|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Bad religions
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I've been referring mostly to institutional realities and tendencies, of course, not to the behaviour of individual Christians, naughty or otherwise - although the communal 'situatedness' of individual Christians, as Martin60 reminds us, helps to create the culture and theology of those institutions.
It occurs to me that the more a marginal Christian, or Christian group, calls for disestablishment and post-Constantinianism, the more inferior they may make themselves sound. After all, someone with the attitude and bearing of an true equal doesn't keep on highlighting their own legal and cultural inequality! This is yet another reason why asking the CofE to work proactively to relinquish its legal status, or the Methodists or RCs to work against Constantinianism, is likely to fail.
[ 26. January 2016, 14:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the issue is amid all those interpretations which is right.
Why does there have to be one interpretation that is correct for all times and all places, and all other interpretations wrong, for all times and all places?
For me, I'd argue that there doesn't. An established church may be theologically wrong or right, given its societal context.
I would not be so narrow as to say 'only
one interpretation'. On the contrary I think that there is great openness available in interpretations, not least because there are indeed areas where, as Pomona points out, we probably won't know with certainty till Jesus returns. I regard it as one of the 'traps' of 'big-T Tradition' that they too often try to 'settle' things in that way and also having got it wrong, saddle themselves with a problem in explaining how their added-to-scripture 'Tradition' is still valid despite getting it wrong.
On the other hand, truly and deeply contradictory interpretations "can't all be right" and we have, as I see it, an obligation to sort such matters out.
The 'established church' is such an area. So here goes with the (almost) full version on that issue.
1) The truth about or behind 'establishment' is that there is indeed in the end only one true religion (albeit quite a broad truth). In the end everybody must either live in the light of that truth, or choose to live in darkness (John 3 17-18). In the beginning there was a universal (sort-of) established religion because in absence of sin, everybody believed the same, no problem; in the End, there will again be a universal (sort-of) established religion in the Kingdom of Heaven. Of course neither in the beginning nor in the end are these quite like a earthly 'sacral state' in the current age of the world.
2) In the meantime, what? All these sinful human beings with all kinds of disparate and disconnected ideas about God or 'the gods' - and the idea, with an element of truth in it, that we ought to be living by the 'true religion'. And that tends in turn to lead to the idea that we will please God/the-gods by imposing the true religion on everybody by the power of our state, persecuting 'heretics' internally and fighting wars externally, ' with God/the-gods on our side'.
In paganism there tends to be a degree of syncretism to moderate this, not to mention a degree of conflict between 'the gods' which they see as spilling over into the human world - see, for instance, the treatment of the gods in works like the Iliad. But when you're dealing with just one God, things become a bit more intense.
3) In the biblical portrayal there is definitely only one God and he is at work to sort out the dislocations caused by sin and restore people to a true relationship with himself. We don't know all the detail of how that worked in different places and times, but as Christians we know that God worked especially through one tribe, the people of Israel, to reveal a great deal of the truth and to lead up to the revelation of an ultimate answer in Jesus.
4) Then what? As 'the World' would see it, and as many in 1st Century Israel expected, this truth would then be spread by military means, the 'Messiah' and his followers conquering those in the wrong and imposing the true religion upon them ... rather like IS sees itself doing in the modern world on behalf of their Islamic 'one true religion'. That idea leads to 'Constantinianism/the-established-church/the-Christian-country' - and holy war, inquisitions, etc. Is that what God chose...??
The above took a bit longer to do than I expected and I'm going to have to resume when I get home (and possibly quite a bit later while I shop, dine, etc). Please wait for the conclusion before jumping in with hasty answers.... Back later....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I would not be so narrow as to say 'only
one interpretation'.
Then you need to be more circumspect and certainly a lot more nuanced about the language you use. Because the impression I've got from you is precisely that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I'm not sure Anglicanism has any kind of settled positions of Tradition which it has to explain away.....! It all seems like a thinly-veiled attack on Roman Catholicism, sorry SL.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, Steve Langton, is that what you or I might regard as a 'trap' or a problem within a Big T Tradition may not appear so to adherents of that Tradition themselves.
So, for instance, RCs and Orthodox wouldn't have an issue with Mariology or the veneration of Saints and would see that as an element of Big T Tradition that is neither a problem nor a trap.
It only becomes a problem or a trap if you believe it to be one and can demonstrate it to be so ... which is difficult to do because people who would challenge those particular aspects aren't coming at it from the same direction.
There's no point playing the sola-scriptura card with RCs and Orthodox on that particular issue - should one wish to challenge it - as neither Tradition is a sola-scriptura one ... so you'd be coming at it from a different paradigm and effectively talking 'past each other'.
Not everyone is a sola-scriptura proponent. Plenty of Protestants aren't either.
As far as the 'Constantinian' thing goes, whilst I can see your concern that aspects and emphases within the Big Traditions have led to 'Constantinianism' and Erastianism - and we'd all acknowledge that - it doesn't follow that contemporary RCs and Orthodox are all going to be on the same page on that one.
We've already had Mousethief state several times here that he believes in a separation of Church and State. Orthodox priests I know here in the UK say the same. I have no idea whether they'd still say that if they lived in Greece or Russia ... but even there - where there's an official Orthodox majority - they would argue that constitutionally there should be a right to freedom and religious diversity.
