|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Theological Standpoint on Suicide
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Kyralessa,
Thank you. Just thank you ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Anslemina,
I absolutely agree with you - and so, it seems utterly clear to me, would GKC.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
I think ChastMastr is quite correct. The Chesterton appears to me (though it may well be taken out of a much more ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) -worthy context) to be based quite firmly in a refutation of the idea in Ibsen of which he writes at the start.
He isn't dealing, in the main, with depression or despair, but rather with the Hedda Gabler or Eilert Lovborg attitude (in 'Hedda Gabler') that one is 'simply far too interesting to be surrounded by all these dull, worthy, decent people, and so ought to seek a brave, bold exit.' It is a quite nauseating view in itself, and I think it is that which Chesterton is trying to counter.
In any case, if this is a 'Theological Standpoint' thread, and GKC is an example of a particular theological standpoint, then it has every right to be here, offensive or not.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Only, that doesn't characterise Chesterton's position at all. As you'd know if you'd read the several other posts on this thread responding to that particular criticism. Context is all here - and there's nothing sanctimoniously judgemental about Chesterton. In fact, from his own autobiography, it's clear suicide was not just a hypothetical philosophical threat to him. But "emotional rant"?! Come on, fess up - you haven't read that passage in any context at all, except in this thread, have you?
Uh, no actually, CB, you are quite mistaken. I will confess to not being a big fan of Chesterton, but neither do I scorn him or his work as a whole. I was addressing the passage quoted by JL in the context of this thread, on it's internal merit, but I did read the whole of "The Flag and the World" to get it in context. I also read the several other posts arguing that Gilbert didn't mean what he wrote. Sorry, CB, reading it in the context of the chapter, or even the whole of "Orthodoxy" doesn't help.
I call it hyperbolic because it is: "There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer" If that ain't hyperbole, I'll
drink all the tea in China.
I call it a rant because it meets the definition in the dictionary. Would you prefer "overheated, hyperbolic polemic?" But an argument over this completely leaves the topic of this thread, so I won't do it. If you ask, I will PM you with my argument and we can hash it out elsewhere.
But to address the on-topic portions of the passage:
Chesterton argues against nihilism by bringing up general positions against suicide. Not only suicide practiced by nihilists in fits of ideological fervor, but all suicide. Let’s look at a few bits from the paragraph quoted by JL and others in "The Flag and the World"
"Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin."
Ok, this is the theological question, isn't it? But is this true?
"The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world."
Bull. As others have pointed out, some people kill themselves precisely to benefit those they leave behind. Chesterton allows for this possibility in the next paragraph, when discussing martyrs, but only in contrast to "the suicide:"
"Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything."
Again, he is clearly talking about suicide in general, not suicide executed by a nihilist.
Sorry, but this argument only works if you position the straw men just so, and doesn't hold up under a minimum of critical scrutiny.
In case you were confused by the opening discussion of suicide slot machines into thinking that he was only talking about suicide by nihilists, Chesterton goes on to say:
"Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act"
Goes beyond nihilism, no?
"But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer's suicidal automatic machines"
Chesterton is contrasting this theatrical public abuse of the corpse with the hypothetical nihilist suicide machine and coming out in favor of mucking about with the cadaver. While he is explicitly arguing against nihilism in this sentence, the practice of special burial for suicides was not restricted to cases of suicide by nihilists, so this cannot be said to be only about nihilism.
Two paragraphs on, Chesterton says, regarding the impalement of the suicide's corpse and its burial at a crossroads, "I am not saying this fierceness was right; but why was it so fierce?" Well he isn't saying it was wrong either, as I think he should, But the main point is this: he is saying that the reasons for these extreme views about and reactions to all suicides are valid.
If you want to argue these points at length, PM me so we can spare these good people.
On the other hand, instead of attacking me, why not argue for the position you endorse? Then maybe we could get firmly back on topic.
quote:
So it's needlessly cruel (and anti-Christ in to the bargain, let's not forget) to express extreme disapproval (albeit loquently) at a nihilistic and morally and spiritually dangerous philosophical trend? Really?
Ummm, no. What he was doing was arguing for the correctness of these views of suicide. He was doing this in the context of a larger argument about optimism and pessimism, Christianity and its critics, part of which addresses nihilists. But the hyperbolic statements about suicides and "the suicide" stand on their own. They are needlessly cruel and may be anti-Christ (sorry, I won’t assert that with more certainty).
Who but the surviving friends and family of the deceased is punished when you bury the corpse of the suicide apart or drive a stake through it? In what way can this brutal gesture not be considered needlessly cruel. How can raising that cruelty as a positive in this argument not be cruel?
I was raised in an atheist family that held Christianity and Christians in deep contempt. Among the horrors Christianity stood accused of by my parents were the Crusades, the Inquisition, the nightmarish tradition of mass persecution and murder of Jews culminating in the holocaust, the persecution of scientists and suppression of learning and discovery, the oppression of women, the oppression of non-European peoples and the theological position under discussion. It [I]IS[/I} a stumbling block set in the path of people seeking truth. I am not being hyperbolic or fabricating this. If this is surprising to you, you might want to ask some non-Christians about it.
