|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The resurrection and the Archbishop
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Ok, Olivia. But Evensong was talking about myths which, as far as I can see, are about mythical beings (not historical personages) and which do not make any kind of specific historical claim. They are not even eligible for "urban legend" status, as you defined it. As such, they are not comparable with the accounts we have of Jesus's resurrection.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, did you have in mind physicists like this?
Or, perhaps this one .
It seems to me, Susan Doris, that, like most scientific materialists, your difficulty is not with the claims of religious truth (belief - if that avoids a great epistemological tangent) but is primarily philosophical. It arises because you have an ontology that doesn't admit of any category outwith the material. If there can be no thing that is not in some sense part of the observable material class of things, then the claims of religious belief must, in some way, be false. Thus your 'where is God?' question. For those of us whose philosophical position admits of the metaphysical, your question - meant as it was in the sense of what time/space does God occupy - is simply an ontological category error.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Surely you can appreciate how ridiculous that sounds.
I can appreciate that it sounds ridiculous to someone who's already made up her mind that it's all metaphor anyway.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
@Olivia. Well as you say, even by the definition quoted, an urban legend genrally has some actual facts on which itbwas based. If the resurrection is akin to an urban legend, what would you say are the underlying facts that attracted the legendendary accretions?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, did you have in mind physicists like this?
Or, perhaps this one .
Or to stay on board, like Alan Cresswell and yours truly...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Olivia. Well as you say, even by the definition quoted, an urban legend genrally has some actual facts on which itbwas based. If the resurrection is akin to an urban legend, what would you say are the underlying facts that attracted the legendendary accretions?
The Bible itself offers this story. FWIW
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, did you have in mind physicists like this?
Or, perhaps this one .
Or to stay on board, like Alan Cresswell and yours truly...
Or this one.
Does it come as a shock to you, Susan?
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you accept the understanding of the univers that physicists give us?
There have always been physicists who admit the possibility of a non-material universe around and behind the material one, as well as physicists who do not. Just as there have always been evolutionary biologists who admit the possibility of something greater and transcendent, and those who don't. And farmers who admit the possibility of greater design in determining which crops grow or don't grow, and those who see only the weather, the soil type and the pests.
It's not simply a matter of being educated scientifically or not, it's a philosophical standpoint to admit faith or not.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Bro James and Allogon
Thank you for posts - I will respond as soon as possible.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Olivia. Well as you say, even by the definition quoted, an urban legend genrally has some actual facts on which itbwas based. If the resurrection is akin to an urban legend, what would you say are the underlying facts that attracted the legendendary accretions?*
I've already answered that question. This looks like an attempt at the Fox Mulder argument: if Scully doesn't have a scientific explanation, the non-scientific explanation must be true.
OliviaG
*But if you're interested in other people's hypotheses, Umberto Eco has a good one in Foucault's Pendulum: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were having a writing contest amongst themselves. Each started from the same basic elements, but created a slightly different versions. Then John started really believing the stuff ...
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, did you have in mind physicists like this?
I was also going to mention Amit Goswami ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Goswami ), an Indian nuclear physicist who claim that conscience is the "ground of all being" and that quantum science has evidence for the existence of God. He is not a christian, altough the God he claims to have found in science is not a metaphorical feel-good god of liberalism, but an actual existing conscious God. Most modern physicists are atheist or agnostic, but the minority that claims to believe in God seems to support a traditional "personal" God, not the liberal god.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Communities evolving over generations and epochs, on the other hand, the majority of their DNA preserved but adapted by naturally-selected innovation to remain viable and responsive across vast changes in mindset and context, that seems not such a bad model. [/QB]
But what mutations are making the species more viable, and what are leading it to extinction? I see no evidence that de-christianizing the Church will make it more viable.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem with this choice you've set up is that they're not actual opposites. You've set up 'old' versus 'new', but you've done so by contrasting 'beliefs' with 'approach to life'.
I never said they were opposites. They're shorthand for alternatives I thought we were discussing.
quote:
My beliefs are one of the things that inform my approach to life. It seems to me that you would prefer that we just pick a lifestyle and remove inconvenient beliefs accordingly.
