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   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Non- Christian Religions " Perverse"? (Page 0)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Non- Christian Religions " Perverse"?
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826

 - Posted      Profile for LutheranChik   Author's homepage   Email LutheranChik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve, just so you know, my entire working life has revolved around using words. I'm pretty good at understanding what words mean. And I am fully aware that both "perverse" and " depravity" can have different shades of meaning. I rather suspect that Mr. Cheesy is equally as proficient in English usage, and probably more so, than I am.But thank you for trying to be a helper.

--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com

Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Dealing with the second point first, I guess actually the word perverse is nowadays carrying a lot of 'baggage' from its use in relation to sexual conduct. I'm using it in a less loaded sense. It's a bit more than just 'wrong' when Jews reject the divine Messiah and crucify him.

There's always been a strong Christian belief that Jews all really secretly know that Jesus is God, but are being intellectually perverse by maintaining the pretense that they reject this position. In that sense Christian anti-Semitism and persecutions of the Jews are, from the Christian perspective, not about crushing dissent or trying to change minds, it's about getting Jews to publicly admit what they "really" believe; that Jesus is God and the only true faith is Steve Langton-style Anabaptism.

[ 09. November 2017, 15:55: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Croesos;
quote:
There's always been a strong Christian belief that Jews all really secretly know that Jesus is God, but are being intellectually perverse by maintaining the pretense that they reject this position. In that sense Christian anti-Semitism and persecutions of the Jews are, from the Christian perspective, not about crushing dissent or trying to change minds, it's about getting Jews to publicly admit what they "really" believe; that Jesus is God and the only true faith is Steve Langton-style Anabaptism.
There is in that a major logical slip. "Christian anti-Semitism and persecutions of the Jews" have been about coercing Jews to believe that "the only true faith" is the Christendom version of Christianity with its coercive approach. Anabaptists do not do persecution, just disagreement to be resolved by argument, not by physical coercion.

Anti-Semitic is a dubious term; it refers not only to Jews but also to lots of other people with a language in the 'Semitic' family - Arabs and others. Ethnically/racially anti-Jewish is more accurate albeit a bit clumsier.

It is I think true that early Anabaptists tended to share much of the racial anti-Jewishness of the surrounding European culture, and that may still be true of some of the more isolated groups. It does not appear to be true of modern Anabaptists and would certainly not be accepted in the UK Anabaptist Network. AIUI modern Anabaptist theologians have led the way in exploring Jewish thought and culture for fresh explanations/understanding of Christian ideas.

With Jesus, Paul and a lot of other biblical figures being Jewish, no Christian should ever be racially anti-Jewish. But of necessity we are what I call anti-Judaist - regarding a continuing Jewish religion that rejects Jesus as defective. Judaism simply cannot offer what Christianity does.

There can be a bit of a perception problem here; Judaism is so emphatically the religion of one ethnic group that it can be difficult to be critical of the religious ideas without being accused of racial anti-Jewishness. A similar problem is seen in attempts to criticise the conduct of modern Israel as a nation. People who think they're simply criticising conduct they wouldn't accept from their own government find that because they're criticising Israel they get tarred as 'anti-Semitic'.

Which gets us back to the idea that "Jews all really secretly know that Jesus is God" and so on. I don't think it's anywhere near that simple.

BUT - the problems over 'the Land', the return to Israel, shows something rather unsatisfactory in Judaism. Is it really the case that the God of the entire Universe is 'about' one nation owning a patch of otherwise ordinary ground on our planet? And doesn't it often appear that in following that goal the Zionist Jews are effectively showing a rather nasty pro-Jewish racism?

At the same time, can Judaism consistently carry on without that promise? And what about the Temple and the sacrifices, effectively abandoned for centuries after losing the war with Rome? What kind of Messiah can now be expected?

And is detailed observance of the Torah by Jews really achieving anything?

Christianity has effectively had better answers to those questions for nearly 2000 years. A Messiah who fulfilled the OT and showed a different point, showed why Israel existed, how it existed for the world and not just for itself.

I could go on for a long time on some of these themes - but I do think I'm seeing in the modern world increased disillusion among Jews. Not just the Zionists, others as well. It may not be as simple as they "all really secretly know that Jesus is God", but just the considerable number of 'Messianic' Jews following Jesus indicates a sense of some emptiness in the Jesus-less version of Judaism.

You've sneered at ' Steve Langton-style Anabaptism', Croesos. Well in the first place Anabaptism is far from just me; but also which do you prefer - Anabaptism or the violence of Zionism?

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anti-Semitic is a dubious term; it refers not only to Jews but also to lots of other people with a language in the 'Semitic' family - Arabs and others. Ethnically/racially anti-Jewish is more accurate albeit a bit clumsier.

If you want to play semantic/Semitic games, you could use the distinction outlined by David Nirenberg of referring to being against the Jews as a racial/ethnic group as "anti-Semitism" and being against the Jews as adherents of a particular religion as "anti-Judaism". These are, of course, not wholly independent of each other. A long-form review of Nirenberg's 2013 book on the latter can be found here. It's well worth the read.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Christianity has effectively had better answers to those questions for nearly 2000 years. A Messiah who fulfilled the OT and showed a different point, showed why Israel existed, how it existed for the world and not just for itself.

This seems to be near the root of most Christian anti-Judaism: the Jew's stubborn refusal to acknowledge what Christian's regard as the self-evident superiority of Christianity over Judaism (and likewise the superiority of Christians over Jews). It's simply infuriating the way Jews keep on failing to acknowledge the inferiority of their own faith in the face of the obvious paradise the coming of the Messiah has made of the world. They simply refuse to say a simple "thank you" for all the pogroms and Crusades and ghettoization that Christianity has so thoughtfully and generously provided them.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You've sneered at 'Steve Langton-style Anabaptism', Croesos.

Actually I've sneered at the arrogance of claiming to be the true prophet of the one true faith, and that this one true faith is so self-evident that the only possible explanation for anyone believing any differently is intellectual dishonesty.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Well in the first place Anabaptism is far from just me; . . .

Hence the modifier "Steve Langton-style". Far be it from me to ascribe your very unique set of beliefs to a much wider group.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anabaptists do not do persecution,

We've been down this road. They just got beat down hard enough to prevent a comeback.

