|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The offence of defining the Church
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Dave Marshall
quote:
The owls (who make my point in the story) are disinterested observers commenting on whether Mr Exclusive or Mr Inclusive were closer to God's preference.
But you are not a disinterested observer and such a person does not exist. You have being asked to justify your assertion that being 'inclusive' is morally superior to being 'exclusive' and you have chosen instead to restate the assertion in the form of a story.
The nearest you get to arguing your corner can be summarised thus:- Morality is about values not derived from religious belief
- God is the creator of the universe
- Church defines a ritual which provides 'access to God'
- This ritual is available only to those with certain beliefs
Point 2 is uncontroversial. Wood has, I think, demonstrated that point 3 is untrue where 'communion' is concerned, so point 4 falls.
Actually, point 1 is the more important assertion, but it is also more difficult. The question of whether morality can be derived independently of religous values is a matter of controversy - some say it can, other that it cannot - you would have to justify this statement.
However, if we accept point 1 at face value, how can a moral proposition based on non-religious values be compared with a moral proposition based on religious values? If a proposition from one system stands in direct contradiction to that of the other system, how can we possibly adjudicate which is to be preferred? We would need a morality based on some system of values which transcends both religious and non-religious beliefs.
I think your argument is actually a version of the modern fallacy espoused by people like Richard Dawkins who believe that non-religious beliefs are inherently morally superior to religious ones.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Dear Isaac David,
quote:
The nearest you get to arguing your corner can be summarised thus:- Morality is about values not derived from religious belief
- God is the creator of the universe
- Church defines a ritual which provides 'access to God'
- This ritual is available only to those with certain beliefs
Point 2 is uncontroversial. Wood has, I think, demonstrated that point 3 is untrue where 'communion' is concerned, so point 4 falls.
Your basic premise, that this list represents my position, is false. The list is a fair summary of ground covered but only points 1 and 2 are mine, so points 3 and 4 are moot.
quote:
Actually, point 1 is the more important assertion, but it is also more difficult. The question of whether morality can be derived independently of religous values is a matter of controversy - some say it can, other that it cannot - you would have to justify this statement.
I understand morality as based on societal values. For a society to function, laws with majority assent are required to limit freedom tos in return for freedom froms. Decisions about what laws to make will be based on shared values that need have no religious justification.
quote:
However, if we accept point 1 at face value, how can a moral proposition based on non-religious values be compared with a moral proposition based on religious values? If a proposition from one system stands in direct contradiction to that of the other system, how can we possibly adjudicate which is to be preferred? We would need a morality based on some system of values which transcends both religious and non-religious beliefs.
You are relying on 'religious' and 'non-religious' being identifiable and mutually exclusive domains for the consideration of morality. I'm not convinced they are.
quote:
I think your argument is actually a version of the modern fallacy espoused by people like Richard Dawkins who believe that non-religious beliefs are inherently morally superior to religious ones.
I think Dawkins may delude himself about how much he understands, but I would not be surprised (I'm not familiar with his work) if I shared his views regarding the limitations that religions place on their adherents in terms of researching truth.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Dave Marshall
This quote:
- Morality is about values not derived from religious belief
- God is the creator of the universe
- Church defines a ritual which provides 'access to God'
- This ritual is available only to those with certain beliefs
is an attempt to summarise this quote:
If morality is about values not derived from religious belief, and if by God we mean the creator of the universe, then if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.
which you wrote, did you not? quote:
I understand morality as based on societal values. For a society to function, laws with majority assent are required to limit freedom tos in return for freedom froms. Decisions about what laws to make will be based on shared values that need have no religious justification.
So you have no fixed moral values? Is there never an occasion when society is wrong? And what happens when a society is religious? quote:
You are relying on 'religious' and 'non-religious' being identifiable and mutually exclusive domains for the consideration of morality.
No. I'd agree that they are not always identifiable or mutually exclusive, but sometimes they are. Bioethics is one area where religious and non-religious values can lead to different moral choices. quote:
I would not be surprised ... if I shared [Richard Dawkins'] views regarding the limitations that religions place on their adherents in terms of researching truth.
Which implies that religious belief and 'truth' are somehow opposed - not something you can take for granted.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
If morality is about values not derived from religious belief, and if by God we mean the creator of the universe, then if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.
which you wrote, did you not? quote:
I understand morality as based on societal values. For a society to function, laws with majority assent are required to limit freedom tos in return for freedom froms. Decisions about what laws to make will be based on shared values that need have no religious justification.
So you have no fixed moral values? Is there never an occasion when society is wrong? And what happens when a society is religious? quote:
You are relying on 'religious' and 'non-religious' being identifiable and mutually exclusive domains for the consideration of morality.
No. I'd agree that they are not always identifiable or mutually exclusive, but sometimes they are. Bioethics is one area where religious and non-religious values can lead to different moral choices. quote:
I would not be surprised ... if I shared [Richard Dawkins'] views regarding the limitations that religions place on their adherents in terms of researching truth.
Which implies that religious belief and 'truth' are somehow opposed - not something you can take for granted.
Like I said - cultural and spiritual imperialism.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Dear Isaac David,
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If morality is about values not derived from religious belief, and if by God we mean the creator of the universe, then if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.
I did indeed write this, but attempting to summarise it as a bullet-pointed list then claiming it represents a corner I am arguing is nonsense. If you ignore context, change sentence structure, and ommit significant words (like 'if') you are unlikely to get an accurate summary.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
So you have no fixed moral values? Is there never an occasion when society is wrong? And what happens when a society is religious?
Fixed to what? Is religion a fixed point?
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I would not be surprised ... if I shared [Richard Dawkins'] views regarding the limitations that religions place on their adherents in terms of researching truth.
Which implies that religious belief and 'truth' are somehow opposed - not something you can take for granted.
Religious commitment implies certain beliefs. If a religion is defined by those beliefs, it is unlikely to entertain the possibility that they may be wrong. It therefore discourages consideration of certain areas of truth. If it is an honest religion it will not oppose truth, so if new evidence comes to light it's beliefs may shift, but the truth consideration limits will shift with them.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Like I said - cultural and spiritual imperialism
Yes, you've said it twice now. What do you mean exactly?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Dave Marshall quote:
Fixed to what? Is religion a fixed point?
I can't speak for all religions, but many religions teach that moral values are permanent because they are derived from a transcendent source. Society changes and its values change, so any moral system based on the values of society will change too. If all your moral values are socially derived, you may have no standpoint from which to criticise society; are there any moral values which transcend society according to your model? If there are none, talk of 'morality' may actually be meaningless, and if there are, how are they derived? quote:
Religious commitment implies certain beliefs. If a religion is defined by those beliefs, it is unlikely to entertain the possibility that they may be wrong. It therefore discourages consideration of certain areas of truth.