I haven't said or meant that. I believe what seems to me to be true. The resurrection as historical fact doesn't, for reasons I've given. How's that saying anything about what you should do with your life?
quote:
That's your supposed dichotomy writ large
No it's not. This discussion has nothing to do with your sexuality. You're confusing totally separate issues.
quote:
The truth as I see it is that I can be a gay Christian because a proper understanding of those 'old beliefs' allows it. It might look like a 'new approach' in practice, but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't involve throwing out anything old. I am still firmly a Bible-believing Christian. I just don't agree with some people about what the Bible says.
Yes, you're a gay theologically conservative Christian. There are gay theologically liberal Christians. So what?
quote:
As far as I can work out from your general reluctance to state what you believe in positive form
I've explained my point of view on loads of threads in various contexts. As I recall you've sometimes been among the sneerers.
quote:
(you much prefer just sneering at people for getting your beliefs wrong)
Not as I recall. Sarcasm? Sometimes, maybe. But usually only when it's clear someone doesn't give a shit about having a reasonable exchange of views.
quote:
you've got beliefs about Jesus that are more in keeping with Islam than Christianity.
I doubt that. But then I'm not sure how you can tell if I never say what I believe.
[ 10. April 2012, 22:05: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm just pointing out that if you declare about a rabbit that "that's what a good modern fish should be like," then plenty of gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits (Wikipedia) will consider you a bit of a loony - no matter how severely their own numbers have been depleted and how well rabbits breed...
Then again, if the rabbit was in fact a dog an observant fish might note the rabbit breeder was struggling with his species identification...
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You do realise, I hope, that if certain key pieces of DNA mutate, the end result isn't a new species but a dead individual?
Um, yes.
quote:
Only select mutations actually lead anywhere significant.
You do realise, though, what determines that significance? Clue: the ability to survive.
quote:
A lot of other ones don't end up doing anything much, and a lot of other ones will kill the mutant offspring stone dead.
You mean like all the church communities through history that either never got off the ground or were unable to survive the death of their founders?
quote:
More significantly though, you have these significant mutations and what do you get? That's right. A new species.
Hmm. So 99.xx% survival of the Christian community genes is not enough...
quote:
With a different name.
Ah, of course. It's the name that counts.
[Yep, that's sarcasm. See above for why.]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I find it hard to see why you are so determined to hold formally onto your membership
I'm not. I don't need to. I just am a member. As I understand it, according to the (Reformed Catholic) rules, the Church (of England) is stuck with me.
quote:
yet are so happy to reject the conditions under which you were given that membership.
Perhaps I missed the part where baptism (and confirmation) included promising to believe for ever...
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I find it hard to see why you are so determined to hold formally onto your membership
I'm not. I don't need to. I just am a member. As I understand it, according to the (Reformed Catholic) rules, the Church (of England) is stuck with me.
quote:
yet are so happy to reject the conditions under which you were given that membership.
Perhaps I missed the part where baptism (and confirmation) included promising to believe for ever...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
So I assume that you didn't recite vows at your baptismal/confirmation ceremony? In Anglican services, the priest/bishop straight up asks you if you accept the Apostles' Creed as authoritative.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Ah, of course. It's the name that counts.
[Yep, that's sarcasm. See above for why.]
But you're the one who thinks the name counts, in that you're the one who thinks the label 'Christian' needs to stay with a belief that... well, that isn't. You're the rabbit who wants to be called a fish.
As to the whole ability to survive thing... hmm. Yes, I see. Orthodox Christianity is just totally dying out, isn't it. And Unitarianism is what's replacing it. What's wrong with this picture?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
As far as I can work out from your general reluctance to state what you believe in positive form
I've explained my point of view on loads of threads in various contexts. As I recall you've sometimes been among the sneerers.
quote:
(you much prefer just sneering at people for getting your beliefs wrong)
Not as I recall. Sarcasm? Sometimes, maybe. But usually only when it's clear someone doesn't give a shit about having a reasonable exchange of views.
quote:
you've got beliefs about Jesus that are more in keeping with Islam than Christianity.
I doubt that. But then I'm not sure how you can tell if I never say what I believe.
Wow. That last bit is a spectacularly cheap shot. I love the way you broke up my sentence so that you could completely ignore the first section of it while responding to the last section.
