|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christian Orthodoxy
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Again I would ask, why call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in Christ ? Why not simply a follower of the ethical teachings of Jesus of Nazereth ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Small-"o" orthodoxy is an essentially relative term. It is quite literally impossible to call yourself "heterodox". Really. Everyone is always "orthodox", by definition. We believe what we believe is right. We cannot believe what we believe is wrong. It's a contradiction in terms, or perhaps a psychological impossibility. You must be clinically insane to truly consider yourself heterodox. Whatever you happen to believe is true is what you believe to be "right-belief", thus orthodoxy. A "sea of faith" liberal Christian is as orthodox as a Hassidic Jew, just in a different way.
Hence every single person who identifies as "heterodox" implicitly affirms what he denies. The one and only way you can claim to be heterodox is by saying that there is an entity that so significantly proposes belief, that you will abusively label them "orthodox" and yourself "heterodox". Only by assigning overwhelming authority to someone else can you possibly contrast yourself as "deviation". Only by abandoning the essential relativity of the term "orthodox", can you make it an absolute that you disagree with. It's a kowtowing denial, a sucking up to what you hate. It's weak, despicable, dishonest... yuck.
Seriously, I do not get the discussion. At all. If tomorrow I believe that salvation depends on snorting milk powder while buggering a goat and reciting e.e. cummings, then without question that is "orthodox". And if I somehow manage to conceive this as the teachings of Christ, then it is "Christian orthodox". And every bloody else would be "(Christian) heterodox", naturally.
Have the courage to stand for your convictions, or non-convictios, or pink undershorts. Just bloody stand up and be counted. As soon as you do, you are "orthodox" something. Heterodox is never you.
Now, the question what is traditional, that is a different one. "Traditional orthodoxy" is not a relative term, but a historical one. And if you are not pretty close to the intersection of RCC and Eastern Orthodox, then you are probably "traditional heterodox". But just because my orthodoxy is close to traditional orthodoxy, I will not confuse them. Why would you then, if they are very different for you?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
I'm happy to call Jesus "Christ"; I have no doubt that he was a very "anointed" person. That doesn't make him god. He was "holy" and "anointed", yes, in the same way as the Buddha and others of that ilk can be "holy" and "anointed".
I would have called myself a Christian because I'm inspired by and follow the way and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, called "the anointed" or "Christ". But, as I've noted several times on this and other treads, I don't call myself a Christian anymore, because that name has been appropriated by followers of the Christian religion, which is at best only tangentially related to Jesus Christ.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
IngoB. You and I very rarely see eye to eye, but I think your distinction between "orthodox" and "traditional" is very useful.
As Tom Paine said, "every man's opinions are orthodox to himself".
(Although, that said, every man is potentially heterodox to others.)
So I'm orthodox to myself, because I think I am right, but have no problem admitting that I am heterodox in the eyes of traditional Christians.
Et voilà!
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you assume that Paul and the later church were wrong about Jesus, and take out from the Gospels everything that came from them, then you're not left with an ethical teacher (that's Paul): you're left with an apocalyptic prophet and cultist whose message was largely about the coming independence of Israel as a result of divine vengeance against the Romans.
I've never denied that Jesus was a subversive revolutionary - a bit like Moses, and quite a few other prophets.
The 'historical' Jesus (i.e. if we decide a priori to shear the account of what could be religious accretions) was a subversive revolutionary if the guy on the street corner with a bad haircut and a sandwich board is a subversive revolutionary.
quote:
Tony Benn said that the bible is a book about the battle between the priests, who defend the status quo and protect the powers that be, and the prophets who call for a radically equalitarian righteousness. I'm with the prophets.
With respect, I don't think you are. Just because someone is opposed to the priests in power doesn't mean they're not just another priest whose side hasn't got into power yet.
quote:
So I'm not a Christian. I might believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, the Christian story, living a Christian life, and the Church, but I believe it all "wrongly", at least in the eyes of those who define the acceptable bounds of Christianity.
Hopefully, that doesn't tread on anyone's toes.
Of course it doesn't. Why would calling people's beliefs a 'religion, a corruption from which the church has never recovered' tread on anyone's toes?
