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: 27% - the Virgin Birth (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: 27% - the Virgin Birth
Obnoxious Snob

Arch-Deacon
# 982

 - Posted      Profile for Obnoxious Snob   Email Obnoxious Snob   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Anselmina

This is a bit of a tangent to the thread but what the 'eck ...

I consider myself a liberal on many things (salvation, sexuality, religion and science to name just a few) so I suppose I'm part of the conspiracy as well. However, one thing I have noticed when in dialogue with those of a more "liberal" disposition is just how illiberal many of them are, (your good self excepted). They slag off fundamentalists for all they're worth but when an intelligent presentation of a more conservative approach comes along the following sentiments are often expressed ...

(1) Sneering ... "you can't possibly believe that can you?!"
(2) Superiority ... "well you can't have read "X" by "Y" because he puts paid to that argument most eloquently"
(3) Smearing ... "so you're one of those 'you'll burn in hell' types are you?"

None of these sentiments have been expressed on the Ship but the subtext behind much liberal fundamentalism often involves these things.

You always have a marvellous facility for suddenly
putting paid to intelligent argument and rather subtlely introducing abuse by accusing others of it. I salute you but do not wish to play your interesting little game.

--------------------
'The best thing we can do is to make wherever we're lost in Look as much like home as we can'

Christopher Fry

Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Arch ...

An honest observation from where I stand, that's all. There's no need to escalate this. I have no allegations or accusations to make against anyone here. On the whole both liberals and conservatives on the Ship acquit themselves very well and generally try to maintain an honest and open debate. Goodness knows there is as much sneering, superiority and smearing from those of a more conservative disposition as well. Both sets of reactions are equally reprehensible. When EITHER (and all I'm saying is that includes liberals) engage in this kind of behaviour their argument is already lost ... but they do succeed in intimidating more fragile souls on the way.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Back to the thread ...

Dear Ruth

quote:
Claiming that the nativity narratives must be historically factual is entirely anachronistic.

Why is this so? What evidence do you submit to support this contention? (I know it's a commonplace amongst liberal exegetes but I would like the issues exposing a bit more here).

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611

 - Posted      Profile for mrgrumble_au   Author's homepage   Email mrgrumble_au   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, for a start, there is the fact that the gospel narratives were not written until many decades after the events; anyone who has played 'Chinese whispers' will attest to the problems with oral transmission of information.

If the subject were any else, common sense would tell us that inaccuracies are bound to have crept in; all the more so in the case of Our Lord, because of the enthusiasm of his followers.

Frankly, it is the suspension common sense by the (numerous) traditionalists who have posted that is the most astounding.

When proposing an idea that is beyond the realms of usual experience, the onus is surely on the person proposing it, (rather than on the sceptic) to provide evidence.

[Eek!]

Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The idea that the Gospels are mythological in character regarding the Infancy Narratives, at least, doesn't work with Luke's Gospel, to my mind.

A preamble that states that he is giving an orderly account, conflicts with mythological stories for evangelism purposes.

The Liberalism, I am criticising, BTW, is strictly the one that denies the miraculous and the invisible world, etc. It has nothing to do with pastoral concerns, such as sexuality.

How come, if Liberalism is right about the Virgin Birth, and other teachings that were formulated as the Church of the first 500 years AD, fought heresies, that those closest to the sources, didn't realise this? How come the Creeds were formulated, as if these things were true?

I mean, they all knew for example, that Christ didn't really cast out demons, right? So, how come many went into the wilderness to combat the demonic?

Hey! The Infancy Narratives, don't add up, so let's throw out the Virgin Birth! Mind you, the Resurrection accounts, don't add up either, why not throw that out too?

While we're at it, it is repulsive to modernity, that a piece of bread and cup of wine, can be changed into the Body of Blood of Christ, isn't it? Let's all take the Zwinglian view, while we're at it.

The Trinity don't make sense, so let's all be Unitarians. Hey! Perhaps this will lead to Church being One, as Jesus prayed in John 17. Ah! Maybe that was made up too, and we've been banging our heads against a brick wall with Ecumenism. God don't want that really.

I guess I should look forward to remarks of intellectual greatness now, that my remarks are below contempt. [Snore]

I can only imagine what the Church Fathers' reaction would have been to these modern re-interpretations.

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, but the point is that we now live in 2002, and the Church Fathers didn't - and if faith is going to make sense in our world, it simply isn't good enough to simply hark back to some sort of 'tradition in aspic' as a necessarily superior form of wisdom.