The fact of the matter is that you give a vague, hazy clue as to what it is you believe, but any time someone tries to comment on it in more detail you just say "nope, wrong". And that's it.
At least, every time I've been involved in a thread that's it. There have been quite a few threads I've simply walked away from when you've got involved, because you only EVER get involved for one reason: to steer the thread into a criticism of orthodox Christian beliefs about the divinity and resurrection of Jesus. I've never seen any other contribution from you in Purg that isn't about pushing your theological line. Whatever the thread was originally about just becomes lost after that.
I stuck around on this one because your intervention was at least on point.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In Anglican services, the priest/bishop straight up asks you if you accept the Apostles' Creed as authoritative.
For what it's worth, that couldn't and doesn't include making promises about what we might believe in the future. For that we can only speak honestly for the present.
We can commit to doing stuff in the future, but not to what we might find true or false (ie. believe) in the light of experience we don't yet have.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Yes, you do, Dave.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
KevinL
Apprentice
# 12481
|
Posted
Dave Marshall, may I ask, what is it that you consider valuable in the church, and what is it that you find essential/definitive of the church? It seems like so much of this discussion has to do with a definition of terms (what is meant by "church" and "Christianity"). Perhaps we could put aside labels for a minute and only think it terms of categories of things? I imagine something like a drawer full of socks, sock related accessories, and a very few completely unrelated objects (like pocket watches). For the traditional/orthodox, being church is about being socks, together, in the drawer. Some enjoy the company of socks, but are not themselves socks, but are still in the drawer.
It seems to me that you might define church as the drawer, whatever it may hold, and are advocating that it be used to hold papers or teapots, but that it is still the drawer. I don't think that the orthodox are seeking to kick non-socks out of the drawer, they are just saying that non-socks, even those in the drawer, are non-socks.
Would that be a fair understanding of your view of the church?
Posts: 35 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I find it hard to see why you are so determined to hold formally onto your membership
I'm not. I don't need to. I just am a member. As I understand it, according to the (Reformed Catholic) rules, the Church (of England) is stuck with me.
quote:
yet are so happy to reject the conditions under which you were given that membership.
Perhaps I missed the part where baptism (and confirmation) included promising to believe for ever...
You certainly missed the final paragraph of my post, so here it is again:
quote:
And yes, as others on this thread are saying, and as I have asked before, I would honestly love to know what you actually believe so that I have a chance of understanding why you write what you do.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Only select mutations actually lead anywhere significant.
You do realise, though, what determines that significance? Clue: the ability to survive.
I don't think you realise how much you are shooting yourself in the foot with this argument. Clue: the forms of Christianity that are actually showing significant growth worldwide are evangelicalism (especially Pentecostalism) and the more conservative forms of Roman Catholicism. The ability to survive is not a point in favour of the kind of woolly liberalism you are endorsing.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Just butting-in to add my name to the list of illustrious and, now, less illustrious scientists and engineers who feel really good about Rowan's statement in the OP -
Best Regards
Dr MiM, MIoA
(Honestly - as it is I'm probably a bit of a c*nt, but imagine what would be left if I tried to construct a me based on materialistic premises )
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Only select mutations actually lead anywhere significant.
You do realise, though, what determines that significance? Clue: the ability to survive.
I don't think you realise how much you are shooting yourself in the foot with this argument. Clue: the forms of Christianity that are actually showing significant growth worldwide are evangelicalism (especially Pentecostalism) and the more conservative forms of Roman Catholicism. The ability to survive is not a point in favour of the kind of woolly liberalism you are endorsing.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I don't think Dave Marshall realizes what a small slot on the Christian spectrum he inhabits. Personally, I know only of one person in RL who basically thinks in the way he does. And that's only to say my friend embraces Christian philosophy without the supernatural stuff. He doesn't harbor belief that his way of thought is necessarily the future wave of Christianity. Dave probably knows many more who think as he does. But then I also know many MOTR Piskies, but I am not under the illusion we are the future of Christianity even though, of course, We Are Right. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In Anglican services, the priest/bishop straight up asks you if you accept the Apostles' Creed as authoritative.
For what it's worth, that couldn't and doesn't include making promises about what we might believe in the future. For that we can only speak honestly for the present.