I can't see how this adds anything to your previous assertion. What is this 'truth' which you think religion is discouraging consideration of?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear Dave Marshall quote:
Fixed to what? Is religion a fixed point?
I can't speak for all religions, but many religions teach that moral values are permanent because they are derived from a transcendent source.
<snip>
Religions teach that moral values are permanent, but the real-life application of those values shifts as much as socially-derived values, at least in my 50-odd years of watching people and institutions in action.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Religions teach that moral values are permanent, but the real-life application of those values shifts as much as socially-derived values, at least in my 50-odd years of watching people and institutions in action.
True. Many people don't believe that in some parts of Europe less than 100 years ago it was okay to kill and eat one's parents, for instance.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Dear Isaac David,
quote:
I can't speak for all religions, but many religions teach that moral values are permanent because they are derived from a transcendent source. Society changes and its values change, so any moral system based on the values of society will change too. If all your moral values are socially derived, you may have no standpoint from which to criticise society; are there any moral values which transcend society according to your model? If there are none, talk of 'morality' may actually be meaningless, and if there are, how are they derived?
It's got to be down to us to work out the values we live by. Some may claim (and believe) their particular morality is God-given, but they do that inside and outside of religion. Permanent values? The best we can do is what's right for our time and trust future generations to do the same.
quote:
What is this 'truth' which you think religion is discouraging consideration of?
Ah yes, 'what is truth'. You probably need to refer to a higher authority on that one.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Dave Marshall quote:
Ah yes, 'what is truth'. You probably need to refer to a higher authority on that one.
No, I'm asking you.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear Dave Marshall quote:
Ah yes, 'what is truth'. You probably need to refer to a higher authority on that one.
No, I'm asking you.
In this context, mainly the nature of God and what he requires of us. For example, Christianity does not encourage consideration of whether Jesus really is God and the Saviour of the world. If you are an orthodox Christian, this tends to be what you believe - by definition. As I suggested, for the truth of this I see no alternative but to take it up with God directly in whatever way you normally do this.
What is your view?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Dave Marshall
My answer would be that God has already revealed this and neither I nor the Church has any need to ask again. Why do you think we would get a different answer this time round? Do you think we got it wrong?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Dear Isaac David,
quote:
My answer would be that God has already revealed this and neither I nor the Church has any need to ask again. Why do you think we would get a different answer this time round?
Changes in culture mean every generation brings a different context to any question. Assuming previous generations added only ultimately right contributions to church understanding seems to me at best open to question. Precluding any belief from complete revaluation, based only on an earlier human (and therefore potentially flawed) decision, sounds very unwise. That anything is 'revelation from God' is a human claim, and so in my opinion can never be relied on as 'final truth'.
quote:
Do you think we got it wrong?
Yes. That's why I'm not an orthodox Christian.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Changes in culture mean every generation brings a different context to any question. Assuming previous generations added only ultimately right contributions to church understanding seems to me at best open to question. Precluding any belief from complete revaluation, based only on an earlier human (and therefore potentially flawed) decision, sounds very unwise. That anything is 'revelation from God' is a human claim, and so in my opinion can never be relied on as 'final truth'.
I simply find it difficult to believe we -- the church -- are meant to reinvent the wheel every --what? 20 years? 10? 5?
It took the church 300+ years to hammer out the Nicene/Constantinopolitan Creed. The solution to the iconoclast problem was over 100 years in coming. Are we meant to revisit all these things on a regular basis? Whatever for? Is the Holy Spirit so weak that it cannot lead us into truth with staying power? St. Paul describes with condemnation people who are "blown about by every wind of doctrine." And should the whole church be thus? It boggles the mind.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I simply find it difficult to believe we -- the church -- are meant to reinvent the wheel every --what? 20 years? 10? 5?
I suppose it depends what we - as individuals - want from God. If you want a religion, then I agree. From what I've read here Orthodoxy probably has a good claim to best represent the Christian religion in terms of a historically consistent development of its tradition, but that's no guarantee it's error free.
If you simply want to know what God is like in order to inform your decision-making (as I do), I see nothing to compare with going back to creation and all of humanity's history within it. This allows for consideration of all sources that might be relevent, including but not limited to religious beliefs, and seems to me the soundest basis for a personal theology.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Dave Marshall quote:
That anything is 'revelation from God' is a human claim, and so in my opinion can never be relied on as 'final truth'.
Unfortunately, this is also a human claim - yours. Such assertions as that the Bible and the Tradition of the Church are products of human speculation, pious legends, monks' fables or stories invented by the ruling classes in order to maintain their power are simply not credible when compared with the lives of holy men and women of God who have demonstrably lived the Gospel. What power would human inventions have to give us two thousand years of such people, whose holiness, humility, sacrificial love is sufficient witness to something which transcends mortal, earthly concerns?
But such evidence does not constitute proof, alas. You are free to believe that we are wrong, based on your own experience and reasoning. I am compelled by my own experience and the experience of countless others throughout history to believe and trust that the Church's witness is unchanging and true. I cannot ignore the evidence.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Dear Isaac David,
quote:
You are free to believe that we are wrong, based on your own experience and reasoning.
That is my choice.
quote:
I am compelled by my own experience and the experience of countless others throughout history to believe and trust that the Church's witness is unchanging and true.
That in turn is your choice.
quote:
I cannot ignore the evidence.
Me neither.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Would you then get upset if a Roman Catholic said (and I'm aware that not all would, but this seems to me to be RC doctrine) that as a Baptist you're not in the Church, although they hope you'll be saved anyway?
Yes, I would get upset, because any Roman Catholic who would say that doesn't know his own doctrine very well.
The doctrine is to the contrary: anyone who is properly baptized with water in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a member of the church: that is, a member of the Holy Catholic Church. 'Baptized into, even if not baptized in.'
And in my experience, if you are a Baptist, then you are apt to object to that: "How dare they call me a member of their church?"
There is also, however, the question of the validity of the sacrament of Holy Communion (and of the clerical orders which support it). The most exclusive as to this are the Eastern Orthodox. Next are the RCs, who (if pressed) acknowledge Orthodox orders as well as their own. Next are the Anglicans, who acknowledge both of the above plus their own and a few other small groups whom most Americans have never even heard of.
So, speaking most strictly, we would say that Baptists are members of the church, but they are so starving themselves that their admission to heaven would be by virtue of uncovenanted grace.
This distinction, however crucial, at least in the west, has more to do with organization and tactual transmission of authority than with whether someone believes thus-and-so. But all three kinds of Catholics also hold the canon of scripture and the Athanasian, Nicene and Apostles Creeds as standards of doctrine, and we actually say the latter two creeds regularly. Many Protestants are very big indeed on the scriptures, but not all credit these creeds; and for some who do, you'll so seldom hear them recited in services that you may well fear that they're just a formality.