This sort of all or nothing phliosophy is only another type of fundamentalism , placing church Tradition as 'that which must not be questioned' rather than the Bible.

Both, for me, are not acceptable. By trying to present everything as all or nothing, it effectively counts out anyone who feels that certain church traditions and teaching are not justified in a literal sense.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Merseymike,

I would put it to you, that it is you who is living in the past of modernity.

We are in post-modernity now.

Today, many people believe in spirits and the supernatural, just look at the New Age movement, and their spirit guides, for example.

Modernity, has been tried, and found wanting. It's not me, who's out of touch.

The post-modern world has stopped being dogmatic about science, and recognises its limits. Not so with the Modern.

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Furthermore, a view that says 'I can't accept this, because it conflicts with my scientific worldview' is just as Fundamentalistic, as any other kind.

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I disagree that we are 'living in post-modernity'. At the most, we exist in late modernity, but both have ingested much that is modern, even if we accept their existence.

In any case, if that is the situation, absolutely no philosophy or idea which could be considered a 'grand theory' will have any impact in flexible, confused, postmodern times. Postmodern theorists don't allow for the emergence of as single truth or order within postmodernity : its very existence precludes that possibility - which is why I find it odd that some traditionalists seem to look upon its existence as a sort of opportunity. It is a misreading of what postmodernity, with its celebration of uncertainties, advocates

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Merseymike

quote:
Yes, but the point is that we now live in 2002, and the Church Fathers didn't - and if faith is going to make sense in our world, it simply isn't good enough to simply hark back to some sort of 'tradition in aspic' as a necessarily superior form of wisdom.


Whenever I hear this kind of thing I find it incomprehensible.

The Athenians laughed at the resurrection. Did St. Paul give up? Atheist denigrators called Christians cannibals ... did the Church adopt a pre-Zwinglian Zwinglian view of the Eucharist?

The notion that we are "moderns" and no better does no justice to the cognitive dissonances the Christian gospel has ALWAYS faced in every culture and time.

Do we adjust the gospel to the culture or the culture to the gospel. Those of us who favour the latter are not ignorant fundamentalist obscurantists retreating into the desert of pure Christianity crying "a pox on all your houses."

Anyway ... back AGAIN to the thread.

Dear mrgrumble_au

The old Chinese whispers strategy! What do you actually know about oral tradition and how it worked? Do you know what a hafiz is? Are you aware that an ordination requirement used to be that you knew the gospels and the psalms off by heart? Can you imagine a world without television? No, I'm sorry you will have to do a lot better than that if you are going to rubbish the infancy narratives.

Whilst we are waiting for the theological arguments for the unreliability of these narratives, perhaps someone would like to explain to me why in miracle terms it is easier to swallow the camel of the resurrection rather than strain the gnat of the virgin birth?

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Merseymike,

Imagine all those people influenced by Jonathan Edwards and Colin Fry, who have television programmes were they 'communicate with dead and bring comfort to the relatives.'

The typical Modern, whether religious or not, discounts it all as some kind of psychological mind-reading. Same with Ouija Boards, Channeling, etc.

People are already rejecting the dismissive attitude of scientists to these things, as well as homeopathy, for example.

What has the modern Liberal to offer, but what has already been rejected?

The traditional Christian view, has a lot to offer. It accepts the worldview of spirits, etc.

Am I right, that Liberalism, is in decline? As post-modernity moves on, I predict it will die completely.

I guess I have some emotinal baggage when it comes to liberalism, as my family are unreachable as far as the gospel is concerned. Why? Because they used to go to a Liberal Church, and the Pastor explained to them that Jesus didn't REALLY do miracles, etc. My Dad isn't an intellectual, but he ridicules traditional Christianity, or Evangelical, with the same dismissive attitude of the Liberal Intellectual that Fr Gregory described.

Far from setting my family free to worship God, Liberalism has completely turned my family away from faith in Christ.

They're logical, you see. If Christianity has believed in false things for nearly 2000 years, Christianity should be abandoned.

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A minor aside.
quote:
Imagine all those people influenced by Jonathan Edwards and Colin Fry, who have television programmes were they 'communicate with dead and bring comfort to the relatives.'

I think you mean John Edward, the TV 'psychic'.