We can commit to doing stuff in the future, but not to what we might find true or false (ie. believe) in the light of experience we don't yet have.
Is that your same view when it comes to marriage vows? Considering that people claim to "fall out of love" with their spouses, shall we no longer ask couples to make promises because we can't predict people's feelings in the future?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Ok, Olivia. But Evensong was talking about myths which, as far as I can see, are about mythical beings (not historical personages) and which do not make any kind of specific historical claim.
As far as I can see is a safe clause Chesterbelloc. IngoB doesn't even bother with it.
I didn't realise you were both History of Religion experts.
How do you know no other resurrection claim (of which there are many) is historical?
I would say you don't. You're hoping.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Surely you can appreciate how ridiculous that sounds.
I can appreciate that it sounds ridiculous to someone who's already made up her mind that it's all metaphor anyway.
Fr Weber. You must have missed my comment where I said I believe Christ rose from the dead.
But I can appreciate that that sounds ridiculous to someone that believes Jesus was the only one who could possibly have risen from the dead anyway.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't realise you were both History of Religion experts.
How do you know no other resurrection claim (of which there are many) is historical?
Um, Evensong, I honestly believe that your logic is falling down here. You don't have to be a history of religion expert to assess whether or not a story claims to include real-life people or not.
All you need to do is read the story and see if it includes real-life people. People like Roman emperors and Roman governors and Jewish high priests who are recorded as having been high priest.
That's all. Just a claim. Chesterbelloc isn't asserting that the historical claims aren't ACCURATE. He's simply asserting that the historical claims don't exist in the first place, ie there is nothing to test the accuracy OF.
You actually have the easier task. All you have to do is pull out a single story that purports to include historical figures and you win this argument. I'm finding it a bit mystifying why you think your opponents have to research each story to demonstrate it doesn't. Just produce one that does.
[ 11. April 2012, 12:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't have to be a history of religion expert to assess whether or not a story claims to include real-life people or not.
All you need to do is read the story and see if it includes real-life people.
Without wishing to divert the thread, or offend Evensong (or orfeo), but this made me chuckle and has gone in the Quotes Thread...
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Evensong - perhaps to take a slightly different tack -
This "dying and rising god" business has been around for at least 100 years - it was a feature of "The Golden Bough". So there has been plenty of time to study it.
If you look at most of the alleged examples, most come from pagan cultures and are part of fertility rites in some way. Pagan cultures are focused on the success of their agriculture, and such gods are clearly associated with the cycle of the seasons. Whatever else may be the case, the resurrection doesn't belong here at all.
That leaves the remainder. The main criticism that is levelled at the "dying and rising god" thesis is that it abstracts a part of what has been in practice a much larger cultus, and if you re-frame your enquiry to include that, it rarely makes sense trying to understand what one part of the whole might make on its own, when it was intended to be part of some other whole. This is very close to cognate errors of synchronic bible reading and presentism which seem to pop up like toadstools after the rain in certain liberal-christian schools of thought.
And in fact I think that's pretty much the current majority view about this one. It's not so much that it's a category mistake putting the resurrection of Jesus in this category of a "dying and rising god". Rather, that the latter category itself is meaningless. You can erect whatever categories you like, but if on inspection it conveys no new information, and obscures other established facts, then you are definitely better off without it.
Its persistence is probably down to confirmation bias. If you ask a simplistic question that is only capable of finding either confirmation or not of the existence of a category - which is what you seem to have done here - then all you will learn is how many examples fit into your category. It will tell you nothing about whether your category reflects anything real at all. It's a standard and recurring problem in the sciences. Any serious enquiry needs to look at the other side of the equation too - the evidence that some other explanation might be a lot better. Of course that brings with it the risk of disproving your thesis, but that's logic for you. The Wikipedia article on confirmation bias is quite detailed, and I recommend it.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
As to the whole ability to survive thing... Orthodox Christianity is just totally dying out...
As far as UK culture goes it is. All that remains is a small church-going minority whose beliefs are of marginal interest in most contexts. Give it twenty years and demographic data suggests that'll be reflected in the closure of most C of E parish churches across the country. It's almost already gone.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes, you do, Dave.
