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


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

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Magazine - Online sacraments
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's hard when your side of matters refuses to grant any objective meaning to anything.

Zach, just because your views get misrepresented, no need to misrepresent others.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: It's hard when your side of matters refuses to grant any objective meaning to anything.
But words like 'church' and 'Eucharist' do have a more or less well-defined meaning to me.

However, I recognise the impossibility to define an 'objecitve' meaning for these words that everyone will agree on. Try to do it on the Ship, just for fun. I'm quite confident that you'll fail.

There's no way that a conservative Catholic, an Orthodox, an Anglican and alt.worshippy me will agree on an 'objective' definition of a word like 'Eucharist'. This isn't intrinsical to an internet church service, but just a reflection on the fact that that we come from different traditions.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I only noticed this recently. Of course, he hasn't. But let's say that both Dave Lister and Marilyn Monroe (assuming they were both alive at the same time) logged into Better than Life, and kissed within the game. For me, that makes the question much more grey. Online church isn't populated by AI-controlled NPCs, but by real people, and they're not worshipping a computer-generated God, they're worshipping the same God that they would in a 'normal' church, so I think your example is slightly misleading.
I think people are letting technology needlessly complicate matters, and this furthermore signifies a disturbing turn in the general consciousness of the nature of reality. Being alone, staring at the screen is now going places and meeting people. Virtual now means actual- so long as we feel it's real it must be real.

quote:
So yes, we're all fairly entrenched in the way we define Sacrament with a big 'S' - and perhaps Church with a big 'C' too. However, you've both said that it could be a useful vehicle of grace, and beneficial for people. So, I'd be interested to know how you think it could work within your understanding. You'd probably object to the phrases 'online Church' and 'online Sacraments', so what would you call them instead? If someone who was stuck at home wanted some kind of Christian fellowship online (beyond merely a discussion board like this one, perhaps because they are unable to physically get to a 'real' church), what do you think it should look like, and how should it present itself?
I personally don't have a very exalted view of "online fellowship." I like chatting about God 'n politics online, but I don't feel much connection with you people- I never even met you people!

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach, just because your views get misrepresented, no need to misrepresent others.
Feelings are not objective criteria, and I can't see that there is room for anything else in your side of matters as is stands. Heck, just limiting our definition to what Jesus did at the Last Supper has gotten me endless accusations of limiting God and viciously denying the experience of grace of others.

quote:
But words like 'church' and 'Eucharist' do have a more or less well-defined meaning to me.
Like I said, I can't see that it has any meaning if it isn't to signify only some vague set of feelings and the even more ephemeral "Mystery."

quote:
There's no way that a conservative Catholic, an Orthodox, an Anglican and alt.worshippy me will agree on an 'objective' definition of a word like 'Eucharist'. This isn't intrinsical to an internet church service, but just a reflection on the fact that that we come from different traditions.
A Catholic, Orthodox, and an Anglican can at least settle on the fact that we are to do what Jesus did at the Last Supper. You haven't even gone that far.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Feelings are not objective criteria, and I can't see that there is room for anything else in your side of matters as is stands.

I don't think I've even mentioned feelings in any of my posts, and I've certainly not agreed with everything people on my 'side' have said (nor have they necessarily agreed with me!), so I'm not sure it's a simple as two sides of an argument; more exploring a topic.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
A Catholic, Orthodox, and an Anglican can at least settle on the fact that we are to do what Jesus did at the Last Supper. You haven't even gone that far.

But Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans all stray from that original template. They don't take the bread and wine following a meal - Jesus did. They don't eat the same type of bread or drink the same wine as he did. They don't eat from the same one loaf. Or drink all from one cup (as far as I remember from my Anglican days), or wash each others' feet afterwards. They all make judgement calls about which parts of the last supper are important to replicate, and which parts aren't. And that's why I think it's more helpful, and makes more sense, to see it as a template that we try to (imperfectly) copy, rather than a check-list of things that we have to replicate.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
But Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans all stray from that original template. They don't take the bread and wine following a meal - Jesus did. They don't eat the same type of bread or drink the same wine as he did. They don't eat from the same one loaf. Or drink all from one cup (as far as I remember from my Anglican days), or wash each others' feet afterwards. They all make judgement calls about which parts of the last supper are important to replicate, and which parts aren't. And that's why I think it's more helpful, and makes more sense, to see it as a template that we try to (imperfectly) copy, rather than a check-list of things that we have to replicate.
We can talk about what one must do in the Eucharist once we settle on the fact that it is actually doing something, and not just sitting alone in front of your computer watching it happen in a cartoon church.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: Like I said, I can't see that it has any meaning if it isn't to signify only some vague set of feelings and the even more ephemeral "Mystery."
Remembering the sacrifice of Jesus's blood and His body for us, like He asked us to? Trying to connect with God and with eachother? Those have a very real meaning to me. The fact that you can't see this doesn't change that.

quote:
Zach82: We can talk about what one must do in the Eucharist once we settle on the fact that it is actually doing something, and not just sitting alone in front of your computer watching it happen in a cartoon church.
I'm quite confident that whatever Melon et al are up to, it isn't (just?) going to be us watching cartoon puppets eat and drink.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We can talk about what one must do in the Eucharist once we settle on the fact that it is actually doing something, and not just sitting alone in front of your computer watching it happen in a cartoon church.

And I might end up agreeing with you, but not for the reasons you've been giving on this thread. FWIW, I'm not that comfortable with the idea of no bread and wine being involved (though others have expressed a preference for an online sacrament not to have those things). Bread and wine are easily obtainable - it's the getting to a church that is the obstacle for many people. I too don't like the idea of people holding their bread up to the screen to be 'blessed', but I think there could be a respectful and helpful way of a number of people taking the bread and wine online 'together'. As I've said a few times, for me, it's a case of trying to get as close to that blueprint as possible, and I think you can get close enough for it to be genuine. But maybe what Melon et al will end up with will be too far away from the blueprint to be genuine for the both of us. You already know the answer, I'll have to wait and see.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Remembering the sacrifice of Jesus's blood and His body for us, like He asked us to? Trying to connect with God and with eachother? Those have a very real meaning to me. The fact that you can't see this doesn't change that.
He actually said "Do this in memory of me." Which is not quite the same as "Remember me."

quote:
And I might end up agreeing with you, but not for the reasons you've been giving on this thread. FWIW, I'm not that comfortable with the idea of no bread and wine being involved (though others have expressed a preference for an online sacrament not to have those things). Bread and wine are easily obtainable - it's the getting to a church that is the obstacle for many people. I too don't like the idea of people holding their bread up to the screen to be 'blessed', but I think there could be a respectful and helpful way of a number of people taking the bread and wine online 'together'. As I've said a few times, for me, it's a case of trying to get as close to that blueprint as possible, and I think you can get close enough for it to be genuine. But maybe what Melon et al will end up with will be too far away from the blueprint to be genuine for the both of us. You already know the answer, I'll have to wait and see.
"The next best thing" is a fine thing if the thing itself isn't possible. The point is that it isn't the thing itself.

This is another common objection to the "Brazen fact" model. "But some people can't go to church- so watching it in television must be church!" But the other day I was making custard and needed corn starch, but I only had potato starch. Potato starch did just as well, but that doesn't mean potato starch is corn starch.

Likewise, God might extend his grace to those who cannot go to church, but that doesn't mean not going to church IS going to church.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: He actually said "Do this in memory of me." Which is not quite the same as "Remember me."
Now you're nitpicking. (In Dutch, we'd say "Now you're trying to fuck ants", which is funnier.)

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Zach82: He actually said "Do this in memory of me." Which is not quite the same as "Remember me."
Now you're nitpicking. (In Dutch, we'd say "Now you're trying to fuck ants", which is funnier.)
Nitpicking? The difference between "Do this" and "Remember me" is nitpicking?

!

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: Nitpicking? The difference between "Do this" and "Remember me" is nitpicking?
The difference between "Do this in remembrance of Me" and doing it while remembering Him is.

The problem is, no-one seems to agree on what 'it' is exactly, so I've decided I have a bit of freedom there. And I have a slight suspicion that to Jesus, remembering Him is more important than doing it exactly right.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The difference between "Do this in remembrance of Me" and doing it while remembering Him is.
You have refused to make "Doing it" necessary at all.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"The next best thing" is a fine thing if the thing itself isn't possible. The point is that it isn't the thing itself.