Only recently an Orthodox priest friend observed that he believed that religious pluralism is a healthy thing - even though he is, of course, convinced that the Orthodox Church is the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You seem anxious to visit the sins of the fathers onto their offspring unto the ultimate generation ... as though ills like the Inquisition or collusion with the state to counter-act dissenters and heretics can never be forgiven.
You seem to think that as long as there's some kind of Anglican Establishment here in England and a Church of Scotland one in Scotland that the spectre of religious persecution is never far away.
The fact is, that dissident groups like the Anabaptists can only have existed in the first place because there was a wider 'Christendom' paradigm and a majority Christian pooulation - whether nominally or otherwise - for them to draw on.
The Anabaptists didn't self-generate out of the ground. They didn't suddenly appear as if by magic in previously un-Christianised societies such as the South Pacific, say or Papua Guinea which had been unreached by missionaries in the 16th century.
Missiologists, as you are probably aware, make a distinction between evangelism and evangelisation.
A country or society can be largely 'Christianised' without necessarily implying that everyone within that country or society has understood, owned or actively embraced that faith.
Heck, I've met enough African evangelicals who've complained to me about evangelical and charismatic 'nominalism' in places like Nigeria ... I've heard US Christians say similar things about parts of the Bible-Belt in the States.
Yes, Constantinianism can be taken to the extent that it implies that everyone is a believer simply by virtue of living in a 'Christian country' ...
But even the most ardent 'Constantinians' I've ever met would acknowledge that 'not all Israel are Israel' as it were.
Yes, we are all moving to more 'intentional' and 'gathered' models of church ... that's true right across the board. That doesn't imply that all those 'gathered' models are going to take a more Anabaptist form ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I'm not sure Anglicanism has any kind of settled positions of Tradition which it has to explain away.....! It all seems like a thinly-veiled attack on Roman Catholicism, sorry SL.
As a Protestant church Anglicanism shouldn't have 'Traditions' - but one of its troubles is that having been designed originally as a compromise for the benefit of Elizabeth I's state, it doesn't have much settled or certain anything.
I hadn't realised the attack on the RCC was all that 'thinly veiled'. After all, they are the arch exponents of that kind of Tradition; but ipso facto, show the best examples of the faults of that concept in general. But I am having a go at 'Tradition' in general, not just the RCC; I just know more about the RCC....
You yourself seem at times to be confusing between the small-t and big-T kinds of tradition?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
The fact is, that dissident groups like the Anabaptists can only have existed in the first place because there was a wider 'Christendom' paradigm and a majority Christian pooulation - whether nominally or otherwise - for them to draw on.
A dissident groups in relation to other Christians, yes. But of course I'd be arguing that the early Church were essentially the same thing as Anabaptists but existing as dissidents among the pagans - they don't depend on other forms of Christianity in order to exist. But obviously when there already was the rather dodgy Christendom, they would set themselves over against that, rather than over against the at-least-formally non-existent paganism.
The issue is, of course, that 'Christendom' shouldn't exist, so that Anabaptists would not need to set themselves over against Christendom as well as over against non-Christian ideas and cultures.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nick, I apologize for my misunderstanding of this:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just to clarify - I'm with Gamaliel here in saying that BOTH Jesus is the Word AND the Bible is the Word, in slightly different but very much overlapping senses.
I'd probably go a little bit further than "slightly different but very much overlapping senses."
which led to my comment to you, to which you have responded. I can be a tad literal-minded and you were using litotes masterfully.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Re-posting and only slightly editing from earlier for continuity, so you don't have to go back to this earlier post....
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the issue is amid all those interpretations which is right.
Why does there have to be one interpretation that is correct for all times and all places, and all other interpretations wrong, for all times and all places?
For me, I'd argue that there doesn't. An established church may be theologically wrong or right, given its societal context.
I would not be so narrow as to say 'only
one interpretation'. On the contrary I think that there is great openness available in interpretations, not least because there are indeed areas where, as Pomona points out, we probably won't know with certainty till Jesus returns. I regard it as one of the 'traps' of 'big-T Tradition' that they too often try to 'settle' things in that way and also having got it wrong, saddle themselves with a problem in explaining how their added-to-scripture 'Tradition' is still valid despite getting it wrong.
On the other hand, truly and deeply contradictory interpretations "can't all be right" and we have, as I see it, an obligation to sort such matters out.
The 'established church' is such an area. So here goes with the (almost) full version on that issue.
1) The truth about or behind 'establishment' is that there is indeed in the end only one true religion (albeit quite a broad truth). In the end everybody must either live in the light of that truth, or choose to live in darkness (John 3 17-18). In the beginning there was a universal sort-of-established religion because in absence of sin, everybody believed the same, no problem; in the End, there will again be a universal sort-of-established religion in the Kingdom of Heaven. Of course neither in the beginning nor in the end are these quite like a earthly 'sacral state' in the current age of the world.
2) In the meantime, what? All these sinful human beings with all kinds of disparate and disconnected ideas about God or 'the gods' - and the idea, with an element of truth in it, that we ought to be living by the 'true religion'. And that tends in turn to lead to the idea that we will please God/the-gods by imposing the true religion on everybody by the power of our state, persecuting 'heretics' internally and fighting wars externally, ' with God/the-gods on our side'.