I'd quite enjoy seeing those same people influenced by Johnathan Edwards, the 18th century theologian. They'd be better off for it.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've read that there were suicides after Edwards preached 'Sinners in the hands of an angry God' so I disagree with you there, Scot.

A God who chooses some people to go to Heaven, while leaving the others to burn in hellfire for eternity, is one I've rejected.

It's like Liberalism really, it doesn't accord with what the Church believed in the first few hundred years, before Augustine came on the scene.
It's a newer version of Christianity, therefore, 'suspect' to me. But let's agree to differ.

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ChristinaMarie, I've read a fair amount about Edwards, but I've never seen a record of a suicide due to that sermon.

While I don't subscribe to all of Edwards's imagery of God, there is much in his writings which is of great value. In particular, our world could benefit from exposure to the great theme of God-centeredness, which runs through Edwards's later writings.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, Christina, if Christianity can't stand up to any sort of logic, and if it has to be ossified in an unchanging , rigid 'truth', then I think it deserves to die : I would certainly not think it worth following.
In its time, Christians have believed the earth is flat, advocated the death of those who believed differently, and still today oppress other minorities.

The core faith of Christianity still has much to offer. But some of those doctrines which are not 'essential' can happily be optional. Miracles are examples of this, in my view. Yes, I am sceptical of miraclulous healing and the like, and I would place the views of science above those who believe faith is reliant on what I regard to be superstition.

Your parents experience with liberal approaches to faith isn't mine.I also do not think that liberalism itself is in decline, but I think more are rejecting religious liberalism in favour of secular liberalism or unaligned 'spirituality', and I do think that is something the church needs to seriously consider. But I could never wholeheartedly follow any belief that couldn't find room for contemporary insights : I do not think that the world view you say is gaining greater momentum is doing so in the West - in the Third World perhaps, but I have always made it clear that I believe Western liberalism is superior to pre-modern beliefs - you may disagree with that, but thats where I am coming from.

Christianity has to adapt to the reality of modernity, which I think is still with us, and as I don't believe that postmodernity exists in the way you suggest, nor that postmodernity will offer any hope for certainty of view.Which you have not dealt with : it is a total misreading of postmodern thinking on your part to see a place for universal certainties of ANY description in a postmodern world. Postmodernity emphasises plurality and diversity and abandons any notion of truth - scientific or otherwise - all is to be questioned. Conservative Christians who look upon it as an opportunity simply haven't understood what advocates of postmodernity actually say - or perhaps they are choosing the parts of the belief they like, such as scepticism about the truth of science or ideology - and leaving that they do not - the fact that religion would be included amongst these certainties, and that no grand theorising is any longer possible.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mrgrumble_au:
Well, for a start, there is the fact that the gospel narratives were not written until many decades after the events; anyone who has played 'Chinese whispers' will attest to the problems with oral transmission of information.

'Chinese whispers' is a GAME. No one is making any effort to be accurate. Also, in Chinese whispers the information passes through a large number of individuals. The authors of the gospels could have gotten the information from eyewitnesses. (I won't go into the fact that John's gospel purports to be an eyewitness account.)

It is a serious mistake to assume that in a culture where literacy was not widespread, the people who could not read or write simply forgot or distorted things. In fact, many of them had excellent memories because they needed them.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But in a culture where literacy is not widespread, the use of imagery and metaphor, along with the need to make stories relate to the lives of those reading is all the more important. If virgin births were something regarded as 'special', then it is not surprising that they are part of those narratives.

That doesn't mean that the virgin birth may not have been a possibility, but unless you subscribe to the 'all or nothing' aspect of Christian belief, I hardly think it matters. Jesus was fully human and fully divine, and we know that from his life , teachings and infuence.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
LucyH
Shipmate
# 3570

 - Posted      Profile for LucyH         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ive come in late to this discussion but as far as I can see no one has addressed the prohecies in Isaiah or Jesus ' reference to ' my fathers business' aged 12. Im offended by the reference to the simple needing to believe in the virgin birth. How intellectual do we suppose the disciples to have been. It seems to me that the picking out of bits to believe ultimately leads to the postion of some of my family who claim to believe in God but not in Jesus [ though they believe in his historical existence].Asked what if he was sent by God they are just not interested.If not the virgin birth because God wont overturn his own rules are all the miracles myths?
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Merseymike

You make the ancients sound like credulous peasants who can easily be wowed by cheap tricks. Sorry, I don't buy that. The biblical writers were not such nor were the later commentators and fathers. Neither am I.