[ 30. August 2004, 19:21: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I would call anyone who calls on the name of Jesus a Christian, and thus a member of The Church.
So, one day a poor, unlettered Hindu walking down the street passes someone crying, "Jesus, save me!" and thinks he hears "Jeez, save me!" He goes home and that evening and cries "Jeez, save me!" That's all he knows.
Is he a Christian? If not, would he be one if he had only heard correctly and cried "Jesus, save me!"
Pardon me for thinking that there has to be a little more to it than that.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Like I said - cultural and spiritual imperialism
Yes, you've said it twice now. What do you mean exactly?
You remember when I asked if you'd walk through prayers in a mosque with your shoes on and you didn't actually say whether you would or not?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
You remember when I asked if you'd walk through prayers in a mosque with your shoes on and you didn't actually say whether you would or not?
I have a vague recollection... it was totally beside the point I think.
But other things being equal, no. How is this relevent?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Well actually, it is so utterly not beside the point.
Inasmuch as, by declaring a moral superiority which, although thought out to some degree, still essentially boils down to "well, inclusive is morally superior because it just is", you place yourself in a position where, although you claim not to be, you are imposing your own morality upon other Christian groups. You wouldn't do it to a Muslim, right?
Well, no. You wouldn't. You just said so. So why attempt to impose this on the Orthodox? Or Catholics? Or Evangelicals?
Yesterday, I saw George W Bush being interviewed on BBC News 24. He was affable, pleasant to the interviewer and came across as the kind of bloke you wouldn't mind having round for dinner, as long as you didn't mention politics. One thing he said: he started talking about it how was the US's duty to "spread freedom and liberty throughout the world", and asserted that democracy was better and how everybody wanted democracy, really. And I thought, how terribly arrogant. Did he really miss the irony of claiming to spread liberty, whether people wanted it or not? Who says that George W Bush can just tell us all what we want anyway? Do you have any idea how daft it is to just attempt to slot a Western democracy into a country like Iraq without the three hundred years of history that a democracy presupposes?
Dave, none of your posts on this thread have dissuaded me from my opinion that in your basic assumptions, you are doing exactly the same thing.
I think one of the reasons the "owls" story annoyed me so much was because it had a shedload of assumptions about what is manifestly right and wrong.
And of course, it's not my call as to whether anyone else is a Christian. It's theirs.
All I've done is to say what the vast majority of Christians have considered to define a Christian, and to agree with it. I have also defended the Orthodox/Catholic approach to "Church", even though I don't agree with it meself, inasmuch as it makes perfect sense within its theological framework and is entirely morally neutral.
You seem to be saying that actually, what defines a Christian is the simple act of calling yourself one. Allow me to return to the Muslim analogy: if you walked into a mosque, said "hey, I'm a Muslim!" and then told the Imam at prayer that you thought the Five Pillars are stupid and that you'd be keeping your shoes on, if it's all the same, I have a gut feeling that it just wouldn't wash.
Call me a hidebound narrow-minded traditionalist, but I've always had this gut feeling that in order to really count yourself as a member of a religion, you actually have to, you know, believe in at least some of what it's about. And, in some cases, this means doing as well. So if you're a Christian, this might mean praying and working for trade justice and standing up for the poor and dispossessed and telling people and stuff, and if you're an Orthodox Christian, this might mean getting Chrismated and Baptised and prepared, and it might mean a whole host of other things. Like Jospephine so brilliantly put it, you can't expect the rights of a citizen if you're only a tourist.
Note I said "call yourself". I personally believe that it's a matter of conscience as to whether someone is a member of the church or not. I doubt that if you went into an Orthodox church and you simply told them that you were Orthodox (with all that entails) that they'd ever deny you communion. Likewise, a Catholic church. That would be between you and your conscience (and if you did fib to get communion, that would be very, very bad. Duh). As in, I don't get to decide. Each person does.
But I believe quite firmly that you do actually have to have something to decide. Each religion has stuff it believes and does. You can't say "I'm a Christian", and then create a new religion, calling it Christianity. That's insane.
[ 31. August 2004, 09:54: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
this seems to me to be RC doctrine
Sorry, I have should have withdrawn this when corrected earlier. It no longer seems to me... etc.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
And while I'm apologising, you're very definitely not invisible, Wood. That last was spot on. Have a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) just for the irritation value ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I think the reason I like Purgatory so much is that I can air a half-formed argument, then sit back and watch as several people run with it in the direction I'd have gone myself if my feeble writing, debating and thinking skills were up to the job.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood
I'm still not sure where you're getting this "access to God" thing from. It does no such thing. In a Protestant Church, the Communion is a symbolic affirmation of our brotherhood as believers and friends with each other and a corporate symbolic re-enactment of Christ's death and resurrection. For us, it's not about any extra "access" to God;
Dear Wood / Dave,
This exchange seemed close to the heart of the issue.
On the one hand, any purely private association of individuals can do more or less what they like without trespassing on the interests of others.
If the Little Snoring Village Darts Club want to have a monthly dinner for members only, and want to expel any member who doesn't stand for the loyal toast, that's fine. It's their club; it's no skin off anyone else's nose.
If, on the other hand, the award of some public post (Lord Mayor of Little Snoring ?), which a priori should be open to all, were - by historical quirk - to be dependent on the criterion of whether or not one had been seen at the darts club dinner, then the club would lose its "purely private" status, and might be morally obliged to admit those unable (perhaps through age or infirmity) to stand for the loyal toast but who otherwise might make an excellent Lord Mayor.
Do you see the distinction, the principle I'm struggling to express ?
If our Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters are happy to be members of a private club, an association which - however much it means to them - they accept as being objectively of the same status as anyone else's ecclesial body, then no-one should be offended if they do things the way they've "always" done them.
That's what you might call a "low" view of the Orthodox/Catholic church.
The "high"est view might be that God has chosen sacrament XXX of the YYY church to be the vehicle for bringing His salvation to all people. In which case, for the YYY church to restrict the means of salvation to (just a few examples to make the point)- their friends, or
- white people, or
- those able to afford £000s for subscription to membership, or
- Latin speakers, or
- those holding a Thomist philosophy
or any other similar dimension of "exclusiveness" would be a betrayal.
We all have need of God. Being the "one true Church" carries an obligation of being the Church for everybody, of not letting the Church become aligned with any of the myriad dimensions of variation in humanity.
I'm normally very wary of either/or - there may well be room for "in between" views. In which perhaps the sacrament does not of itself convey or enable or define salvation (despite that verse about "unless you eat this bread and drink this cup you shall not have life within you" or however it goes), but perhaps conveys a Grace that is very helpful for salvation ?
I don't think it's for us non-Catholic non-Orthodox to say what view of their churches our Catholic or Orthodox shipmates should hold.