I guess that's the core of the disagreement between you and I. To go back again to the example from the Didache. There are a whole load of 'next best thing' contingencies, but the core fact - whether it's immersion in cold running water or sprinkling with warm stagnant water - is that a baptism has taken place. People sprinkled with warm stagnant water aren't second class Christians, and they don't need to get baptised again. The next best thing is still good enough, despite the ideal.

Of course, there's a point at which a 'sacrament' is so far from the template that it no longer is that sacrament, but that's at a point on a scale. And different people will put that point in different places, as you have (further up the line than me). It's your insistence that the place where you've placed it is the 'correct' place, and that it should be obvious to the rest of us that it is so that I struggle with, when at times, ISTM the main reason you're giving is not much more than "because I said so".

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: You have refused to make "Doing it" necessary at all.
Where?

I think that part of our disagreement is that you already have an idea in your head of what the online eucharist is going to be like. You said it yourself: we're going to watch cartoon puppets on the screen eating bread and drinking wine.

I don't think that this is what Melon et al have in mind. I don't know what they have in mind, but I'm sure that at one point they'll tell us about it. And then I'll decide if I'll try it or not.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Where?
You've refused to do so again and again. Is this going to be like the time you insisted you said something that you actually didn't, and I was supposed to read your mind to know where you thought about it but didn't say it?

Well, here's your chance. Say that sharing bread and wine together is necessary for there to be a Eucharist.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I, LeRoc, hereby solemnly declare that you have to do something in order for there to be a Eucharist.

You have to share bread and wine (but opinions disagree on what exactly counts as 'bread' or 'wine').

And you have to do this together (but to me, the definition of 'together' can be broader than a purely physical-geographical one).

There. Have I passed my exam? [Smile]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You've finally started to come to a coherent definition, though why you should act like it's some absurd task is beyond me.

Now, let's hear your definition of bread and wine.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: You've finally started to come to a coherent definition, though why you should act like it's some absurd task is beyond me.
You never asked [Waterworks]

quote:
Zach82: Now, let's hear your definition of bread and wine.
Yes, master. Actually, I'm much less sure about that one. As I said, there are a lot of wafers, matzes and what-all counting as bread. I've seen a lot of grape juices. And to most of the wines used in Eucharist, the French would say: "This isn't wine!"

My church usually celebrates with matzes and a choice between wine and grape juice. But as I said, when we have a service with the homeless, we let practicalities trump theological concerns, and we serve coffee and cheese sandwiches. I'm guessing that whatever God does with bread and wine, He'll understand it in this case, and is powerful enough to do it with coffee and cheese also.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
You never asked [Waterworks]
It wasn't clear you had one.

quote:
Yes, master. Actually, I'm much less sure about that one. As I said, there are a lot of wafers, matzes and what-all counting as bread. I've seen a lot of grape juices. And to most of the wines used in Eucharist, the French would say: "This isn't wine!"

My church usually celebrates with matzes and a choice between wine and grape juice. But as I said, when we have a service with the homeless, we let practicalities trump theological concerns, and we serve coffee and cheese sandwiches. I'm guessing that whatever God does with bread and wine, He'll understand it in this case, and is powerful enough to do it with coffee and cheese also.

I can just throw definitions out for you- bread is a baked good made from a paste of ground grain. Wine is the juice of a grape that has been allowed to ferment.

Do your definitions of bread and wine include coffee and cheese, or do you not actually understand what "necessary" means?

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: Do your definitions of bread and wine include coffee and cheese
No, they don't. When we celebrate with coffee and cheese sandwiches, we are quite aware that it isn't bread and wine. We still consider it a valid Eucharist though.

My definition of the Eucharist, as far as the substance is concerned, would be something like: "It's bread or wine, unless practicalities and our concern with the homeless ask for something else."

Jesus didn't say this of course, but we're hoping He'll agree with it.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Missed the edit window. That should have said "It's bread and wine".