I've known people in the various churches and Christian groups that I've been part of who've believed pretty much what you've believed up until about this point, and we've got along happily. But they didn't demand, as a precondition of their acceptance, that everyone else acknowledge how contemptible they thought everyone else was.
quote:
Seriously, Christians are the most uncharitable people I've ever met. Here I am, so close in so many ways (I've more "on fire for Jesus" now than I ever was, and I'm growing in spirituality and holiness as never before) and yet because I cannot literally believe in the magic and myths, I'm treated like a bad smell).
Let me see if I've got this straight. You tell us that we're corrupt zombie-worshippers. Then you patronise us by telling us that although we've got it wrong you'll do us the favour of appropriating the symbolism we've been using because you'll use it properly. And we're uncharitable because we're not flattered?
[ 03. January 2011, 22:33: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
It doesn't matter. I left the zombie-biscuit eaters alone for years, doing my own thing and thinking my own way, and generally keeping my mouth shut. It's only when I was told that I didn't fit that it suddenly became an issue. Now I'm silent no more.
For years I was inside the tent, finding my own quiet little corner within it, self-identifying as being on the liberal wing of Christianity; now I've been kicked outside the tent because I don't believe the right things, and so I feel free to criticise the errors and absurdities of the Christian religion.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
The irony of this, of course, is that my actual views haven't changed very much, only the way they are orientated, packaged and expressed. There's not much difference between what I believe now and what I believed when I went to the baptist church every week- only now I don't bother to keep the filters in place.
Perhaps the biggest shock - and it is a shock - is that so many people really do believe this stuff, and not just on a mythical, narrative, "oh-what-a-nice-idea" sort of level. They're nuts.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You base your outworking of rationality and understanding of Jesus on love, but love and grace are irrational, whilst criticising us for believing some other things that are also not rational - this is not rational.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
With respect, I don't think you are.
Sorry; that comment was overly hellish.
I can't comment on your interactions with your former church. (I'm not shocked that the Baptists are less than tolerant of dissenting opinions.)
But...
you can either enjoy the considerable satisfaction of thinking other people are nuts and looking down on them;
or complain that other people are uncharitable and treating you like a bad smell;
but you can't reasonably do both at the same time.
It's a quirk of human nature that when other people despise us we resent it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
People matter. People hurt. People can hurt people. But people can also help people. That's real. That's the ultimate choice we face every day, in our personal lives, at work, in our economic decisions and in our public and political lives as citizens: Do we want to be hurters or helpers? Do we want to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom for prisoners, to bring sight to the blind and to release the oppressed? Or do we just retreat into our own selfishness? "Salvation" is liberation from our fear and selfishness, so that we can be helpers rather than hurters.
Now, you might ask, "Why do people matter?" Perhaps that's the point at which we break out of wisdom, ethics, living-well, and politics, and instead enter into metaphysics or theology. It is hard to provide a definite answer to this question. One one level, I say that people matter because in us nature has become sentient and moral - we can feel not only pain, but also injustice. One another level, I can ascribe it to God - but it doesn't require either a personal God or a trinitarian God; people matter because the Force, the Spirit, Nature, Reason-Fire, Consciousness, Love, call it what you will, can be said to be in and through us.
But (and this is the really central point) here we are entering into baseless speculation. What I know is that if you prick someone, they bleed, tickle them and their laugh, poison them and they die, wrong them and their natural inclination is to seek revenge. What matters is to stop the pricking the the poisoning, and to transform revenge into reconciliation and restoration. That's it. That's the whole point. The consequences of not treating people as if they matter are the torture chamber, the overseers whip, the sweatshop, the slum, the gag, the stake and the fire.
I don't know whether this is "rational", but it is based on the reality and the imperative of human compassion. Why complicate it with too much exclusionary theology?
[ 03. January 2011, 23:38: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
But it is not rational to reject Christianity on the grounds it isn't rational, if the fundamental underpinning of your own position is also irrational.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There's no need to complicate all those things with theology, since they're not religion, so there is no point dragging theology into it. It's like saying there's no need to complicate them with a lot of nonsense about burial sites and old buildings and standing stones. Because they're not archaeology.