Is it explicitly clear that all suicide is to be considered not just self-killing, but self-murder? Is there a passage in the Gospels that I missed that can be construed as supporting stigmatizing practices which can only hurt the surviving relatives? If there is such a clear message from God, then the fact that this will turn people astray cannot be helped. But if this brutal and cruel position on suicide is arrived at through inference or implication, I can’t see how it can be other than anti-Christ to proclaim it.
But, as I said, I don’t arrogate to myself the power to judge the eternal fate of others. That judgement belongs to Jesus and not to any man, denomination, movement, church or school of theology.
If I am wrong, perhaps it would be productive to teach me than to "teach me a lesson."
The United Methodist Church has release a relevant statement on suicide:
"A Christian perspective on suicide begins with an affirmation of faith that nothing, including suicide, separates us from the love of God (Romans 8:38-39). Therefore, we deplore the condemnation of people who take their own lives and we consider unjust the stigma that so often falls on surviving family and friends"
United Methodist Church statement on suicide
I don’t think I am way out of line in seeing in this statement a condemnation of the kind of statement found in "The Flag and the World," I don’t think I’m being preachy in strongly disagreeing with the positions espoused in the quote posted by JL, and I don’t think I’ve been sinful in arguing against the more extreme language used by Chesterton.
This is the last mention I will make of Chesterton in this thread (unless there is a really good reason).
quote:
Seriously, if you'd been posting this kind of stuff, with the same lack of contextual support, about a much-respected (and reputedly very holy) living religious writer, you'd have been verbally lynched long before now, Jerry.
"And rightly so".
CB (wouldn't ya know ...)
Seriously, I thought it would be clear from context that when I said I'd "had a go at Chesterton," I meant that I had crticized this piece of his work, not the man himself. Oh, well.
Gosh, CB, does the verbal lynching come with a verbal cross burning by robed and hooded nightriders? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
But hey, if y'all really think I deserve a verbal lynching, I guess that's what Hell is for, down below decks. Bring it on, if that's what y'all gotta do. But if y'all throw a party for me and bring a verbal noose, cowboy, I am likely to show up with a verbal 12 guage Mossberg loaded with rhetorical 00 Buck. Don't start that party unless you're ready to dance.
Feel me, partner?
Gosh, what a long post! Looks like the sort of thing posted Ms. Byronic. Sorry. I promise not to do it again. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
Uh, no actually, CB, you are quite mistaken. I will confess to not being a big fan of Chesterton, but neither do I scorn him or his work as a whole. I was addressing the passage quoted by JL in the context of this thread, on it's internal merit, but I did read the whole of "The Flag and the World" to get it in context. I also read the several other posts arguing that Gilbert didn't mean what he wrote. Sorry, CB, reading it in the context of the chapter, or even the whole of "Orthodoxy" doesn't help.
Jerry, if you really can't see the difference between "Chesterton didn't mean what he wrote" and "Chesterton didn't mean what you think he meant" then it would be a waste of time to talk about it with you further. And your rants about "mucking about with the cadaver" illustrate that you're not interested in theological debate; ironic that you chould accuse Chesterton of hyperbole.
quote:
If you want to argue these points at length, PM me so we can spare these good people.
Why, are our objections to your viewpoints not appropriate to display publicly? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
I was raised in an atheist family that held Christianity and Christians in deep contempt. Among the horrors Christianity stood accused of by my parents were the Crusades, the Inquisition, the nightmarish tradition of mass persecution and murder of Jews culminating in the holocaust, the persecution of scientists and suppression of learning and discovery, the oppression of women, the oppression of non-European peoples and the theological position under discussion. It [I]IS[/I} a stumbling block set in the path of people seeking truth. I am not being hyperbolic or fabricating this. If this is surprising to you, you might want to ask some non-Christians about it.
Much of this list is so absurd that it deserves no refutation. In the history of Christendom there are shameful chapters, to be sure, but any atheist patting himself on the back might want to remember Joseph Stalin.
quote:
If I am wrong, perhaps it would be productive to teach me than to "teach me a lesson."
Doubtful.
quote:
This is the last mention I will make of Chesterton in this thread (unless there is a really good reason).
Thank heaven for small favors.
quote:
Gosh, CB, does the verbal lynching come with a verbal cross burning by robed and hooded nightriders?
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Um, actually I think Jerry Boam makes some good points... particularly that Chesterton does indeed refer to "pathetic emotional" stuff etc. so it is not limited to intellectual nihilism. And non-Christians are often put off Christianity by the sins committed by Christians; and while some atheists have done really horrible things (like Stalin), atheism isn't really an organised group which hangs together the way the Church, or even churches, do. I.e., in a certain sense the earthly Church (Roman Catholic, anyway, if not others) really does need to answer for, apologise for, etc. the Inquisition in a way which, say, a given atheist need not at all approach the actions of Stalin.
However, Jerry Boam says quote:
Is it explicitly clear that all suicide is to be considered not just self-killing, but self-murder? Is there a passage in the Gospels that I missed ...