In paganism there tends to be a degree of syncretism to moderate this, not to mention a degree of conflict between 'the gods' which they see as spilling over into the human world - see, for instance, the treatment of the gods in works like the Iliad. But when you're dealing with just one God, things become a bit more intense.
3) In the biblical portrayal there is definitely only one God and he is at work to sort out the dislocations caused by sin and restore people to a true relationship with himself. We don't know all the detail of how that worked in different places and times, but as Christians we know that God worked especially through one tribe, the people of Israel, to reveal a great deal of the truth and to lead up to the revelation of an ultimate answer in Jesus.
4) Then what? As 'the World' would see it, and as many in 1st Century Israel expected, this truth would then be spread by military means, the 'Messiah' and his followers conquering those in the wrong and imposing the true religion upon them ... rather like IS sees itself doing in the modern world on behalf of their Islamic 'one true religion'. That idea leads to 'Constantinianism/the-established-church/the-Christian-country' - and holy war, inquisitions, etc. Is that what God chose...??
Resuming;
5) No, God didn't choose the 'military conquest' model for the Messiah and his followers to bring the completed and matured Christian teaching to the world at large.
The point being that a nation, as such, cannot be 'spiritually reborn' - only individuals through individual repentance and faith can undergo that. The concept is 'trailed' in various OT texts, and basically it is that God is seeking people who willingly trust him because they really believe in him, really believe the message of Jesus, and are willing to trust even against possible social disadvantage as dissidents. Sure, he's a generous God and he'll take the less-than-ideal results when we mess it up by ideas like 'establishment'; but things work much better when we get it right and believe God about how his people are to relate to the world.
6) That individual trust/spiritual-rebirth thing is best served by what the NT in fact sets out - a religion which, unlike Islam in general and IS in particular, forswears the idea of military/police coercion and seeks individual conversion through personal faith. Which instead of trying to control and 'lord it over' the state, seeks to call people out of the state and whatever belief or philosophy it has, to form a holy nation of, as I've said before, citizens of the kingdom of heaven living as peaceable 'resident aliens' on earth among pagans and other unbelievers.
ANY attempt to set up a Christian country disturbs and confuses that concept in all kinds of ways. And so we shouldn't be making that attempt, and where we have we should recognise it is wrong and repent of it.
So yes, Doc Tor, you were kind of right to say that
quote:
An established church may be theologically wrong or right, given its societal context.
Although we don't usually use the word 'church' about it, Israel in the OT effectively was an 'established church' - the only valid one there has ever been since the fall. And even with the real and only God running it, it also (because of course it was made up of sinful humans) shows many of the problems seen in later establishments. It was then 'theologically right' as part of the process leading up to Jesus and providing the context of what he did in life, death, and resurrection and in introducing the 'new covenant' and 'Messianic kingdom' foretold in the OT.
But precisely because of the ideas then introduced, the 'established church' has ever since Jesus been 'theologically wrong'. It is incompatible with the concept of a 'kingdom not of this world' that Jesus said he had come to produce, a kingdom of a different kind both from the paganism he encountered in Pilate and the more IS-style idea of the Messiah expected by many Jews (and sadly practiced by them in the Jewish revolts in 70CE and c120CE).
As Christians we build on the 'rock' if we follow his teaching; and on the sand if we refuse his words and try to build the other kind of kingdom. If we refuse Jesus we will build a 'bad religion' in terms of our OP above. And given some of the consequences of that in terms of such things as Crusades and Inquisitions, and the example we set to non-Christian religions like Islam (which effectively has followed Constantine rather than Jesus), we need very much to stop refusing his words, and instead follow them; and follow them as such.
(That doesn't mean that what we 'build' after divesting ourselves of that particular error will necessarily be perfect - but it will at least be free of that particular fault; and why wouldn't we want that??)
OK, that's not a completely 'full' account of the situation; it's actually basic and sketchy, but more complete in some ways than I've stated it before in any single post on the Ship - though I have said pretty much all of the above separately on various occasions....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, seeing as early Christianity started as a dissident group within Judaism - effectively the 'Christendom' of the day in Palestine then there is some kind of parallel with the way Anabaptist groups emerged from a largely 'Christianised' setting in the 16th century.
Beyond that, it's a circular argument.
I'm really out this time. Sweet dreams.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Re-posting and only slightly editing from earlier for continuity, so you don't have to go back to this earlier post....
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the issue is amid all those interpretations which is right.
Why does there have to be one interpretation that is correct for all times and all places, and all other interpretations wrong, for all times and all places?
For me, I'd argue that there doesn't. An established church may be theologically wrong or right, given its societal context.
I would not be so narrow as to say 'only
one interpretation'. On the contrary I think that there is great openness available in interpretations, not least because there are indeed areas where, as Pomona points out, we probably won't know with certainty till Jesus returns. I regard it as one of the 'traps' of 'big-T Tradition' that they too often try to 'settle' things in that way and also having got it wrong, saddle themselves with a problem in explaining how their added-to-scripture 'Tradition' is still valid despite getting it wrong.
On the other hand, truly and deeply contradictory interpretations "can't all be right" and we have, as I see it, an obligation to sort such matters out.
