|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Question to Protestants
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty: Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence. I believe that ultimately Scripture is the only admissible evidence when it comes to the formation of rejection of doctrines. So, I would answer El Greco's OP like this: Scripture Alone. That's all I have to help me decide if a doctrine is true.
But your answer isn't really "Scripture alone" - your answer is your faith that scripture is True.
In a sense what you say is correct. However, I think it's wrong to assert a completely subjectivist epistemology as if all evidence is of equal validity and authority and is therefore equally admissible with regard to the formation of doctrine. For example, you seem to be suggesting that scripture is no more or indeed no less authoritative for the formation of Christian doctrine than subjective spiritual experience, the fruit of human reason, or inherited non-written tradition. The problem with this, it seems to me, is that the final arbiter simply becomes the opinion that all evidence is equal. In other words, you opinion that all evidence is equal - which is simply not true - becomes the final authority when doctrinal differences are being discussed.
However, when one takes Scripture as the ultimate authority by which experience, reason, and tradition are to be tested, verified, validated, or indeed rejected one has an objective authority to which one's ideas can be submitted. Now, of course, the come back to this will be the idea of relativistic interpretation - the idea that my interpretation is just a valid as yours despite the fact that they may totally contradict each other. I don't think this works and here's why: there really is only one correct interpretation of Scripture and the goal of theology is to reach that interpretation. Merely settling for relativism is to fall way short of the aim of theology. The hard work starts when the truth gets hammered out in Scripture-centred debate and theological enterprise.
[ 12. February 2010, 08:14: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
However, I think it's wrong to assert a completely subjectivist epistemology as if all evidence is of equal validity and authority and is therefore equally admissible with regard to the formation of doctrine...
Only if your subjectivity includes the ignorant and extremely stupid assumption that all evidence is equally valid. If I experience God telling me to go and slaughter prostitutes, I need to check that out by asking others who I know are experienced in the area of listening to Him. If I see rainbows exploding out of trees, I might want to reflect on what I have been drinking and whether anyone could have slipped something in it.
quote:
.. there really is only one correct interpretation of Scripture and the goal of theology is to reach that interpretation.
That's still your belief though, isn't it? IMHO we will never know the full, complete and perfect interpretation of Scripture until we reach the point when we no longer need to know it, because we are staring God in the face (if we dare) and even then we won't be able to encompass our experience, though maybe it will be fun to spend eternity trying (certainly hope so, as I have a very low boredom threshold).
More seriously, I don't really understand why you would think no-one has had anything interesting or valid to say about God since the Bible was, as it were, published (but I suppose you think theologians are saying valid things if there comments are rooted in scripture). Equally I don't understand why some other churches think that no new understanding of God can be arrived at when, to my way of thinking, science (etc.) must have changed the way we understand what we understood before.
In my view, you have chosen, and people in certain other churches have chosen, to place the locus of ultimate authority outside yourself. I think it's inside and that's why I'm a Protestant because, as I understand it, the primary thing that separates Protestants from other churches is the insistence on the primacy of the individual conscience. I'm not quite sure where sola scriptura fits in to that. Is it (as I suspect) just a disguised version of the primacy of individual conscience, or is it a third way?
El Greco affects to disagree with Protesants because they are just making it all up, but in effect, he is doing what we do, making his individual conscience his guiding light.
How is this not simply massive egotism and idolatry? Well, I believe it's because our "inner Light" is the Light of Christ. And if if it's all just "made up" well, that's OK to becasue real, hard science will tell us that we can only experience the world subjectively - but, as I said above, that doesn't mean we have to be stupid about it and it doesn't mean that we can't arrive at a very good approximation of reality. In fact we already know that our perceptual systems represent reality with a very high degree of accuracy, except when perceptual scientists are playing clever tricks on us in contrived and highly artifical experimental conditions.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Call me Numpty, I'm afraid I rather think that your version of what El Greco is saying is a good deal more sophisticated and interesting than what El Greco is actually saying or meant.
I've been away from the ship for quite a number of months, and as far as I can see El Greco hasn't progressed in any way shape or form. As has been said, he has a tendency to speak as if he's the world's great expert on Orthodoxy and/or atheism, and is therefore going to be able to make Protestants (or some other target group) have a moment of revelation. It tends to come across not so much as an argument, but as a case of Messiah complex.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
Am I seriously to accept that
a leap of faith based on anything other than the authority of the Bible is just wishful thinking,
while a leap of faith based on the authority of the Bible is not?