Perhaps you use a different form of baptism. The one we have focuses on turning to Christ. I haven't gone back on that. But because I no longer find credible the premises on which the actual words of the current ritual are based, all I can be is true or not to the spirit. Of course you can say I'm not, but I suspect the consensus would be that's not your call.
quote:
Originally posted by KevinL:
Would that be a fair understanding of your view of the church?
To be honest I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't think of "the church" as a sock drawer. I'm interested in church as community that is based on the core values of Jesus, and building institutions that encourage and support that. That's pretty much it.
quote:
Originally post by AberVicar:
You certainly missed the final paragraph of my post
No, I ignored it. Like you're ignoring what I've posted before.
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
the forms of Christianity that are actually showing significant growth worldwide are evangelicalism (especially Pentecostalism) and the more conservative forms of Roman Catholicism.
I wasn't referring to the survival of orthodox belief. I don't think that's the essence of the Christian tradition. There'll always be conservative cults/religions with a simplistic message and some popular appeal. If that appeals to you, fair enough. It doesn't to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't think Dave Marshall realizes what a small slot on the Christian spectrum he inhabits.
Er, what? That's very patronising. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If by "Christian spectrum" you mean church-goers and the odd sympathetic-but-doesn't-attend then of course I realise I'm in a minority. What's that to do with anything?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
As to the whole ability to survive thing... Orthodox Christianity is just totally dying out...
As far as UK culture goes it is. All that remains is a small church-going minority whose beliefs are of marginal interest in most contexts. Give it twenty years and demographic data suggests that'll be reflected in the closure of most C of E parish churches across the country. It's almost already gone.
Which is all very well until we get to the bit where you suggest that your way is the future.
Once again, I just love the bit where you put the dots rather than continue on to the next bit of what I said. Which was the crux of the matter (pun half-intended). Because your whole 'evolving' argument doesn't depend on my sort of Christianity dying out. It depends on your sort of Christianity surviving.
Whatever your sort is, etc etc... some sort of vague Unitarianism which, as la vie en rouge pointed out, doesn't represent some exciting new wave of Christian flourishing.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Oh sod it. I shan't bother anymore. Really, Dave, I find your attitude in Purg completely tiresome. NOT your beliefs, your attitude. As I said before, I engaged with Radical Whig a great deal and I found conversations with him quite interesting and involving.
Talking to you is like talking to cardboard. It doesn't even reach brick wall levels of excitement.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
No, I ignored it. Like you're ignoring what I've posted before.
Then let me try one last time. I can't see any argument put forward by you that offers a coherent rationale for rejecting the base claims of Christian tradition - including its truth claims. Perhaps you supplied something of this sort a long time ago, when I was not part of this community. If so, perhaps you could have the courtesy not to ignore a polite request, but to restate your position, or link to a clear statement of where you are coming from. Otherwise discussion with you is impossible.
As for engaging with what you call the core values of Jesus, we are back to asking what they could possibly mean if you edit out all the references to his Father.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Perhaps you use a different form of baptism. The one we have focuses on turning to Christ. I haven't gone back on that. But because I no longer find credible the premises on which the actual words of the current ritual are based, all I can be is true or not to the spirit. Of course you can say I'm not, but I suspect the consensus would be that's not your call.
The 1662 BCP is still officially in use by the COE. All subsequent authorized materials are based on it. What does the 1662 say? The child is baptized into the faith. What is the faith?
quote:
DOST thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?
And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord? And that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost; born of the Virgin Mary; that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day; that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead?
And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick Church; the Communion of Saints; the Remission of sins; the Resurrection of the flesh; and everlasting life after death?
And from the final exhortation.
quote:
FORASMUCH as this Child hath promised by you his sureties to renounce the devil and all his works, to believe in God, and to serve him: ye must remember, that it is your parts and duties to see that this Infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise, and profession, he hath here made by you. And that he may know these things the better, ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons; and chiefly ye shall provide, that he may learn the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's health;
You also mentioned Confirmation. Here is the vow taken at Confirmation.
quote:
DO ye here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your Baptism; ratifying and confirming the same in your own persons, and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe, and to do, all those things, which your Godfathers and Godmothers then undertook for you?