quote:
I hardly think it matters.
It matters because the divine nature of Christ cannot be apprehended without the virgin birth in anything other than an adoptionist manner. What is at stake here (as with the resurrection of the BODY) is the interface between the spiritual and the material, the divine and the human.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LucyH
Shipmate
# 3570

 - Posted      Profile for LucyH         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'L.Carroll
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear pcd

What do you know about quantum mechanics? Do a Google search on "Schroedinger's Cat." That will make Alice and the VB sound very tame by comparison. Physics is the ultimate mind expanding drug. Theology is for people who like to be safe.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It doesn't matter to me, and to many others. It does matter to you - so carry on believing as you feel fits your own theology.

Yes, I do think there is more willingness to believe in things like miracles in a pre-modern society. Perhaps you think that indicates their superiority, rather than their gullibility.

I don'r believe in contemporary miracles, at all.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
But in a culture where literacy is not widespread, the use of imagery and metaphor, along with the need to make stories relate to the lives of those reading is all the more important.

I disagree strongly.

Can you give me any evidence for this statement?

I had a professor of Old Icelandic who taught me about the accuracy of oral tradition in illiterate cultures. The Icelanders had runes, but they did not use them for ordinary purposes. They were reserved for magic purposes, e.g. predicting the future.

Iceland had a parliament which enacted laws. It was the job of one man to remember all those laws. Once a year he had to recite the entire law to the parliament. It took him two days. The laws were not stated in imagery and metaphor; they were straightforward statements.

Obviously the law-sayer had a special talent, but the ordinary person could remember far better than we can. If you can't write down a shopping list or a list of things to pack for a trip, you need a good memory. If a person cannot remember the details of how he did something that turned out very well, he will have to go through the trial and error process all over again. Imagery and metaphor would not be helpful in this situation.

If you can't write down what happened, you need to remember it accurately.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pity the four writers of the Gospels remembered everything so differently, then.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Merseymike

You can ignore this if you don't want to pursue it. Live and let live is quite OK by me. However, I am interested.

WHY don't you believe in contemporary miracles? Are you a dispensationalist or do you believe that miracles never happened in the first place. This is rather important because without further information I'm not sure what you mean by the resurrection either.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cross posted .... 4 gospel writers reference.

Really!!! 92 % of Mark's Gospel is verbatim in Luke and Matthew. Matthew and Luke in common (Q) added to the Marcan base. St. John's Gospel from a different more Gentile community with a different set of traditions. All the gospels originally served different communities with different interests. You vastly overstate your case.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't believe in contemporary miracles,in the sense of 'miraculous healings', or people's legs growing three inches etc. because :

1. Jesus isn't physically here to do them, and there should not be the need to prove His divinity - the Resurrection should have already done that.

2. There is no independent evidence that those claimed have taken place : just one piece of watertight medical evidence from sources entirely outside the church would help.

3. I think that the miracles in the Bible may well have been real, yes, but some are not exactly as explained - I think 'demon possession' equates to mental illness, for example.

4. To be a dispensationalist in the conservative evangelical sense involves, I gather, plenty of baggage about 'the different ages', which I'm not particularly into. However, I do think that a Church which feels that the message of the love of God has to include contemporary hocus-pocus is deluding itself. So, to the extent that 'these things pass away', then, yes, I'm a dispensationalist. I am certainly not convinced that charismata is anything other than mass hysteria and wish-fulfilment.

In terms of the Gospels, I think we can gain much more from them if we wouldn't try to treat them as history - why should imagery and metaphor be any less related to spiritual truths?

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear MM

Miracles ...

quote:
1. Jesus isn't physically here to do them, and there should not be the need to prove His divinity - the Resurrection should have already done that.

Funny I thought the resurrection meant that Jesus was alive RIGHT HERE AND NOW. Being PHYSICALLY present isn't the point at all. In any event ... the gospels seem to record that Jesus worked miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. You have left him out entirely.

quote:
2. There is no independent evidence that those claimed have taken place : just one piece of watertight medical evidence from sources entirely outside the church would help.
Have you looked at the Lourdes documentation?

quote:
3. I think that the miracles in the Bible may well have been real, yes, but some are not exactly as explained - I think 'demon possession' equates to mental illness, for example.