Am I really supposed to miss, or even ignore, the fact that it requires a leap of faith to attribute authority to the Bible?
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
If I experience God telling me to go and slaughter prostitutes, I need to check that out by asking others who I know are experienced in the area of listening to Him.
How do you know that? (Presumably it would be very easy to find people from all religious faiths who are 'experienced in listening to God'. They might all disagree though.)
Serious question.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I don't really understand why you would think no-one has had anything interesting or valid to say about God since the Bible was, as it were, published (but I suppose you think theologians are saying valid things if there comments are rooted in scripture). Equally I don't understand why some other churches think that no new understanding of God can be arrived at when, to my way of thinking, science (etc.) must have changed the way we understand what we understood before.
Titus 2 v 1 tells us to 'teach what is consistent with sound doctrine'(NRSV by memory). There is therefore no limit on 'interesting or valid [things] to say about God' - AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE BIBLE. The problem comes when the new line of teaching starts to diverge, and ends up pointing in the opposite direction, as is so often the case when a single biblical idea is allowed to overcome what the bible actually says. The classic example of this is universalism, where a belief in the love of God gets so emphasised that the doctrine of judgement gets lost. I would argue that the gay issue is a similar case, but let's not pursue morbid equines. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
If the ultimate authority lies inside me, we're all well and truly stuffed...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Some notes regarding faith.
Again, some of you are changing the subject and attacking arguments I did not make. My issue is not with faith (let alone with an individual's faith) but with beliefs. I'm asking about beliefs here, not faith.
Also, the way this is heading, some of you are suggesting that faith can exist only because one is uncertain. So the Apostles themselves, according to your way of thinking, are not supposed to have faith because they knew Jesus resurrected or whatever. I'm thinking that you are justifying your own doubts by calling them faith.
I was always surprised with Hollywood movies that touched on spiritual issues when they named something that made no sense, and had no justification for, "a leap of faith". Now I realize that this approach is actually what many Christians think of their faith. The debunking of Christian beliefs has progressed to such an extent that many Christians themselves recognize that what they are doing is to jump away from reason and empirical facts into the world of imagination, hopes that are not subject to (or even enlightened by) reason which they call faith.
Also, Qlib et al, I didn't turn atheist, but don't let that prevent you from labeling people and attacking straw-men. I'm arrogant, you are people of faith, Numpty is a fundamentalist. Another... irregular verb.
[ 12. February 2010, 11:06: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
If I experience God telling me to go and slaughter prostitutes, I need to check that out by asking others who I know are experienced in the area of listening to Him.
How do you know that? (Presumably it would be very easy to find people from all religious faiths who are 'experienced in listening to God'. They might all disagree though.)
Serious question.
The whole idea that killing people is wrong is rooted in the decalogue. In other words, it's supportable by scripture. You don't need to seek the advice of others on the issue, although it would - no doubt - be wise if you did. I would have to say that the sense of wrongness regarding the killing of prostitutes is - at least in part - due to the fact that you are thinking in accordance with a moral paradigm that has it's origins in the authority of the Christian scriptures.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If the ultimate authority lies inside me, we're all well and truly stuffed...
Speak for yourself Matt, speak for yourself.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
El Greco, ISTM that there are multiple levels of this thing. I can't intellectually fathom a universe that doesn't originate from an agency that we call God, and I can in turn reason that this Agency has a certain few characteristics. That puts my intellectual appraisal at least at a level of reasoned deism. I find the story of the revelation of God in Christ compelling and accept the core of the Christian religion - the Risen Christ who historically is one Jesus of Nazareth - albeit with somewhat less certainty than a belief in an All-Pervading-and-Creating Deity. The acceptance of the Incarnation and Resurrection could be based on a greater emotional input and much less intellectual reason. Then there's all the rest of the Christian religion beyond - or surrounding - the central core of the GodMan Jesus. I'm less certain about various elements of all that, in varying degrees. Unlike some others arguing here, I don't accept the infallability of writings like the canonical Christian scriptures, though I obviously agree that these serve to transmit the "facts" (or essential details) of the putative revelation of an Incarnate God presenting Himself amongst humanity. As to the claims for the inherent superior authenticity of one version of Christianity over another, for me it's a "by their fruits ye shall know them" matter of discrimination. Hence, there are various hate-groups around the fringes of Christianity that I don't accept as authentic expressions of Christian doctrine and praxis (of course, the Fred Phelps klan springs to mind as one of the more egregious examples). As to the rest - the bulk of those who profess and call themselves Christians - I reckon those various institutional bodies are all on equally shakey ground; thus, one may base acceptance of a particular church any number of considerations that one reckons to be important and compelling.