Religion, however, is religion, and that's where we complicate things with theology. Or simplify things with theology, depending upon your point of view. But there is no need to do theology to do good deeds, just as there is no need to do archaeology, or biology, or anything else than do good deeds, to do good deeds. Good deeds are part of many religions; but religion needn't be part of good deeds.
The problem is when what you want are the good deeds, and the name "religion" (or "Christianity"), but not the content, which is perforce theological.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] With respect, I don't think you are.
Sorry; that comment was overly hellish.
It's ok. In any case, you're probably right, and I need to hear it. As many have found, the hardest thing is not to turn into the thing you oppose. It's hard sometimes to be as harmless as dove. The more I go on about being on the side of the prophets, the more I must keep my self-righteousness in check, lest I turn into a priest. It's easy for me to build up an excess of pride and fall into that trap.
quote:
I can't comment on your interactions with your former church. (I'm not shocked that the Baptists are less than tolerant of dissenting opinions.)
With the Baptists the main problem was that I didn't "believe" in the Bible the same way as most of them did. At the age of 18 at university I was first introduced to the concept of higher criticism and never looked back. But, apart from sometimes in homegroups, it wasn't a major problem. The church I went to was evangelical and charismatic, but more "open" than "conservative", I think, and not really fundamentalist. They had women in leadership roles, that sort of thing. But questions of trinity, christology, ecclesiology etc never came up, so I was left alone in thinking through those things in my own way, and when differences arose I just kept quiet.
Ironically, it was after I married, and my (Roman Catholic) wife refused point-blank to go to the Baptists, that we settled on the Anglicans as a comfortable refuge - she got traditional music, mass, and candles, and I got a more "liberal" and "critical" approach to scripture. It was good. I'd never been so happy in church. I didn't agree with the words in the liturgy, of course, but I assumed no one really did - no one, surely, took all this stuff literally, did they? Surely, like me, they just took it at its mythological, narrative level, and were happy with that. I was even ready to get baptised. This was something I had often thought about when I was with the baptists, but I had never felt ready to make that commitment. Now I was. It was then that everything unravelled. Taking at the mythological, narrative level wasn't enough. I had to really believe. Apparently, they all do. I can't.
The good thing is that I've learnt to speak out and be honest about exactly what I believe - no more keeping quiet or pretending. The bad thing is that I've found myself without a church community for the first time in my adult life, and I miss it, but I don't miss it so much that I'm prepared to lie or fake it again.
quote:
you can either enjoy the considerable satisfaction of thinking other people are nuts and looking down on them;
or complain that other people are uncharitable and treating you like a bad smell;
but you can't reasonably do both at the same time.
It's a quirk of human nature that when other people despise us we resent it.
Ok. Fair point.
By "they're nuts" what I meant was, "I really cannot get my head around the idea that people - sane, educated, sensible people - really, literally, honestly believe this stuff. I can only think it is a sort of complete mental compartmentalisation. It comes as a real shock to me that people DO seem to really, truly believe it. For years, I understood it as myth, story, narrative, metaphor, tradition. I thought everyone else did the same, apart from a minority of crazy fundamentalists. But no. They really believe it. Wow. I don't know how to cope with that."
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's no need to complicate all those things with theology, since they're not religion, so there is no point dragging theology into it. It's like saying there's no need to complicate them with a lot of nonsense about burial sites and old buildings and standing stones. Because they're not archaeology.
Religion, however, is religion, and that's where we complicate things with theology. Or simplify things with theology, depending upon your point of view. But there is no need to do theology to do good deeds, just as there is no need to do archaeology, or biology, or anything else than do good deeds, to do good deeds. Good deeds are part of many religions; but religion needn't be part of good deeds.
The problem is when what you want are the good deeds, and the name "religion" (or "Christianity"), but not the content, which is perforce theological.
Yes. I'm coming to think that I've never really had, or understood, "religion" in that sense. What I've had, and understood, is a sort of ethical philosophy and way of life, with a few stories, myths, rituals, symbols and traditions attached to it. (Then again, I'm not convinced that Jesus came to start a religion... ...so back to square one!)