--------------------
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
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
you could use the distinction outlined by David Nirenberg of referring to being against the Jews as a racial/ethnic group as "anti-Semitism" and being against the Jews as adherents of a particular religion as "anti-Judaism". These are, of course, not wholly independent of each other.

As you'll note, I did use the distinction of referring to 'Anti-Judaism'. And I made myself the point that when a religion is so emphatically about one race it's not easy to separate the two concepts. But unless you're proposing to somehow put Judaism and its teachings beyond criticism, surely questioning of the teachings has to be allowed just as criticism of Christianity is allowed.

by Croesos;
quote:
They simply refuse to say a simple "thank you" for all the pogroms and Crusades and ghettoization that Christianity has so thoughtfully and generously provided them.
And of course as an Anabaptist I thoroughly disapprove of "all the pogroms and Crusades and ghettoization" and very much understand why Jews would object to it - the same people did much the same to the Anabaptists, after all. I'm therefore very much concerned to create a new way for Christians to approach Judaism - obviously if I'm agreeing with Jesus I won't be agreeing with that continuing 'Judaism without its Messiah', but a peaceable approach rejecting Christendom's atrocities must be possible.

Again, since you know I'm Anabaptist you should have realised that that particular criticism wouldn't be applicable to my position - another major slip in your logic I fear.

By Croesos.
quote:
Actually I've sneered at the arrogance of claiming to be the true prophet of the one true faith, and that this one true faith is so self-evident that the only possible explanation for anyone believing any differently is intellectual dishonesty.

What's really odd about this is that I make no such claim and the idea that I do is simply a product of your overheated imagination (you'd better settle for that rather than the idea that you're deliberately dishonestly misrepresenting me). What I do is simply put forward for discussion the things I believe true after investigating to the best of my ability. I welcome discussion and evidence and being proved wrong if I have got it wrong. I suppose it's easier to appear to win a point by accusing me in that way than to actually win it by engaging with my arguments.....


quote:
Hence the modifier "Steve Langton-style". Far be it from me to ascribe your very unique set of beliefs to a much wider group.
I think if you were more aware of the realities of modern Anabaptism you'd realise I'm not so very unique. It is true that we UK 'Anabaptist camp followers' have brought some new ideas to the traditional bodies; or in some cases actually revived old ideas which had been neglected in the traditional bodies. There's nothing really unusual in that when people seek to follow the Bible....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anabaptists do not do persecution,

We've been down this road. They just got beat down hard enough to prevent a comeback.
We've indeed been down that road; fact is that there were pacifist Anabaptists before Munster, and for others like Menno Simons it was not that they were 'beat down hard enough to prevent a comeback' but that they really understood the anomaly of such violence in the name of Jesus and realised that the Bible simply doesn't teach that kind of thing - and please note, were willing to face persecution and death for that principle.

Munster was just one of many events in the relative chaos of the Reformation era where people discovered part of the truth but didn't quite get round to others. In the case of Munster they saw the truth about baptism but didn't work out the pacifism thing. The Mainstream Reformers had a similar problem in another area - they got so much right about what was wrong with the RCC but didn't quite get round to rejecting the idea of Christian states.

One of the big ironies of the Munster situation is that the RCC and Protestant opponents of Munster were objecting to the feature where they and the Munsterites were in agreement - the setting up of a Christian state supported by worldly violence. All three bodies - RCC, Protestants, and Muinsterites - were wrong at that point; the pacifist Anabaptists were biblically right.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We've been down this road too many times before as well. This thread is not about Steve Langton's theology but the perversity, or otherwise, of other faiths. To avoid yet another derailing, please feel free to take that tangent to Hell if you find it sufficiently annoying. But please drop it here. There have been previous Host and Admin actions to prevent such derailing.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well anyway - what I think is interesting is that we (maybe, possibly) have evidence of a Christian faith from the epistles that sought to engage with philosophies and ideas that were around at the time. This whole idea of casting other ideas out to replace them with the truths of Christianity seem to me to be a later concept.

Of course, I don't know how much later. And I accept that this is just one of many (valid) ways to read the epistles.

But it is an idea that I find attractive - a long time ago I heard someone say that the difference between Jesus and the Pharisees was subtle but important: the pharisees made everything into a religious issue, and yet Jesus made a religious issue out of everything. Here is a stone, a grain of wheat, a mustard seed, a fig tree. A person gardening, someone growing grapes, someone waiting for a wedding groom.

The Pharisees might have been able to point at reasons why all these people and examples were sinful and wrong. Wrong clothing, wrong crop grown in the wrong place, wrong day of the week, wrong time of day, wrong gender etc and so on.

And yet Jesus is depicted as using all these wrong things and bad examples for the good.

I think we see the echoes of that in the epistles too.

I think Jesus is much more likely to meet someone of a different religion and say "hmm, that's interesting let me tell you what I think about that" than "no, that's an evil, depraved, perverse and wrong idea - you need to stop immediately and do this other thing"

Yes there are evil, depraved and perverse ideas. But I don't think any of those things are uniquely within the class of "non-Christian religion" (or the adherents thereof) and in fact in almost every religion there is something noble, interesting, worthwhile and worth believing in.

That doesn't mean that I agree with them. But that I have some general understanding of what it means to believe something, that I can see (if vaguely) why they might find the idea attractive and that they're not complete fools just for believing it and/or refusing to believe in Christianity out of perverse stubbornness.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've replied to Barnabas 62 in Styx.

I'm out for the afternoon and will respond to mr cheesy's post above later.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

I'm out for the afternoon and will respond to mr cheesy's post above later.

I really don't need hourly updates of your forthcoming posts. I'm not really that interested.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

Did you miss the host post above? Take personal disputes to Hell where they belong. There's plenty else to discuss here, as you yourself have demonstrated.

/hosting

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes sorry I had a rant brewing and was struggling to keep a lid on it.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Looking at Paul's attitude to paganism, can I point out that he both makes an extremely critical analysis of paganism in Romans 1, clearly saying that it's a product of sinful rebellion against God and effectively 'perverse', and still takes a much more sympathetic approach to actual pagans eg in Athens.

Can you not understand that these are not mutually exclusive positions/approaches?

It is perfectly possible and reasonable to have a fairly strong view of how bad paganism in general is, or the problems of a particular paganism, and still treat a particular pagan as an individual and discuss with them how they see it.