The 'established church' is such an area. So here goes with the (almost) full version on that issue.
1) The truth about or behind 'establishment' is that there is indeed in the end only one true religion (albeit quite a broad truth). In the end everybody must either live in the light of that truth, or choose to live in darkness (John 3 17-18). In the beginning there was a universal sort-of-established religion because in absence of sin, everybody believed the same, no problem; in the End, there will again be a universal sort-of-established religion in the Kingdom of Heaven. Of course neither in the beginning nor in the end are these quite like a earthly 'sacral state' in the current age of the world.
2) In the meantime, what? All these sinful human beings with all kinds of disparate and disconnected ideas about God or 'the gods' - and the idea, with an element of truth in it, that we ought to be living by the 'true religion'. And that tends in turn to lead to the idea that we will please God/the-gods by imposing the true religion on everybody by the power of our state, persecuting 'heretics' internally and fighting wars externally, ' with God/the-gods on our side'.
In paganism there tends to be a degree of syncretism to moderate this, not to mention a degree of conflict between 'the gods' which they see as spilling over into the human world - see, for instance, the treatment of the gods in works like the Iliad. But when you're dealing with just one God, things become a bit more intense.
3) In the biblical portrayal there is definitely only one God and he is at work to sort out the dislocations caused by sin and restore people to a true relationship with himself. We don't know all the detail of how that worked in different places and times, but as Christians we know that God worked especially through one tribe, the people of Israel, to reveal a great deal of the truth and to lead up to the revelation of an ultimate answer in Jesus.
4) Then what? As 'the World' would see it, and as many in 1st Century Israel expected, this truth would then be spread by military means, the 'Messiah' and his followers conquering those in the wrong and imposing the true religion upon them ... rather like IS sees itself doing in the modern world on behalf of their Islamic 'one true religion'. That idea leads to 'Constantinianism/the-established-church/the-Christian-country' - and holy war, inquisitions, etc. Is that what God chose...??
Resuming;
5) No, God didn't choose the 'military conquest' model for the Messiah and his followers to bring the completed and matured Christian teaching to the world at large.
The point being that a nation, as such, cannot be 'spiritually reborn' - only individuals through individual repentance and faith can undergo that. The concept is 'trailed' in various OT texts, and basically it is that God is seeking people who willingly trust him because they really believe in him, really believe the message of Jesus, and are willing to trust even against possible social disadvantage as dissidents. Sure, he's a generous God and he'll take the less-than-ideal results when we mess it up by ideas like 'establishment'; but things work much better when we get it right and believe God about how his people are to relate to the world.
6) That individual trust/spiritual-rebirth thing is best served by what the NT in fact sets out - a religion which, unlike Islam in general and IS in particular, forswears the idea of military/police coercion and seeks individual conversion through personal faith. Which instead of trying to control and 'lord it over' the state, seeks to call people out of the state and whatever belief or philosophy it has, to form a holy nation of, as I've said before, citizens of the kingdom of heaven living as peaceable 'resident aliens' on earth among pagans and other unbelievers.
ANY attempt to set up a Christian country disturbs and confuses that concept in all kinds of ways. And so we shouldn't be making that attempt, and where we have we should recognise it is wrong and repent of it.
So yes, Doc Tor, you were kind of right to say that
quote:
An established church may be theologically wrong or right, given its societal context.
Although we don't usually use the word 'church' about it, Israel in the OT effectively was an 'established church' - the only valid one there has ever been since the fall. And even with the real and only God running it, it also (because of course it was made up of sinful humans) shows many of the problems seen in later establishments. It was then 'theologically right' as part of the process leading up to Jesus and providing the context of what he did in life, death, and resurrection and in introducing the 'new covenant' and 'Messianic kingdom' foretold in the OT.
But precisely because of the ideas then introduced, the 'established church' has ever since Jesus been 'theologically wrong'. It is incompatible with the concept of a 'kingdom not of this world' that Jesus said he had come to produce, a kingdom of a different kind both from the paganism he encountered in Pilate and the more IS-style idea of the Messiah expected by many Jews (and sadly practiced by them in the Jewish revolts in 70CE and c120CE).
As Christians we build on the 'rock' if we follow his teaching; and on the sand if we refuse his words and try to build the other kind of kingdom. If we refuse Jesus we will build a 'bad religion' in terms of our OP above. And given some of the consequences of that in terms of such things as Crusades and Inquisitions, and the example we set to non-Christian religions like Islam (which effectively has followed Constantine rather than Jesus), we need very much to stop refusing his words, and instead follow them; and follow them as such.
(That doesn't mean that what we 'build' after divesting ourselves of that particular error will necessarily be perfect - but it will at least be free of that particular fault; and why wouldn't we want that??)
OK, that's not a completely 'full' account of the situation; it's actually basic and sketchy, but more complete in some ways than I've stated it before in any single post on the Ship - though I have said pretty much all of the above separately on various occasions....
You mean it could be fuller?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: OK, that's not a completely 'full' account of the situation; it's actually basic and sketchy, but more complete in some ways than I've stated it before in any single post on the Ship - though I have said pretty much all of the above separately on various occasions....