[ 12. February 2010, 11:34: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras, your explanation is fine and good by doesn't answer my question. Could you explain why this isn't made up? Why you aren't the one making things up about God and Christ?
Take the Arians for example. They thought and taught that Christ was the greatest and first of angels, who became man etc etc. You don't accept that. They made this stuff up. It was their pious imagination rather than truth. Why aren't you making the same thing?
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The whole idea that killing people is wrong is rooted in the decalogue.
Yet "God" goes on commanding people to kill others a few chapters later.
Numpty, you are not answering my question. I'm asking about your theology, and you reply "the Scriptures". But how do you know you are not making up your theology of the Scriptures and what's in them?
In a sense, Qlib sees the mistake in your theology, and you see the mistake in Qlib's theology, but what happens when someone sees the mistakes in both your theologies? That's what I'm talking about here.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Firstly, I am answering your question. I'm just not answering it by saying what you want me to say.
Secondly, that's a very good question. Let me get this straight. You see Qlib's mistake as placing the locus of final authority concerning the formation of doctrine in human reason and experience (i.e. final authority is intrinsic to the theologising subject). My mistake is placing the locus of final authority concerning the formation of doctrine in Scripture (i.e. final authority is extrinsic to the theologising subject).
My answer is this; the final authority has to lie somewhere and - knowing that human beings are sinful by what scripture says and through reason, experience and tradition -I think that God has assigned final authority to his word. In this sense other evidence is useful, but it is never to finally convincing. God has given Scripture - to his creatures through his creatures - as an extrinsic authority by which those creatures as theologising subjects are to check we what they teach and believe about who God is, what God is like, and how they should respond to God.
[ 12. February 2010, 12:03: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
El Greco, to use a rather hackneyed expression I "can't relate to" the way you pose your question, in terms of "making things up". I accept that there are some official parameters of small-o orthodox Christian theology and I accept these as marks of the historical Christian Church. By analogy I suppose I subscribe to them in the same way that I subscribe to the Constitution of the United States of America. In the case of the latter, I reckon that some of its provisions haven't served very efficiently over the long run but represent the best that the original framers could agree to at the time. Big changes in it are impractical and so we are left with a Constitution that can be amended in small bits (with difficulty)and which is open to interpretation, about which there is tremendous argument over "original intent", the proper parameters of interpretation (is it a "living" document that should be interpreted in light of modern circumstances and social change/progress?, etc). Likewise with regard to the basic corpus of the historical Christian religion established by the Councils. They worked out official positions, but there was a great deal of politics and power struggle involved, wasn't there? Hence, the official orthodoxy is as made-up as anything else, viewed from an objective, exterior position as an historian.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Am I seriously to accept that
a leap of faith based on anything other than the authority of the Bible is just wishful thinking,
while a leap of faith based on the authority of the Bible is not?
Am I really supposed to miss, or even ignore, the fact that it requires a leap of faith to attribute authority to the Bible?
No, I'm saying that you need to drop the idea of faith as leap into - or off of - anything as an unbiblical category of thought. Nowhere in scripture is faith described or defined as antithetical to reason. On the contrary, the writers of scripture consistently appeal to reason in order to communicate truth. I'm not suggesting that you take a leap of faith concerning the authority of the bible because I do not think that the bible warrants such a concept of faith; I'm suggesting that you take reasonable and reasoned approach to engaging with the text of Scripture until you come to a reasoned and reasonable position concerning the things that scripture has to say about who God is, what God is like, and how you should respond to God.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
My questions still stand.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Secondly, that's a very good question. Let me get this straight. You see Qlib's mistake as placing the locus of final authority concerning the formation of doctrine in human reason and experience (i.e. final authority is intrinsic to the theologising subject). My mistake is placing the locus of final authority concerning the formation of doctrine in Scripture (i.e. final authority is extrinsic to the theologising subject).
No no, my problem with your theology and the concerns I raise about it is not that you accept the Scriptures as the locus for your theology! I raise two issues different issues about your approach. Let me explain.