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah but Zach82 says it must be bread and wine in the exact way that he defines it and no others, therefore it must. This appears to pass for logic in his world.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So we've confirmed that you do not actually know what "necessary" means. You think bread and wine is preferable, but not necessary.

Now, can anything serve as "bread and wine?" I assume, for example, that sharing with a fellow Christian the activity of pushing old ladies down down the stairs is not the Eucharist, even if one feels totally connected to God and remembers Jesus while doing it, right?

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: So we've confirmed that you do not actually know what "necessary" means. You think bread and wine is preferable, but not necessary.
No, I think bread and wine are preferable, but there are practical situations that ask for other choices. And stop that, I do know what 'necessary' means.

quote:
Zach82: Now, can anything serve as "bread and wine?" I assume, for example, that sharing with a fellow Christian the activity of pushing old ladies down down the stairs is not the Eucharist, even if one feels totally connected to God and remembers Jesus while doing it, right?
No, don't be silly. There's no practical situation that would warrant that.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
No, I think bread and wine are preferable, but there are practical situations that ask for other choices. And stop that, I do know what 'necessary' means.
You think "bread and wine are necessary" and "well, you don't actually need bread and wine" are compatible statements, which is a plain absurdity.

You seem to think I am getting vicious here, but what you are reading is actually frustration at your inability to settle on a coherent definition or to use words as anyone else uses them.

Do you think the Eucharist even has a coherent, objectively knowable definition?

quote:
No, don't be silly. There's no practical situation that would warrant that.
That's why I said I assumed it didn't count. Reread that question and try to answer it, please.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you think the Eucharist even has a coherent, objectively knowable definition?

If I may answer that too - I would say probably not, or if it has a definition, it's broad and not easy to pin down.

Not everything is easy to define. Most definitions are generalisations, and there are often cases on the fringes that fail to comfortably sit in one category or another. You may not like it, but that's the way the world is.

You're still trying to force LeRoc into answering according to your paradigm. For you there HAS to be a certain number of criteria met, and, yes, LeRoc is trying to answer on your terms (which is why you've "caught him out"). But not everyone approaches the issue like you do, and LeRoc's view of the Eucarist (and mine too) simply doesn't fit your way of looking at the world. You seem incapable of comprehending that, because despite the number of times I've tried to show you how other people might be coming from a different direction, you still are expecting us to come from the same direction as you.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The thing is, conversation is only even possible if there is an objectively knowable definition. Otherwise every conversation can only go thus-

"I think the Eucharist is this."

"I think it is this."

*the end*

Before you deny it, that is where is ends up once all objective criteria are taken away. LeRoc feels feels connected and totally with God when he does this thing. I do not when I do the same thing. The end. Nothing else to be said.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The thing is, conversation is only even possible if there is an objectively knowable definition. Otherwise every conversation can only go thus-

"I think the Eucharist is this."

"I think it is this."

*the end*

Before you deny it, that is where is ends up once all objective criteria are taken away. LeRoc feels feels connected and totally with God when he does this thing. I do not when I do the same thing. The end. Nothing else to be said.

I think you'll find this was the point I was making on page 1.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The thing is, conversation is only even possible if there is an objectively knowable definition. Otherwise every conversation can only go thus-

"I think the Eucharist is this."

"I think it is this."

*the end*

Before you deny it, that is where is ends up once all objective criteria are taken away. LeRoc feels feels connected and totally with God when he does this thing. I do not when I do the same thing. The end. Nothing else to be said.

No.

Ask someone to define a love song. Ask someone to define 'red'. Ask someone to define Art. Then ask them to agree with someone else's definitions.

And yet, you can buy an album of love songs. Most of the time we know what red is (despite the "It's orange - no it's red" conversations), we have art galleries where we can look at art.

Because, despite disagreement, there's a general consensus, and we just 'know' what we think about something, even if it's not easy to put that into words other people understand.

And we can converse about what Art is, or what Red is, and we can disagree about what falls into those categories. And we might have good reasons for our choices, or rubbish reasons. Conversation is perfectly possible without an objectively knowable definition somewhere out there in the "realm of forms".

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And where does the conversation go when two subjective views are not compatible?

