homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Christian Orthodoxy (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Christian Orthodoxy
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
... I've posted before on the things I like about Islam - but it is not, by any means, a religion of "peace" - it is a religion of "submission".

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Why can't we be honest enough to speak the truth about Islam? World conquest is an inherent part of the religion: Allah commands that all unbelievers (except Christians and Jews, who have to pay a special poll tax) are to be put to death.

What Evensong said.
As a Christian, I know that I don't treat the Bible as a legal textbook, or even as a work of systematic theology. I don't read the Psalms and commend people who dash babies against rocks; I don't join in the imprecations in some of the shorter epistles at the end of the Bible. I do not regard those as central to the faith. I stand in a tradition of Biblical interpretation that tells me that those bits are peripheral. The interpretation of the Bible is to be organised around a different centre: God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, for example.

It may be a bit more difficult for Muslims than for Christians. The Bible announces itself as a motley collection of writings by different hands, whereas the Qur'an is supposed to be dictated by God to a single individual and to have pre-existed (in the style of traditional oral Arabic poetry) eternally. But it hardly seems to have been insuperable.
Looking at Muslim tradition, one doesn't see a lot of massacres of unbelievers. Commands to kill unbelievers have been more honoured in the breach than observance. The Mughals, for instance, did not kill all the Hindus under their rule. History would suggest that if an army is going to conquer your city you're probably safer with Muslims than with any other religion or ideology.

Obviously, there are radical fundamentalists in Islam, who are breaking away from traditional interpretation and substituting their own. One of the big problems of world politics is the house of Saud financing Wahhabi Islam to the detriment of older less modern more tolerant traditions.

--------------------
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
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't like your definition because it is pointless, and in the way you actually use it, wrong and offensive. Pointless, because in the intention of generality that you give all this there are only two reasonable interpretations: either all belief is "real", or none. All, because absolutely all belief has come about as a result of the consideration of some evidence or the other. And be it only that your dad beat you senseless when voicing contrary opinion.

Interesting choice of example. That's an extreme illustration of precisely the kind of belief that I'm suggesting is not 'real'. It's not based on any consideration of evidence for the belief; it will come about through being in a situation where holding the belief simply appears to be the sensible option. It is assumed to be correct for reasons other than relevant facts. It's what I labelled 'habitual' because it is acquired through ongoing exposure to social or environmental factors.
quote:
There is a whole library worth of discussion concerning what is "proper" consideration and "proper" evidence, which is getting swept under the carpet here. None, because by definition belief does not ultimately obtain its force by evidence and consideration thereof. Where that happens, we call it "knowledge".
I'm suggesting 'real' belief is based on knowledge, on reasonable extrapolations that result from the consideration of relevant evidence. That doesn't preclude differences of interpretation. But without an evidential basis, discussion of those differences has no common ground on which to build, only opinion and prejudice to exchange.
quote:
Your application of the term is wrong, because it cannot actually make the right distinctions for you in the discussion with others.
Of course there is distance between a word and the reality it refers. Language is the mapping of symbols to reality, and any particular use is always to some degree an approximation. 'Real' seems as good a good a use of language as I've come across to indicate a belief based on consideration of evidence, because that is how we determine 'how things are'. It also reflects the provisionality of belief for when either new evidence becomes available or our appreciation of it changes.

Beliefs we acquire by other means can only be still genuine beliefs by force of habit. That there is a difference in status between the descriptions 'real' and 'habitual' seems to me a good thing, in that if a belief can be identified as habitual it may be in our interest to revisit it. And of course, given that difference in status, we likely wouldn't go voicing our opinions on whether someone's beliefs are merely habitual in polite conversation.
quote:
it is idiotic to conclude that ... the question of the afterlife should be solved by chemistry. Rather it is intellectually valid to apply the best tool to the job at hand. And as far as intellectual analysis is relevant here anyhow, it just isn't modern natural science that will get you furthest. If you are not at least doing metaphysics, then you are simply sitting in a canoe trying to paddle up Mt. Everest. That you do not succeed does not indicate that Mt. Everest is an illusion... Nor does it follow that since paddling on a lake is easier than climbing Mt. Everest, canoes is all we ever shall need...