And it is also perfectly possible to have a strong view of paganism and still understand that there is good as well as bad in it - well mostly anyway - and that you must recognise that. All may have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and even the superficially good may - as was particularly obvious with the Pharisees - be somewhat vitiated by the sinful motivation; but it's rarely fully 'black and white'.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll remind you of your 'It's rarely purely black and white' comment the next time you post a comment that's as binary as a zebra crossing ...

On the attitude of the early Church towards paganism, I don't think anyone would say it was positive - any more than the Jewish view of paganism was positive ... But it was certainly more nuanced than some claim. The issue the apostle Paul was addressing was idolatry.

The early Church admired Seneca and the Stoics, for instance because their capacity for long-suffering and patience was seen as Christ-like to some extent.

--------------------
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      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Gamaliel
quote:
I'll remind you of your 'It's rarely purely black and white' comment the next time you post a comment that's as binary as a zebra crossing ...
I think the point is that at the 'what is the truth here?' level it is often very 'black and white'. But when you are dealing with individual examples each case tends to be different. I would for instance deal rather differently with a fanatical 'true believer' in a pagan faith and a person who is just a 'conformist' to his nation/culture.

Pagans are human - like all humans they are a mix. And simply because of the realities of the universe paganisms obviously contain much of the common recognition of 'good', and much perfectly good thought alongside the error. But the fundamental error really does amount to living against the grain of the universe and has to be challenged.

Thus as I say we deal with individuals in what can be 'grey areas' but very much against a background of certain things not being grey as far as we're concerned.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can see what you're getting at Steve, but it strikes me that there's more 'space' and nuance in Paul's Epistle to the Romans than you are allowing for in your somewhat selective approach.

For instance, on certain readings of Romans 2 it would appear that the Apostle is holding out a 'wider hope' and indicating that it might be possible for some pagans to be saved despite their ignorance of the Truth.

Equally, we have to face the fact that there isn't universal agreement within Christianity as a whole as to some of the emphases within Romans (or the other NT epistles for that matter).

The Christian East tends to interpret certain passages that some Western Christians would consider 'self evident' in a different way, for instance.

It's not as if there is one single 'take' on Romans, whether it's a Fred Bloggs one, a Steve Langton one, a Gamaliel one ... or a whoever-else one.

What we have are various collective views that are shaped by tradition and Tradition in response to the text.

To use Romans in isolation as some kind of prescriptive last-word on the early Christian's view on pagan religions seems to me to be missing the point.

I don't think anyone here is making a case for the early Church being unequivocably positive about paganism, far from it. But they weren't necessarily negative about all aspects of it either - and as we see from Romans itself there were debates even then about individual conscience when it came to 'food sacrificed to idols' and so on.

At the risk of derailing things in the direction of your favourite hobby-horse, I'd agree that things became 'harsher' and more regulated later on - with the Emperor Justinian allegedly closing down the School of Athens in 529AD.

However, there's an interesting counter-take on that one here: http://www.bede.org.uk/justinian.htm

Whatever else we can say, I think we can say that the picture was fairly mixed.

Which is exactly what one would expect.

Just as there are different views and slants on things among Christians today.

To take just one example from popular culture: I know plenty of conservative Christians (both evangelical Protestants and some from more sacramental traditions) who rant and rave about the Harry Potter novels and insist that children should be protected from their baleful influence lest they develop an unhealthy interest in the occult.

I know other Christians - both conservative and more liberal ones - who'd find that view rather extreme and who'd insist that the Harry Potter books are harmless fun and besides Good always triumphs over Evil in these stories.

I'm sure we can think of many other examples of similar differences.

From what I can gather from my reading of Paul and from discussions I've had, the picture is mixed. The early Christians would take what they considered useful from classical/pagan philosophy and leave or reject what they considered unhelpful or harmful.

The same applies today, of course, when it comes to Christian responses to various political ideologies and philosophies.

None of us are operating in a hermetically sealed vacuum. Thank goodness.

--------------------
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      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think you're at some risk here of what Hosts would consider a derailment.

Harry Potter basically good; fantasy generally not a problem (see JRRT).

Lutheran Chik's original post was about
quote:
Luther's anti- Semitic attitudes and writings and their negative influence in history.
I've tried to address that in various aspects.

As the OP pointed out, Luther's approach produced problems in later history including probably helping Hitler in his anti-Jewish acts. And I think it's relevant to say that a lot of that is down to Luther never quite accepting that Christianity shouldn't be a state religion.

I also pointed out the considerable difficulty in dealing with this when Judaism is so identified with one ethnic group; it's hard to criticise the religion without appearing racist. And made the point that I'm emphatically not ethnically/racially anti-Jewish; but from a Christian viewpoint (a crucial qualification) the continuance of Judaism as a separate religion which rejects Jesus as Messiah is unsatisfactory to say the least. There is an aspect there which has to be open to discussion and questioning of the Judaist religious stance.

Is Judaism - in that sense of the continuing separate religion - 'perverse'? Clearly pre-Jesus Judaism is anything but perverse, it effectively was the one true faith in the one true God; but also I's submit clearly in some ways incomplete and looking forward to the fulfilment of promises like that of the Messiah.

Part of my feeling about the 'perversity' is based on looking at some of the immediate consequences of rejecting Jesus. As in, by instead following the kind of Messiah they preferred, and the view of Jewish destiny they preferred, the 1st and 2nd century Jews effectively inflicted on themselves two disastrous wars with Rome at huge cost in lives and in other ways. The Jewish people have in a sense never recovered and modern Israel looks to me somewhat problematic as fulfilment of the OT promises. Widespread acceptance of Jesus' kind of Messiahship would surely have prevented that....

Back to paganism; the Christian analysis is that paganism is a product of sin, of human self-centredness and rebellion against God - whether 'idolatrous' in the limited sense or whether a wider worshipping other than the true God in whatever form, because it results from sin it is 'perverse'. Doesn't mean everything about it is wrong; doesn't mean Christians shouldn't use the good to make fruitful contact with pagan minds.

Paganisms vary from human sacrificing Druids and Aztecs to Roman and Greek philosophers who often seem to sit very light to the religion and sometimes seem to believe in a single god behind the mythical gods. Obviously Christians will deal differently with those different levels....