But we can perhaps ask them to be clear about how "high" a view they choose to hold, pointing out that the "high" view comes with a price - the moral duty of acting inclusively insofar as one acts in the public realm.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I define "Christian"... ...as Trinitarian
But would you be unhappy at any suggestion that you should therefore forgo all use of the term "Christian" and call yourself a Trinitarian instead ? In the interests of accuracy...
Why would you so object ? Well, you're probably quite attached to the label "Christian". You might even feel that following Christ is at the heart of your religion - more important than whether or not you profess the doctrine of the Trinity (which no-one really understands anyway).
But perhaps the Unitarians feel the same way.
So what makes you feel that it is right to take their preferred label away from them and restrict it to you and your bunch of Trinitarians ? Grandfather rights ? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If the Little Snoring Village Darts Club want to have a monthly dinner for members only, and want to expel any member who doesn't stand for the loyal toast, that's fine. It's their club; it's no skin off anyone else's nose.
If, on the other hand, the award of some public post (Lord Mayor of Little Snoring ?), which a priori should be open to all, were - by historical quirk - to be dependent on the criterion of whether or not one had been seen at the darts club dinner, then the club would lose its "purely private" status, and might be morally obliged to admit those unable (perhaps through age or infirmity) to stand for the loyal toast but who otherwise might make an excellent Lord Mayor.
Do you see the distinction, the principle I'm struggling to express ?
Uh, no. Try that again?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I define "Christian"... ...as Trinitarian
But would you be unhappy at any suggestion that you should therefore forgo all use of the term "Christian" and call yourself a Trinitarian instead ? In the interests of accuracy...
Why? When it first became an issue, it was decided that Christianity was Trinitarian. And while actually getting on with living like a Christian is just as important, the Trinity defines what we're about. The Resurrection, the Atonement (however you describe it), the work of the Holy Spirit; these depend on the Trinity.
So what if no one understands it? Christians are Trinitarian. Trinitarians are Christian. This is how we define our religion, and how we pretty much always have (anyway, as far as understanding it goes, all you have to do is hold two contradictory views at the same time. Easy. Most people do that anyway).
This is a simple point which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's right or not to believe in the Trinity. That's not the point.
The point is that the name "Christian" is not a lifestyle accesory. It is not a label that comes free of baggage. In the same way that if you're a Muslim, you've got the Five Pillars of Islam, if you're a Christian, you have the Divinity of Christ. Maybe it really is never what Jesus intended. But if it isn't, and you want to follow a different religion that in your opinion follows Jesus in a way you consider to be closer to what He said and did, well, you're going to have to call it by a different name. "Christian" is taken.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
We all have need of God. Being the "one true Church" carries an obligation of being the Church for everybody,
Russ, we are the Church for everybody who cares to be join. How is that not inclusive enough?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Well actually, it is so utterly not beside the point...
It's not beside the point you are making and, as GreyFace said, making well. It's just not the issue I was trying to raise.
I think we're missing each other's meaning here because you are treating my beliefs as another religion. Unless you call a personal theology a religion, that means you're not comparing like with like. You imply I call myself a Christian. On this thread I may have only said I'm not an orthodox Christian, but in the context I did not want exclude the possibility that I might have similar views to people like Borg and Spong. They are attempting to redefine Christianity; I am not. On other threads, including one in The Styx, I have made clear I no longer consider or call myself a Christian.
And just for the record, I have no more sympathy than you with George W Bush's scary take on liberty or with an outsider attempting to impose their views on any Christian or Muslim tradition's internal affairs.
Going back to where I came in:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.
My understanding is that morality is not contained by religion. It is an area where my contributions are not excluded on 'outsider' grounds. God the creator is, I think, also in the public domain and does not exclude anyone, Christian or not, from relating to him.
So the logic of my point was along the lines:
1) God the creator relates to us inclusively.
2) Christian belief incorporates God as creator.
3) Comparing a Christian practice to how God the creator does something similar is legitimate for a non-Christian.
4) Inclusive communion is closer to how God does something similar than exclusive communion.
5) 'Closer' in this context is morally superior because it is closer to truth.
6) Your statement implies this is not so.
7) I disagree.
The owls, of course, had made these connections and felt no qualms about taking a view.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I think we're missing each other's meaning here because you are treating my beliefs as another religion. Unless you call a personal theology a religion, that means you're not comparing like with like. You imply I call myself a Christian. On this thread I may have only said I'm not an orthodox Christian, but in the context I did not want exclude the possibility that I might have similar views to people like Borg and Spong. They are attempting to redefine Christianity; I am not. On other threads, including one in The Styx, I have made clear I no longer consider or call myself a Christian.
OK, well, I've missed that. I had no idea. In fact, before this thread, I don't think you registered on my radar.
That's not an insult, by the way. I just haven't noticed you before.
Thank you for the clarification.
Anyway. This (and this next quote) begs the question...
quote:
And just for the record, I have no more sympathy than you with George W Bush's scary take on liberty or with an outsider attempting to impose their views on any Christian or Muslim tradition's internal affairs.
...namely, why try it on with the Orthodox, then?
quote:
Going back to where I came in:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.
My understanding is that morality is not contained by religion. It is an area where my contributions are not excluded on 'outsider' grounds. God the creator is, I think, also in the public domain and does not exclude anyone, Christian or not, from relating to him.
But, as Josephine just said: the various churches are all open to anyone who wants to join. How is that exclusive in the first place?
quote:
So the logic of my point was along the lines:
1) God the creator relates to us inclusively.
Nice phrase. What does it mean?
quote:
2) Christian belief incorporates God as creator.
Uncontroversial.
quote:
3) Comparing a Christian practice to how God the creator does something similar is legitimate for a non-Christian.
Um... why?
quote:
4) Inclusive communion is closer to how God does something similar than exclusive communion.
Um... why?
quote:
5) 'Closer' in this context is morally superior because it is closer to truth.
Aaaaaaaand here we go again.
Can you really not see why this statement is intellectually on a par with "everybody in the world wants democracy really"?
This is. Not. A self. Evident. Fact.
quote:
6) Your statement implies this is not so.
My statement implies that drawing a line of belief is morally neutral, and that the Orthodox practice of communion is likewise morally neutral. Likewise, the inclusive theology is just as morally neutral.
quote:
7) I disagree.
Well, then, this is because of your primary assumptions, which so really need to be challenged.
quote:
The owls, of course, had made these connections and felt no qualms about taking a view.
OK. Again you come up with the "hey, I've got the Truth and you don't" line. Your smug little owls may have the intellectual ability to "make the conection" and somehow "get it" but please forgive me if I find the connections difficult to connect.
Why do these points follow on from each other?
[ 31. August 2004, 14:52: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
OK, well, I've missed that. I had no idea. In fact, before this thread, I don't think you registered on my radar.
That's not an insult, by the way. I just haven't noticed you before.
Thank you for the clarification.