Don't say both can be right, because that's not what LeRoc believes. In saying Johnny Sicko is NOT participating in the Eucharist when he pushes old ladies down the stairs, even if he feels totally connected and with God when he does it, he is insisting that there are objective criteria for knowing what is and isn't a Eucharist.

If it stayed where you put it, there is no way of saying Johnny Sicko has not participated in the Eucharist. After all, he feels it, so it can be the Eucharist for him, right?

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
And where does the conversation go when two subjective views are not compatible?

Don't say both can be right,

Don't worry, I won't! But both can be valid, in that they might be both coherent and reasonable. As to which is right, I guess we'll find out the other side of the grave.

For example, I think IngoB's view is valid. He condemns the concept of online sacraments for exactly the reasons that he condemns all protestant sacraments. And though I disagree with him, his view is consistent and makes sense.

I think your view is fairly valid, but I think you've got some definition problems, in your refusal to acknowledge online as a 'place' where people can be 'together' and 'share' things (even if only to a degree), and ISTM that your choice of the parts of the last supper that you think should be criteria for a Eucharist are fairly arbitary (well, based primarily on the tradition you're part of, which is understandable). I also think you're not happy with grey areas, which means that you polarise things to black or white, rather than accepting the muddiness in-between.

I honestly don't think you understand my view, because you've failed to attempt to even 'talk' in my language, or engaged very little with the parts of my posts that I think are of the most importance. That could be my failure to communicate; it could be yours to understand (or a bit of both).

As to where we go from here, I attempted something like that here:

quote:
So yes, we're all fairly entrenched in the way we define Sacrament with a big 'S' - and perhaps Church with a big 'C' too. However, you've both said that it could be a useful vehicle of grace, and beneficial for people. So, I'd be interested to know how you think it could work within your understanding. You'd probably object to the phrases 'online Church' and 'online Sacraments', so what would you call them instead? If someone who was stuck at home wanted some kind of Christian fellowship online (beyond merely a discussion board like this one, perhaps because they are unable to physically get to a 'real' church), what do you think it should look like, and how should it present itself?
and I'd still be interested in the answer, from you, mousethief, and from others.

It might well be that, despite having different theoretical views, there is something that we can all appreciate and agree on in practice.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Now let me see, where did I put that definition of a strawman argument..

Your choice of a random extreme example does not in any way help your cause. We do not have to defend old lady killers simply because we do not share your notion of the Eucharist, Zach82.

Sheesh.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If it stayed where you put it, there is no way of saying Johnny Sicko has not participated in the Eucharist. After all, he feels it, so it can be the Eucharist for him, right?

Just to answer this too - take my example of "define Red".

Johnny Sicko can look at Blue and say "That's Red". He'd be wrong.

Johnny Sicko can look at a reddy-orange and say "That's Red". I might disagree and think it's orange, not red.

Where is the point on the colour spectrum that Red becomes orange (where debate is still interesting and worthwhile)? I don't know.

Where is the point on the colour spectrum that a colour can't even subjectively be described as remotely red? I don't know.

But there's a big difference between Johnny Sicko declaring that Blue is Red, and his declaring that Orange is Red.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
For example, I think IngoB's view is valid. He condemns the concept of online sacraments for exactly the reasons that he condemns all protestant sacraments. And though I disagree with him, his view is consistent and makes sense.
Actually, he explicitly denied that. No wonder this side of matters posts so many head banging emoticons.

quote:
I honestly don't think you understand my view, because you've failed to attempt to even 'talk' in my language, or engaged very little with the parts of my posts that I think are of the most importance.
I get it. I just think it's a complete botch from the very start. It drowns in subjectivity and nothing objective is knowable. You said it yourself in that first sentence- we can't know it until we die.

Forget telling the difference between red and red-orange. You have absolutely no basis for asserting an objective difference between red and blue. You just wave the question off. "It won't happen!"

Well, my father was colorblind. It happened all the time.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Actually, he explicitly denied that.