Bound to believe means you are bound to believe. Your parents and godparents had you baptized into the Christian faith and promised to teach you that faith. The Creed complete with the Divinity and Resurrection of Christ was part of the Christian Faith. At Confirmation, you gave your assent to those promises. You promised to continue in both action and belief. In other words, you promised to continue believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Considering that people claim to "fall out of love" with their spouses, shall we no longer ask couples to make promises because we can't predict people's feelings in the future?
I don't remember promising to not "fall out of love" when I got married. For what it's worth I think removing the "till death us do part" bit and leaving it open ("from this time forward") would be a good idea. But that really is another thread...
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
If so, perhaps you could have the courtesy not to ignore a polite request, but to restate your position
My position about what? If you want to describe your position on the specific points you mean from first principles (eg. not simply "what the church teaches about x", ) I'll have a go at covering the same ground.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The 1662 BCP is still officially in use by the COE.
The C of E has moved on. Current baptism and confirmation stuff.
quote:
Bound to believe means you are bound to believe.
I'd be fascinated to hear an informed legal opinion on how that would be interpreted in a current C of E context. It certainly shows the problems with legalistic literalism. If you can show how my objection above is not valid I'd be interested.
[ 11. April 2012, 14:41: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Considering that people claim to "fall out of love" with their spouses, shall we no longer ask couples to make promises because we can't predict people's feelings in the future?
I don't remember promising to not "fall out of love" when I got married.
Dave, I'm not responding to you personally. As others have suggested in this thread, it doesn't seem worth it.
The CofE view is that you promise to be faithful. What you feel like hasn't got much to do with it.
As for the suggestion about removing the "till death us do part" bit and leaving it open ("from this time forward"), to me that reads as little more than "until I don't feel like it, change my mind or meet someone with bigger b**bs".
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Yeah, like you were baptized and confirmed using those liturgies. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Common Worship was not intended to replace the Book of Common Prayer or change the theology of the Church of England. Doesn't really matter. Look at page 70 and 71. Sound familiar. Take a look at page 73. What do you think it means by the apostles teaching? Candidates for Confirmation have already reaffirmed their baptismal vows before being confirmed.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The CofE view is that you promise to be faithful. What you feel like hasn't got much to do with it.
I won't respond to you personally either, seeing as you feel the need make your reply into a personal attack.
I will though note that feelings and beliefs are different. We have no direct control over either but beliefs can be discredited by evidence. Promising to believe whatever the evidence is a contradiction in terms. It turns belief into prejudice.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Common Worship was not intended to replace the Book of Common Prayer or change the theology of the Church of England.
No, it will be the Liturgical Commission's (or whoever's) most recent expression of legal opinion on C of E theology and practice now.
quote:
Look at page 70 and 71. Sound familiar. Take a look at page 73. What do you think it means by the apostles teaching?
Literalism rules, huh.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, did you have in mind like this?
I loved the Science and Nature programmes when I was younger, but have learnt the names of a few physicists
during the last ten years; I have followed enough discussions and learnt enough always to look further into the record of those who are flagged up as being theists of some sort. There are none so far who convince me that they have taken their beliefs and their science to an unblinkered conclusion; I have seen statistics quoted which indicate that they are few in number and becoming fewer; I have read and listened to, e.g., lectures by Richard Feynmann where he was so clear that I even managed to get a glimmering of what he was talking about!
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Which physicists? They don't all have the same understanding of the universe, you know.
If the nuclear physicist John Polkinghorne can accept the physical Resurrection, then you and I should be able to do so. Have you read any of his books?
No, I have not read any of his books and see no reason why I should accept his opinions on the resurrection and would strongly refute such an idea. However, since seeing him referred to here by you both, I have looked him up, asked the opinions of sceptics and those who are some of today's physicists who can find out such information much more rapidly.
I see from the wikipedia page that he was born in 1930 so he's a few years older than I am. That means he spent the first part of his life in an era when it was the height of bad manners to doubt that God was of course there, in his heaven etc and that the CofE was the right and proper way of the world, as was talking about religion, let alone questioning a person's belief.
For him then to give up science and be ordained . seems to me like going down the path of an increased degree of blinkeredness rather than following the pursuit of evidencce for his God beliefs. I note that he said that science and theology have five points of comparisonin their pursuit of truth. I would say, of course, that the theology studies will never reach a god and, although the science studies will not always lead to a good theory, the answer will then be 'we don't know yet' with no need to conclude God/god/s.