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But it is not rational to reject Christianity on the grounds it isn't rational, if the fundamental underpinning of your own position is also irrational.
I have a cat. Cats are probably a good source of protein. I'm also a bit hungry, and because I was working on finishing a journal article today I forgot to take meat out of the freezer. So, would it be rational to eat the cat? Well, maybe, but I love the cat. That's irrational, especially as the cat doesn't love me (it likes the fact that I feed it and keep it warm, but that's it). Is that love irrational? Probably, by your standards of rationality. I'm acting irrationally but lovingly. Does that then mean that I'm going to believe there's an invisible green dragon in my living room, and that the only reason not to eat the cat (not to mention the fact that the SSPCA might have something to say about it) is that it makes the invisible green dragon cry? No, of course not.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Talking about orthodoxy is precisely talking about what the contents of the Christian faith are; it's drawing a line between Christian and non-Christian.
Unless we're going to either reject the Chalcedonian definition or claim that churches like the Nestorians or Syriac Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox aren't Christians, I would have to disagree.
The word orthodox is an attempt to be precise about someone's adherence to certain doctrines. The word Christian, on the other hand, is a lot broader and more fuzzy around the edges than the word orthodox. There are limits beyond which one can't stretch it - Muslims are not Christians - but there's a whole range in which the application of the word is vague. For what it's worth, I would tend to go with whether someone considers themselves as sharing in the general same general enterprise as (at least some of) the orthodox denominations.
I'd consider it more significant that somebody feels Christian fundamentalists embarrass them than whether they adhere to any article of the creeds, for example.
Adding additional sacred books that attempt to revise the New Testament is the only absolute disqualifier I think.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, I think you are applying occam's razor there. Which is fair enough, I am just pointing out that saying something is irrational is not in and of itself a reason for not believing in it, or acting upon it. You are an intelligent human being, you can still love your cat. The two things are not incompatible.
It does sound as if you never quite 'got' religion. But if you are deist, i.e. you think there is a God - why do you assume miracles are not possible ? Or to put it another way, what is different about the deity than an idea or a new previously undiscovered species ?
[ 04. January 2011, 00:16: Message edited by: Think² ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Who is this "we" you speak of? You speak for Christendom Zach? What are you, the Pope?
Precisely the same "We" as "We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, Eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made..."
Zach
Ah, not the Pope,* just Constantine. That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.
(*My bad, the Pope has a more charitable view.)
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[Crossposted in reply to RadicalWhig]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But if you are deist, i.e. you think there is a God - why do you assume miracles are not possible ?
Interesting question. Tom Paine said that he saw no reason why God would not be able to perform miracles, but also no evidence that he ever had. His view was that God set up the laws of nature, implanted reason and conscience in man, and left it at that. That's a sort of classical, 18th century deism.
I don't quite see it that way. For God to be able to perform miracles, God would need certain attributes which I cannot concieve of God possessing - personality, volition, purpose. God would have to be a Supreme Being, standing outside the universe and able to manipulate it at will. I see no evidence for such a God. Indeed, I find it hard to reconcile with the regularity and orderedness of Nature. I see God more as the sort of transcendent Principle of Nature, which is not outside and above nature, but in and through it. Such a God might be "miraculous", "awesome" and "wonderful", but it cannot "do" things. This makes it impossible to talk about miracles, except perhaps in the metaphorical, non-physical sense of the "miracle" of Andrew(*). It also makes it impossible to talk about "revelation", except as the most profound stiring of our own hearts and minds. It makes it impossible to talk about God's love, except for the love we have for one another, which can be almost "divine" in quality. On the other hand, I've felt and experienced the power of the Force, the Holy Spirit, call it what you will - but I see this more as a sort of "energy", possibly eminating from our own consciousness, rather than as a third person of the trinity.
I have experientially found, over the years, that keeping regularly tapped into that Force, Spirit, or Consciousness, through reflective prayer and meditation, is very helpful in trying to live well and follow the way of Jesus.