Issue number one:
There are many people who read the Scriptures, accept their authority and arrive at conclusions from their reading of the Scriptures. Many such beliefs you reject. But when I ask you why you aren't making things up like they are, your reply is "but it's in the Scripture!" What you fail to realize is that this answer could be used by others the theology of whom you reject.
You might really think the things you say are Scriptural, but that's not enough proof that they actually are. That's what other people think about their own beliefs as well! What makes your beliefs special?
The way I see it, your beliefs aren't special, which is why my question about why you aren't making things up applies to you as well.
To sum up:
Someone, let's call him Fred: The Scripture says....
Numpty: No, this is not what the Scripture says. You are making things up. The Scripture really says...
Fred: No, you are making things up! The Scripture is not saying what you think it says, but what I think it says!
If Fred is making things up, then why aren't you making things up as well?
Issue number two:
Your thoughts led you to arrive to the conclusion that the locus of authority on religious matters is the Scripture. Other people arrive at different conclusions. Why do your thoughts have to correspond to God's Truth on the matter? I mean, why aren't you making up in a creative -yet not in accordance with actual truth- way this theology that leads to the conclusion that the locus of authority on religious matters is the Scripture?
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Hence, the official orthodoxy is as made-up as anything else, viewed from an objective, exterior position as an historian.
This is nice and good, but you, as a believer in what you assume small o orthodox christianity is, you actually accept that those claims correspond to reality and they are not solely the result of the creative imagination of the people that suggested them. Why is that so?
[ 12. February 2010, 12:40: Message edited by: El Greco ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
My questions still stand.
And my answer is sufficient to say that I'm not advocating a "leap" of faith.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
beachpsalms
Shipmate
# 4979
|
Posted
originally posted by El Greco (emphasis mine) quote:
This is nice and good, but you, as a believer in what you assume small o orthodox christianity is, you actually accept that those claims correspond to reality and they are not solely the result of the creative imagination of the people that suggested them. Why is that so?
I think you've answered your own question here. It's a matter of faith, not reason. And furthermore, for many of us, the emphasis is not on intellectual assent to a set of theological precepts, but on how one lives out the discerned path. An emphasis on orthopraxis rather than orthodoxy.
--------------------
"You willing to die for that belief?"
"I am. 'Course, that ain't exactly Plan A."
Posts: 826 | From: a hamster's cheek-pouch full of raisins | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The problem comes when the new line of teaching starts to diverge, and ends up pointing in the opposite direction, as is so often the case when a single biblical idea is allowed to overcome what the bible actually says.
Yes - the Bible contradicts itself then you go with whatever is "sound" doctrine. Which is....?
Johnny S - there is a surprising amount of agreement about the "Golden Rule" - 'That which you would not wish done to you, do not do unto others', or various word formats to the same effect, which is good guidance on matters practical.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
El Greco said:
Issue number one:
There are many people who read the Scriptures, accept their authority and arrive at conclusions from their reading of the Scriptures. Many such beliefs you reject. But when I ask you why you aren't making things up like they are, your reply is "but it's in the Scripture!"
I don't think I am doing that. This thread started, I think, as a tangent out of the Mother of God thread. On that thread I was arguing against certain doctrines that cannot be directly established, or even reasonably deduced, from scripture. In other words, the issue wasn't that someone else was arguing that a particular doctrine was biblical but rather that they were arguing that the doctrine in question doesn't need to be biblical for it to be valid.
quote:
You might really think the things you say are Scriptural, but that's not enough proof that they actually are. That's what other people think about their own beliefs as well! What makes your beliefs special?
Again, that simply isn't what people are saying even on this thread. They are saying quite the opposite in fact. They are saying that they don't think that their doctrines have to be self-evident from, or by good and necessary consequence derived from, Holy Scripture whereas I'm saying that they do. However, if I was arguing with someone who did happen to think that doctrine should be self-evident from, or by good and necessary consequence derived from scripture, then I would appeal directly to Scripture in order to establish my case. We would conduct the conversation - as it were - on the level playing field of our mutual submission to Scripture as our ultimate authority. That doesn't mean that we'd agree with each other because it is possible to argue strong cases directly from scripture that do not accord with one another - paedobaptism and credobaptism being strong cases in point.
quote:
The way I see it, your beliefs aren't special, which is why my question about why you aren't making things up applies to you as well.