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think you're at some risk here of what Hosts would consider a derailment.

I think you're at some risk here of what Hosts would consider junior hosting.

What is more, you have already drawn attention to yourself by posting in the Styx to, apparently, appeal a hosting decision not directed at you. You have been advised to stick to the thread theme. Do so or expect consequences - that applies to everyone.

/hosting

[ 11. November 2017, 13:27: 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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve Langton, I would suggest that the NT is actually more nuanced on those issues than you might allow it to be.

However we understand Acts 17:26-27 it appears to imply that God can be sought and found, even from within an originally pagan base:

http://biblehub.com/acts/17-27.htm

And of course, that's what seems to have happened with Abraham. At some point the early Hebrews moved from polytheism to monotheism.

That doesn't 'condone' pagan beliefs, it simply acknowledges them as a transitory phase perhaps.

The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't as simple as saying that religiosity of any kind (other than 'True Religion') is somehow a product of humanity's fallen state.

In Athens, Paul didn't condemn the Athenians for their religiosity - 'I see that in every way you are very religious' - rather he sought to direct those tendencies in a more appropriate direction - 'What you worship as Unknown I now declare to you ...'

That's the point I'm making and one you appear to misunderstand.

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Looking at Paul's attitude to paganism, can I point out that he both makes an extremely critical analysis of paganism in Romans 1, clearly saying that it's a product of sinful rebellion against God and effectively 'perverse', and still takes a much more sympathetic approach to actual pagans eg in Athens.

Can you not understand that these are not mutually exclusive positions/approaches?

I think you are misrepresenting what happened. Paul is not so much condemning Paganism and uplifting individual Pagans as taking one Pagan idea and talking about how it is bad and taking another and talking about how it isn't bad.

I'm in no sense saying that everything about every religion is good. Religion is frequently very bad in many ways.

But I'm more saying that I don't think religions are "perverse", that there is often some common ground upon which one can talk about stuff. And as Paul and Jesus showed, the basis for that conversation is frequently outrageous to the religious of their time.

quote:
It is perfectly possible and reasonable to have a fairly strong view of how bad paganism in general is, or the problems of a particular paganism, and still treat a particular pagan as an individual and discuss with them how they see it.
I don't that it is really. If I come up to a Muslim and say that I think their religion is depraved and perverse, I don't suppose there is anything further to talk about.

If I come up to a Muslim, visit his mosque with a respectful attitude, listen to something that has meaning for him and then talk about similaries and differences between our beliefs, I'll probably get a smoother hearing.

I suggest that this simple overlap you are using between right/wrong and depraved/true is incredibly unchristian and unhelpful.

But hey, I don't really think I'm going to persuade you.

quote:
And it is also perfectly possible to have a strong view of paganism and still understand that there is good as well as bad in it - well mostly anyway - and that you must recognise that.
The "well mostly" is very interesting. You don't really believe that do you.

quote:
All may have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and even the superficially good may - as was particularly obvious with the Pharisees - be somewhat vitiated by the sinful motivation; but it's rarely fully 'black and white'.
I think we fundamentally disagree. I think the role of the Christian is to be a fellow traveller with others who are asking hard questions. To come alongside, to share when asked, to think and engage and expand generously with others. It is to point with anger at the hard things (including idols) within our own lives not at others.

But that's all I'm going to say on this topic now.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by mr cheesy
quote:
quote:

(Quoting from SL)It is perfectly possible and reasonable to have a fairly strong view of how bad paganism in general is, or the problems of a particular paganism, and still treat a particular pagan as an individual and discuss with them how they see it.

I don't that it is really. If I come up to a Muslim and say that I think their religion is depraved and perverse, I don't suppose there is anything further to talk about.

If I come up to a Muslim, visit his mosque with a respectful attitude, listen to something that has meaning for him and then talk about similaries and differences between our beliefs, I'll probably get a smoother hearing.

Again you're confusing things a bit. Although medievals called Islam 'pagan', it is not 'pagan' in the same sense as Himduism/Shinto/Druidism or classical Greek/Roman beliefs. Islam is part of the 'Abrahamic' group of faiths alongside Judaism and Christianity. It's not quite as straightforward a relationship as Judaism to Christianity, but the relationship is definitely there. So I wouldn't be applying the same ideas in the same way to dealing with Islam as to dealing with 'pagan' ideas.

Of course in a sense Paul's analysis also applies to Islam; but again, not as simply as to polytheistic paganism. Different religions do know we disagree with them, you know; we can't go in pretending otherwise. It's still possible to be sympathetic even so.

Gamaliel, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you - well not a great deal anyway - it's just that the progress of the discussion has me emphasising some particular points.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I get that, Steve, but I suspect your position is more censorious than you take it to be.

But that's simply speculation on my part based on the tone of your posts.

--------------------
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
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And made the point that I'm emphatically not ethnically/racially anti-Jewish; but from a Christian viewpoint (a crucial qualification) the continuance of Judaism as a separate religion which rejects Jesus as Messiah is unsatisfactory to say the least. There is an aspect there which has to be open to discussion and questioning of the Judaist religious stance.

Is Judaism - in that sense of the continuing separate religion - 'perverse'? Clearly pre-Jesus Judaism is anything but perverse, it effectively was the one true faith in the one true God; but also I's submit clearly in some ways incomplete and looking forward to the fulfilment of promises like that of the Messiah.

Part of my feeling about the 'perversity' is based on looking at some of the immediate consequences of rejecting Jesus.

This is a fairly good summary of Christian ideas about Jewish "perversity". It mostly revolves around Jews' stubborn refusal to play their proper role in Christians' self-narrative. The way Christians think it should go is that they explain to the Jews about who this Jesus person was, and the Jews break down in grateful tears, rejecting the faith of their ancestors and the Covenant of Abraham. This is seen as "perverse" by many Christians who start with the assumption that Christianity is self-evidently true so that anyone rejecting this self-evident truth is doing so from bad faith or pure intellectual perversity. The refusal of Jews to play their "proper" roles in Christians' heroic self-narratives seems to be the source of a lot of anti-Judaic resentment.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And made the point that I'm emphatically not ethnically/racially anti-Jewish; but from a Christian viewpoint (a crucial qualification) the continuance of Judaism as a separate religion which rejects Jesus as Messiah is unsatisfactory to say the least. There is an aspect there which has to be open to discussion and questioning of the Judaist religious stance.