Well I think it's very complete and you're right, you have said it all. In fact, saying anything more on this topic would be rather superfluous. So thank you very much.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I'm not sure Anglicanism has any kind of settled positions of Tradition which it has to explain away.....! It all seems like a thinly-veiled attack on Roman Catholicism, sorry SL.
As a Protestant church Anglicanism shouldn't have 'Traditions' - but one of its troubles is that having been designed originally as a compromise for the benefit of Elizabeth I's state, it doesn't have much settled or certain anything.
I hadn't realised the attack on the RCC was all that 'thinly veiled'. After all, they are the arch exponents of that kind of Tradition; but ipso facto, show the best examples of the faults of that concept in general. But I am having a go at 'Tradition' in general, not just the RCC; I just know more about the RCC....
You yourself seem at times to be confusing between the small-t and big-T kinds of tradition?
Of course Anglicanism has Tradition! The three-legged stool not ringing a bell? It just isn't 'settled' like RC or Orthodox Tradition. The Anglican church is Catholic AND Reformed, not purely Protestant.
And no I am not confusing small-t and big-T tradition, you just don't understand the point of Tradition. Perhaps listen to those who belong to denominations that use it.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Martin60;
quote:
You mean it could be fuller?
Oh but of course! I know people who've done it at book-length.... Indeed I suspect it's un-full enough that various Shipmates will be raising all kinds of objections based on the things I left out. And probably making up to suit themselves what I'm supposed to believe in those gaps!
On your earlier comment (which I've just realised I can't easily get back to to quote it directly) - yes I see what you mean; but I also reckon that if the Scripture really is God's Word then there will be at least a lot of basic stuff that doesn't require all that much specialised knowledge to grasp the basic point - just reading the text as it stands.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Le Roc;
quote:
Well I think it's very complete and you're right, you have said it all. In fact, saying anything more on this topic would be rather superfluous. So thank you very much.
Sorry, Le Roc. But I was getting a bit fed up of dealing with the issue 'piecemeal' and then being dealt with 'piecemeal' by other Shipmates. I therefore felt it necessary this time to state a really comprehensive case. I too hope I don't have to say much more about that lot!!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Scripture ISN'T God's word. It's our words. About God. Since the last ice-age.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
doesn't require all that much specialised knowledge to grasp the basic point - just reading the text as it stands.
You mean, apart from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
doesn't require all that much specialised knowledge to grasp the basic point - just reading the text as it stands.
The basic, core, fallacious arrogance of Sola Scriptura laid bare for all to see.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ignorance isn't necessarily arrogance, Mousethief.
Most full-on Sola Scriptura types I know don't really understand how texts work nor how we engage with them.
I'm not a Sola Scriptura merchant but there are more subtle and variegated versions and applicstions of it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Biblical genetic engineering:
Genesis 30:37-39 English Standard Version (ESV)
37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.
jus' read it, read it plain brother. Yorl doan need no Human Genome Project.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That's not genetic engineering, it's camouflage!
Of course, such colour change has been observed in insects (most famously I think there was one kind of white moth which became much darker in a British industrial environment); but even there it takes at least six generations.
[ 27. January 2016, 08:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
We have just grappled with this text in our Bible study group. Are you suggesting Jacob increased his flocks by concealing them from Laban? How interesting!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Put them behind the fence and then spray-painted them through the gaps?
[ 27. January 2016, 08:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
At the end of the day, Jacob could almost be the poster-boy for bad religion.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Not just Jacob. The founder of Acorn (Russ Parker) observed in a rather good teaching series I head a few years ago that much good use could be made of Genesis if one used it as studies of dysfunctional family life and how not to do it.
In the context of this thread I'm wondering if dysfunctional relationships, not just between leaders and led, have more to say about the bad impact of religions than anything else. I suppose if religious doctrines actually encourage dysfunctional relationships, then there's a certain amount of chicken and egg to be found. But I think the human capacity to create and foster dysfunction in relationships probably precedes any kind of upbringing or indoctrination. We seem to me to gradually escaping from instinctive pecking order and dominance behaviour as it gradually dawns on us that the effects are bad, whether we win out or lose out in pecking order struggles.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not just Jacob. The founder of Acorn (Russ Parker) observed in a rather good teaching series I head a few years ago that much good use could be made of Genesis if one used it as studies of dysfunctional family life and how not to do it.
This has absolutely been the conclusion of our series in Genesis. A recent meeting closed with the prayer "thank you Lord, that however dysfunctional our families may be, they are not as dysfunctional as theirs, and you loved them and worked through them anyway".
More broadly, I'm sure dysfunctional relationships lead to bad religion; a similar thought to the idea of abuse of power being one of the core characteristics of sin.
(Or as Adrian Plass memorably put it, "I could be a good Christian if it weren't for other people").
The challenge for me is to achieve a social organisation that effectively minimises the effects of our inherent dysfunctionality. "Social organisation" including, of course, churches and denominations.
[ 27. January 2016, 09:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Good luck with that Eutychus.
When you've succeeded come and tell the rest of us how to do it. You could become a millionaire overnight ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You could become a millionaire overnight ...
That would definitely be bad religion.
(Unless it was God's will, of course...)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Heh heh ...
It'd be God's will if you were to share the proceeds with me for suggesting the idea to you in the first place ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
doesn't require all that much specialised knowledge to grasp the basic point - just reading the text as it stands.
You mean, apart from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?