* Andrew (not his real name) was found homeless, penniless, drunk and comatose on the streets of Barcelona. He was Polish, and didn't know where he was or how he had got there. He was found by a friend of my mother in law called Martin (also not real name), who took him in to live with him over the border in France. He's now clean, living and working, and learning French. My mother in law is giving him free French lessons. One day he said, in French, "My name is Andrew and Martin is my friend". Now that's what we might rightly call a "miracle". That's a real "resurrection". But it was wrought by human hands, by human compassion, by human desire to live out the way of Jesus.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I can only think it is a sort of complete mental compartmentalisation. It comes as a real shock to me that people DO seem to really, truly believe it.
I don't have any external evidence for this, but I doubt most people really believe most faith claims. The test would be a chamber that provided an ultimately attractive reward if you stepped in and really believed, but instant death if not. How many of us would step in on the basis of a religious belief?
I think we can get into the habit of thinking we believe as a result of regular reinforcement, for example through positive experiences of a religious community. But there's never any verification for religious beliefs, so the habit becomes our unconsciously conditioned, socially validated response whenever the belief is considered.
It's only through some traumatic refutation of an habitual belief, or sufficient loss of regular reinforcement over time to allow other possibilities to naturally seep back in (how it seemed to happen for me), that we discover if our beliefs are real.
Which would explain why we can use perfect logic with a religious believer until we're blue in the face, only to get to the response 'but I really believe it!' and no further. They obviously genuinely think they believe, as I did, but not on the basis of any relevant evidence: it's just the force of habit.
[cross-posted]
[ 04. January 2011, 01:01: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I don't quite see it that way. For God to be able to perform miracles, God would need certain attributes which I cannot concieve of God possessing - personality, volition, purpose. God would have to be a Supreme Being, standing outside the universe and able to manipulate it at will. I see no evidence for such a God. Indeed, I find it hard to reconcile with the regularity and orderedness of Nature. I see God more as the sort of transcendent Principle of Nature, which is not outside and above nature, but in and through it. Such a God might be "miraculous", "awesome" and "wonderful", but it cannot "do" things. This makes it impossible to talk about miracles, except perhaps in the metaphorical, non-physical sense of the "miracle" of Andrew(*). It also makes it impossible to talk about "revelation", except as the most profound stiring of our own hearts and minds. It makes it impossible to talk about God's love, except for the love we have for one another, which can be almost "divine" in quality. On the other hand, I've felt and experienced the power of the Force, the Holy Spirit, call it what you will - but I see this more as a sort of "energy", possibly eminating from our own consciousness, rather than as a third person of the trinity.
OK, rephrase, how is God different form gravity, an orgasm, or even Reich's concept of the orgone ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
OK, rephrase, how is God different form gravity, an orgasm, or even Reich's concept of the orgone?
Well, I don't know much about the orgone, or vitalism, life-force etc for that matter.
Certain types of charismatic experience can certainly produce what looks like quasi-orgasmic experiences, especially in women, but that's probably just chemicals in the brain, crowd excitement, relief at letting go of emotional pain, hyperventilation, that sort of thing.
God as gravity? No, not exactly. God as energy, matter, gravity, the sort of universal essence and nature of everything? Yes. That's the sort of God I believe in when I say I believe in The God That Might Actually Exist. Not a god who appears in burning bushes, but a God which emcompasses and unifies all the processes which go into making a bush.
I think it was Jefferson who said, "I believe in God. I spell it N. A. T. U. R. E."
(And that is quite interesting, because in a metaphorical sense we can both abstract and personalise Nature. We can say that "Nature abhors a vacuum", "Nature will take her course" etc. The bush, for example, is not really God and is not to be worshipped; but the bush is natural and divine, a product of Nature and thus of God. God is the idea or principle of Nature, not the physical green stuff. That's about the best I can do.)
[ 04. January 2011, 01:28: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Ah, not the Pope,* just Constantine. That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.
When did I say that again?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Ah, not the Pope,* just Constantine. That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.
When did I say that again?
When you said someone wasn't a Christian.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Ah, not the Pope,* just Constantine. That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.
When did I say that again?
When you said someone wasn't a Christian.