Well, I've just re-read his posts, and maybe I've misunderstood him, but to me he employed the same arguments against online sacraments as to protestant sacraments in general, just that the difference was more severe. Yes there were more reasons for him to dispute online sacraments, but his reasons to do seemed to me generally consistent. But I haven't been discussing with him, and maybe that would change in discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I honestly don't think you understand my view, because you've failed to attempt to even 'talk' in my language, or engaged very little with the parts of my posts that I think are of the most importance.
I get it. I just think it's a complete botch from the very start. It drowns in subjectivity and nothing objective is knowable. You said it yourself in that first sentence- we can't know it until we die.
Well, that just confirms that you don't get it. For starters, just because we can't know for sure til we die, doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth. Come on Zach, you can do better than that. I can sum up one of the differences between our views quite concisely. When Jesus says "do this in remembrance of me", you think he means "replicate". I think he means "copy". A replication has to be exactly the same. A copy might look a bit different in places, but tries to be faithful to the original.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Forget telling the difference between red and red-orange. You have absolutely no basis for asserting an objective difference between red and blue. You just wave the question off. "It won't happen!"

Well, my father was colorblind. It happened all the time.

Fair enough, I didn't take colourblindness into account. But that's because it was a metaphor for the fact that although some things are easily categorised, other things can be in-between, they are difficult to put into one box or another. I wasn't really wanting to discuss the nature of colour and perception itself. But rather than engage with the camel, you became fixated with the gnat.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Well, that just confirms that you don't get it.
I didn't accuse of of denying objective truth, I accused of denying knowable objective truth. [brick wall]

quote:
Fair enough, I didn't take colourblindness into account. But that's because it was a metaphor for the fact that although some things are easily categorised, other things can be in-between, they are difficult to put into one box or another. I wasn't really wanting to discuss the nature of colour and perception itself. But rather than engage with the camel, you became fixated with the gnat.
I'm talking about coherent definitions, of which you and LeRoc have worked up exactly zero when it comes to the Eucharist.

A definition that doesn't give us an idea of when something is not the thing signified is a completely incoherent definition.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I didn't accuse of of denying objective truth, I accused of denying knowable objective truth. [brick wall]

Sorry my fault, but either way you're conflating things. When I said that we'd find out the other side of the grave, that was merely in the context of finding out who was 'right' in the end, not in the context of finding out whether a Eucharist was valid or not. So, once and for all, your accusation of my view making everything merely subjective is straw man rubbish stemming from you not understanding what I have been saying.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm talking about coherent definitions, of which you and LeRoc have worked up exactly zero when it comes to the Eucharist.

A definition that doesn't give us an idea of when something is not the thing signified is a completely incoherent definition.

I have. You just don't like it because it leaves space for grey areas.

I'm going to try to explain the difference one last time. You see the Eucharist as something that should be replicated; done the same as the way Jesus did it. So when you ask the question "are the bread and wine necessary for the Eucharist", you're asking within that understanding. If they're not present, we're not replicating, so it's not valid. And you want me to answer within that framework - if I say yes, great. If I say no, then it's not replication, so it's not eucharist anymore.

I see Jesus words as telling us to copy him. A copy doesn't look exactly the same as the original. Some bits can look a bit different. We might use a different type of bread, or not have it as part of a meal, or have separate Baptist thimbles rather than one cup.

So when you ask "are the bread and wine necessary for the Eucharist", I'd say that they're an important part of the picture that we're trying to copy. And we always want to copy the best we can. But I can conceive of situations where it might not be possible or practical. So we still try to copy as close as we can - non alcoholic juice is an example. So I'd say "not necessarily", but usually. That's not making everything subjective and up in the air. It's just defining the Eucharist in a different way to you. At some point a picture is nothing like something it's meant to be copying, but it's not easy to define where the point is.

As I said at the start, I think my view has historical and theological precedent. I've given examples, and the fact that churches do things in slightly different ways suggests that it's the symbol, not the mechanic that is important. Not just for the Eucharist, but for all sacraments. If you think my opinion's wrong, then those are the things you need to challenge, not come out with some bollocks about making everything subjective, or not believing that truth can be known, because all that betrays is that you've not been listening to what I've been saying at all.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are confusing definition and etymology.

The etymology of βαπτίζω is 'to immerse.' That doesn't mean that's what the definition is.