Well obviously I meant in translation! The irony here is that when I once posted suggesting that it was a good idea to get some basic acquaintance with Greek, Eutychus was going on at me as if I was suggesting that great scholarship was necessary - "ploughboys need not apply", contra either Wycliffe or Tyndale, can't offhand remember which.
The Bible is not written as an abstruse academic text; most of it means exactly the commonsense same whatever language you translate it into, and the basic ideas are clear even whatever degree of 'literalism' you apply. It is not specially hard to read and understand compared to other ordinary books.
by mousethief;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
doesn't require all that much specialised knowledge to grasp the basic point - just reading the text as it stands.
The basic, core, fallacious arrogance of Sola Scriptura laid bare for all to see.
As opposed to the core fallacious arrogance of those who deny ordinary people the ability to interpret, or to question their church leader's interpretation, by claiming a 'Tradition' that can contradict the obvious reading....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Most full-on Sola Scriptura types I know don't really understand how texts work nor how we engage with them.
I think I probably do have a pretty good idea 'how texts work'; but I also have a pretty good idea how humans work when they get the chance to use a claim of a 'superior' extra-biblical Tradition to put themselves in a position to 'lord it over' others....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Or how humans work in sectarian settings where the same opportunity presents itself to 'lord it over others'.
I could suggest that, on the evidence of your posts here, you neither understand how texts work or how Traditions work ...
This isn't about snobbish attitudes towards Tyndale's plough-boy and so on - far from it. No-one is saying that it's impossible for 'lay-people' to understand the scriptures ... what is being said that the scriptures don't work in isolation.
But I'm done here. I'm off.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I also have a pretty good idea how humans work when they get the chance to use a claim of a 'superior' extra-biblical Tradition to put themselves in a position to 'lord it over' others....
I wasn't going to get involved any more but ...
You just don't get what most of us here are saying, which is that ALL of us are in some way governed and conditioned by "extra-Biblical tradition". Granted, that Tradition may not be an official line of "What the Church says", but it's there, all right.
For instance, Evangelicals will often look up Matthew Henry or C.H. Spurgeon or Martyn Lloyd-Jones or John Stott (other commentators are available) and they will rightly drink from their wisdom and erudition. But none of those good people operated in a bubble, they all recognised how they stood in a tradition which went back at least to the Reformation and possibly earlier.
And, indeed, many hearers of sermons in Evangelical churches would compare what they hearing with the view of Henry et. al. and make a decision as to its "soundness" or not. (They would also compare it to the very detailed doctrinal statement issued by their churches, and that's another "Tradition").
Now none of this is bad unless the Tradition is so strong that it stultifies and dismisses new insights from God rather than accepting that he can speak anew through the ancient Scriptures and "shed fresh light on his Word". And my experience is that this Evangelical "Scriptural" consensus can end up being just as confining as any other. "Sola Scriptura" it is not!
(FWIW the same thing can happen in the scientific world, where new ideas can be quashed by the consensus of eminent peers in the field).
[ 27. January 2016, 10:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
P.S. Think of it in model railway terms if you like. Anyone who builds a layout today will, if they read the appropriate magazines and books, in fact be building on the shoulders of such giants as John Ahern, Peter Denny, P.D. Hancock, David Jenkinson, Cyril Freezer and many others.
They may never have heard of any of these people; but their influence lives on in the movement.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Or how humans work in sectarian settings where the same opportunity presents itself to 'lord it over others'.
Agreed - but it doesn't help these inevitable problems of human sinfulness to actually institutionalise and formalise the opportunity by giving it a special place as 'Tradition'.
quote:
...
This isn't about snobbish attitudes towards Tyndale's plough-boy and so on - far from it. No-one is saying that it's impossible for 'lay-people' to understand the scriptures ... what is being said that the scriptures don't work in isolation.
I'm not at all saying the scriptures 'work in isolation'. But they work in the church in the sense of 'the congregation', rather than in an 'institution' that hands down interpretations based on claims to special competence on grounds of "We have Peter..." or similar.
I was reading last night the sections of the CofE 39 Articles that deal with the relationship of Scripture to t/Tradition; found I essentially agree with it - wish the modern CofE also agreed with their own founding documents....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Has any Anabaptist ever suggested that Jesus is not the uncreated second person of the Trinity? Why not? The Scriptures are quite ambiguous on this score, and it was a cause of much turmoil and division in the early church. If you accept this dogma, you are accepting Tradition. Indeed thistradition was arrived at at a council called by the much-reviled Constantine the Great. Anyone who thinks the conclusion of that council was a slam dunk because the Scriptures are self-interpreting is deceiving himself. It's wishful thinking only made possible by ignorance of, or intentionally ignoring, the evidence of history.
And by the way, refuting a claim of arrogance with "oh yeah? So are you is" (a) an admission of guilt, (b) a fallacy, and (c) juvenile.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That illustrates very well the point I was making.
mousethief is of course right. An examination of the history of the controversies demonstrates very well that they arose from different interpretations of the key scriptures concerning the Person of Christ and they did indeed go on for a long time. Basically, because all of those scriptures, taken together, point in different directions. The Arian position had many supporters who were as well versed in the key scriptures then as serious students are today.