That's fine, the best I say to this is that as least use the bible to make up my beliefs rather than anything else!
quote:
To sum up:
Someone, let's call him Fred: The Scripture says....
Numpty: No, this is not what the Scripture says. You are making things up. The Scripture really says...
Fred: No, you are making things up! The Scripture is not saying what you think it says, but what I think it says!
If Fred is making things up, then why aren't you making things up as well?[b][quote]Yes, this happens, but what's important is that the debate takes place according to a commonly held regard for the ultimate authority of Scripture.
[quote][b]Issue number two:
Your thoughts led you to arrive to the conclusion that the locus of authority on religious matters is the Scripture. Other people arrive at different conclusions. Why do your thoughts have to correspond to God's Truth on the matter? I mean, why aren't you making up in a creative -yet not in accordance with actual truth- way this theology that leads to the conclusion that the locus of authority on religious matters is the Scripture?
You're right in the sense that you've identified a circularity in the argument. But that doesn't actually invalidate the argument because all arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to the authority for proof: otherwise the authority (in my case scripture) would not be an absolute or highest authority. This problem doesn't exist only for me because just happen to be arguing for the bible as the ultimate authority. Everyone uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief. Qlib for example has opted for subjectivism because it is more difficult for people to argue against what he/she feels or experiences to be true.
I, on the other hand, have committed myself to a public body of testable documents (i.e. Scripture) as the ultimate authority in the formation of doctrine. That means that anyone can argue against what I say using the Scripture as their criteria and if they show me that I am mistaken I can recant and change my mind. I may be emotionally invested in my doctrinal position and will naturally experience discomfort if that position is challenged on the basis of the authority to which I am submitted, but at least I haven't attempted to protect my views behind a smokescreen of infallibility, tradition or subjectivism.
[ 12. February 2010, 13:24: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Firtly, El G, I apologise if I have mistaken labelled you as an atheist, but you have to admit that, given a lot of things that you've posted in recent times, it's easy to understand why I took this quote:
I see the pain and suffering in the world, the cruelty of nature, and the indifference of the skies, and I come to the conclusion that there is no personal almighty deity that cares for us
to be an indication of your position. And, if you're not an atheist, I think maybe you're being a tad disingenuous in this debate in not declaring where you are coming from. Now this... quote:
Originally posted by El Greco (to Call me Numpty):
Qlib sees the mistake in your theology, and you see the mistake in Qlib's theology, but what happens when someone sees the mistakes in both your theologies? That's what I'm talking about here.
At the risk of repeating myself - I don't really have a theology in that sense. I think theologies, beliefs, whatever are interesting speculations which may or may not be helpful to us as we attempt to integrate our Faith with our Practice. So, I know why I think Numpty's stance is wrong, or weak, or indefensible, but I don't claim to have the last word on what is right. I don't accept the validity of a credal basis of faith.
Although I don't care for your phraseology in terms of accusing people of "making things up", I do think that our creeds are the product of honest, intelligent and, yes, creative, speculations about God based on the knowledge of the early church. I think it's entirely legitimate to think creatively about God. But that still makes the thoughts human constructs, albeit Spirit-inspired, and they cannot, therefore (in my view) be infallible, because the Spirit can only inspire us up to (and maybe just occasionally a little bit beyond) the limits of our understanding. Therefore, as our understanding changes, so we need new guidance.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Hence, the official orthodoxy is as made-up as anything else, viewed from an objective, exterior position as an historian.
This is nice and good, but you, as a believer in what you assume small o orthodox christianity is, you actually accept that those claims correspond to reality and they are not solely the result of the creative imagination of the people that suggested them. Why is that so?
There seems to be some sort of communication impasse here. I am saying that these doctrines represent a model, perhaps in some ways a truth-bearing mythology, of aspects of reality. Was the creative imagination of the Fathers involved in the working-out of this particular model of reality? Of course; just as Freud's model of mental structure and dynamisms is a useful approximation to certain facts, worked-out by Sigmund Freud on the basis a combination of empirical observation, available science, and creative "imagination".
However, I have the feeling that what I'm trying to say isn't meeting what you are trying to ask.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
My questions still stand.
And my answer is sufficient to say that I'm not advocating a "leap" of faith.
It is not, and you are.
Unless you are retracting what you wrote 8 hours ago.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
My questions still stand.
And my answer is sufficient to say that I'm not advocating a "leap" of faith.
