable and that the "soul" is essentially software and is unconscious after death) is compatible with Pauline doctrine as understood by the Church?
--------------------
"[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:
And I couldn't care if Vardy were the Successor of Peter himself: if he's wrong, he's wrong - and I will judge him on his actual words, and not on the say so of you. Where did Vardy (in his own words, please) say that Hick's theory (that body and soul are inseperable and that the "soul" is essentially software and is unconscious after death) is compatible with Pauline doctrine as understood by the Church?
If Vardy was Peter's successor, he could declare it to be a dogma!
His book 'The Puzzle of God' has a section on 'eternal life' - though it's 6 years since I taught A level so it maybe somewhere else. Hick is critical of other aspects of hichk's view.
--------------------
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:
If Vardy was Peter's successor, he could declare it to be a dogma!
Not if it contradicts defined doctrine he couldn't.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
You, I shouldn't wonder.
But I'd be just as happy to put this whole exchange in the tomb today and not resurrect it tomorrow.
Holy Pascha to one and all.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
And also with you.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Amen. As long as you look down on us from Abraham's bosom and pity us on the burning shore.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Amen. As long as you look down on us from Abraham's bosom and pity us on the burning shore.
Sure - or vice versa, of course.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Come Sir, as a Roman, under that see which was my mother for a 1000 years (and is my disapproving grandma for a mere 500 now), surely you're a better class of Christian than even the Orthodox. You enjoy privileges and spiritual gifts and wisdom and knowledge and status and blessings that they aren't party too despite you allowing them the eucharist and they you.
Only Jesus lets me partake of that and He's not good enough I know.
IngoB himself, the Doctor of the Church here, although I suspect there are other RC Ph.Ds here, has said that I unknowingly miss out on blessings that the broken alcoholics, drug addicts, gamblers, street people I'm privileged to serve who are disproportionately communicant Romans, whom I encourage to go to confessional and talk with their priests, apparently have. And virtually every Pole and Frenchman and Irishman and Italian and Hispanic and Portugee and Walloon and Celtic supporter.
I'd be happy to polish their shoes forever left outside their mansions. Should keep me busy.
If I'm allowed for not being able to accept esoteric, non-apostolic, unbiblical truth that Romans and Muslims have even recently been led in to, with regard to Mary for example.
![[Biased]](wink.gif) CB - MPC!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
... to ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