The dispute was long, often bitter, strongly influenced by both church politics and wider politics. There wasn't a lot of charity in play, there was a lot more "pecking order" behaviour going on. Sure the search for Truth was initially well motivated, but it was hardly characterised by "speaking the truth with love". Here is Constantine's edict.
quote:
"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment. ... "
So we have the paradox, I suppose, that on of the key aspect of the Trinitarian belief which is common across Christianity was determined by processes which demonstrate a good deal of human imperfection. What you make of this is up to you, but it hardly adds credence to a sola scriptura viewpoint. It provides other evidence, however. That an intense, competitive focus on dogma can give rise to some very questionable religious behaviour.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Barnabas62;
quote:
Here is Constantine's edict.
quote:
"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment. ... "
Bad religion, and then some; and of course avoidable by following the scripture teaching about NOT having a state church! And note that it would be questionable what authority the Council could have when based on a 'Church' redefined into a form contrary to Scripture by being'established'.
'Scripture' clearly teaches that Jesus is God Incarnate; particular formulations of that are 'tradition' (note the small 't') and should always be subject to review by Scripture, rather than being accepted as authoritative in themselves. It should also be noted that the Council's formulation was in terms of current Greek philosophical ideas which would not necessarily be accepted today.
I think the ultimate comment on this is supplied by the Jehovah's Witnesses who found their 'unitarianism' unsustainable by the Scriptures as they stand, and resorted to producing their own new version which repeatedly substitutes the name 'Jehovah' for many of the occurrences of Greek 'kyrios/Lord' so as to skew the interpretation against the identification of Jesus as 'Lord'.
They claim - with no evidence - that the name 'Jehovah' WAS originally there but was changed by 'apostate' Christians at an early date in order to wrongly deify Jesus.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Barnabas62;
Bad religion, and then some; and of course avoidable by following the scripture teaching about NOT having a state church! And note that it would be questionable what authority the Council could have when based on a 'Church' redefined into a form contrary to Scripture by being'established'.
This is getting beyond tiresome.
You are missing the point (deliberately?) that a point of doctrine you hold as self-evident from Scripture has not always been held to be so, and has come down to us by being accepted as orthodoxy and enshrined in tradition by the very system you reject.
You can criticise it all you want, and I would broadly agree with you on its defects, but you cannot escape its role in shaping your own beliefs by shaping the context in which you acquired them.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The same 'apostate Christians' who agreed the Trinitarian formularies at the Council of Nicea.
The Council of Nicea didn't 'invent' the doctrine of the Trinity - but as Mousethief and Barnabas62 have said, the issue of Christology and Trinitarian understandings of the Godhead had been a hot potato for a long, long time.
Things could easily have gone a different way ... what if the Arian party had gained the upper-hand?
The idea that 1st century Christians simply opened their Bibles and found sola scriptura evidence for the Trinity and Deity of Christ is a nonsense.
That's not how it worked.
Yes, Christians worshipped Christ as God - and early Roman accounts agree on that - but there was all manner of debate as to what that actually means ... the NT doesn't have a convenient chart at the back with a set of definite Creedal statements.
It's not just the Deity of Christ that the JW's don't believe in, they don't believe in the Deity of God the Holy Spirit either. Pray tell us what verses in the original Greek they altered in their New World translation to kick any indication of the Holy Spirit's divinity into touch?
The JW's believe that the Holy Spirit is some kind of impersonal force - not the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. They cite scripture to support that view.
I'm sorry Steve - I did promise not to come back ... but I can't let these assertions of yours go unchallenged - because they don't deal adequately with the historic background, the way things happened nor how doctrine evolved and was ratified in a collegial and conciliar context.
Yes, Constantine was operating in a 'bad religion' way by issuing fearsome edicts against Arians ... but if he hadn't called the Council of Nicea would we have any creedal framework to work with?
What seems to escape your notice is that those Anabaptists who have remained 'on track' as it were in terms of their Trinitarian understanding have done so precisely because they are working with concepts and frameworks they've inherited from the older traditions and Tradition.
How could it be otherwise?
It's like Baptist Trainfan's model railway analogy - today's model railway enthusiasts are working with concepts inherited from earlier pioneers.
One could argue against the Trinity from a sola scriptura position - and it's not just those who interfere with the scriptures and mistranslate particular verses who have done so. Plenty of Unitarians - including Unitarian Anabaptists - employed the same translations as Trinitarian Christians were using.
You really don't understand how tradition/Tradition works do you? Nor how the process of canonisation of particular texts or the development of creedal positions came about?
Sure, the guys at the Council of Nicea were drawing on Greek and classical concepts as well as Hebrew ones. Of course. That's the world they lived in.
John drew on certain Hellenistic concepts when he wrote 'In the beginning was the Word ...' the logos. It wasn't that he 'invented' it as such - but he was drawing on philosophical concepts that would have been familiar to his audience.
Somehow, you're asking us all to ditch the Nicene Creed because it was ratified by an unscriptural 'Established' Church - and yet to sign up to basic Nicene creedal understandings of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ because you think they're there, readily apparent and with no need for further debate, in the pages of the NT itself and to be apprehended in a sola scriptura way ...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Yes, I do believe that the scriptures teach the deity of Christ and the deity of the Holy Spirit - but these same scriptures can be used and applied in other ways to undermine such an idea. I could list a whole gamut of proof-texts that could suggest that the early Church got it wrong ...