One of the links I was given was to a quote of his, which sounds very much like confused,, foggy mysticism Even though it comes from a page where the poster has, I grant you, a rather silly name, the quote definitely appears to be his. If a person has to resort to this kind of obfuscation instead of straightforward English, then I cannot see why readers should take his words as havingdeep meaning.
He is probably a lovely man whom it would be a pleasure to meet, but I refer here not to his character or personal charm.
quote:
Some of the finest people I've known, people who have seen much more of life in this world than I have, grapple with this tenet. Kenneth Leighton wrote a major organ piece, Et Resurrexit, as a bow to "the individual's" struggle to believe it.
If belief in God and resurrection etc has to be such a struggle, then it would seem to be severely flawed. One piece of conclusive evidence would absolve the need for such 'struggles'. (On another forum, whenever this statement comes up, someone will always ask what would constitute such evidence, but then the discussion starts going round in circles!)
quote:
If I don't particularly struggle, is it only because my faith is too facile? If the best a person can do in good conscience is to see the Resurrection as something other than bodily, why should we chuck them out of the church as long as they keep thinking and praying about it?
When one has grown up with a belief system, or has been persuaded to join such a thing, and is part of a group then it is not the easiest thing to step outside and realise that all the beliefs are based on faith, not evidence, and the faith has had to change and be re-interpreted all the time. If God existed, he could straighten the whole thing out at a stroke!
I have probably veered a bit off topic here, in which case apologies.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you want to describe your position on the specific points you mean from first principles (eg. not simply "what the church teaches about x", ) I'll have a go at covering the same ground.
In case you hadn't noticed, I and a considerable number of people on this thread from a wide variety of church backgrounds have described our position on the resurrection of Jesus, and supported the statement of one of the best-read and highly intelligent theologians of our day. Yes, that's the one whom you dismissed as arrogant, without any supporting argument, from first principles or not. (I'd love to see how you'd fare locked in argument with Rowan himself...)
You have consistently ducked away from telling any of us what is your rational basis for accepting certain truth claims and not others. You have insisted that Church can make sense without the divine.
I am beginning to think that you are neither as sincere nor as sophisticated as you present yourself. You are certainly discourteous, and your interventions in this thread come as near to trollery as I have seen.
+Pete had it right in a thread about six months ago. You don't get it, so you feel the need to disrupt and destroy rather than engage constructively with those of us who want to hear your views.
I would take this to Hell, but I don't approve of the way people get 'done over' there, so I hope the powers-that-be will forgive me expressing my frustration in this way.
And, Dave, if you are sincere, don't answer this with a flip dismissal or arrogant challenge, because then I'll know I haven't got you wrong.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Just butting-in to add my name to the list of illustrious and, now, less illustrious scientists and engineers who feel really good about Rowan's statement in the OP
I'm a mere biologist but the quotes from Rowan Williams in the OP look fine to me.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I see from the wikipedia page that he was born in 1930 so he's a few years older than I am. That means he spent the first part of his life in an era when it was the height of bad manners to doubt that God was of course there, in his heaven etc and that the CofE was the right and proper way of the world, as was talking about religion, let alone questioning a person's belief.
You seem to have a funny idea of the 1930s. Maybe if he was born in the 1830s what you say might be true.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
He'd have been in his '30s during the 1960s then, so Polkinghorne will have been exposed to all the 'Honest to God' stuff and so on ...
I don't know a great deal about him, but he seems to have a developed a way of hold scientific observation and faith together without losing sight of either. Not either/or but both/and.
It's good when you can do 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
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I ... have described [my] position on the resurrection of Jesus
So have I. Does having lots of people agree with you make your position right?
quote:
you dismissed [Rowan Williams] as arrogant, without any supporting argument
Sigh. RTFT. I explained the reason for my criticism in the same post. I've been expanding on it ever since.
quote:
(I'd love to see how you'd fare locked in argument with Rowan himself...)
Yeah, that would be interesting...
quote:
You have consistently ducked away from telling any of us what is your rational basis for accepting certain truth claims and not others.