Is Judaism - in that sense of the continuing separate religion - 'perverse'? Clearly pre-Jesus Judaism is anything but perverse, it effectively was the one true faith in the one true God; but also I's submit clearly in some ways incomplete and looking forward to the fulfilment of promises like that of the Messiah.

Part of my feeling about the 'perversity' is based on looking at some of the immediate consequences of rejecting Jesus.

This is a fairly good summary of Christian ideas about Jewish "perversity". It mostly revolves around Jews' stubborn refusal to play their proper role in Christians' self-narrative. The way Christians think it should go is that they explain to the Jews about who this Jesus person was, and the Jews break down in grateful tears, rejecting the faith of their ancestors and the Covenant of Abraham. This is seen as "perverse" by many Christians who start with the assumption that Christianity is self-evidently true so that anyone rejecting this self-evident truth is doing so from bad faith or pure intellectual perversity. The refusal of Jews to play their "proper" roles in Christians' heroic self-narratives seems to be the source of a lot of anti-Judaic resentment.
All of which is massively arrogant.
I get believing that whatever philosophy one has chosen* is the correct one. It is not recognising that, not only do other people feel the same for theirs, but that one mightn't be right about one's own choice that is arrogant and ridiculous.

After all, when everything is said and done, they are all beliefs not facts.


*For varying degrees of choice.

[ 13. November 2017, 17:47: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
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
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And made the point that I'm emphatically not ethnically/racially anti-Jewish; but from a Christian viewpoint (a crucial qualification) the continuance of Judaism as a separate religion which rejects Jesus as Messiah is unsatisfactory to say the least. There is an aspect there which has to be open to discussion and questioning of the Judaist religious stance.

Is Judaism - in that sense of the continuing separate religion - 'perverse'? Clearly pre-Jesus Judaism is anything but perverse, it effectively was the one true faith in the one true God; but also I's submit clearly in some ways incomplete and looking forward to the fulfilment of promises like that of the Messiah.

Part of my feeling about the 'perversity' is based on looking at some of the immediate consequences of rejecting Jesus.

This is a fairly good summary of Christian ideas about Jewish "perversity". It mostly revolves around Jews' stubborn refusal to play their proper role in Christians' self-narrative. The way Christians think it should go is that they explain to the Jews about who this Jesus person was, and the Jews break down in grateful tears, rejecting the faith of their ancestors and the Covenant of Abraham. This is seen as "perverse" by many Christians who start with the assumption that Christianity is self-evidently true so that anyone rejecting this self-evident truth is doing so from bad faith or pure intellectual perversity. The refusal of Jews to play their "proper" roles in Christians' heroic self-narratives seems to be the source of a lot of anti-Judaic resentment.
Been trying to figure out how to put it (and I don't want to sound like the Christian equivalent of "not all men"), but I found Steve's wording here troubling as well. I believe Jesus to be Messiah, the one who fulfills the hopes of (some of) those of his time - and his faith... but I really, honestly cannot see how that gives me any right to say that the continued existence of Judaism, or any other religion for that matter, is "troubling". I might disagree profoundly with Jews who do not accept Jesus as Messiah; but it's not my call from that to call into question whether or not Judaism as a separate religion should continue to exist.

It also seems to be suggesting that Jews should only consider the validity of their faith from a Christian frame of reference, which is hugely arrogant.

(And I know this is a question Paul wrestles with from time to time in his letters, esp. in Romans 9-11; but that always strikes me as a debate within Judaism about why or why not people accept Jesus as Messiah, not as people from one faith telling people of another faith that their continued adherence to that faith is problematic.)

I'm tip-toeing around the "anti-Judaic" angle because I don't want to look like I'm accusing Steve of that - I'm genuinely not! - but I do think we have to be extremely careful when using language like this about Judaism, especially from within Christianity given, as Croesos points out, Christianty's tarnished reputation and poor history in this regard.

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Croesos;
quote:
the Jews break down in grateful tears, rejecting the faith of their ancestors and the Covenant of Abraham.
Of course from a Christian viewpoint Jews who become Christians are not asked to reject the Covenant of Abraham, but to participate in what amounts to a massive enlargement of the Covenant with added blessings.

I agree that Christianity is not completely self-evident. I know we have to convince people of it - but emphatically not coerce.

Logically if Jesus truly is the promised Jewish Messiah, then a continued Judaism rejecting Jesus is problematic. And double problematic when, as now, so many are asserting on the basis of their religion, that right to 'The Land' which has created modern Israel and created huge problems for the world in the process. Jews following Jesus would neither need the Land nor be willing to fight for it. And Jews not following Jesus are effectively in breach of the Covenant and not entitled to the Land.

That conflict has been the background of my whole life. And I care about the suffering and I want it to stop - which it basically can't while Judaism carries on as it has been since rejecting Jesus.

Of course the likes of Croesos and lil Buddha would rather sneer at me than look at the bigger picture.....

Stejjie, "Christianity's tarnished reputation and poor history" in relation to Judaism is a product of the Constantinian thing. Without that the proper Christian attitude to Jews is that of Paul, who would have been willing to lose his own salvation, if that were possible, to save his people. And without that improper entanglement of Church and world, and if we clearly repudiate it, we should feel free to preach the Christian view undiluted.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course from a Christian viewpoint

Let me just stop you there. What you meant to type was the following:

quote:

Of course from my own viewpoint

Kindly stop talking as if your viewpoint is shared by everyone - when self-evidently it isn't.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course from a Christian viewpoint

Let me just stop you there. What you meant to type was the following:

quote:

Of course from my own viewpoint

Kindly stop talking as if your viewpoint is shared by everyone - when self-evidently it isn't.

As usual the response is don't just make vague remarks about it - if you think there is some other viable Christian viewpoint, state it and defend it.

The NT has quite a bit to say about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism and thus far I've found nothing that contradicts the point I made.

Seriously everyone is putting their own viewpoint, including you. And you've made more than a few statements absolute enough to have deserved a similar response to what you've given me here. Only instead of going into sneer mode, I prefer to simply discuss what is/isn't right.

And anyway,I said "A Christian viewpoint", not 'the' Christian viewpoint.
What I said is definitely a Christian viewpoint and is/has been the view of many,many more Christians than just me.