Unitarians have done that for centuries.
Nobody here is saying that Constantine was 'right' to use the full weight and force of the State to enforce compliance with Nicea. But by the same token, those of us who have a traditional creedal understanding of Trinitarian doctrines do so because of that legacy ... because we are part of that tradition - whether in a Big T sense or a small t one ...
So, the Trinity is part of both Big T Tradition and small t tradition ... to the extent that the small t version derives from the Big T one.
Constantine using the power of the State to enforce that Tradition isn't necessarily part of that Tradition. Yes, it's what happened, but neither the Orthodox or the Catholics are saying that further or future creedal statements - should there be any - would necessarily be enforced that way.
The Tradition doesn't 'demand' that Constantine behave that way - although in the context of the 4th century Roman Empire it's hard to see any other way that he could have operated - and yes, it was a political thing to secure uniformity and so on - we all know that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Steve L
You read my post selectively and missed the point. You seem to have read church history selectively and missed the point there as well. In your observations and responses here you seem to me to demonstrate a frequent talent for missing the point. I don't think you do it deliberately so I can only surmise that you must have some kind of a plank in your eye. That's a shame. IME a good cure is to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes without rushing to conclude that your own POV provides a better explanation.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
At what point does a Church become 'apostate'?
I'm being daft now, but let's say at 11.15am on Tuesday the Ides of March 325 AD, the Emperor Constantine presses his signet ring into a wax seal and bingo! ... Christianity is the official religion of the Roman Empire ...
(Yes, I know it wasn't 325AD, I'm messing ...)
Now, how soon does the apostasy take effect?
Are 27.9% of the bishops apostate by 12.30pm that afternoon, another 13.8% by 5.15pm, another 2.3% over in Egypt by 9.25pm and the rest around midnight or early the next morning?
Steve Langton keeps telling us how the nature of the Church 'changed' ... how long did that take to happen? It's not as if all the existing bishops were sacked overnight and replaced with 'Constantinian' ones or that from a particular date you couldn't trust any of them any more - not even to tie their own shoe-laces, still less to agree creedal definitions on weighty issues like Christology and Trinitarian doctrine ...
We can't say, 'What if the Council of Nicea had somehow happened earlier - in 180 AD, say, or 253 AD or even 310 AD before those nasty Roman Emperors got their mitts into it ...' because that's not what happened.
We can't even 'prove' that had the Apostle Paul turned up he'd have gone along with all the decisions they arrived at. We can't 'prove' any of these things.
That's not how these things work. 'Hey, look, there's this verse here which nails the whole thing once and for all ...' any more than we can actually 'prove' one way or another who was on the 'right side' when it came, later on, to those who agreed with the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon and those who didn't ...
Who's in the 'right' in the disputes between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox on the human and divine nature of Christ?
I have absolutely no idea.
I incline towards the Orthodox Chalcedonian position but I've never really heard the non-Chalcedonians out on their side of it ...
For all I know, I might be more convinced by their argument were I to sit down and listen attentively ...
What I'm saying isn't a recipe for confusion, rather it's a plea to actually sit down and listen to other people's points of view. That's how these things work.
Selective reading doesn't get us anywhere.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Since the assorted humanists, secularists etc are currently arguing that when it comes to the national curriculum etc. they should be entitled to have their world views treated as on a par with religious faiths, we are equally entitled to class them as religions when we evaluate which religions are guilty of the worst wrongs.
Humanism is a non-faith world-view. The fact that society can exist without the need for apparently spurious supernaturality does not mean that you are permitted to class the absence of belief as a belief system.
You are entitled to evaluate humanism and secularism (many secularists are, of course, religious) in any way you like but you are, in morality, not permitted to misrepresent that which you fear without being held accountable for that misrepresentation.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Steve L
You read my post selectively and missed the point. You seem to have read church history selectively and missed the point there as well. In your observations and responses here you seem to me to demonstrate a frequent talent for missing the point. I don't think you do it deliberately so I can only surmise that you must have some kind of a plank in your eye. That's a shame. IME a good cure is to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes without rushing to conclude that your own POV provides a better explanation.
Shoes are Constantinian! Jesus didn't wear shoes. Only sandals are proper attire.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Maybe I should have said moccasins?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Maybe I should have said moccasins?
From what I can tell, (5 min on Bing) sandals would have been
de rigueur for Jesus' time and place. But then, so too would it have been for Constantine! Can it be there is no One True Shoe?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
They wore socks with the sandals on Hadrian's Wall.
Perhaps shoes/boots were for barbarians, like trousers.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They wore socks with the sandals on Hadrian's Wall.
If there is any greater condemnation of a people than this, I have not heard it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So Steve, how are ordinary people supposed to interpret Genesis 30:37-39?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nick, I apologize for my misunderstanding of this:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just to clarify - I'm with Gamaliel here in saying that BOTH Jesus is the Word AND the Bible is the Word, in slightly different but very much overlapping senses.
I'd probably go a little bit further than "slightly different but very much overlapping senses."
which led to my comment to you, to which you have responded. I can be a tad literal-minded and you were using litotes masterfully.
Thanks, Martin, and no worries about it.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