No, I just haven't wasted time on pointless generalisations. If you'd bothered to ask I could have told you I probably reject all the truth claims you're thinking of. But unless you specify which you mean I can't be sure.
quote:
I am beginning to think that you are neither as sincere nor as sophisticated as you present yourself.
Am I supposed feel hurt by this? Since you've gone off on the personal stuff I'll suggest you get over yourself. Whatever status you have as an Aber Vicar your standing here like mine is zilch beyond the value of our posts. The trick is to realise - wait for it - you can ignore posts if they don't interest you. Give up on the bluster; you must have better uses for your time and energy.
quote:
don't answer this with a flip dismissal or arrogant challenge, because then I'll know I haven't got you wrong.
I think I'll pass on taking advice from you on how to post.
[ 11. April 2012, 17:22: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Bound to believe means you are bound to believe. Your parents and godparents had you baptized into the Christian faith and promised to teach you that faith. The Creed complete with the Divinity and Resurrection of Christ was part of the Christian Faith. At Confirmation, you gave your assent to those promises. You promised to continue in both action and belief. In other words, you promised to continue believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The problem is that it is asking the impossible of the candidate, in that, on any objective examination of the evidence, (i.e. by the standards of academic history) it is really not possible to make a definite statement one way or the other on the exact historical circumstances of Jesus's death and its aftermath, even if one assumes that Jesus was an actual historical figure - there are, for example, just too many questions and discrepancies and alternative explanations, e.g. was the Resurrection stage-managed by unnamed associates, were the appearances of Jesus initially just wishful thinking and rumour? So then one is either asking for a degree of intellectual dishonesty of the candidate, or one is asking the candidate to try to 'convince' himself of the 'truth' of the proposition (i.e. screw up his eyes really tightly and pretend to believe), or, possibly the least bad option, one is finessing the meaning of the word 'believe', to mean something like trust in Jesus, have faith in the church, or the like - that is probably the nearest to a liberal approach to Christianity - but at the risk of being accused of bad faith on the part of more conservative believers.
So one ends up in an impasse: the official orthodox teaching is impossible to accept, but the liberal interpretation is not officially accepted or taught.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I ... have described [my] position on the resurrection of Jesus
So have I. Does having lots of people agree with you make your position right?
quote:
you dismissed [Rowan Williams] as arrogant, without any supporting argument
Sigh. RTFT. I explained the reason for my criticism in the same post. I've been expanding on it ever since.
quote:
(I'd love to see how you'd fare locked in argument with Rowan himself...)
Yeah, that would be interesting...
quote:
You have consistently ducked away from telling any of us what is your rational basis for accepting certain truth claims and not others.
No, I just haven't wasted time on pointless generalisations. If you'd bothered to ask I could have told you I probably reject all the truth claims you're thinking of. But unless you specify which you mean I can't be sure.
quote:
I am beginning to think that you are neither as sincere nor as sophisticated as you present yourself.
Am I supposed feel hurt by this? Since you've gone off on the personal stuff I'll suggest you get over yourself. Whatever status you have as an Aber Vicar your standing here like mine is zilch beyond the value of our posts. The trick is to realise - wait for it - you can ignore posts if they don't interest you. Give up on the bluster; you must have better uses for your time and energy.
quote:
don't answer this with a flip dismissal or arrogant challenge, because then I'll know I haven't got you wrong.
I think I'll pass on taking advice from you on how to post.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't think Dave Marshall realizes what a small slot on the Christian spectrum he inhabits.
Er, what? That's very patronising.
If by "Christian spectrum" you mean church-goers and the odd sympathetic-but-doesn't-attend then of course I realise I'm in a minority. What's that to do with anything?
More pots and kettles. I find many of your posts quite patronising to individuals who believe in more traditional forms of Christianity. And over the years of reading your posts, I get the impression that you believe that your more philosophical than faith-based approach is the wave of the future in Christianity. I don't see it. From my experience on the Ship as well as in RL, most people either follow and refine their beliefs in a context that believes in some form of Godhead that preserves his prerogatives to touch the world with his own power, or the believer ceases to believe, and goes their way living their life with the experience of having been Christian, but no longer concerned with studying and living life from a specifically Christian POV. Having been a Christian will affect their base of experiences, but they generally don't have the idea that they are hanging on to a better version of Christianity.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