What alternative viewpoint are you suggesting here? If any? Remember it is pretty much fundamental to Christianity that it is not a standalone religion but a successor/continuation of Judaism. What I stated is part of that continuity....

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As usual the response is don't just make vague remarks about it - if you think there is some other viable Christian viewpoint, state it and defend it.

The NT has quite a bit to say about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism and thus far I've found nothing that contradicts the point I made.

Just because you don't understand it, don't believe it, can't hear it doesn't make your view by default the Christian one.

It is actually perfectly simple: there are a range of reasons for rejecting Christianity which range from the ridiculous the the nuanced. A Jew who rejects Christianity because it does not add up to what they understand from their religion is not perverse, is not illogical, is not being obstinate or depraved. They're simply saying it doesn't work in their opinion and they've rejected it.

Plenty of Christians accept that people reject Christianity (particularly if they're adherents of some other belief) for the most understandable and logical reasons. There is no obligation whatsoever to consider everyone who has a counter belief as perverse.

quote:
Seriously everyone is putting their own viewpoint, including you. And you've made more than a few statements absolute enough to have deserved a similar response to what you've given me here. Only instead of going into sneer mode, I prefer to simply discuss what is/isn't right.
But there is nothing to discuss with you: discussion is actually near impossible. Because you seem to think that the only measure of what is true is what makes sense to you - just as the only measure of what is or isn't "true Islam" (in a long and annoying thread from some months back) was you.

Well it isn't.

quote:
And anyway,I said "A Christian viewpoint", not 'the' Christian viewpoint.
What I said is definitely a Christian viewpoint and is/has been the view of many,many more Christians than just me.

Right. One shared by many people throughout history, including those who you repeatedly castigate for using the mechanisms of the state to force their beliefs onto your anabaptist forefathers.

Most sensible people today accept that other people exist, other worldviews exist, things that make sense to me do not make sense to others.

Only very very stupid Christians insist that only their view is valid and therefore anyone else who has come to any other conclusion is stupid, ridiculous, deprived, perverse and all this other language.

What you've actually expressed is not a "Christian view" at all.

quote:
What alternative viewpoint are you suggesting here? If any? Remember it is pretty much fundamental to Christianity that it is not a standalone religion but a successor/continuation of Judaism. What I stated is part of that continuity....
As above. Just because this is what you believe does not mean that everyone else who believes anything else is.. [insert list of stupid words]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"A Christian viewpoint", not 'the' Christian viewpoint

Your phrasing was very much open to the charge of claiming to represent a Christian viewpoint (as opposed to any other).

Presenting your views as yours and not representative of, dare I say it, Christendom, or indeed anybody other than yourself, might lower the temperature of debate considerably.

[forgot to "add reply"]

--------------------
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
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Stejjie;
quote:
I'm tip-toeing around the "anti-Judaic" angle because I don't want to look like I'm accusing Steve of that - I'm genuinely not! - but I do think we have to be extremely careful when using language like this about Judaism, especially from within Christianity given, as Croesos points out, Christianty's tarnished reputation and poor history in this regard.
What exactly do you mean by 'anti-Judaic'?

Look as far as I'm concerned a person of ethnic Jewish descent is just another human being like all the others. A person holding the Jewish faith is however a person who holds definite opinions which furthermore impact others in the real world; and particularly where those opinions include the stuff about the Land of Israel, impact in a literally life and death way. Those opinions have to be open to challenge and nothing should prevent anyone from making the challenges.

Christianity is in one sense also Judaism - if Christianity is true then Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and those who follow him are fulfilling the Jewish faith, while Jews who don't follow him are basically up a cul-de-sac, an unhelpful and unprofitable dead-end. Is it love to leave them there?

I am not ethically/racially anti-Jewish - followers of Jesus definitely should not be that. I am 'anti-Judaism', disagreeing with the attempt to continue the OT faith without the blessings brought by the Messiah.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OOPS - slightly too late for the edit window - that should have been 'ethnically' anti-Jewish....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If I come up to a Muslim and say that I think their religion is depraved and perverse, I don't suppose there is anything further to talk about.

OTOH, if you were engaging in a debate where each party was as conservative as the other then talk about 'perversity' might just be par for the course. You'd give as good as you got, so why would anyone be offended?

But ISTM that most Christian/Muslim interaction in Britain is relatively tame. It's usually a matter of people who don't know each other very well trying to be polite. Interfaith work seems to involve a few relatively moderate Christians and Muslims, and few British Christians seriously try to convert Muslims, no matter how 'perverse' they may think Muslims are. So there's not really a great deal of talking going on at all, AFAICS.

Interestingly, in my city, we've started to get Muslim and Christian street proselytisers working side by side, as it were. Cacophonous, but fascinating in a way. There's an element of competition, especially from the Christian side. This is hardly surprising, since Islam is the more dynamic of the two religions here, and probably has the most active participants of all religions in the city.


quote:

I think the role of the Christian is to be a fellow traveller with others who are asking hard questions. To come alongside, to share when asked, to think and engage and expand generously with others. It is to point with anger at the hard things (including idols) within our own lives not at others.


This sounds like something that a terribly right-on vicar would say, but I'm not sure that most Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or others are generally very interested in Christians 'coming alongside' to help them with their 'hard questions'!

Indeed, my impression is that it's Christians above all who have the most anxiety over unanswered questions, and the cynic in me would say that Muslims in particular should avoid coming to us with 'questions' unless they want to become as anxious and uncertain as we are....

[ 14. November 2017, 11:47: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by mr cheesy
quote:
Right. One shared by many people throughout history, including those who you repeatedly castigate for using the mechanisms of the state to force their beliefs onto your anabaptist forefathers.
Quite. Indeed a view shared by probably the vast majority of Christians throughout history. And of course it's perfectly possible for people who are wrong on one area to be right in another - that's why it's so important to make the rightness and wrongness the primary issue, instead of going off into these "It's only your opinion" tangents which are a dead end for any kind of productive discussion.

And BTW, I also castigate those representatives of Christendom for "using the mechanisms of the state to force their beliefs onto" those of the Jewish faith.