But you see, for those of us who are not sola scriptura, it's not only in the Gospels or even the Bible which we hold to be doctrinally important; Christian tradition is a very serious matter. My understanding of the reason Christians are not permitted by God to kill themselves is that it is self-murder -- that deliberately killing an innocent human being, in a non-self-defence context, is forbidden, and only justice, wartime, self-defence, or accident remove the moral charge of muder. In my understanding, even killing someone (oneself or another) on grounds of mercy is not permitted, tragic though that might be.
I think Chesterton here was talking mainly, yes, about nihilistic suicides, but also about the "life is so rotten I don't see any point in going on" situation -- and yes, I do agree with him that if someone says that, then in a very real sense, without hyperbole, every tiny creature in Creation is being told, in effect, "you're not worth living for." Perhaps the person is irrational and suffering from a mental illness and their behaviour is excusable on the ground of not being in control of their actions; perhaps deep sorrow or grief has tempted them beyond what they believe they can bear; but I still think the statement stands. Perhaps on some level God (and every tiny creature) can say, "I forgive (or excuse) them, for they truly do not know what they do," but that does not make the action permissible.
I'd say that from my point of view, someone killing themselves to make things easier on their family is still committing a sin. It might be partly mitigated by their intent, but then someone killing (apart from circumstances above) to get food for their family would still be sinning. It might also be mitigated somewhat by its consensuality, but again if they do not have the right to take their own life, it is still forbidden.
And from my point of view none of the above makes the action intrinsically unforgivable.
Re the burial at the crossroads and so forth, as Lewis once said "Just because the Middle Ages erred in a particular direction does not mean there is no error in the other direction."
But I still think Jerry makes some good points. I think we all ought to calm down in this and not assault each other's motives, whatever our position on this matter. It's a very rough issue to deal with, and not at all merely a matter of speculation for many people. When someone is so miserable (again, whether due to mental illness of some kind or not) that killing themselves seems a valid option, in that situation it sounds like pouring salt in their already gaping and bleeding emotional wounds to say "It is a sin, possibly a mortal one" to them. Which, alas, doesn't make it stop being sinful, if those of us who believe that are correct. But we who believe as I do should be aware of how our words might come across. If my agreement with Chesterton makes me sound callous, I apologise, but I don't think he nor I intended such, and some have suggested that this had been a live issue for he himself when younger -- so perhaps these issues he wrote about were the sorts of things which helped snap him out of it -- I don't know. I know when I've been tempted to really negative attitudes (not, however, to kill myself -- mainly because I always believed it was wrong) that passage has helped me.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Just for the record, folks, I've PM'd Jerry Boam to ask that we keep this discussion on the boards, where it started.
Firstly, I'll be a bit lazy and take the liberty of me-too-ing the whole of Kyralessa's last post.
For my next trick ...
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
Uh, no actually, CB, you are quite mistaken. I will confess to not being a big fan of Chesterton, but neither do I scorn him or his work as a whole. I was addressing the passage quoted by JL in the context of this thread, on it's internal merit, but I did read the whole of "The Flag and the World" to get it in context. I also read the several other posts arguing that Gilbert didn't mean what he wrote. Sorry, CB, reading it in the context of the chapter, or even the whole of "Orthodoxy" doesn't help.
Well, naturally I'm sorry that the broader context of the passage doesn't help you here, Jerry, but that's really a comment about you rather than about Chesterton. It would seem as if others do get a different impression from the one GKC leaves you with. I'll try to use some of your own last post to explain why that might be.
quote:
I call it hyperbolic because it is: "There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer" If that ain't hyperbole, I'll
drink all the tea in China.
I never denied Chesterton's use of hyperbole here, but merely that it was an "emotional rant". It is an attempt to explain why suicide (yes, perhaps of many sorts) has been the source of such heated Christian opprobrium - but not utterly to excuse the "fierceness". If what you mean is that the passage gets you in a pother then, again, that would be a largely autobiographical fact - on what eveidence do you ascribe emotional twisted knickers to Chesterton? He cares about what he's writing about, of course - it's no dispassionate analysis as from outside the frame of importance. But that's different from the passage itself being infected with emotional spluttering.
quote:
As others have pointed out, some people kill themselves precisely to benefit those they leave behind. Chesterton allows for this possibility in the next paragraph, when discussing martyrs, but only in contrast to "the suicide:"
"Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything."
Again, he is clearly talking about suicide in general, not suicide executed by a nihilist.
Sorry, but this argument only works if you position the straw men just so, and doesn't hold up under a minimum of critical scrutiny.
Of course some people do it for others (as they see it) - but GKC can't be meaning to condemn them in this passage, because he says of those he condemns that they do not care about others. How then can it also be a condemnation of those who care so much about others that they die for them? What he says only makes sense if it refers onlyto those who just don't care about the rest of the world.
quote:
In case you were confused by the opening discussion of suicide slot machines into thinking that he was only talking about suicide by nihilists, Chesterton goes on to say:
"Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act"
Goes beyond nihilism, no?