Well, this is about on a par with your little outburst earlier about 'not making you well-disposed towards me' and 'not improving your mood'. You apologise after the fact but by then it's out there. I take this effort as a clearly intended put-down, and your 'not an insult' an insult to my intelligence.
quote:
why try it on with the Orthodox, then?
You will need to say where this comes from. It certainly wasn't anything I intended or thought my posts contained.
I don't see any point in trying to make sense of your other responses separately. My items 1) to 7) were an honest attempt to explain my original point. I don't detect an honest attempt to understand from you. You seem to assume your understanding is superior, that I cannot possibly have a valid point to make, so you're rattling off quotes and dismissive replies. You don't appear to be considering my post as whole, or the progression of thought and links between points on which I understand logic depends.
I'd like to think more about point 1) because if that doesn't hold water neither does the rest. But if your primary concern is to not be wrong, rather than consider an issue on which it appears your opinion is not universaly shared, I don't see it's a good use of my time.
quote:
Your smug little owls may have the intellectual ability to "make the conection" and somehow "get it" but please forgive me if I find the connections difficult to connect.
OK. I could have left them out of it. I was trying to lighten this exchange up. I'm trying to explain the connections. The story sums up what I mean, but I need to find a better way. But are you really interested in what I think?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
1) God the creator relates to us inclusively.
I don't know what you mean by this. If you mean that he loves all people, of course that's true. If you mean he makes himself known to all people, I would agree. If you mean he treats all people exactly the same way, I wouldn't agree. Only Moses was invited to the top of the mountain; Jesus only took Peter, James, and John with him to Mount Tabor.
quote:
2) Christian belief incorporates God as creator.
Okay.
quote:
3) Comparing a Christian practice to how God the creator does something similar is legitimate for a non-Christian.
This statement makes me decidedly uncomfortable, because of its lack of specificity. What Christian practice should we compare to what action of God?
quote:
4) Inclusive communion is closer to how God does something similar than exclusive communion.
There is a rather large blank in that statement. Would you please replace "something similar" with something a great deal more specific? It may be that the "something similar" that you're talking about may not be similar at all -- but it's hard to know that, since you've not said what it is.
quote:
5) 'Closer' in this context is morally superior because it is closer to truth.
I don't know that, since you haven't specified whatever it is you're talking about.
If you'd be a bit more specific, it would be much easier to discuss your take on this. As it is, I'm trying to understand your POV, but it doesn't seem that I have enough information.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
My understanding is that morality is not contained by religion.
Are you saying that is a morale absolute outside of religion or do you think that religion does not affect a particular view of morality?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It is an area where my contributions are not excluded on 'outsider' grounds. God the creator is, I think, also in the public domain and does not exclude anyone, Christian or not, from relating to him.
Do you believe in some of Deism that includes all faiths?
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But I believe quite firmly that you do actually have to have something to decide. Each religion has stuff it believes and does. You can't say "I'm a Christian", and then create a new religion, calling it Christianity. That's insane.
Wood,
Couldn't this be said about Luther, Calvin, Menno Simons, Count von Zinzendorf, General Booth, etc?
They all changed what Christianity means, or they appeared to do so.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
P.D.Q. Sparrow
Shipmate
# 5319
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But I believe quite firmly that you do actually have to have something to decide. Each religion has stuff it believes and does. You can't say "I'm a Christian", and then create a new religion, calling it Christianity. That's insane.
Wood,
Couldn't this be said about Luther, Calvin, Menno Simons, Count von Zinzendorf, General Booth, etc?
They all changed what Christianity means, or they appeared to do so.
Christina
Not really. They were reform movements within Christianity. Some here would like to redefine Christianity so that its vision of God is no longer Christocentric; in which case, you no longer would have Christianity, you would have something else entirely.
--------------------
Those who insist on being sure about everything must be content to creep along the ground and never soar. ~J.H. Newman
Posts: 374 | From: Pacific Northwest | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
OK, well, I've missed that. I had no idea. In fact, before this thread, I don't think you registered on my radar.
That's not an insult, by the way. I just haven't noticed you before.
Thank you for the clarification.
Well, this is about on a par with your little outburst earlier about 'not making you well-disposed towards me' and 'not improving your mood'. You apologise after the fact but by then it's out there. I take this effort as a clearly intended put-down, and your 'not an insult' an insult to my intelligence.
OK, I'm sorry. It honestly wasn't intended as any insult to you or your intelligence. I apologise if it came out that way. I really, honestly do. Before this thread, I honestly didn't know who you were.
It is not an insult. I was explaining why I didn't know you had said before that you weren't a Christian. Now calm down.
Incidentally, I've been trying to phrase my comments about Christianity with the general "you", that is, not directed at you specifically. This may not have been clear. It occurred to me about half an hour after replying last time that I should have said this before, since in hindsight you appear to have got the impression that I was getting personal.
quote:
quote:
why try it on with the Orthodox, then?
You will need to say where this comes from. It certainly wasn't anything I intended or thought my posts contained.
Right. Now you see, I thought that this was the whole root of the discussion.
I suspect there may have been a huge misunderstanding somewhere.
quote:
I don't see any point in trying to make sense of your other responses separately. My items 1) to 7) were an honest attempt to explain my original point. I don't detect an honest attempt to understand from you.
Now that isn't fair. I really am trying very hard to make sense of what you're saying, and I thought that your seven points were a good start to getting there. However, I still honestly don't see how one follows the other. I really would like to know why.
quote:
You seem to assume your understanding is superior, that I cannot possibly have a valid point to make, so you're rattling off quotes and dismissive replies.
OK. That really isn't fair.
I asked you why each point followed the other. I honestly wanted to know why. Stright questions.
I don't think my understanding is superior to yours. If I did, why would I bother discussing this? I'm finding it a bit frustrating, since I can't get past the perception that you don't seem to be backing up your assumptions.
quote:
You don't appear to be considering my post as whole, or the progression of thought and links between points on which I understand logic depends.
But I can't see how each of your points logically follows from the other. It isn't self evident.
quote:
I'd like to think more about point 1) because if that doesn't hold water neither does the rest.
OK, then. You can start by explaining in clear terms exactly what you mean by that first point. "God relates to us inclusively". Fine. Now explain what that means. In what terms? You mean God loves and relates to every human equally? Or do you mean something else?
Whatever. I don't see how 2 through 7 follow from point 1. Again: why do they follow?
About morality: inasmuch as if you are a member of a religion, your morality is defined by your religious belief.
If you aren't, it isn't. Morality isn't fixed. You have to get it from somewhere. Things which are OK now were horrendous crimes hundred of years ago; things which were OK hundreds of years ago are horrendous crimes now.
I believe (and this is probably where Josephine will disown me) that morality depends upon something external, and is pretty damn relative, actually. Religion is one of those things it depends on. How can we know if something is objectively right? Objectively? We can't. We just have to muddle through, and in the words of Augustine, love and therefore do as we will. And hope that it works out.