So what actually concrete alternative are you offering to the traditional view, going pretty much back to Jesus and Paul, that Christianity fulfils rather than rejects the Covenant with Abraham? After all, whatever your view is on that is the view you'll be taking into discussions with Jews.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This sounds like something that a terribly right-on vicar would say, but I'm not sure that most Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or others are generally very interested in Christians 'coming alongside' to help them with their 'hard questions'!

Well I'm not any kind of vicar, but have had the opportunity to drink coffee with Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and others and to listen to them talking about things that matter to them.

I've heard a prominent Muslim politician talking about the difference between a Muslim woman who chooses to wear a Burka and another Muslim woman who is forced to wear it.

I was privileged to witness a group of Muslim met wetting themselves after watching the Chris Morris film Four Lions and discussing the difficult and relevant issues for their religious community.

I've been around groups of Jews as they debate Israel and Palestine and Zionism.

In all of these situations, I could have held up a hand and raised my voice to say "Well, as a Christian, I'd just like to say that.. blahblahblah.. accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.."

It wasn't appropriate. What these groups needed at the time was the support of others as they struggled to come to terms with these things that had meaning for them - not a white, middle-aged man telling them what the "correct" thing was to think.

I don't really see why this is so controversial.

quote:
Indeed, my impression is that it's Christians above all who have the most anxiety over unanswered questions, and the cynic in me would say that Muslims in particular should avoid coming to us with 'questions' unless they want to become as anxious and uncertain as we are....
This is utter crap. There are a very small number of loud Evangelistic Muslims at places like Speakers' Corner in London. The vast majority of Muslims, including those I've encountered on several visits to several countries in the Middle East are welcoming, generous and interesting.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mr cheesy
Quite. Indeed a view shared by probably the vast majority of Christians throughout history. And of course it's perfectly possible for people who are wrong on one area to be right in another - that's why it's so important to make the rightness and wrongness the primary issue, instead of going off into these "It's only your opinion" tangents which are a dead end for any kind of productive discussion.

Not at all. And you've just illustrated how binary your thinking is and how lacking in appreciation of other religious views.

It is only your view that other religions are depraved. Nothing to do with Christianity, everything to do with a myopic understanding of the world that thinks that because you have determined something to be true, it is true - until someone can persuade you of another position. Which just ignores the fact that other people exist and think differently to you.

[ 14. November 2017, 12:30: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not any kind of vicar, but have had the opportunity to drink coffee with Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and others and to listen to them talking about things that matter to them.

I've heard a prominent Muslim politician talking about the difference between a Muslim woman who chooses to wear a Burka and another Muslim woman who is forced to wear it.

I was privileged to witness a group of Muslim met wetting themselves after watching the Chris Morris film Four Lions and discussing the difficult and relevant issues for their religious community.

I've been around groups of Jews as they debate Israel and Palestine and Zionism.

In all of these situations, I could have held up a hand and raised my voice to say "Well, as a Christian, I'd just like to say that.. blahblahblah.. accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.."

It wasn't appropriate.

I agree that this response would have been inappropriate. It would also have been pointless.

Insulting random people certainly doesn't make any sense.

quote:
Indeed, my impression is that it's Christians above all who have the most anxiety over unanswered questions, and the cynic in me would say that Muslims in particular should avoid coming to us with 'questions' unless they want to become as anxious and uncertain as we are....
quote:
This is utter crap. There are a very small number of loud Evangelistic Muslims at places like Speakers' Corner in London. The vast majority of Muslims, including those I've encountered on several visits to several countries in the Middle East are welcoming, generous and interesting.


I wasn't implying that Muslim's aren't 'welcoming, generous and interesting'. Just that they don't particularly need Christians to help them with 'hard questions'.

You make it sound as if they come to you with their problems, as if you're some kind of wise old man who can show them the way. Maybe you are! Or perhaps you're just a mate, and they can have a good old grumble with you. Does it really matter to them what religion you are?

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I wasn't implying that Muslim's aren't 'welcoming, generous and interesting'. Just that they don't particularly need Christians to help them with 'hard questions'.

I think good neighbours help when they're asked to. I think people respect people who are respectful and who are present and who are not simply "broadcasting" their views.

quote:
You make it sound as if they come to you with their problems, as if you're some kind of wise old man who can show them the way. Maybe you are! Or perhaps you're just a mate, and they can have a good old grumble with you.
Not at all. I didn't have much to contribute to the discussions I've mentioned above as none of the issues were anything I knew about or had really thought about.

But I genuinely think we have better communities when people who are different are comfortable talking about things that matter to them in a supportive atmosphere.

I've been to a mosque and heard a little bit from a Muslim community about some of their struggles with the building regulations. I've visited other religious communities who have told me of their worries about being scapegoated by society at large.

Again, I don't have any answers to this - but I do know that if I'd blundered into these situations with an attitude that my faith was truth and that all these other people are just wrong then those conversations wouldn't have happened.

As it is now, I have some appreciation for how different communities feel that things like the building regulations don't really seem to be fit-for-purpose and how some communities see them as unfair. I have some appreciation that there are religious communities who are keeping their heads down because they're worried about the impacts of publicity.

I don't agree with them on various points of theology. But I no longer feel that I'm blind to the reality of a building regulation system which is comfortable with new churches but struggles with new mosques.

quote:
Does it really matter to them what religion you are?
It matters to me. I'm supposed to be being a good neighbour and being light in the world. That's what (in a pretty crappy and imperfect way) I'm trying to be with my neighbours who are different to me.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
the Jews break down in grateful tears, rejecting the faith of their ancestors and the Covenant of Abraham.
Of course from [my own] viewpoint Jews who become Christians are not asked to reject the Covenant of Abraham, but to participate in what amounts to a massive enlargement of the Covenant with added blessings.
I seem to recall that there was some kerfuffle or other about male circumcision (i.e. the symbolic sealing of the Covenant of Abraham) within the early church. Abandoning the outward token of Abraham's covenant with the Almighty sure seems like abandoning that covenant.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I agree that Christianity is not completely self-evident. I know we have to convince people of it - but emphatically not coerce.

Logically if Jesus truly is the promised Jewish Messiah, then a continued Judaism rejecting Jesus is problematic.