It is not, and you are.
Unless you are retracting what you wrote 8 hours ago.
Please show me where I said that accepting the authority of scripture requires a "leap of faith".
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The question is, and how do you know that your liberal tradition of Protestantism isn't equally made-up? How do you know that your claims about God are not the result of your pious imagination?
I don't.
So what?
This astonishes me. To me it's better to put aside made-up stuff rather than accept them as God's Truth for how to live one's life.
I don't know that they're made up either. There's a whole world of grey area between "definitely the truth" and "all made-up", which I don't think you even realise exists. Everything's either completely true or completely false to you, isn't it?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Firstly, I am answering your question. I'm just not answering it by saying what you want me to say.
Exactly.
I'm beginning to suspect that the OP was a set-up for a (in his own mind) well-crafted denouncement of Protestant faith, we've foiled his beautiful argument by failing to provide the "correct" response according to the script. So now he's whining and prodding and trying to get us to say what he wants us to say so he can unveil his "masterpiece".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Please show me where I said that accepting the authority of scripture requires a "leap of faith".
You don't.
And that's exactly my objection.
You are calling your particular leap of faith (i.e. attributing exclusive authority to the Bible) "knowledge", and categorically dismiss every other leap of faith as "wishful thinking".
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beachpsalms:
I think you've answered your own question here. It's a matter of faith, not reason.
Numpty explained why this is problematic. Does it all boil down to blind faith? If it's not blind, then how is it enlightened by reason?
The problem with your approach is that it doesn't stand on firm ground, it's castles built on air! One can by faith believe imaginative but not true position X while another can believe equally imaginative and not true position Y and they will both feel OK with that, but it won't hold when examined reasonably.
One can't shut down reasonable questions and arguments against one position simply by claiming it's a matter of faith and reason doesn't have something to do with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
However, I have the feeling that what I'm trying to say isn't meeting what you are trying to ask.
Yes, which is why I added "solely" when I spoke of the ancients' imagination. Man's creative powers are definitely in play here. My question is how can you tell one's ideas actually represent reality and it's not just "castles built on air". Is there a mythical element in claiming Christ to be the Son of God? Sure. But is he actually the Son of God? Or is that claim only the result of the creative imagination of some people?
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
At the risk of repeating myself - I don't really have a theology in that sense. [snip]
Although I don't care for your phraseology in terms of accusing people of "making things up", I do think that our creeds are the product of honest, intelligent and, yes, creative, speculations about God based on the knowledge of the early church. I think it's entirely legitimate to think creatively about God. But that still makes the thoughts human constructs, albeit Spirit-inspired, and they cannot, therefore (in my view) be infallible, because the Spirit can only inspire us up to (and maybe just occasionally a little bit beyond) the limits of our understanding.
You don't have a theology, yet there is a "Spirit" that inspires us?
This is what I mean when I say your approach is equally problematic with Numpty's. Both of you won't accept to a theology other than "what the Scriptures say" in the case of Numpty, or "attempting to make sense of reality" in your case perhaps.
Note that the issue is not if it's legitimate to think creative about God, but whether certain creative thinking about God actually corresponds to reality, i.e. if those claims about God are actually true.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
However, if I was arguing with someone who did happen to think that doctrine should be self-evident from, or by good and necessary consequence derived from scripture, then I would appeal directly to Scripture in order to establish my case. We would conduct the conversation - as it were - on the level playing field of our mutual submission to Scripture as our ultimate authority. That doesn't mean that we'd agree with each other because it is possible to argue strong cases directly from scripture that do not accord with one another
Like I said, if we hold a firm historical perspective, we will see people debating "on the same field" with each side convinced that the other side's claims are not true. How do you know your side's claims aren't equally "not true"?
Plus the whole discussion of the theology behind the "scripture as the sole authority on religious matters", which I think is as important to this discussion as the other issues that were raised.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras, your explanation is fine and good by doesn't answer my question. Could you explain why this isn't made up? Why you aren't the one making things up about God and Christ?
Take the Arians for example. They thought and taught that Christ was the greatest and first of angels, who became man etc etc. You don't accept that. They made this stuff up. It was their pious imagination rather than truth. Why aren't you making the same thing?
Speaking personally: because orthodox Christianity appears more plausible. In other words, it may be wrong but it's less likely to be wrong than Arianism.