This is why I think that the claim that "inclusivity", whatever that ends up meaning, cannot be morally superior; and that's not to say it is is not unlike old George saying that everyone really wants democracy and good old Western "freedom".
quote:
But if your primary concern is to not be wrong,
I'm not moderating this thread, because I'm involved in the discussion. As a result, I can't call you on that. But that really isn't a fair comment.
If I really cared about not being wrong, I wouldn't be here. There's no point in discussion otherwise.
quote:
rather than consider an issue on which it appears your opinion is not universaly shared, I don't see it's a good use of my time.
All I said was that Christians have always been Trinitarian, right or wrong (not an opinion of mine), and that I don't consider "inclusive" to be morally superior at all (on which point I may be wrong). One is uncontroversial, but is an important fact to get across, since it is one fact on which my opinion is founded.
But it's still my opinion. I am defending my corner. I am expecting you to do the same. I don't see you explaining your assumptions. I would like you to. I asked you to explain them.
quote:
But are you really interested in what I think?
Of course I'm bloody interested in what you think. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be here.
[ 31. August 2004, 19:40: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Wood - I am a little surprised that you believe that Christian = trinitarian. Now I speak as someone who holds to a trinitarian belief though a lot less confidently than you seem to. I am aware of the problems and the reasons why many Christians do not hold to this view.
I remember, I believe, a survey in the past 10 years that said that around 40% of C of E vicars did not believe that Jesus was 'the Son of God'. Now this may be wrong but if I am right this hardly represents an insignificant percentage.
Bultmann, certainly didn't hold to a traditional view of the trinity, and he must be regarded as one of the most influential thinkers on 20th century Christianity. (Again I don't particularly agree with him - or at least I think he misses some big things along the way, but he can hardly be regarded as insignificant.)
Borg would also not hold to a traditional view of the trinity and whilst he is 'of the Jesus seminar', Wright, who as we all know is a fairly conservative evangelical, appears at every turn to regard Borg as a brother in Christ - whilst disagreeing with him strongly on a number of issues.
I think you are also wrong in asserting that all views of the atonement depend on the trinity. I can think of at least two atonement views that do not. One may be of the more liberal type whilst the Girardian view is not - there are more Girardians who are Catholic than from any other Christian tradition.
For me I have wrestled long and hard and often wondered whether I am giving up too many positives in holding to a trinitarian view. At the moment I still hold to it but the evidence that it was largely written in, is fairly strong and not at all uncommon.
If I may finish with a story. I attended a Masters course in theology a little while ago, and Max Turner, again a fairly conservative evangelical who was then vice principle of London Bible college, asked what evidence there was that Jesus, viewed himself as divine. The audience, who were all from a fairly traditional evangelical background, gave a number of the more frequently heard answers. Turner then pointed out the weakness in each answer. And proceeded to state that really there was only one passage that was really conclusive in his view. (In my view a good scholar is someone who acknolwedges the weaknesses in their own position.)
I feel you that your claim is narrower than many would accept. You seem to be defining Christianity by one of its narrower / narrowest criteria.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
I have been doggedly trying to follow this thread and have to admit that I can't keep track of anything anymore.
Except that Wood limits Christianity to Trinitarians and Dave Marshall seems to believe that inclusive belief/communion is superior to churches which limit certain practices/sacraments to insiders. (if I'm not mistaken, he doesn't really care whether they are Christian or something else.)
The two of you really need to go start a new thread and begin it by coming to some sort of common agreement as to what you are actually fighting about. The OP of the thread should also stipulate that no one else is to post until the two of you agree on what the argument actually is.
May I suggest that while trying to define your argument you both think about the differences among things like intellectual belief/understanding and non-intellectual ("heart" or mystical) belief/understanding; spiritual practice and devotional practice and worship; understanding of God and experience of God.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
If you'd be a bit more specific, it would be much easier to discuss your take on this. As it is, I'm trying to understand your POV, but it doesn't seem that I have enough information.
Understood. As the later points depend on point 1) I'll have a go at that on its own first.
quote:
1) God the creator relates to us inclusively.
I see God (the knowable creator who is Love and Truth) as creating every person 'in his image' alongside everything else that is. We are all in some sense the 'same kind of being' as God, so we can know him like we can know each other, but we are still in a growing state, with an additional temporary freedom to choose, to grow into his nature or into something else. I see no reason to think God makes any distinction between us in terms of our accessibility to him and his availability to us. There is no exclusion on his part (although we can exclude ourselves), so it seems reasonable to say he relates to us inclusively.
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Are you saying that is a morale absolute outside of religion or do you think that religion does not affect a particular view of morality?
My understanding is that 'morality' is a set of values shared by society. Since members of a religion are (usually?) also members of society, values they bring from their religion can be put up for consideration in society's value-choosing process. But as far as I can tell that's the limit of the connection. So in terms of your question, I don't think I'm saying either.
quote:
Do you believe in some of Deism that includes all faiths?
For myself, I don't believe in some form of anything. Only what seems to stand up and hold together as true and consistent. But I doubt I'm original so maybe someone's invented a label for that.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Right. Now you see, I thought that this was the whole root of the discussion.
I suspect there may have been a huge misunderstanding somewhere
Yes.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't see any point in trying to make sense of your other responses separately. My items 1) to 7) were an honest attempt to explain my original point. I don't detect an honest attempt to understand from you.
Now that isn't fair. I really am trying very hard to make sense of what you're saying, and I thought that your seven points were a good start to getting there. However, I still honestly don't see how one follows the other. I really would like to know why.
To point 1) you reply 'Nice phrase. What does it mean?'. Fair enough. You then go on to the points that follow, that I've introduced as the logic of my point, and treat them as if I'd written each to make sense in isolation. If the first one doesn't, how can anything that links to it/depends on it make sense? Not fair, I think.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But if your primary concern is to not be wrong,
I'm not moderating this thread, because I'm involved in the discussion. As a result, I can't call you on that. But that really isn't a fair comment.
That was out of order. Sorry.
quote:
All I said was that Christians have always been Trinitarian, right or wrong (not an opinion of mine), and that I don't consider "inclusive" to be morally superior at all (on which point I may be wrong). One is uncontroversial, but is an important fact to get across, since it is one fact on which my opinion is founded.
It was only the '"inclusive" is not morally superior' that I was taking issue with. I wasn't sure about it. Everything else was trying to point that out that's all I was taking issue with.
quote:
Of course I'm bloody interested in what you think. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be here.
OK. [sigh of relief]. I've had a go at explaining point 1) in my reply to josephine back up the post. If I've got that wrong, issue is resolved and I've learnt a bit more.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
About morality: inasmuch as if you are a member of a religion, your morality is defined by your religious belief.