Equally, it makes no sense to develop extreme weather climbing gear and build a vehicle capable of conveying bread and wine to 29,000 feet when all that is required is a short walk down the road.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, "accept" in the sense that this is the reality of it; that's what Christianity is. It takes a major unproved axiom from Judaism - the existence of One God who favors his people - and adds a few of its own, based in events in the world, in a continuity. The theology works itself out logically.

Yes, that's the theology of Christianity. I think Christianity itself is more the strand of history that synthesised the theology, together with the institutions and traditions associated with it.

That makes Christianity something we're participating in now. I don't see it as a static story from the past to research or inhabit, but more history in the making. A present day attempt to critically evaluate the resources we've inherited, building on what is still of value in order to make sense in our time.

Well, I'd actually be interested in this. I'd like to hear a critical evaluation - and re-formulation - of the religion that generates ideas as interesting and fruitful as, for instance, the Incarnation (a fascinating and totally central doctrine with very important implications).

That's actually been the problem for me. When I listen to somebody like, for instance, Spong - who complains about many of these same formulations - I keep waiting to hear even one proposal about the way Christianity ought to be. I never do hear it; Spong (for instance) knows what he doesn't like, but never proposes anything to replace it.

So I'm quite interested in hearing about new ideas; I just wish somebody would articulate some.

[ 11. January 2011, 13:29: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Isaac David

Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671

 - Posted      Profile for Isaac David   Author's homepage   Email Isaac David   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
'Real' seems as good a good a use of language as I've come across to indicate a belief based on consideration of evidence, because that is how we determine 'how things are'.

I'm glad you've made that clear, Dave, because I was beginning to think you were saying that my Christian faith doesn't describe something real.

--------------------
Isaac the Idiot

Forget philosophy. Read Borges.

Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Why can't we be honest enough to speak the truth about Islam? World conquest is an inherent part of the religion: Allah commands that all unbelievers (except Christians and Jews, who have to pay a special poll tax) are to be put to death.

That is simply untrue and what you say had been rebutted several times before on The Ship.

In any case, I'd want to say that Christianity has been a religion of conqest and the USA seems to have assumed its mantle in this respect.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
... I've posted before on the things I like about Islam - but it is not, by any means, a religion of "peace" - it is a religion of "submission".

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
So what? Maybe John and/or Jesus got it wrong.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I'd like to hear a critical evaluation - and re-formulation - of the religion that generates ideas as interesting and fruitful as, for instance, the Incarnation (a fascinating and totally central doctrine with very important implications).

Sounds like you want a new orthodoxy, same as the old orthodoxy. For me the incarnation is the central problem.
quote:
So I'm quite interested in hearing about new ideas; I just wish somebody would articulate some.
Yes, that would be good.

[ 11. January 2011, 19:29: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

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

In any case, I'd want to say that Christianity has been a religion of conqest and the USA seems to have assumed its mantle in this respect.

So true.

In the name jesusland and the new world order

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
So I'm quite interested in hearing about new ideas; I just wish somebody would articulate some.
Yes, that would be good.
How bout this one?

I should add Patterson is not a traditional believer in the incarnation. But he can still distill the basic idea quite well IMO.

[ 12. January 2011, 01:09: Message edited by: Evensong ]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

In any case, I'd want to say that Christianity has been a religion of conqest and the USA seems to have assumed its mantle in this respect.

So true.
So both you and leo accept the notion that the United States is a "Christian nation." IOW, you both are firmly in agreement with American right-wingers.

Have I stated that correctly?

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

In any case, I'd want to say that Christianity has been a religion of conqest and the USA seems to have assumed its mantle in this respect.

So true.
So both you and leo accept the notion that the United States is a "Christian nation." IOW, you both are firmly in agreement with American right-wingers.

Have I stated that correctly?

No. I know it's more complicated that than. My sister lives in California and does not ascribe to the "Praise the Lord and pass the amunition" theology.

Perhaps this would be more accurate? [Big Grin]

The U.S. does have a terrible history of military foreign intervention tho!

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It's not based on any consideration of evidence for the belief

Of course it is based on the consideration of evidence. Just not on evidence and considerations which you consider valid or appropriate. The question what then would be valid or appropriate is the one you keep avoiding, because while most people would agree that beating into submission is not, most people wouldn't agree with your restrictive ideas either.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm suggesting 'real' belief is based on knowledge, on reasonable extrapolations that result from the consideration of relevant evidence. That doesn't preclude differences of interpretation.