What you mean by "real" then if they can all be "explained away." After all, Jesus was not able to dispense Epilim (c).

quote:
4. To be a dispensationalist in the conservative evangelical sense involves, I gather, plenty of baggage about 'the different ages', which I'm not particularly into. However, I do think that a Church which feels that the message of the love of God has to include contemporary hocus-pocus is deluding itself. So, to the extent that 'these things pass away', then, yes, I'm a dispensationalist. I am certainly not convinced that charismata is anything other than mass hysteria and wish-fulfilment.

Hocus pocus, mass hysteria, wish fulfilment. Sounds like prejudice to me rather than evidence. Wouldn't it seimply be more honest to be agnostic. You could only be so emotively damning if you made a good case for saying either:-

(1) God couldn't work miracles becauise of the restraints imposed on the natural order.
(2) God wouldn't work miracles for reasons best known to himself ... or perhaps we shouldn't pray for rain because someone else would experience drought.

You do know what "hocus pocus" refers to don't you.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Merseymike,

You wrote:

"Well, Christina, if Christianity can't stand up to any sort of logic, and if it has to be ossified in an unchanging , rigid 'truth', then I think it deserves to die : I would certainly not think it worth following."

Truths such as the Trinity, that Jesus is both God and Man, and the Virgin Birth, are all Mysteries, Mike. It's not traditional Christianity that imposes rigid truth, it deals with faith and mystery. Unlike the Modern approach, which will only believe what it can understand according to it's worldview, traditional Christianity accepts Mystery and believes in what has been revealed.

"In its time, Christians have believed the earth is flat, advocated the death of those who believed differently, and still today oppress other minorities."

So have the followers of every other religion and none. Consider the former Soviet Union, regarding persecution.

Regarding the oppression of minorities, I would guess this particularly refers to gay and lesbian people. Well, in my case, as a transsexual woman in a committed lesbian relationshiop, I would suggest to you, that those who oppress sexual minorities, are hi-jacking either the Scripture or Tradition.

It is possible to interpret Scripture without coming to the conclusion that 'obviously God does not approve of any same-sex relationships', the same goes with Tradition.

I've found that there are many who believe in Tradition, who use it to back up traditions, just as there are those who use Scripture, to back up their interpretation.

I do not believe Christianity is about ossified truth, nor do I believe that it is about 're-inventing the wheel.'

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611

 - Posted      Profile for mrgrumble_au   Author's homepage   Email mrgrumble_au   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No-one has yet addressed this central fact:

Virgin conception (and by this, I take it that we mean 'no sperm conception') is not a normal, common-sense or everyday experience.

The only evidence we have is the assertion of writers, none of whom were eye-witnesses (to the conception).

Tell me again; apart from theological argument (which simply goes along the lines of 'my view is the God had to have done it this way because it fits my view of things thus'), what evidence is there?

[Paranoid]

Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It could well be, that Luke was told about the Virgin conception, by Mary.

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611

 - Posted      Profile for mrgrumble_au   Author's homepage   Email mrgrumble_au   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That would still not make St Luke an eyewitness.

In court it would be called 'hearsay'.

[Help]

Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, so here's the scenario. Let's suppose the story is true. Who is the only eye-witness? Mary!

Did Luke know Paul? Yes. Is it likely Luke was present during the Acts15 scene? Probably. Is it likely that Mary was a member of the Jerusalem Church? Most likely.

How do we know that the history of Julius Caesar is true?

In fact, have you seen 'The Matrix'? Perhaps, we're all human batteries for a machine that has taken over the world, as in the film.

Hey! Perhaps Sollopsism is true! Why I am I talking to you people then?

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611

 - Posted      Profile for mrgrumble_au   Author's homepage   Email mrgrumble_au   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is still an awful lot of supposition in that scenario.

Which puts it, as evidence goes, on the level of 'I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend'.

Of interest too is that not even the Gospel writers put the utterance 'Honest guv, I was a virgin' on the lips of St Mary.

[Eek!]

Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gregory : we will have to agree to differ. If its a choice between any conservative brand of Christianity and agnosticism, then I would have to opt for the latter, because there is too much I cannot accept in the former. But that isn't the only option available, as you well know

With regard to your points above :

* I don't believe in contemporary miracles, and nothing you have said convinces me that I should. It is up to you to prove conclusively that these things are possible and independently verifiable, not the other way around
* I am sure that Lourdes and other places of pilgrimage can bring healing of sorts, but as for physical miracles, then no.
* Jesus is alive, but not physically present, and miracles gave added emphasis to this. I do not believe that his representatives on earth perform miraculous healings.
* I didn't explain anything away - I think Jesus was able to heal, but as I don't believe in physical devils or demons, I would hardly believe that they were capable of being removed - would I ?
* When you start presenting evidence which can be accepted by other than those who share your faith, then I will accept your criticisms. Looking at what doesn't get healed in the world, a God which selectively chooses to heal some things or saorts some things out seems perverse in the extreme - and not the sort of God I would want much truck with, frankly.