If you aren't, it isn't. Morality isn't fixed. You have to get it from somewhere. Things which are OK now were horrendous crimes hundred of years ago; things which were OK hundreds of years ago are horrendous crimes now.
I believe (and this is probably where Josephine will disown me) that morality depends upon something external, and is pretty damn relative, actually. Religion is one of those things it depends on. How can we know if something is objectively right? Objectively? We can't. We just have to muddle through, and in the words of Augustine, love and therefore do as we will. And hope that it works out.
I think I mostly agree with you in this thread. But I can't go so far as to say my morality is defined by my religious belief. My religious belief should influence my moral sense, to be sure, but it goes the other way, too: in almost every society today we get to choose our religious beliefs, and we hold them up to the bar of an independent morality.
For instance, I'm not a Biblical fundamentalist, although in some respects I was raised as one. One reason is that I find some of the ways Biblical fundamentalists behave to be morally abhorrent. If my religion defines my morality, how could that have happened? Even you don't really hold above to the point you just made: after saying that religion defines morality, you say that it is merely one of the things it depends on. I suggest that these two statements are inconsistent.
Isn't it like the dictionary? Either we allow a dictionary to define words, or we work our way to definition and usage taking other things into account. Actually, not even dictionaries purport to define words a priori anymore: they just try to describe how they are actually being used. We can't both say that the dictionary defines our language and then go ahead and use words in ways the dictionary doesn't define.
Getting back to religion, don't we have a right to reject and discourage human sacrifice or serious mutilation of the human body such as the Aztecs, for instance, performed in the name of their religion? If we can allow these because they are done as a religious practice, then it seems to me that we really have no morality at all.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Hosting
I think a fair summary of the dispute between Wood and Dave Marshall on this thread is that neither of you have quite understood where the other is coming from.
But apologies have been made and accepted - so I'll say "thank you" to both of you and move on.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As the later points depend on point 1) I'll have a go at that on its own first.
quote:
1) God the creator relates to us inclusively.
I see God (the knowable creator who is Love and Truth) as creating every person 'in his image' alongside everything else that is.
OK.
quote:
We are all in some sense the 'same kind of being' as God,
In what sense do you mean this? quote:
so we can know him like we can know each other, but we are still in a growing state, with an additional temporary freedom to choose, to grow into his nature or into something else.
I think I see what you're getting at here. quote:
I see no reason to think God makes any distinction between us in terms of our accessibility to him and his availability to us. There is no exclusion on his part (although we can exclude ourselves), so it seems reasonable to say he relates to us inclusively.
OK. I think, apart from that phrase in the middle, on which as far as I can tell, your argument does not depend, I get what you mean.
Back to the next bit.
quote:
2) Christian belief incorporates God as creator.
Point 1 follows from this, doesn't it? So this should be point 1 and point 1 should be point 2?
quote:
3) Comparing a Christian practice to how God the creator does something similar is legitimate for a non-Christian.
Now we have established what you meant by point 1, this really needs to be justified. Why is it legitimate? What is, as Josephine said, this nebulous "something similar"? Why does this necessarily follow from point 1?
quote:
4) Inclusive communion is closer to how God does something similar than exclusive communion.
Again, why is this? Why does this follow from point 3? I can't for the life of me see this as a simple "therefore" statement.
quote:
5) 'Closer' in this context is morally superior because it is closer to truth.
...and why is it closer to truth? Why does it follow from points 3 and 4?
quote:
6) Your statement implies this is not so.
I'm not sure it does, you know.
But I really would have to understand what you're getting at with points 2 through 6 - and how they inter-relate - to have any idea of the truth of that.
Dave, you got annoyed when we took each statement one by one, without "taking the argument as a whole", but they are isolated statements, which don't obviously connect. If we're to take this argument as a whole, we're going to have to understand how these near-random sentences connect with each other. Because although it may be self-evident to you how they follow, for me they're just a bunch of apparent non-sequiturs.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Right. Now you see, I thought that this was the whole root of the discussion.
I suspect there may have been a huge misunderstanding somewhere.
Yes.
And yet, isn't it the Orthodox and Catholic communion practice that stands at the root of your objection?
quote:
To point 1) you reply 'Nice phrase. What does it mean?'. Fair enough. You then go on to the points that follow, that I've introduced as the logic of my point, and treat them as if I'd written each to make sense in isolation. If the first one doesn't, how can anything that links to it/depends on it make sense? Not fair, I think.
But when you write them as separate points, that's what you should expect. And they don't, as I pointed out above, follow on. On the contrary, if each point is presented as a proposition, it is perfectly fair to take each in turn.
quote:
It was only the '"inclusive" is not morally superior' that I was taking issue with. I wasn't sure about it. Everything else was trying to point that out that's all I was taking issue with.
OK. Let's stick with that, then.
[ 01. September 2004, 09:09: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
We are all in some sense the 'same kind of being' as God, so we can know him like we can know each other, but we are still in a growing state, with an additional temporary freedom to choose, to grow into his nature or into something else.
I think I see at least one significant point of disagreement here. I don't think we are all "the same kind of being" as God, not even "in some sense." As Lateran Council IV put it, "Between Creator and creature no likeness can be expressed without implying a greater unlikeness." So it is not, in my view, that we and God are the same sort of "beings," only God is (infinitely?) more developed. Rather, our language about God's "being" is always analogous becasue what it means for God "to be" and what it means for us "to be" are radically different.
But then I'm a Thomist (of a sort), so I would think that, wouldn't I.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
But then I'm a Thomist (of a sort), so I would think that, wouldn't I.
Well, FWIW, I think the same thing. We are, of course, made in the image and likeness of God, we are icons of the Most High, but we are not the same sort of thing that God is any more than any other icon is.
But then, I'm Orthodox ....
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
if.. ..you want to follow a different religion that in your opinion follows Jesus in a way you consider to be closer to what He said and did, well, you're going to have to call it by a different name. "Christian" is taken.
Sounds like you're saying "it's our word and we won't share it !".
But the "us" that you refer to and claim to speak for is a group of individuals down the ages that you have selected according to the criterion of whether they are prepared to sign up to the idea of the Trinity as an accurate description of God.
Am I right in thinking that the doctrine of the Trinity as such was not formulated until after the time of the NT church - the period in which St Paul wrote his Epistles ? So that the Apostles themselves gave no assent or denial to such an idea ? But presumably you count them as committed Trinitarians anyway ?
I may be wrong about that...
I suppose the question is - if you meet someone who tries to take Christ's teaching with ultimate seriousness, who feels reassured at being one of the company of those who have done this down the ages, but who doesn't see the doctrine of the Trinity as being an accurate or helpful description, preferring some other interpretation of the words of Jesus that "He who has seen me has seen the Father" [add other Bible verses to taste], do you say to him:
"Piss off, you're not one of us, don't you dare call yourself 'Christian' - however semantically accurate that might be - because we bagsed that word long before you came along"
or do you say "Welcome brother, I'd be interested to chat with you about our different ideas of God over a pint in the local hostelry" ?