And I keep telling you that your definition cannot do any useful work on its own, and that your term is offensive. For example, I would consider all my religious beliefs to be "real" then. Again, the question is what is reasonable and relevant here. Furthermore, "real" already has an agreed upon meaning. If my beliefs are not "real" (well, "realistic" - my beliefs are guaranteed to be real merely by me having them), then they are false, not according with reality. That's an offensive claim if it is merely asserted, as you do by your labeling.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
'Real' seems as good a good a use of language as I've come across to indicate a belief based on consideration of evidence, because that is how we determine 'how things are'.

Well, try something else. This one really doesn't work at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Equally, it makes no sense to develop extreme weather climbing gear and build a vehicle capable of conveying bread and wine to 29,000 feet when all that is required is a short walk down the road.

Calling the sand heap down the road Mt. Everest doesn't make it so.

--------------------
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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

In any case, I'd want to say that Christianity has been a religion of conqest and the USA seems to have assumed its mantle in this respect.

So true.
So both you and leo accept the notion that the United States is a "Christian nation." IOW, you both are firmly in agreement with American right-wingers.

Have I stated that correctly?

Not quite! The USA has a secular constitution but it has taken over the mantle of the leading superpower and many of its citizens use Christian language in their rhetoric.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How bout this one?

I'm not much drawn to any talk of incarnation as a reality. It can't help but draw in the old literal Jesus is God meaning. If you're ordained you're pretty much stuck with it along with other orthodox terminology. You can try to associate the old language in the liturgy with new meaning, but without that constraint I prefer secular words and ideas as far as possible.

It's all very well for Patterson to talk of 'incarnational faith' as 'the notion that God comes to us in the midst of human existence' in an attempt to avoid the old literalist interpretation, but why use a watered down religious label? Why not simply talk of how God is in secular terms?

'God comes to us' doesn't fit how I understand God because it implies a thinking intentional God. In general I think it makes more sense to leave the old orthodoxy with its literally-interpreted incarnation intact but step back and acknowledge that is how the Church has understood God in the past. Then it can be considered as a story that may or may not be useful for a particular purpose.

[ 12. January 2011, 13:55: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866

 - Posted      Profile for Holy Smoke     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm not much drawn to any talk of incarnation as a reality. It can't help but draw in the old literal Jesus is God meaning. If you're ordained you're pretty much stuck with it along with other orthodox terminology.

Perhaps if I could help a little, otherwise this discussion is just going round in circles eternally. First off, I'm not sure that the orthodox doctrine is a simple 'Jesus is God', but more like Jesus has a dual nature, both God and man, so strictly speaking saying Jesus = God is heretical (docetism, or something, i.e. he's really God but only seems to be human).

You can try to associate the old language in the liturgy with new meaning, but without that constraint I prefer secular words and ideas as far as possible.

But are secular words adequate for speaking about religious mysteries and spiritual truths? How can you describe a religious experience in secular terms without reducing it to psychology or physiology? Or are you making an (unprovable) apriori assumption that all personal experiences are reducible to psychology or physiology, or are otherwise understandable in terms of current (or even future) scientific theory (i.e. that the only 'real' knowledge is scientific knowledge, or worse, scientific knowledge which is in line with the current scientific consensus)?

It's all very well for Patterson to talk of 'incarnational faith' as 'the notion that God comes to us in the midst of human existence' in an attempt to avoid the old literalist interpretation, but why use a watered down religious label? Why not simply talk of how God is in secular terms?

Same problem, because there aren't any suitable secular terms to describe God, because He is ultimately outside our everyday, mundane experience (even if He is here in our midst). Therefore one way of talking about Him is in terms of religious myth, which is what I believe the Bible does (both Old and New Testaments); 'literalism' is about taking the myths as objective factual history, but the alternative is not junking the myths and stories altogether, but treating them as ways of talking about the Divine in a roundabout fashion, which lead us towards experiencing the reality of God through our own direct experience.

'God comes to us' doesn't fit how I understand God because it implies a thinking intentional God.

Agreed it implies something of the sort (but not necessarily in an idiot-literal sense), but here again you are rejecting the notion out of hand, by making another apriori assumption, rather than keeping an open mind on the subject.