Fair point. But still, at some point the meaning of the word changed to encompass more than its original literal meaning. If that happened after the Christian adoption of Baptism as an initiation rite, it would be interesting to know how it happened
True. And more than just interesting, but pretty important to our understanding of what baptism is, and what it symbolizes/does.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think this paradigm of the sacraments is an ancient one. I linked to the didache in an earlier post, but it seemed to pass you by. In the section on baptism, it gives the template (cold, running water, full immersion), but allows for alternatives if this isn't available. Now although there is an ideal, it does not mean that not being able to carry out that ideal means that the baptism isn't valid. You're baptised or not, whether you're submerged in cold running water, or have warm water poured over your head. EVEN THOUGH, as many baptists will tell you, baptism means 'submerge'.

But here's the thing -- you should use cold running water and full immersion, but if you only have something less, you can use the best you have. But it doesn't say that water itself is unnecessary, does it? It's a physical act that requires physical contact between baptizer, water, and baptisand. It doesn't go on to say, "But if you can't be there with water, send him a letter and let him pour the water on himself."

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But here's the thing -- you should use cold running water and full immersion, but if you only have something less, you can use the best you have. But it doesn't say that water itself is unnecessary, does it? It's a physical act that requires physical contact between baptizer, water, and baptisand. It doesn't go on to say, "But if you can't be there with water, send him a letter and let him pour the water on himself."

Very true. Because, at some point the copy doesn't resemble the original template enough to be valid. I think a physical act is an important part of what happens, which is why I'm much more comfortable with online sacraments actually including bread and wine, and not solely reliant on pictures on the screen.

However, I was thinking about this, and whether there might be exceptional circumstances that would mean someone could be baptised via the internet. The situation I was wondering about, was if someone in a politically isolated country converted through interacting on the Internet, but had no physical contact with any other Christians. He or she would probably want to get baptised. Now I'd hope that somehow, they'd be able to find another christian to baptise them, but assuming they couldn't, my question would be, would a baptism via Skype be the best option with no other alternatives? Or would it just be a case of tough luck? I don't know, but I think that it's more than a theoretical exercise. After all, the anabaptists had the quandary of who should be the one to baptise the others, when none of them had had (in their opinions) a valid baptism yet. We've also discussed before on the ship about a bunch of shipwrecked laypeople sharing communion. As I recall, TripleT's view was that it would be worth trying to do, even if it wouldn't technically be valid (If I'm mistaken, apologies, TT).

But my general point is that doing the best you can in a circumstance is dependent on that circumstance, so what's good enough in one situation might not be in another.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Now I have a headache. Are sacraments really something you try out to see if it works?

I have edited the above to remove scare quotes.

[ 20. June 2012, 06:44: Message edited by: the long ranger ]

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would say they're something you do, to the best of your ability, following the instruction of Christ to "do this". They're done trusting that they will 'work', although to be honest I'm not sure anyone can say what they're supposed to do let alone know if they've done it.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say they're something you do, to the best of your ability, following the instruction of Christ to "do this". They're done trusting that they will 'work', although to be honest I'm not sure anyone can say what they're supposed to do let alone know if they've done it.

But how would you even know if it had 'worked'? What does 'worked' even mean in that context?

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: The thing is, conversation is only even possible if there is an objectively knowable definition. Otherwise every conversation can only go thus-

"I think the Eucharist is this."

"I think it is this."

*the end*

I disagree, it's quite possible to do or to discuss something without defining it clearly. Besides the Ship, I'm also on a forum that discusses world music. In spite of having enjoyed, played and composed it for a long time, I wouldn't be able to give a consistent, objective definition of what 'world music' is, even if someone threatened to club me on the head. However, our discussions go far beyond "I think world music is this." "I think it is this."

quote:
Zach82: Don't say both can be right, because that's not what LeRoc believes. In saying Johnny Sicko is NOT participating in the Eucharist when he pushes old ladies down the stairs, even if he feels totally connected and with God when he does it, he is insisting that there are objective criteria for knowing what is and isn't a Eucharist.
Only if you have a view of "Either you have a conherent, objective definition of what Eucharist is, or anything goes." Like others have said, there's a big grey area in between.