To my mind Arianism has the same problems as "orthodox" Christianity (because it's an extraordinary claim) and none of the advantages (because at least orthodox Christianity makes God suffer (in some way) with his creat whereas Ariaism has Him palming it off to a third person).
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Please show me where I said that accepting the authority of scripture requires a "leap of faith".
You don't.
And that's exactly my objection.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
You are calling your particular leap of faith (i.e. attributing exclusive authority to the Bible) "knowledge", and categorically dismiss every other leap of faith as "wishful thinking".
OK, I'll try again. I'm arguing that the bible doesn't talk about faith as a leap. I am not therefore advocating a leap of faith with regard to the authority of scripture. I am advocating an understanding of Scripture's authority that can be likened to a spiral in which increasing knowledge of scripture - by reasonable and reasoned engagement - and increasingly accurate and experiential understanding of God and creation tend to supplement one another in a harmonious way, each tending to confirm the accuracy of the other. I'm not saying that experience and reason are therefore equal authorities but rather that such knowledge and experience - when it is congruent with what scripture says about reality - continues to give greater and greater assurance and deeper conviction that the bible truly is the ultimate authority.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Again, some of you are changing the subject and attacking arguments I did not make. My issue is not with faith (let alone with an individual's faith) but with beliefs. I'm asking about beliefs here, not faith.
Wrong again, pumpkin. Belief is a part of faith. Therefore faith is a part of belief. Therefore you cannot part the two, no matter how much sharp-edged sophistry you apply.
It's very similar to those hard clamshell plastic packaging they like to put small electronics in these days. If you try to part the two halves, even with really sharp scissors, you usually wind up twisting and destroying it.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
Insofar as Orthodox Tradition is congruent with Scripture, I agree [that Orthodox Tradition is the means by which God makes truth known]. Where it departs from Scripture, it is mere idiosyncrasy, vain speculation or outright error.
Orthodox Tradition is congruent with Scripture, including the things you label 'mere idiosyncrasy, vain speculation or outright error'.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
I'm sure that others can substitute "magisterium of the RCC" or the "Koran" (and a lot in between) for the "Bible" with the same result.
So why is it "knowledge" in your case, and "wishful thinking" if it is done with something other than the Bible?
How is this "spiral" different from a persistent form of wishful thinking?
How is your "spiral" essentially different from a "leap of faith" other than that it takes longer?
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
I'm sure that others can substitute "magisterium of the RCC" or the "Koran" (and a lot in between) for the "Bible" with the same result.
So why is it "knowledge" in your case, and "wishful thinking" if it is done with something other than the Bible?
How is this "spiral" different from a persistent form of wishful thinking?
How is your "spiral" essentially different from a "leap of faith" other than that it takes longer?
Why don't you say something substantial rather than demonstrating that you only half-understand everything I say?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
I'm sure that others can substitute "magisterium of the RCC" or the "Koran" (and a lot in between) for the "Bible" with the same result.
So why is it "knowledge" in your case, and "wishful thinking" if it is done with something other than the Bible?
How is this "spiral" different from a persistent form of wishful thinking?
How is your "spiral" essentially different from a "leap of faith" other than that it takes longer?
Exactly.
And here's what I find interesting:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Everyone uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief.
So, it is "a leap of faith" after all. Or "blind faith" as Numpty called it.
You know, after centuries of erudite and robust theological debate it's a bit sad that it came to this, and I speak as a former Christian. Modernity seems indeed to have broken down irreparably all the reasoning behind Christian faith.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You know, after centuries of erudite and robust theological debate it's a bit sad that it came to this, and I speak as a former Christian. Modernity seems indeed to have broken down irreparably all the reasoning behind Christian faith.
Modernity has broken down the reasoning behind every philosophical system.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
"Silence is the sacrament of the world to come." -- St Isaac the Syrian
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Silence can also be used in an attempt to defend what is indefensible. I wouldn't make an issue out of it if Christianity was a religion of silence. But it's not. Using silence when it suits you while making all kinds of claims isn't OK in my books.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Why don't you say something substantial rather than demonstrating that you only half-understand everything I say?
By now I think I've probably understood what you say all along. The questions were meant to make sure that I did. Not getting relevant answers will suffice.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Silence can also be used in an attempt to defend what is indefensible. I wouldn't make an issue out of it if Christianity was a religion of silence. But it's not. Using silence when it suits you while making all kinds of claims isn't OK in my books.