In general I think it makes more sense to leave the old orthodoxy with its literally-interpreted incarnation intact but step back and acknowledge that is how the Church has understood God in the past. Then it can be considered as a story that may or may not be useful for a particular purpose.

Here again, I'm not sure that the Church always has interpreted its doctrine in what we would understand as a modern literal interpretation - I think perhaps the medieval churchmen had a slightly different worldview - but that said, I still think you are completely missing the point as to the function of religious myth and story.

Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course it is based on the consideration of evidence. Just not on evidence and considerations which you consider valid or appropriate. The question what then would be valid or appropriate is the one you keep avoiding, because while most people would agree that beating into submission is not, most people wouldn't agree with your restrictive ideas either.

Evidence by definition implies consideration of what is relevant; it is always for or of something. That might include validity; I'm not sure that appropriate is, er, appropriate. It's stretching language past breaking point to claim that revelance in this context, which is all I was thinking of, is a 'restrictive idea'.
quote:
your definition cannot do any useful work on its own
It seems important to you that it not be allowed to.
quote:
your term is offensive.
You've said that several times, and I'm still at a loss to see any good reason why you should find it so.
quote:
If my beliefs are not "real" (well, "realistic" - my beliefs are guaranteed to be real merely by me having them), then they are false, not according with reality.
No. The alternative to real in general is not false. It might be imagined, or virtual, or not how things are in some other way. But if belief is mental assent to a statement or picture of how certain things are, and that assent has been given without reference to evidence for how those thing are, that statement or picture is simply not known to reflect evidence of reality. As such, that kind of belief provides our thinking with a different order of reliablity to that based on evidence. As 'not known to be real' and 'real' suggest.
quote:
Calling the sand heap down the road Mt. Everest doesn't make it so.
Who said anything about a sand heap. All see is a road.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm not much drawn to any talk of incarnation as a reality. It can't help but draw in the old literal Jesus is God meaning. If you're ordained you're pretty much stuck with it along with other orthodox terminology.

Perhaps if I could help a little, otherwise this discussion is just going round in circles eternally. First off, I'm not sure that the orthodox doctrine is a simple 'Jesus is God', but more like Jesus has a dual nature, both God and man, so strictly speaking saying Jesus = God is heretical (docetism, or something, i.e. he's really God but only seems to be human).

You can try to associate the old language in the liturgy with new meaning, but without that constraint I prefer secular words and ideas as far as possible.

But are secular words adequate for speaking about religious mysteries and spiritual truths? How can you describe a religious experience in secular terms without reducing it to psychology or physiology? Or are you making an (unprovable) apriori assumption that all personal experiences are reducible to psychology or physiology, or are otherwise understandable in terms of current (or even future) scientific theory (i.e. that the only 'real' knowledge is scientific knowledge, or worse, scientific knowledge which is in line with the current scientific consensus)?

It's all very well for Patterson to talk of 'incarnational faith' as 'the notion that God comes to us in the midst of human existence' in an attempt to avoid the old literalist interpretation, but why use a watered down religious label? Why not simply talk of how God is in secular terms?

Same problem, because there aren't any suitable secular terms to describe God, because He is ultimately outside our everyday, mundane experience (even if He is here in our midst). Therefore one way of talking about Him is in terms of religious myth, which is what I believe the Bible does (both Old and New Testaments); 'literalism' is about taking the myths as objective factual history, but the alternative is not junking the myths and stories altogether, but treating them as ways of talking about the Divine in a roundabout fashion, which lead us towards experiencing the reality of God through our own direct experience.

'God comes to us' doesn't fit how I understand God because it implies a thinking intentional God.

Agreed it implies something of the sort (but not necessarily in an idiot-literal sense), but here again you are rejecting the notion out of hand, by making another apriori assumption, rather than keeping an open mind on the subject.

In general I think it makes more sense to leave the old orthodoxy with its literally-interpreted incarnation intact but step back and acknowledge that is how the Church has understood God in the past. Then it can be considered as a story that may or may not be useful for a particular purpose.

Here again, I'm not sure that the Church always has interpreted its doctrine in what we would understand as a modern literal interpretation - I think perhaps the medieval churchmen had a slightly different worldview - but that said, I still think you are completely missing the point as to the function of religious myth and story.