Didn't you conflate these two things with me many months ago? And didn't we spend pages and pages trying to explain to you that defining 'Christian' and defining 'saved' aren't the same thing?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Whatev may be the definition of orthodox, it must be sufficient to include the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would deeply regret their exclusion, and feel real brotherhood for them in their often difficult paths.
The Oriental Orthodox now appear to be saying that what was perceived to be dissent from the Nicene formulation was simply due to their lacking a word for the Greek homoousis; they say that they never dissented from the concept. It's rather harder to say just where the Assyrians stand now, given the different allegiances in their Church these days, and the difficulties which I, as an outsider, have in understanding just who says what. Still, they have struggled over centuries to proclaim their belief in Christ as the only-begotten Son of God.
[ 04. January 2011, 09:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Ah, not the Pope,* just Constantine. That must be a heavy load to bear, deciding who may or may not receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.
When did I say that again?
When you said someone wasn't a Christian.
Didn't you conflate these two things with me many months ago? And didn't we spend pages and pages trying to explain to you that defining 'Christian' and defining 'saved' aren't the same thing?
You and me? Pages and pages? Surely you are mistaken sir. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Yes we did. Do you recall a conclusion, if any?
I think my problem was a lack of articulation.
As you say, being a Christian and being saved are not the same thing. We can be Christian and not be saved.
I think what I have come to realise from that discussion is that being a Christian, in principle allows for the possibility of salvation. And that salvation is through Jesus, and only Jesus.
So in saying someone is not a Christian, you are essentially saying they are excluded from the possibility of salvation through Jesus.
And I don't believe anybody has the right to say that.
Jesus, the Father and the Spirit choose whom they will.
They certainly chose me. And I didn't know any damn creed.
Never even picked up a frickin bible.
Saved by faith...not works...
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't have any external evidence for this, but I doubt most people really believe most faith claims. <...>
I think we can get into the habit of thinking we believe as a result of regular reinforcement, for example through positive experiences of a religious community. But there's never any verification for religious beliefs, so the habit becomes our unconsciously conditioned, socially validated response whenever the belief is considered. <...>
It's only through some traumatic refutation of an habitual belief, or sufficient loss of regular reinforcement over time to allow other possibilities to naturally seep back in (how it seemed to happen for me), that we discover if our beliefs are real.
They obviously genuinely think they believe, as I did, but not on the basis of any relevant evidence: it's just the force of habit.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure that's how it is. Even those people who say they really believe it probably don't, for the most part, [/i]really[/i] believe it. They just like to say, pretend, and imagine that they really believe it, to the point where fantasy and reality break down.
In the past I have likened religion to a Live Action Role Playing game. It's not a perfect analogy by any means, but there is a certain likeness. Sometimes it takes a while to realise that the Amulet of Perpetual Power which you are trying to obtain from the Queen of the Warlock Goblins with the use of your Magic Sword of Destruction is in fact a cheap bracelet that you are trying to get off a fat girl with ringlets with the aid of a prop your mate Eric made out plastic foam. If you walk into the game and burst out of character, and say, "it's all made up, it's just a game", then you are persona non-gratia. That's fine: you can play along with that, because it's a good game and you don't want to spoil it. Then, years later, you realise that you are the only one playing a game and that everyone else thinks its real - and that unless you think it is real too, you can't play anymore.
Then the emphasis shifts, and the LARPers you used to play harmless games with suddenly seem as if they are nuts. You need to help these people before they hurt themselves or others.
(I'm not saying the ethical side of living well is a game; but the whole myth and religion side of it is.)
Now, at what point do people pass between, on the one hand, knowing deep down it is a game but really wanting to pretend as hard as they can, and even to convince themselves that is is real, and on the other actually really believing it? I don't know. I suspect that many are somewhere on that spectrum, but are not honest with themselves or others...
...and this is why: because they cannot see the goodness in the game - if they can't make-believe it is really true, then it has no value to them. That's sad, I think.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
As you say, being a Christian and being saved are not the same thing. We can be Christian and not be saved...I think what I have come to realise from that discussion is that being a Christian, in principle allows for the possibility of salvation. And that salvation is through Jesus, and only Jesus.
I never said anything about salvation, Evensong, and I can hardly be called to account for your soteriology that I knew nothing about. Since I do NOT conflate Christianity and salvation, you have nothing to worry about when I say that some people aren't Christians.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
I like IngoB's comments, but ultimately we have to find a way around the language. There are at least two significant competing Christian Orthodoxies that claim to be 'authentic'.
The traditional orthodoxy that IngoB outlines which may well take in Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and parts of Canterbury is one.
The new orthodoxy is harder to pin down due to its diversity - but people certainly have a sense of belonging to it. Evangelical is not really accurate, neither is reformed nor protestant or even charismatic.
But most Christians, even on the liberal edges have a sense of belonging to one or other of these understandings.
My temptation is to draw the line with the Sacraments, but I doubt it is that simple either.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
The traditional orthodoxy that IngoB outlines which may well take in Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and parts of Canterbury is one.
Ahem, don't you mean "Parts of Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and Canterbury?" I go to a Catholic theological school and I know plenty of heterodox Caflicks.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
They obviously genuinely think they believe, as I did, but not on the basis of any relevant evidence: it's just the force of habit.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure that's how it is. Even those people who say they really believe it probably don't, for the most part, really believe it. They just like to say, pretend, and imagine that they really believe it, to the point where fantasy and reality break down.
So, presumably, RadicalWhig and Dave Marshall don't really believe all that stuff they keep telling us either. Marvellous!
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So in saying someone is not a Christian, you are essentially saying they are excluded from the possibility of salvation through Jesus.
I don't follow. Why is that? I believe lots of people will be saved through Christ who are not Christians. Indeed everybody who is saved will be saved through Christ, as He Himself said, "No-one comes to the Father but through Me." But as a wise person once said to me, you don't have to know the name of a bridge to cross it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't have any external evidence for this, but I doubt most people really believe most faith claims. <...>
I think we can get into the habit of thinking we believe as a result of regular reinforcement, for example through positive experiences of a religious community. But there's never any verification for religious beliefs, so the habit becomes our unconsciously conditioned, socially validated response whenever the belief is considered. <...>
It's only through some traumatic refutation of an habitual belief, or sufficient loss of regular reinforcement over time to allow other possibilities to naturally seep back in (how it seemed to happen for me), that we discover if our beliefs are real.
They obviously genuinely think they believe, as I did, but not on the basis of any relevant evidence: it's just the force of habit.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure that's how it is. Even those people who say they really believe it probably don't, for the most part, [/i]really[/i] believe it. They just like to say, pretend, and imagine that they really believe it, to the point where fantasy and reality break down.
In the past I have likened religion to a Live Action Role Playing game. It's not a perfect analogy by any means, but there is a certain likeness. Sometimes it takes a while to realise that the Amulet of Perpetual Power which you are trying to obtain from the Queen of the Warlock Goblins with the use of your Magic Sword of Destruction is in fact a cheap bracelet that you are trying to get off a fat girl with ringlets with the aid of a prop your mate Eric made out plastic foam. If you walk into the game and burst out of character, and say, "it's all made up, it's just a game", then you are persona non-gratia. That's fine: you can play along with that, because it's a good game and you don't want to spoil it. Then, years later, you realise that you are the only one playing a game and that everyone else thinks its real - and that unless you think it is real too, you can't play anymore.
Then the emphasis shifts, and the LARPers you used to play harmless games with suddenly seem as if they are nuts. You need to help these people before they hurt themselves or others.
(I'm not saying the ethical side of living well is a game; but the whole myth and religion side of it is.)
Now, at what point do people pass between, on the one hand, knowing deep down it is a game but really wanting to pretend as hard as they can, and even to convince themselves that is is real, and on the other actually really believing it? I don't know. I suspect that many are somewhere on that spectrum, but are not honest with themselves or others...
...and this is why: because they cannot see the goodness in the game - if they can't make-believe it is really true, then it has no value to them. That's sad, I think.
Much as I enjoy being told by you two that I can't possibly think differently to the way that you do, neither of you are such icons of perfection that the universe has to revolve around your point of view, okay? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Much as I enjoy being told by you two that I can't possibly think differently to the way that you do, neither of you are such icons of perfection that the universe has to revolve around your point of view, okay?
No, no. You've missed the point of the post. Ok, so you are one of those who really, really do believe it. I just can't believe that people like that exist - or exist in such numbers. It's this realisation which is shocking.
In the past, when Dawkins said religious people were deluded, I would agree with him about fundamentalists and wackos, but I thought he was wrong about most moderate, common-or-garden religionists. I thought he was just displaying a slightly wooden, one-dimensional mind, with no poetic or imaginative ability - that he thought were deluded only because he failed to understand the role of myth, metaphor and culture. Now I see that Dawkins is right: many more are sincerely deluded than I thought. That bemuses me. It also scares me. I have to accept it, but I find it very difficult to understand. I cannot get my head around it. It's absurd.
[ 04. January 2011, 20:53: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I still don't get why you consider it so much a delusion, when what you are saying about a pervasive life force is no more rational or evidence based. Why is my myth so much crazy than your myth ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It sure makes it easy to just assume everyone that disagrees with you is deluded, doesn't it?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I still don't get why you consider it so much a delusion, when what you are saying about a pervasive life force is no more rational or evidence based. Why is my myth so much crazy than your myth ?
No, your myth is fine. It's when you think your myth is an accurate reflection of actual reality that I start to worry about you.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
But you are saying your myth is !
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Actually, I don't know about that. I believe in the God That Might Actually Exist, the God of Nature, which I think is a minimal belief. Even then I know I can't prove it. Ultimately, even my deism is agnostic. But I have had experiences of a mystical, spiritual kind, and the myth of some sort of Spirit pervading that nature is a nice idea that helps me to explain that. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, though.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
So what you are saying is that you don't believe that, are not a deist - might be an agnostic tending atheist. In the same way that Christians actually believe in God, Deists actually believe in a deity.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The traditional orthodoxy that IngoB outlines which may well take in Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and parts of Canterbury is one.
Ahem, don't you mean "Parts of Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and Canterbury?" I go to a Catholic theological school and I know plenty of heterodox Caflicks.
Zach
No - the point of 'parts' of Canterbury was that some Anglicans would look to the other orthodoxy.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
No - the point of 'parts' of Canterbury was that some Anglicans would look to the other orthodoxy.
And my point was that "parts" of Catholicism and Orthodoxy look to the other orthodoxy too. I've met them. Lots of them.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Somehow this seems relevant ...
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Ok, so you are one of those who really, really do believe it. I just can't believe that people like that exist - or exist in such numbers. It's this realisation which is shocking.
Clearly your intuitions on this are very wrong. Does this give you pause about the strength of your trust in your intuitions about other religious issues/questions?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
So what you are saying is that you don't believe that, are not a deist - might be an agnostic tending atheist. In the same way that Christians actually believe in God, Deists actually believe in a deity.
I do believe in a a deity, which I concieve of in deistic-and/or-pantheistic terms. I just don't claim to know with any certainty.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Ok, so you are one of those who really, really do believe it. I just can't believe that people like that exist - or exist in such numbers. It's this realisation which is shocking.
Clearly your intuitions on this are very wrong. Does this give you pause about the strength of your trust in your intuitions about other religious issues/questions?
Well, in a sense yes, that's all part of the process which ended up with me leaving the church, no longer self-identifying as Christian, and waking up to the fact that the world is full of very deluded people.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I do believe in a a deity, which I concieve of in deistic-and/or-pantheistic terms. I just don't claim to know with any certainty.
Agnostic or if you prefer Agnostic.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Clearly your intuitions on this are very wrong. Does this give you pause about the strength of your trust in your intuitions about other religious issues/questions?
Well, in a sense yes, that's all part of the process which ended up with me leaving the church, no longer self-identifying as Christian, and waking up to the fact that the world is full of very deluded people.
But this doesn't give you any pause at all to think that maybe YOUR intuitions are wrong, and it's YOU who's deluded?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I do believe in a a deity, which I concieve of in deistic-and/or-pantheistic terms. I just don't claim to know with any certainty.
I'm not sure you use the word 'belief' in the same way that everybody else does. At least, not when expressing your shock and amazement that people believe things.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