I cannot give a precise definition of what world music is, but I'm quite sure that Britney Spears isn't part of it.

quote:
Zach82: I'm talking about coherent definitions, of which you and LeRoc have worked up exactly zero when it comes to the Eucharist.
You should know by now that I come from a church history that's quite undogmatic (at times probably even anti-dogmatic), so I'm afraid I'm unable to give you a 'coherent', 'objective' definition of Eucharist.

I believe that Eucharist is a wonderful gift from God, and a gift usually doesn't come accompanied by an extensive rulebook. And since it comes from God, I believe that we'll probably never be able to understand it completely. Trying to limit it, condition it, determine what exactly it is and what it isn't, wouldn't be the right thing to me. It seems too much like trying to limit God, and I don't believe we're allowed to do that.

I don't think Eucharist is like potato starch, something you can define easily. It's more like friendship, something that would actually lose its charm if you'd define it too rigidly.

That doesn't mean that I've said exactly zero about it. In fact, on this thread I gave quite a number of elements that are important to me with regards to it. But I'm afraid that's all you'll get from me, you'll have to do with it.

quote:
mousethief: It doesn't go on to say, "But if you can't be there with water, send him a letter and let him pour the water on himself."
I agree that this would be quite dodgy.

quote:
long ranger: I have edited the above to remove scare quotes.
To a degree. To me, it isn't a case of 'anything goes'. You'd have to have some respect for the original meaning of the sacrament.


You know what? Somehow, I don't believe that God is waiting for the Ship to do this experiment, rule book in hand, to see if we comply with the consistent, objective rules that define Eucharist, a cynical bureaucrat, ready to mark a 'fail' if we don't follow rule 386(b) section 5.

Deep, deep down inside, I have this thought that God is watching this experiment with a slight grin on His face, thinking: "Let's see what they come up with. Let's see if it'll work. I'll be there." Now there's a God I can believe in.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops, I copied the wrong part of the long ranger's post. It should have been "Are sacraments really something you try out to see if it works?"

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think your position is actually untenable, LeRoc. Without even needing to go to ridiculous straw-man extremes, one could use the same reasoning to argue that anything is the Eucharist.

Why not just go the whole hog and state that any meal you happen to be eating at any time with other Christians is the Eucharist?

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
long ranger: Why not just go the whole hog and state that any meal you happen to be eating at any time with other Christians is the Eucharist?
Like I said, the fact that I'm hesitant to define Eucharist very precisely doesn't mean that anything goes. A 'normal' meal with Christians wouldn't count as Eucharist to me. It has to be special, and you'd have to do it explicitly in remembrance of Jesus's body and blood. A meal where you'd do this for a few seconds, and then go on to discuss the football wouldn't count.

There, I've given another limitation of what I see as Eucharist. I'm getting closer, aren't I? [Smile]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm eating a piece of toast. If you were also and we were discussing the memory of Jesus body and blood on these boards, would that be the Eucharist?

Seems to me your position is entirely self-determined. Which underlines the problem - without agreement of what it is we are trying to establish, then debate on whether we are actually doing it becomes moot.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
long ranger: I'm eating a piece of toast. If you were also and we were discussing the memory of Jesus body and blood on these boards, would that be the Eucharist?
I guess the experiment of the Ship is exactly to try to find out what the limits of Eucharist are. So I don't know. If we would both be saying that this was a special meal, and that we were doing this explicitly in His memory, and if we'd have some kind of interaction while doing this, then maybe it might be.

Let me again say explicitly that this will not be true for all church traditions, so maybe it would help to explain where I'm coming from. I come from a group that would probably be called alt.worship, Small Fire or Emerging Church in English, depending on your country (in Dutch we usually call ourselves 'Ecumenical Movement').

We do Eucharist, but we don't require a priest or a preacher to be present for it. Heck, we don't even have a priest or a fixed preacher. And my church allows groups of us to do Eucharist outside of regularly scheduled church services. This will definitely not be everyone's piece of toast, but maybe it explains why I have a relatively 'loose' approach to Eucharist. But again, this doesn't mean that anything goes.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, for you, LeRoc, the critical thing is the act of memory, for others that bread and wine is used, for others that participants are in one place.

These things are not reconcilable.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

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