The question is not whether or not you have a "problem" with the continued existence of Judaism, but whether Jews are maintaining their three thousand year old faith out of sheer perversity. If "Christianity is not completely self-evident", then it would seem to be the case that Jews continue to practice their faith for reasons other than simply to spite you.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mr cheesy

I understand what you're saying, and it's very reasonable. I certainly respect neighbourliness, and have experienced that quality from Muslim neighbours.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

Logically if Jesus truly is the promised Jewish Messiah, then a continued Judaism rejecting Jesus is problematic.

Logically, thinking the all powerful, all knowing, loving God most Christians describe gives a flying fuck who believes in him is problematic.
Rejecting is a loaded word. But if want to go there, from a Jewish perspective, Christians rejecting that Jesus isn’t the messiah is problematic.
Anyhoo, perversity would require that non-Christians believe that Jesus is what Christians claim, but choose to ignore 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
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Logically, thinking the all powerful, all knowing, loving God most Christians describe gives a flying fuck who believes in him is problematic.

And yet, if God doesn't care who believes in him, then why all the fuss about Jesus? Wasn't that whole episode more or less a waste of everyone's time?

ISTM that the Christian religion exists in a state of deep tension. There's a God who requires nothing of us, yet also requires effort and sacrifice. He doesn't need our love, but because he loved us first, our fulfillment comes in loving him back. And he's a God who both gives and takes away. He's a judge, but he also has mercy. Etc.

Also, on a practical level, Christianity is a religion that seems to require a mixture of revivalism, evangelism, tolerance and strictness, nominalism and engagement, in different times, places and circumstances. Too much cuddly latitude and nothing gets done. Too many demands and most ordinary people won't be able to get involved.

Perhaps Western Christianity will gradually become a philosophy rather than a religion. It's adherents will be a very small, sophisticated group. People who need the hope and guidance of a religion may have to look elsewhere, especially if they have energy and passion to give.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Svitlana:

quote:
Perhaps Western Christianity will gradually become a philosophy rather than a religion. It's adherents will be a very small, sophisticated group. People who need the hope and guidance of a religion may have to look elsewhere, especially if they have energy and passion to give.
I thought that began a long time ago, at least since the French Revolution, and then onto Marxism, where you get a kind of secular idealism and apocalypticism, the sense of new beginnings and new worlds. I guess that there are some things missing here, for example, an individual sense of the numinous.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think all faiths involve paradoxes. In that way they mirror the universe in which we find ourselves. Mystery is not escapist, it seems unavoidable as we try somehow to engage with our world.

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Logically, thinking the all powerful, all knowing, loving God most Christians describe gives a flying fuck who believes in him is problematic.

And yet, if God doesn't care who believes in him, then why all the fuss about Jesus? Wasn't that whole episode more or less a waste of everyone's time?

ISTM that the Christian religion exists in a state of deep tension. There's a God who requires nothing of us, yet also requires effort and sacrifice. He doesn't need our love, but because he loved us first, our fulfillment comes in loving him back. And he's a God who both gives and takes away. He's a judge, but he also has mercy. Etc.

Also, on a practical level, Christianity is a religion that seems to require a mixture of revivalism, evangelism, tolerance and strictness, nominalism and engagement, in different times, places and circumstances. Too much cuddly latitude and nothing gets done. Too many demands and most ordinary people won't be able to get involved.

Perhaps Western Christianity will gradually become a philosophy rather than a religion. It's adherents will be a very small, sophisticated group. People who need the hope and guidance of a religion may have to look elsewhere, especially if they have energy and passion to give.

Without Jesus I have nothing but the Kalam Cosmological Argument: God is the ground of being, the exister, because there are beings, things that exist. In Jesus I have the ultimate claim, of, by God. Therefore all will be, is well.

[ 17. November 2017, 13:38: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, blessed kalam. Time was, when throngs would crowd around local churches, uttering the strange and plangent cry, 'kalam, kalam, kalam', and then the local vicar would pop out his head and acknowledge the thunderous applause. But those days have gone, now we only hear, 'Chelsea, Chelsea' and the like.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quetzalcoatl

I was thinking of a philosophy that would identify itself specifically with Christianity. I don't know if Marxism ever did that. The connection doesn't seem to have lasted very long if so - but I could be wrong.

As for the numinous, to what extent are Europeans in general into that? There may be something there, but it's getting ever 'fuzzier'. Organised religion and New Age spirituality seem to have an input, but by themselves they don't seem to provide exactly what people want, if they want anything at all.

Christian sociologists sometimes insist that spirituality remains a strong force in the personal lives of Europeans. I suppose this is an example of what I was talking about: unaffiliated (or nominal/private/postmodern, etc.) spirituality as 'belonging' to and being necessary for Christianity under the current circumstances of extreme secularisation.

Similarly, good relationships between Christians and people of other religions are going to depend considerably on circumstances. Some Christians talk about how they get on better with Buddhists/Jews/Muslims, etc., than with other Christians.

Conversely, I find it hard to imagine that the average American evangelical con-evo congregation has much interaction with Muslims, etc. They don't actually have to deal socially with the people whose beliefs they may think of as perverse because the Muslim population is so much smaller in the USA than in, say, the UK.

British churches whose members routinely have Muslim grocers, dentists, doctors, restauranteurs, colleagues, neighbours, etc. are likely to be less insistent on the 'perversity' of Islam.

IOW, local conditions play a large part in creating our theology, I think.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955

 - Posted      Profile for beatmenace   Email beatmenace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The refusal of Jews to play their "proper" roles in Christians' heroic self-narratives seems to be the source of a lot of anti-Judaic resentment.

As I understand it , thats pretty much what turned Martin Luther into a raging Anti-Semite.

Thats about where we came in.

--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)

Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Logically, thinking the all powerful, all knowing, loving God most Christians describe gives a flying fuck who believes in him is problematic.

And yet, if God doesn't care who believes in him, then why all the fuss about Jesus? Wasn't that whole episode more or less a waste of everyone's time?
Perhaps I should have said more problematic. Teaching is worth the fuss, I suppose. One needn't understand Newton's laws of motion for a seat belt to save their lives. But it can help to understand the benefit of using them. Not a perfect analogy, of course.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think all faiths involve paradoxes. In that way they mirror the universe in which we find ourselves. Mystery is not escapist, it seems unavoidable as we try somehow to engage with our world.

I would agree with this, but add inherently before escapist. I would also add that Mystery is not an excuse to not try to make most reasonable assessment of one's faith.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
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