Yes, Christina, the heart of faith is Mystery, and there is much which cannot be explained. That does not mean that we automatically have to reject anything which manages to do so. I do see what you are saying, but that sort of faith wouldn't satisfy me.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Merseymike

Yes, we will have to agree to differ.

Dear mrgrumble_au

OK hearsay ... so Mary tells Luke a lie ... a lie for which she has absolutely no motivation ... a lie which would cause her no end of trouble and all quite unnecessarily.

Now who's telling fantastic stories?!

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611

 - Posted      Profile for mrgrumble_au   Author's homepage   Email mrgrumble_au   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Really Father!

You are the master of misreading and misunderstanding!

I said nothing about lying. We are discussing (dispassionately, I hope) the available evidence and its standard.

Your hyperbole is not helpful.

[Mad]

Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The only way anybody could have known outside of Mary was if Mary spilled the beans, (other than someone else inventing the story and why would they do that?). No, the possibilities are clear and binary. She lied or she didn't.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611

 - Posted      Profile for mrgrumble_au   Author's homepage   Email mrgrumble_au   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh to see things so clearly (not).

We know of no claim from Mary's lips that she conceived without sperm. That muchu we do know.

Thee rest, despite your assertion to the contrary. is pure conjecture.

[Killing me]

Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The assertion that the Virgin Conception, is not historically accurate, as related in Scripture, is pure conjecture.

Furthermore, it is a new thing, not something believed by the majority of Christians throughout the ages.

To believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, but reject the Virgin Birth, really is to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, as Fr G wrote previously, IMO.

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611

 - Posted      Profile for mrgrumble_au   Author's homepage   Email mrgrumble_au   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What have I asserted other than what we know?

I don't think that I even 'asserted' that the Virgin Conception did not take place.

How you read the scriptures is quite another matter as is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and that of the Incarnation.

Could we stick to one topic at a time?

[Yipee]

Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002  |  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 mrgrumble_au:
Oh to see things so clearly (not).

We know of no claim from Mary's lips that she conceived without sperm. That muchu we do know.

She did say, "How can this be so, since I have no husband?"

Reader Alexis

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611

 - Posted      Profile for mrgrumble_au   Author's homepage   Email mrgrumble_au   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which may be read in any number of ways.

The fact that we choose to read is as evidence of a claim of no intercourse is nevertheless only one of a number of possible readings.

[Snore]

Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does anyone who gives such importance to the virginal conception consider it to be an article of faith so important that it can affect our place in eternity? With regard to Mary, Luke and Paul, it's a reasonable assumption that the Luke mentioned in Paul's letters is the Luke who wrote the Gospel and Acts. But it's unlikely that he was with Paul as early as the Council of Jeruslam in c49AD.

None of us knows how long Mary lived, but Luke, writing in the eighties, is unlikely to have had Mary as a personal confidant. Paul, who was the greatest expounder of resurrection theology had experiences of the Risen Christ that were MYSTICAL. He met Christ on the road to Damascus long after( at least a few years) after the Ascension. But in the so called "Pauline Creed"(1Cor15.3-8) Paul equates his experiences with those of the other Apostles.

So while I certainly believe in the resurrection as an experience, to try and define it would be dangerous, and quite possibly misleading. There is no dismissing of any Biblical doctrine in my agenda, just a desire to understand the seed in the chaff. I defy anyone to say it all has a plain meaning.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611

 - Posted      Profile for mrgrumble_au   Author's homepage   Email mrgrumble_au   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quite so.

[Razz]

Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mrgrumble_au:

not even the Gospel writers put the utterance 'Honest guv, I was a virgin' on the lips of St Mary.

MrGrumble, reader Alexis did not quite quote the relevant passage exactly (he offered: "How can this be so, since I have no husband?"). In fact it reads thus:

Lk 1:34 " "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" "

You suggest this statement could be read "a number of ways". Would you like to give us a plausible list?