Yes, but attacking Christianity because it requires a leap of faith when any philosophical position requires a leap of faith isn't OK either. It's like complaining that Christianity doesn't make you grow wings.
The question which I think we are skating round is "Is Christianity a better leap of faith than the alternatives?"
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
I'm sure that others can substitute "magisterium of the RCC" or the "Koran" (and a lot in between) for the "Bible" with the same result.
So why is it "knowledge" in your case, and "wishful thinking" if it is done with something other than the Bible?
How is this "spiral" different from a persistent form of wishful thinking?
How is your "spiral" essentially different from a "leap of faith" other than that it takes longer?
Exactly.
And here's what I find interesting:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Everyone uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief.
So, it is "a leap of faith" after all. Or "blind faith" as Numpty called it.
Not blind, but reasonable and reasoned. The presence of circular arguments is inevitable when ultimate authority is the subject of investigation. Even the conclusion that there is no ultimate source of authority commits logical suicide because it must immediately become an ultimate postulation in order to make sense. In this respect accepting Scripture - which is a public written document - as an ultimate authority is the position of greatest integrity because it ascribes authority to something that can engage the reason and speaks directly testable propositions about the reality in which we exist in a way that tradition and subjective experience cannot do.
[ 12. February 2010, 16:10: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Why don't you say something substantial rather than demonstrating that you only half-understand everything I say?
By now I think I've probably understood what you say all along. The questions were meant to make sure that I did. Not getting relevant answers will suffice.
That's fine, but may I suggest that you stop contributing to the thread then, because you're taking up space that could be used more intelligently.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
Insofar as Orthodox Tradition is congruent with Scripture, I agree [that Orthodox Tradition is the means by which God makes truth known]. Where it departs from Scripture, it is mere idiosyncrasy, vain speculation or outright error.
Orthodox Tradition is congruent with Scripture, including the things you label 'mere idiosyncrasy, vain speculation or outright error'.
I disagree as have greater theologians than myself, including the ones who founded the Church of England and wrote the 39 Articles. Let's not pretend that this is simply a matter of personal opinion, it's a matter of ecclesiology, soteriology and lots of other ologies as well.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Christianity doesn't make you grow wings.
Well, apart from St Tekle Haymanot, that is.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but attacking Christianity because it requires a leap of faith when any philosophical position requires a leap of faith isn't OK either.
Oh yes it is. Two wrongs don't make one right. You are arguing that they do!
Just because other systems of thought might face the same problem, it doesn't mean your system of thought is any less problematic, or that this makes it OK that it is problematic!
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not blind, but reasonable and reasoned. The presence of circular arguments is inevitable when ultimate authority is the subject of investigation.
Numpty, what's reasonable and reasoned in circular arguments? Come on!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
I know the conversation has moved on abit - but here is my tuppence worth FWIW
Origionally posted by El Greco
quote:
This presupposes that the core of their theological system isn't made up. And they won't answer my question about how they know that it isn't! quote:
My answer is that I don’t know that it isn’t made up. That I genuinely suspect that some (not all) of what my tradition teaches is made up – or at least misinterpreted.
Also, I have not a single recollection of anyone within the church telling me that it was ‘true’ in the sense that you are using the word. Rather they explained why they believed it – and left me to make up my own mind.
How did I do it - time, a little bit of experience, conscience, some reasoning (but not nearly as much as I think you would expect), some trust, some hope and joy, a bit of bible study. Actually, thinking about it I was more met by Christ than choosing to believe - and have happily changed another Christian faith tradition (within Protestantism): not because of any difference in beliefs but because of physically moving home. The difference between the belief structures are much less than the similarities
quote:
Originally posted by Full Circle:
Or to sum it up - I think we are primarily called to a relationship not a body of knowledge.
________________________________________
Originally posted by El Greco
Yet it's not friendship circles that we get, but churches... I think this underestimates the volume of knowledge each theological system claims it has...
quote:
Actually I have had many friendship circles from going to church - and so much else besides ...
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but attacking Christianity because it requires a leap of faith when any philosophical position requires a leap of faith isn't OK either.
Oh yes it is. Two wrongs don't make one right. You are arguing that they do!
Just because other systems of thought might face the same problem, it doesn't mean your system of thought is any less problematic, or that this makes it OK that it is problematic!
We don't see it as problematic. We see it as simply inherent to the field of inquiry, which is why it is found in all philosophies.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