Okay, this is where we get to the nub of it. When GKC says "pathetic" here, he's clearly not meaning "woefully/culpably inadequate" - he means that there can be truly awful circumstances that explain (his word is even "excuse") the act in some cases, using the word in its etymologically straight meaning. Does it sound from the context that GKC thinks most suicides fall into this category of pitiable, compassion-inducing acts? Perhaps not. But that may be because he is saving his energy for the condemnation of the selfish/nihilistic cases. He explicitly acommodates altruistic sacrifice and cases of severe emotional trauma seperately.
quote:
While he is explicitly arguing against nihilism in this sentence, the practice of special burial for suicides was not restricted to cases of suicide by nihilists, so this cannot be said to be only about nihilism.
This just doesn't follow. Since he was explicitly talking about the nihilists here, it seems perverse to suggest that he was defending or rationalising the appropriateness of treating all suicides in this way. How can you interpret this as a defence of the crossroads treatment for all suicides? As we see later, he doesn't even defend it in the case of the nihilists, as you sat yourself:
quote:
Two paragraphs on, Chesterton says, regarding the impalement of the suicide's corpse and its burial at a crossroads, "I am not saying this fierceness was right; but why was it so fierce?" Well he isn't saying it was wrong either, as I think he should
So Chesterton is trying to explain why suicide has been so harshly treated in the past, without defending the treatment. He is very careful not to defend it. Even in the case of the nihilist. From which you conclude that he probably advocates such treatment for all suicides:
quote:
But the main point is this: he is saying that the reasons for these extreme views about and reactions to all suicides are valid.
Eh?
quote:
But, as I said, I don’t arrogate to myself the power to judge the eternal fate of others. That judgement belongs to Jesus and not to any man, denomination, movement, church or school of theology.
But that didn't stop you suggesting that GKC might just end up in hell for those passages, did it?
quote:
Seriously, I thought it would be clear from context that when I said I'd "had a go at Chesterton," I meant that I had crticized this piece of his work, not the man himself. Oh, well.
A helpful piece of advice, here: if you start accusing someone of saying something so awful that it might just end them up in hell, that could be interpreted as a personal attack ...
quote:
Gosh, CB, does the verbal lynching come with a verbal cross burning by robed and hooded nightriders?
But hey, if y'all really think I deserve a verbal lynching, I guess that's what Hell is for, down below decks. Bring it on, if that's what y'all gotta do. But if y'all throw a party for me and bring a verbal noose, cowboy, I am likely to show up with a verbal 12 guage Mossberg loaded with rhetorical 00 Buck. Don't start that party unless you're ready to dance.
Feel me, partner?
Nurse! The screens!
Settle down, Jerry.
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Sorry, ChastMastr - we cross-posted (which just shows how long it takes me to get post halfway right!).
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Oh, yes, about pathetic -- yes, the word has taken on the meaning of something looked down on ("What a pathetic excuse!" she exclaimed angrily, as John cowered) rather than its original meaning of inspiring pathos (The little match girl stood, pathetic and forlorn, in the rain). And of course this is related to bathetic -- over-the-top and falsely pathetic, usually in a literary context (Smith's characters, particularly Little Daffodil in The Olde Convenience Store, whose death scene lingers over three tedious chapters, are far too bathetic for me to tolerate for very long).
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Chesterton was not arguing against suicidal people themselves, nor against those who held out hope that suicidal people were not necessarily condemned to hell.
I'm sorry but 'not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin' reads pretty much that way to me.
I think my dislike of Chesterton is aesthetic as much as anything, he was just not IMO a very good writer. But he does represent a certain sort of 20th century 'boys own' apologetic, which is utterly lacking in emotional sensetivity. It is not possible to abstract theological principle from lived reality. Theology matters because God matters to real people. One cannot talk abstractly about 'theological standpoint on suicide' without raising the question 'what does God think about my friend who killed himself?'
And as for suicide being, the sin, that is just absolute nonsense...
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
...It is not possible to abstract theological principle from lived reality. Theology matters because God matters to real people. One cannot talk abstractly about 'theological standpoint on suicide' without raising the question 'what does God think about my friend who killed himself?'
And as for suicide being, the sin, that is just absolute nonsense...
Well, there we all go, then. You can't talk about theology abstractly. Clearly I have a heck of a lot of books to throw out when I get home today. And for that matter, this board has a heck of a lot of posts to delete.
I would just like to ask one question:
Why do all these hypersensitive "My-best-friend-committed-suicide" people flock to a thread clearly titled "Theological Standpoint on Suicide"?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Why do all these hypersensitive "My-best-friend-committed-suicide" people flock to a thread clearly titled "Theological Standpoint on Suicide"?
I don't expect to see the experiences of bereavement of other Shipmates treated with this sort of sneering about hypersensitivity anywhere on the boards, whether the word 'Theological' is in the thread title or not.
Louise
[not hosting on this thread]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Why do all these hypersensitive "My-best-friend-committed-suicide" people flock to a thread clearly titled "Theological Standpoint on Suicide"?
You're kidding, right? Say you're kidding.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Why do all these hypersensitive "My-best-friend-committed-suicide" people flock to a thread clearly titled "Theological Standpoint on Suicide"?