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Paul,

I don't believe that our salvation is dependent upon whether we believe in the Virgin Conception or not.

My bottom line is, that a person who has a relationship with God is saved from the penalty of sin, is being saved from the power of sin, and will be saved from the presence of sin. You can substitute 'liberated' for 'saved' too.

Because of this, I cannot accept statements, made by theologians in the past, that 'in order to be saved, one has to accept the full Catholic Faith', etc. I consider such statements to be traditional, but not authoritarian Tradition, on a par with the Trinity, for example.

I think we need to ask practical questions, related to Jesus statement, that the truth sets us free. If the Virgin Birth, is not factual, then how can we accept other things, which are even more difficult to accept, but my faith/trust?

If the Church, before the great divide in AD1054, got it dogmatically wrong, about the Virgin Birth, how can we have any trust about the Nicene Creed or Chalcedon?

If Luke, with a preamble which clearly states that he's attempting to write an orderly account, included something mythological, then how can we trust what he writes about Jesus' ministry?

The Apostle Paul, wrote that they didn't follow cunningly designed myths and fables. Was he wrong?

Joseph Campbell, who wrote 'Hero with a thousand faces' argues that Christianity is the most successful religion, based on the common God-Man myth, who dies and rises again. There was no historical Jesus, at all. It's all myth.

I'm not writing hyperbole here, these beliefs are actually held by many people today.

What has lead to where I am today, is a balancing act of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience.

One thing I have serious doubts about, is the belief that Mary was a virgin, all her life. Scripture seems to indicate otherwise, in its statement about her not having relations with Joseph while she was pregnant. I don't think Tradition teaches it, but I may be wrong. I think it is tradition with a small 't'.

I believe Scripture should be used by the individual, as a mirror, as a means to spiritual growth. I believe it is the Church that determines doctrine, not the individual Christian.
As Paul wrote, the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mrg,
With regard to Our Lady's "How can this be, since I have no husband?", you wrote:

Which may be read in any number of ways.

The fact that we choose to read is as evidence of a claim of no intercourse is nevertheless only one of a number of possible readings.

[Snore]
[/QUOTE]

Er ... and those other readings which are o-so-obvious would be ...? The virginal concep[tion of OLJC is clearly, deliberately and explicitly stated in the accounts we have, so it really does seem that we are faced with accepting them at face value or rejecting them as willfully (or at the very least recklessly) false. Tough call, no?

Fr Gregory,
Thank you for your prodigally generous response to my last post
[Smile] There, I've squeezed another one out!

CB

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mrgrumble_au:

not even the Gospel writers put the utterance 'Honest guv, I was a virgin' on the lips of St Mary.

MrGrumble, reader Alexis did not quite quote the relevant passage exactly (he offered: "How can this be so, since I have no husband?"). In fact it reads thus:

Lk 1:34 " "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" "

You suggest this statement could be read "a number of ways". Would you like to give us a plausible list?

Sorry to all for what seems likely to be a double post.
Eutychus,
We cross-posted - yours makes mine utterly otiose!
CB

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
quote:
Claiming that the nativity narratives must be historically factual is entirely anachronistic.

Why is this so? What evidence do you submit to support this contention
I know I'm not Ruth and wouldn't dream of speaking for anyone else. But, my view is that the Gospels are primarily historical in the modern sense (though they do contain considerable amounts of historical material) on two counts

1) I'm no expert on ancient literature, but it is my understandinf that the sort of historical/biographical account such a statement implies simply did not exist in the first century. Histories and biographies contemporary with the Gospels are far more heavily biased than modern accounts would be, and often contain material we can be pretty sure was invented by the authors (I'm hoping someone can come up with some examples - the small collection of books I have that might be relevant is a long way from here). If "secular" authors saw no need to be "historically accurate" why should the Evangelists?

2) The internal evidence of the Gospels themselves. As has been often pointed out, there are inconsistancies between Gospels. There is good evidence that accounts of some events and teachings were altered for the purposes of the Evangelists (either in content, timing relative to ohter events or both). There was clearly some selectivity in what to include.

The "Chinese whispers" is a big red herring on two counts - one it severelly underestimates the ability of pre-literate people to accurately recount verbal stories, and two, it assumes the Evangelists themselves saw benefit in historical accuracy in its own right.

Hope I'm making sense, it's late and I'm rushing so as not to run up too large a phone bill at my parents.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
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