I'm not the biggest fan of Brian McLaren, but one of his arguments is that the deity of Christ is meant to teach Christians that God is Christlike, not only that Christ is God.

As in when we confess that Christ is God, we are stating that He is not just a prophet pointing to the Truth, rather He is the Truth himself. This is the difficulty I suggest that some people have. It is not simply that Jesus had good teachings or that he was nice to people. Rather, Jesus DEFINES what being good and being ethical means. This makes him far more than an ethical philosopher or prophet. Goodness and justice are ultimately defined by Jesus Christ because as God, he is their ultimate source and end.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Davo. The little bit I quoted from Patterson probably wasn't enough to do him justice on the topic.

He's an interesting scholar.

He starts off the book with a situation where he was giving a lecture on the resurrection and someone up the back stands up and shouts at him, "you're not a Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection!!".

He calmly goes on to how he cannot believe in a literal resurrection or incarnation but can still draw truth from these "myths".

He goes much further than I would towards dismissing the "supernatural" but worth a read in his extractions of the big myths of Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I'd like to hear a critical evaluation - and re-formulation - of the religion that generates ideas as interesting and fruitful as, for instance, the Incarnation (a fascinating and totally central doctrine with very important implications).

Sounds like you want a new orthodoxy, same as the old orthodoxy. For me the incarnation is the central problem.
You say the incarnation is the central problem. Why is that? Irrational or just plain bad theology?

Or perhaps, if I may be so bold, may I ask what the meaning of the Jesus story is for you?

Just curious because you so obviously object to many of it's stories but still find it valid in some sense.

[ 13. January 2011, 02:30: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I'm not sure that the orthodox doctrine is a simple 'Jesus is God', but more like Jesus has a dual nature, both God and man, so strictly speaking saying Jesus = God is heretical (docetism, or something, i.e. he's really God but only seems to be human).

I'm not sure dual nature really covers it either. Fully God and fully man usually seems safe.
quote:
are secular words adequate for speaking about religious mysteries and spiritual truths? How can you describe a religious experience in secular terms without reducing it to psychology or physiology?
It depends what particular mysteries, truths and experiences you mean. I suspect if they can't be adequately described in secular terms they're probably not that useful.
quote:
Or are you making an (unprovable) apriori assumption that all personal experiences are reducible to psychology or physiology, or are otherwise understandable in terms of current (or even future) scientific theory (i.e. that the only 'real' knowledge is scientific knowledge, or worse, scientific knowledge which is in line with the current scientific consensus)?
No. Personal experience is what gives life meaning, but its interpretation is always subjective. Relying on subjective interpretation of experience for identifying what is objectively real is inherently unreliable.
quote:
there aren't any suitable secular terms to describe God, because He is ultimately outside our everyday, mundane experience
I'm not aware of any religious terms to adequately describe that either.
quote:
(even if He is here in our midst).
As you imagine God to be.
quote:
'literalism' is about taking the myths as objective factual history, but the alternative is not junking the myths and stories altogether
I agree.
quote:
but [instead] treating them as ways of talking about the Divine in a roundabout fashion, which lead us towards experiencing the reality of God through our own direct experience.
What reality would that be? How is it more than a subjective interpretation? We have no possible way of telling whether any experience is more God-related or God-inspired than any other. Each of us can use whatever labels we like for our experiences; there's no grounds for thinking a particular one was 'of God'.
quote:
you are rejecting the notion [of a thinking intentional God] out of hand, by making another apriori assumption, rather than keeping an open mind on the subject.
Not out of hand. It's the result of a lot of thought and several decades of experience that's more recently been affirmed through discussions here. But of course I might be wrong.
quote:
I'm not sure that the Church always has interpreted its doctrine in what we would understand as a modern literal interpretation - I think perhaps the medieval churchmen had a slightly different worldview
I'm sure they did, as would the authors of the biblical texts and the early church councils.
quote:
I still think you are completely missing the point as to the function of religious myth and story.
If the point is to perpetuate a received orthodoxy that no longer makes sense, at least for most people in the UK, then I'm not missing it. I've just let it go, because it seems I am not alone in no longer finding it helpful.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Isaac David

Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671

 - Posted      Profile for Isaac David   Author's homepage   Email Isaac David   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

you are rejecting the notion [of a thinking intentional God] out of hand

Not out of hand. It's the result of a lot of thought and several decades of experience
Well, Dave, your experience is irrelevant, because
quote:
Relying on subjective interpretation of experience for identifying what is objectively real is inherently unreliable.
So you're just left with a 'lot of thought'. Which is not that much different from our position, based, as it is, on quite a considerable amount of thought, about a variety of non-subjective evidence. The only difference between you and us seems to be in what we accept as evidence and in our interpretations of that evidence. There are still many intelligent people for whom 'a received orthodoxy' makes perfect sense.