You're kidding, right? Say you're kidding.
Um, yes, it's not like it's not going to attract people who have a serious interest in the subject.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Why do all these hypersensitive "My-best-friend-committed-suicide" people flock to a thread clearly titled "Theological Standpoint on Suicide"?
Is this a serious question?
My cousin committed suicide a number of years back. I haven't "flocked" to this thread because I think abstract theological discussions are dry as dust, and there's nothing that any of you theological eggheads can say that will change my mind on the subject of suicide.
That said, I sincerely hope that you realize that these "hypersensitive" (as opposed to, say, boneheadedly and criminally INsensitive) posters are trying desperately to make sense of something that is incomprehensible and never, EVER leaves you. Or maybe they're trying to seek some comfort in understanding how God will heal that person in an instant.
There are very few subjects which don't personally affect people in some way, Kyralessa. You would do well to remember that.
[ 04. June 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
quote:
I would just like to ask one question:
Why do all these hypersensitive "My-best-friend-committed-suicide" people flock to a thread clearly titled "Theological Standpoint on Suicide"?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
does that deserve an answer?
although i didnt make it (!) both myself and a few of my friends have attempted suicide in the past. Not a fact im proud of, but part of me none the less.
however - does that make me hyper-sensitive?
As a theology graduate... i am interested in many of the posts in purg, although as erin said - usually teh more interesting ones! I think too that all our theology is to some extent limited/ increased/ affected through our life context...
theology in many ways is us making sense of life here on earth. and sadly for many people, suicide/ self harm/ suffering/ world disasters etc are part of that...
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Why do all these hypersensitive "My-best-friend-committed-suicide" people flock to a thread clearly titled "Theological Standpoint on Suicide"?
Because to divorce theology from feelings is a stupid mistake some theologians have made many people on the ship try and not repeat that error.
--------------------
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
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
nightlamp - well said.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
...It is not possible to abstract theological principle from lived reality. Theology matters because God matters to real people. One cannot talk abstractly about 'theological standpoint on suicide' without raising the question 'what does God think about my friend who killed himself?'
And as for suicide being, the sin, that is just absolute nonsense...
Well, there we all go, then. You can't talk about theology abstractly. Clearly I have a heck of a lot of books to throw out when I get home today. And for that matter, this board has a heck of a lot of posts to delete.
I would just like to ask one question:
Why do all these hypersensitive "My-best-friend-committed-suicide" people flock to a thread clearly titled "Theological Standpoint on Suicide"?
Sorry, but it is (to put it mildly) far from self evident that good theology has to be disconnected from life-experience.
The most interesting theology done in recent years has been that which stresses the necessarily 'contextual' nature of all our thought about faith.
Arguably, the model where theology is integrally tied up with our lives and experiences as Christians is the ancient and classical model of theology. Thought about God flows, on the one hand, from our encounters with God in prayer, and, on the other, from our service of God in loving and caring for others. The idea of detached and abstract theology is a modern aberration.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Why do all these hypersensitive "My-best-friend-committed-suicide" people flock to a thread clearly titled "Theological Standpoint on Suicide"?
For the same reason that it is such an important theological question -- nearly everyone human is confronted with the need to grapple with the question of suicide. Lots of us deal with this, to greater and lesser degrees, as part of our personal on-going existence. Many more deal with it second-hand as they try to help loved ones cope or deal with the pain of losing someone to suicide.
Trying to understand the balance between the immediate pain of living and the greater pain which can result from making the wrong mental/spiritual choices in how to deal with the pain would seem to me to be the essence of what theology is supposed to deal with. Theological writings tend to be set forth in definitive terms, but the true theological discourse (IMHO) is the individual soul grappling with what it really means here and now as this individual life is being lived.
I suppose if one sees theology as nothing but a dry, intellectual, academic subject, then those "My-friend-committed-suicide" people have no right to join the discussion. Of course, by that standard, it isn't theology anymore, it's philosophy.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
(Major cross-posting event!)
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
I don't have a problem with everyone whose best friend committed suicide. Just the hypersensitive ones. Or, to be more specific, the ones who, when faced with a theological position on suicide, ignore its context and reply "That's just so insensitive" instead of bothering to understand it or refute it.
Certainly, theology should be relevant to real life. But if all you have to post on a "Theological Standpoint on Suicide" thread is "So-and-so's theology makes me feel bad", then why post at all?
I have other things to say on this note but they will be posted in Hell.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
jlg and Erin
Thank you.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I have already commented in Hell, but I can only think that theology which brings forth this sort of response may be lacking in practical usefulness, and may be positively damaging. Thus it has little real worth 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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
HOSTING
Kyralessa, everyone is welcome to post on this thread, both the hyper-sensitive and the hyper-insensitive. However, both groups are expected to show a reasonable amount of decency and respect for one another.
Your two most recent posts have been deliberately rude and hurtful. You owe an apology to the people on this thread who have shared personal experiences with suicide. Please make that apology in your next post.
scot
Purgatory Host
--------------------
“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
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
My criticisms went wide of their mark, and I apologize to those who were sideswiped therein.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Thank you, Kyralessa.
--------------------
“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
|
|
|
|
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Thankyou hostly people, this was going a little too far.
I'm not one of those hypersensitive "My-best-friend-committed-suicide" people I'm a once hypersensitive "I-attempted-suicide" person.
Chesterton was right in theory, but to post on a board where they can be read by all - which may include the recently bereaved or suicidal - is not the sort of sympathy I had hoped for.
The pastoral issues must never be divorced from the theological.
Otherwise this is a 95% good thread, there's a lot of sensitive people out there.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam's Asteroid:
Chesterton was right in theory.
Do you mean he was right in believing (a) suicide is/ can be wrong, or (b) suicide is ' the sin '? I would agree with (a), not with (b).
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
Here is a thing I just ran across on the theology of suicide which I thought others on this thread might find interesting (original here).
quote:
Q. We got into a discussion in my Bible class about whether Christians who commit suicide go to heaven. I always thought that God forgives everything, except the unforgivable sin of not accepting him. But others in my class hold different views. I have two questions: (1) Do Christians who commit suicide go to heaven? and (2) What is the "unforgivable sin"?
--
A. Taking a human life is an extremely serious sin, and while a murderer can repent, there is no chance for repentance after death. However, it's another thing entirely if the person who committed suicide was emotionally imbalanced or mentally ill. We might even say that the person didn't kill himself but mental illness killed him—like cancer or heart disease could kill someone else.
[Edited for copyright. Click here for full text.]
[ 06. June 2003, 13:40: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
Sorry, I haven't been able to reply lately. There's been a whirlwind of rush jobs at work and my twins have colds and are very wakeful... While I have certainly heard its siren call, the Ship has had to take second place. Shocking, I know, but there it is.
I very much regret giving you the impression, Kyralessa, that I did not think your arguments worth airing in public. In fact, I have enjoyed reading most of your posts and found them thought –provoking and interesting. I suggested discussing the controversial passage elsewhere solely because I thought that continuing to discuss it here would be a hijacking of this thread.
Rather a lot has been said since my last post, and I most of the thoughts I would have posted in the interim have already been expressed well by others here and in the hell thread, so I won’t rehash the issues—but I feel I should answer CBs post, because he took the trouble to write it. I don’t have time just now, but will get back to it soon. Not sure if this is the proper place. Can’t PM him to discuss, he’s blocked, so if there’s no objection, I will answer here. Out of time now.
And I want to second Never Conforming’s praise for your last post, Kyralessa.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
And I want to second Never Conforming’s praise for your last post, Kyralessa.
Your praise should go to the author and columnist Frederica Mathewes-Green, who wrote the answer above. Incidentally, she's Orthodox, which just goes to show that most Orthodox are not as obnoxious as I am. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Sure,get back to me here, Jerry - confused as to why you can't PM me though. Have been receiving others ok today - not deliberately incommunacado, honest!
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
WARNING: The following post is a reply to ChesterBelloc’s comments, Shipmates who do not feel strongly about “The Flag and the World” may wish to skip to the next post.
I characterized the quotation from Chesterton as a hyperbolic emotional rant. CB agreed that it was hyperbolic but denied that it was an emotional rant.
Was it emotional? I think so. He starts by declaring that he is “utterly hostile” to nihilism. He then loads the paragraph with intrinsically emotional subjects, touching on suicide, rape, terrorism, and murder, all in inflammatory language. Just in case the quality of emotion being invoked is unclear, he gives us this: “when a man hangs himself upon a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury.” I don’t think it is unreasonable to conclude that: a) he feels strong emotions about these subjects, b) he is trying to stir the emotions of his audience c) among the emotions he is both expressing and hoping to arouse is anger. Based on these observations, I think one can safely describe the whole tone as “emotional.” This is not to say incoherent, or free of logic or argument.
Was it a rant? I think so. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a rant as “Violent or extravagant speech or writing” and “A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence.” We have already agreed that Chesterton employs hyperbole and the careful reader will have noticed that he invokes crimes of violence and violent emotions in pursuit of his rhetorical goals. This combination satisfies both conditions of the first definition, when either would suffice. If my conclusions b and c in the previous paragraph are correct, then the passage also meets the second definition. Sufficient reason, then, to call it a rant.
A general note of clarification--
Among the points in contention are:
Proposition A) Suicide is a unitary sin: all acts of suicide are alike in their sinfulness. The perpetrator of suicide will face the same consequence regardless of the motivations and circumstances precipitating the act.
Proposition B) Suicide is a set: acts of suicide may be differentiated by the circumstances and motivations of the their perpetrators. Membership in the set is defined solely by the identity of perpetrator and victim. The differences between members of the set are significant, may be regarded as mitigating circumstances and may result in different penalties.
Proposition C) Chesterton is not only arguing against nihilism, but also for proposition A: all suicide is the same sin.
As a preface to the discussion of the other points in contention, I think it may be fruitful to note that I take the following to be axiomatic:
An endorsement of the supporting propositions of an argument is implied by their employment in that argument.
In the circumstance that one supports position X and opposes position Y, if one raises as evidence against Y practices and stances X1, X2, X3, … Xn, one is implying a belief in X1-Xn.
For example, if Col. Blimp proclaims:
“What Lord Bunk says is right: we must limit immigration by Narragonians! The Bodgery Report says Narragonians are lazy and dishonest by nature! They were found to be dirty and have loose morals.”
It is understood from this that Col. Blimp is not only agreeing with Lord Bunk, but also endorsing the conclusions of the Bodgery Report. While Col. Blimp does not himself say that Narragonians are lazy, such a belief is implied.
In the case that one refers to a well known document, law, statement, or position in an argument in order to support an argument, one is implicitly stating an agreement with known details of that position.
For example, if Col. Blimp proclaims:
“What Lord Bunk says is right: we must limit immigration by Narragonians! The Bodgery Report proves it!”
And it is known that Bodgery Report declares Narragonians to be lazy, dishonest, dirty and possessed of loose morals, one is on safe ground concluding that Col. Blimp finds the Bodgery Report to be accurate and agrees with its findings.
I do not dispute that the hateful statements about suicide occur in the context of an argument against nihilism. But in attacking nihilism, Chesterton describes a number of Christian beliefs about and responses to suicide. He does not differentiate between suicides in different circumstances and the practices he discusses are known to have been carried out against suicides in general.
By raising those Christian beliefs and responses against nihilism (or, as he does in one case, pessimism), he implicitly endorses those beliefs. Where he does qualify his endorsement (e.g., endorsing the belief underlying the practice of separate burial but not necessarily the “fierceness” with which it was applied), he makes sure to unambiguously declare that his qualification applies to the practice and not the belief.
Examining the paragraph originally quoted by Jesuitical Lad, and the three paragraphs immediately following it, I conclude that proposition C above is true, Chesterton argues from a belief in proposition A, views suicide as a unitary sin, and does not recognize significant differences among suicides for any reason.
Into the nitty gritty:
CB argues that CKG believes Proposition B (suicide as a set, its members differentiated by motivation and circumstance) to be true:
quote:
Of course some people do it for others (as they see it) - but GKC can't be meaning to condemn them in this passage, because he says of those he condemns that they do not care about others. How then can it also be a condemnation of those who care so much about others that they die for them?
He does not acknowledge that a selfless motivation for suicide exists.
In fact he denies it’s existence--by rejecting an equation between martyrdom and suicide on the basis that martyrdom is selfless and suicide is selfish.
quote:
What he says only makes sense if it refers only to those who just don't care about the rest of the world.
This argument works either if we are operating on the assumption that GKC is infallible, or if we assume that he shares the idea (proposition B) that there are different categories of suicide. But we know that separate burial, which he refers to three times in support of his argument, was not limited to suicide carried out by nihilists. It was applied to all suicides. By raising separate burial and impaling of the corpse repeatedly as a practice perhaps wrong in execution but right in principle, GKC is implicitly speaking of all suicides. By using the generic referent “the suicide” Chesterton is, again, addressing all suicides. He doesn’t qualify this, when he could, so I think it’s not unreasonable to conclude that he actually meant it.
But here is the passage, decided for yourself:
quote:
About the same time I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker: he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr. The open fallacy of this helped to clear the question. Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end. In other words, the martyr is noble, exactly because (however he renounces the world or execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself: he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destroyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe.
I do agree, CB, that if you try to force an agreement with proposition B on Chesterton, his argument doesn’t “make sense.” This doesn’t trouble me, because I think it’s clear that he argues from a belief in proposition A, a unitary view of suicide. In any case, I think many of his statements in “Orthodoxy” (“Buddhism is centripetal, Christianity is centrifugal”, “The madman is the man who has lost everything but his reason”, “Free thought has exhausted its own freedom”) are nonsense.
CB goes on:
quote:
Okay, this is where we get to the nub of it. When GKC says "pathetic" here, he's clearly not meaning "woefully/culpably inadequate" - he means that there can be truly awful circumstances that explain (his word is even "excuse") the act in some cases, using the word in its etymologically straight meaning.
I do have a passing familiarity with the English language, CB. My comment was merely to observe that by discussing other motivations than nihilism for suicide, GKC leaves us in no doubt that he speaks of more than just the suicide of the nihilist. He is explicitly generalizing the case. CB’s suggestion that CKG is indicating agreement with the idea that circumstances may excuse suicide and thereby limiting the case is absurd—the sentence in which the language referenced by CB occurs has the opposite meaning.
Chesterton very clearly has no real sympathy for these other reasons for suicide:
quote:
Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite.
GKC gives the non-nihilist suicides all the respect due to rapists and terrorists. I don’t think I am going out on limb in concluding that He doesn’t believe that there are valid excuses for suicide, pathetic or no.
CB concludes
quote:
He explicitly acommodates altruistic sacrifice and cases of severe emotional trauma seperately.
I think that it’s quite clear that the opposite is true: Chesterton denies the existence of altruistic motivation in suicide, assigning that motive exclusively to martyrs, he rubbishes the notion that severe emotional trauma might excuse suicide by equating such with the motives of rapists and terrorists.
CB goes on to reiterate his outrage that I had the gall to suggest that Chesterton’s hyperbolic emotional rant against suicide might be a damnable sin:
quote:
A helpful piece of advice, here: if you start accusing someone of saying something so awful that it might just end them up in hell, that could be interpreted as a personal attack ...
Yes, I suppose it could, if one chose to take it that way, though I can only reiterate that my objection is to his ideas and not his person. I can say that I might go to hell and you might go to hell without having personally attacked either of us.
In fact, CB’s feeling that my qualified, uncertain statement about the possibility of Chesterton’s damnation is a remarkably close parallel to the feeling of outrage expressed by some at Chesterton’s absolute, unqualified condemnation of their loved ones who have committed suicide. Perhaps the surviving relatives of a suicide might be forgiven for feeling a stronger outrage at Chesterton’s remarks than fans of GKC feel at the mere suggestion that he might be called to account for his hateful language.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
Just in case the quality of emotion being invoked is unclear, he gives us this: “when a man hangs himself upon a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury.” I don’t think it is unreasonable to conclude that: a) he feels strong emotions about these subjects, b) he is trying to stir the emotions of his audience c) among the emotions he is both expressing and hoping to arouse is anger.
... Was it a rant? I think so. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a rant as “Violent or extravagant speech or writing”
... Chesterton very clearly has no real sympathy for these other reasons for suicide:
quote:
Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite.
GKC gives the non-nihilist suicides all the respect due to rapists and terrorists.
I'd also add (d), that one could conceivably believe that the order of the universe itself is so set against such things that, were it possible, the leaves of the trees might literally do such a thing, just as some notions of the Fall suggest that the relationship of the animal kingdom to man was changed by man's actions. If this is true, does it mean that any statement of such things, no matter how valid, will always be a "rant"?
Re "terrorism" (a word I think has been overused recently and has gained some different meanings than it might have had back then as well) -- Chesterton also says the following in Orthodoxy:
quote:
"...I was much moved by the eloquent attack on Christianity as a thing of inhuman gloom; for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin. Insincere pessimism is a social accomplishment, rather agreeable than otherwise; and fortunately nearly all pessimism is insincere. But if Christianity was, as these people said, a thing purely pessimistic and opposed to life, then I was quite prepared to blow up St. Paul's Cathedral."
But considerably more on this subject, both of admiration and of rejection, can be found in his novel The Man Who Was Thursday. During Chesterton's life, "anarchists" were in the news quite a bit, and some of the things he says suggest to me that while he powerfully disagreed with both their beliefs and their methods, he understood more of where they were coming from than many others.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
Thanks for having the patience to wade through that immense post, ChastMastr.
In the interest of truth and peace with my Chestertonian brethren, I have to admit that I feel great sympathy with GKC's personal story. I even think I agree with a lot of his underlying message in "Orthodoxy" though frequently intensely disliking the way he has said it...
quote:
… does it mean that any statement of such things, no matter how valid, will always be a "rant"?
If there is an intention to stir anger in the audience and vent the anger of the author, then it’s a rant, no matter how valid… and not all rants are intrinsically bad.
Getting back to one of your earlier posts—
quote:
But you see, for those of us who are not sola scriptura, it's not only in the Gospels or even the Bible which we hold to be doctrinally important; Christian tradition is a very serious matter. My understanding of the reason Christians are not permitted by God to kill themselves is that it is self-murder -- that deliberately killing an innocent human being, in a non-self-defence context, is forbidden, and only justice, wartime, self-defence, or accident remove the moral charge of muder.
I am not sola scriptura though I did come to Christianity through reading the book. The United Methodist Church, in which I have made my home as a Christian, makes msuch of the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral:” scripture, reason, tradition and experience. Everything about this is easy for me but “tradition.” The church in its multiplicity of denominations, branches and movements has so frequently been so wrong about so many things that I find myself taking little from tradition without subjecting it to cross examination first.
I have enjoyed reading about the history of the early church and am beginning to appreciate tradition—but in the case of a theological question like this, where tradition says one thing and something quite different can be argued from scripture, I want to see a much better argument than “that’s what we’ve believed for a long time” (see women’s suffrage, slavery, autos-da-fe, among others). I’m sure my theology is dodgy on many grounds (though I have been surprised to learn that a personal belief that I was fairly sure was heretical was part of an old tradition and accepted in many branches of the faith…) and am eager to learn more.
Thanks again.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
see women’s suffrage, slavery, autos-da-fe, among others
You're welcome! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Though, erm, you may be surprised to learn my views (and reasons why) on such matters as you reference above... See appropriate threads, possibly in Dead Horses or Limbo. (Thrill to see ChastMastr's gradual and tediously painstaking examination of the whole women's ordination issue, for instance. Or just run screaming from the whole thing...)
David
"Autos-da-fe were actually rather late, as it turns out, and --- GACK!"
-- sound of David being abruptly strangled in mid-pedantic-rant
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Love]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