Why do you think the former is a better attitude to take ? (for people like you and I today, I mean).
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
we are the Church for everybody who cares to be join. How is that not inclusive enough?
I'm perfectly happy for you to be an exclusive private club of people who worship the one true God in particular ways. If you have characteristics (such as preference for rich and colourful worship, Greek philosophy and conservative attitudes) and feel in your heart that these are Good Things, then that's fine; it is good that you should be able to worship in the way you feel is right.
Where I object is when/if you tell those whose preference is for plain and simple worship in the vernacular, or Enlightenment philosophy, or radical attitudes, that you're part of the One True Church and they're not.
It is the act of taking your culture and insisting on it as a necessary part of the True Faith which is, I suggest, properly described as "cultural imperialism", to use Wood's phrase.
There are non-offensive ways to say many things. Perhaps those things which there is no non-offensive way to say are intrinsically offensive things which no-one should say.
In the spirit of "in Christ there is no east or west", it seems to me that the "high" view of the Church belongs to the Church Invisible, that is totally "inclusive" because it transcends all our different characteristics. That may not be the only possible solution.
Which doesn't remove the need for us to use words like "Christian" with both accuracy and goodwill to others.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
It was only the '"inclusive" is not morally superior' that I was taking issue with. I wasn't sure about it. Everything else was trying to point that out that's all I was taking issue with.
OK. Let's stick with that, then.
So to summarise:
quote:
Originally posted by GoldenKey:
IMHO, ['Christian'] only has to be defined for purpose of having communion open to all Christians. I'd say define it as "anyone who considers themself to be a Christian".
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.
I'm suggesting, now that morality has been brought into the equation, that in fact including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians.
From another post, my understanding is that 'morality' is [based on] a set of values shared by society. Since members of a religion are (usually?) also members of society, values they bring from their religion can be put up for consideration in society's value-choosing process. But as far as I can tell that's the limit of the connection.
Also from the other post, I see God (the knowable creator who is Love and Truth) as creating every person 'in his image' alongside everything else that is. [..] We can know him like we can know each other, but we are still in a growing state, with an additional temporary freedom to choose, to grow into his nature or into something else.
So it seems to me that a comparison of issues in terms of 'morality' that relate to 'what God is like', even if the issues themselves are internal church affairs, is something that I as a non-Christian can legitimately comment on. Religion has no exclusive claim on either 'morality' or 'what God is like'.
On the question of taking communion, there are differences of understanding between churches. But I think it's fair to say that all see it as in some way drawing nearer to God than when not taking communion, and that how they view access to communion is related to their understanding of what God is like.
Again from the earlier post, I see no reason to think God makes any distinction between [people] in terms of our accessibility to him and his availability to us. So it seems to me that while God places no restrictions on access to him, churches that exclude some people from taking communion are imposing a restriction where God does not.
In moral terms, assuming that consistency is 'better', inclusive communion therefore seems preferable to exclusive communion and could be said to be 'morally superior'.
Having said that, I don't see any value whatsoever in looking at this issue in a moral context.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear FCB
Josephine is right, God is not any kind of being according to Orthodox doctrine - read St John Damascene.
Dear Russ quote:
it seems to me that the "high" view of the Church belongs to the Church Invisible
Isn't this what the argument is about? This notion of the Invisible Church is controversial and not a settled matter, even among Protestants.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm perfectly happy for you to be an exclusive private club of people who worship the one true God in particular ways. <snip> Where I object is when/if you tell those whose preference is for plain and simple worship in the vernacular, or Enlightenment philosophy, or radical attitudes, that you're part of the One True Church and they're not.
But, as was pointed out in the OP, there are a wide variety of opinions about what, exactly, constitutes the Church, about how it is defined. We all define the Church, one way or another. And it's possible that one of those definitions may turn out to be right, and another definition wrong. In the mean time, we're all doing our best to get it right.
But you seem to be saying, "My answer feels better than your answer, so my answer must be right." Or else, "Your answer makes me uncomfortable, so your answer must be wrong."
Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen any reason given for your thinking that your definition of the Church is factually more accurate than mine. If I were discussing the definition of the Church with a Mormon, who would consider his church, not mine, the one true church, I could explain why I think mine is and his is not. I wouldn't change his mind, most likely, but it's not just "I object to your definition because it leaves me out."
Why should you object to my stating what I believe about the Church? If you believe that you are a member of the One True Church as you understand it, why do you object that I understand it differently?
[ 01. September 2004, 13:57: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I don't think we are all "the same kind of being" as God, not even "in some sense."
I think I adopted this "same kind of being" phrase because there seemed some correspondance between the us/God relationship and the special relationship between animals of the same species. The animals can interbreed, we can know an intimacy with God.
But I agree it's not very good. Just haven't found anything better yet.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
if.. ..you want to follow a different religion that in your opinion follows Jesus in a way you consider to be closer to what He said and did, well, you're going to have to call it by a different name. "Christian" is taken.
Sounds like you're saying "it's our word and we won't share it !".
Yes. I'm not saying it's good or right. I'm saying that's the way things are.
quote:
But the "us" that you refer to and claim to speak for is a group of individuals down the ages that you have selected according to the criterion of whether they are prepared to sign up to the idea of the Trinity as an accurate description of God.
Am I right in thinking that the doctrine of the Trinity as such was not formulated until after the time of the NT church - the period in which St Paul wrote his Epistles ? So that the Apostles themselves gave no assent or denial to such an idea ? But presumably you count them as committed Trinitarians anyway ?
Actually, no. But then, we're not following the religion of the Apostles. we're following the religion that descended from the religion of the Apostles.
There isn't anyone alive today who could seriously be said to be following New Testament Christianity. That's delusional.
quote:
I suppose the question is - if you meet someone who tries to take Christ's teaching with ultimate seriousness, who feels reassured at being one of the company of those who have done this down the ages, but who doesn't see the doctrine of the Trinity as being an accurate or helpful description, preferring some other interpretation of the words of Jesus that "He who has seen me has seen the Father" [add other Bible verses to taste], do you say to him:
"Piss off, you're not one of us, don't you dare call yourself 'Christian' - however semantically accurate that might be - because we bagsed that word long before you came along"
or do you say "Welcome brother, I'd be interested to chat with you about our different ideas of God over a pint in the local hostelry" ?
Why do you think the former is a better attitude to take ? (for people like you and I today, I mean).
Who says I think it's a better attitude to take?
If I really thought that, would I be engaging in discussion with people here?
(besides, aside from the rather loaded way you've caricatured the two attitudes, who says the two are mutually exclusive anyway?)
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