--------------------
Isaac the Idiot

Forget philosophy. Read Borges.

Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Well, Dave, your experience is irrelevant ... you're just left with a 'lot of thought'.

Isaac, which part of "that's more recently been affirmed through discussions here" (the words that completed the first sentence of mine that you quoted) do you think I meant to be ignored? I said I'd compared my (subjective) experience with what others (here and, although I didn't think I needed to spell it out, in various other contexts including what science publishes) think about theirs. That's how we arrive at a view of what is objectively real.

I'm not getting into the rest of your post because as you noted earlier our past discussions have been tedious and unhelpful.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Isaac David

Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671

 - Posted      Profile for Isaac David   Author's homepage   Email Isaac David   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The only thing that's tedious, Dave, is the repeated implication that only those who have rejected the orthodox consensus are the ones who have arrived at this view of reality by a process of reasoning and evidence-checking. Ironic, really.

--------------------
Isaac the Idiot

Forget philosophy. Read Borges.

Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Tedious" is polite for a constant barrage of insults.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Isaac David

Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671

 - Posted      Profile for Isaac David   Author's homepage   Email Isaac David   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Never underestimate the rage of a furious Englishman. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Isaac the Idiot

Forget philosophy. Read Borges.

Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The little bit I quoted from Patterson probably wasn't enough to do him justice on the topic. He's an interesting scholar.

Yeah, I should've looked him up. From your other quotes it sounds like I might well identify with his perspective.
quote:
You say the incarnation is the central problem. Why is that? Irrational or just plain bad theology?
I guess mainly because it's so central to how traditional orthodoxy has come to be understood (ie. historically factual) that in practice it's hard to take the Jesus story any other way. Or separate the reality of what the story has inspired (all today's churches) from an ancient desire to proclaim this icon of Christianity not less than Roman emperor status. As far as church is dedicated to that idea it seems effectively locked out of contemporary secular thought and only ever destined for marginal relevance.
quote:
what the meaning of the Jesus story is for you?
It's the myth that has conveyed the values of the Christian tradition through history. I don't think it does that any more in most first world cultures - the role is taken by new stories and other art forms.

I watched the Jason Bourne trilogy this week over three evenings and felt lifted in exactly the way I suspect the Jesus story lifted past generations and maybe still some Christians. All it takes is the exploits of a fictional spy, or whatever story, music, or other creative expression speaks to us, to convey the values that Jesus illustrated to generations when his story was still their mythology.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866

 - Posted      Profile for Holy Smoke     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It depends what particular mysteries, truths and experiences you mean. I suspect if they can't be adequately described in secular terms they're probably not that useful.

Well, that's entirely up to you if you chose to believe that. But isn't that a somewhat utilitarian approach to life?

quote:
Personal experience is what gives life meaning, but its interpretation is always subjective. Relying on subjective interpretation of experience for identifying what is objectively real is inherently unreliable.
OK, another assumption on your part. Two assumptions, in fact. For example, a Christian might say that God is what gives life meaning, and meaning is what leads to personal experience.

quote:
I'm not aware of any religious terms to adequately describe [God] either.
But how would you know?

quote:
As you imagine God to be [here in our midst].
There's no imagination involved; just a working hypothesis - provisional belief, if you like.

quote:
What reality would that be? How is it more than a subjective interpretation? We have no possible way of telling whether any experience is more God-related or God-inspired than any other. Each of us can use whatever labels we like for our experiences; there's no grounds for thinking a particular one was 'of God'.
There are not 'no grounds', just not the sort of evidence which you happen to like.

quote:
[I'm] not [rejecting the notion of a thinking intentional God] out of hand. It's the result of a lot of thought and several decades of experience that's more recently been affirmed through discussions here. But of course I might be wrong.
So, let me see, you're quite happy to refute a hypothesis by way of 'thought' and subjective 'experience', but you're not prepared to accept a hypothesis unless it is supported by scientific experiment and observation. Or have I got you wrong?

quote:
If the [function of religious myth and story] is to perpetuate a received orthodoxy that no longer makes sense, at least for most people in the UK, then I'm not missing it. I've just let it go, because it seems I am not alone in no longer finding it helpful.
But on what grounds do you suggest that that is the sole function of myth? 'Received orthodoxy' (in the conservative sense) is surely dependent on taking the NT narratives as historical fact, and rejecting a mythological interpretation; it is the liberal position to posit a separate 'Historical Jesus'.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866

 - Posted      Profile for Holy Smoke     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It depends what particular mysteries, truths and experiences you mean. I suspect if they can't be adequately described in secular terms they're probably not that useful.

Well, that's entirely up to you if you chose to believe that. But isn't that a somewhat utilitarian approach to life?
quote:
Personal experience is what gives life meaning, but its interpretation is always subjective. Relying on subjective interpretation of experience for identifying what is objectively real is inherently unreliable.
OK, another assumption on your part. Two assumptions, in fact. For example, a Christian might say that God is what gives life meaning, and meaning is what leads to personal experience.
quote:
I'm not aware of any religious terms to adequately describe [God] either.
But how would you know?
quote:
As you imagine God to be [here in our midst].
There's no imagination involved; just a working hypothesis - provisional belief, if you like.
quote:
What reality would that be? How is it more than a subjective interpretation? We have no possible way of telling whether any experience is more God-related or God-inspired than any other. Each of us can use whatever labels we like for our experiences; there's no grounds for thinking a particular one was 'of God'.
There are not 'no grounds', just not the sort of evidence which you happen to like.
quote:
[I'm] not [rejecting the notion of a thinking intentional God] out of hand. It's the result of a lot of thought and several decades of experience that's more recently been affirmed through discussions here. But of course I might be wrong.
So, let me see, you're quite happy to refute a hypothesis by way of 'thought' and subjective 'experience', but you're not prepared to accept a hypothesis unless it is supported by scientific experiment and observation. Or have I got you wrong?
quote:
If the [function of religious myth and story] is to perpetuate a received orthodoxy that no longer makes sense, at least for most people in the UK, then I'm not missing it. I've just let it go, because it seems I am not alone in no longer finding it helpful.
But on what grounds do you suggest that that is the sole function of myth? 'Received orthodoxy' (in the conservative sense) is surely dependent on taking the NT narratives as historical fact, and rejecting a mythological interpretation; it is the liberal position to posit a separate 'Historical Jesus'.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866

 - Posted      Profile for Holy Smoke     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apologies for the double post. [Frown]
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
isn't that a somewhat utilitarian approach to life?

More a way of thinking and talking that anyone can relate to and comment on, I think. It avoids the temptation to converse (and think) in religious jargon in groups where few really know what it is they're referring to.
quote:
For example, a Christian might say that God is what gives life meaning, and meaning is what leads to personal experience.
They might. And they'd be making assumptions about God for which I don't think there's any relevant evidence.
quote:
how would you know [if any religious terms adequately describe God]?
There's only limited verifiable information about God available to us. None of that is specifically religious.
quote:
There's no imagination involved; just a working hypothesis - provisional belief, if you like.
Believing God is "here in our midst" suggests you've gone one step beyond an abstract hypothesis. Which I think requires imagination.
quote:
There are not 'no grounds' [for thinking an experience is of God], just not the sort of evidence which you happen to like.
No, no grounds for which there is relevant evidence.
quote:
you're quite happy to refute a hypothesis by way of 'thought' and subjective 'experience', but you're not prepared to accept a hypothesis unless it is supported by scientific experiment and observation. Or have I got you wrong?
I thought I was implying more than I was. I meant "several decades of experience, that I have compared with what others (in various contexts including what science publishes) say about theirs, to discover what seems to me a reasonably objective view".
quote:
on what grounds do you suggest that [perpetuating a received orthodoxy] is the sole function of myth?
I wasn't. I said "if". In case you were a conservative.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools