|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Nature and Authority of Holy Tradition
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
things like comforting the berieved, working to help the poor, generosity to charities, feeding the hungry, clothing for those who have little... these are of secondary importance when it comes to the politically correct raison d'ętre of liberalism, which must always take precedence, and is the very definition of charity and love!
The liberal Gospel is about Human Rights and Social Justice, is it not?
Is comforting the bereaved a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is working to help the poor a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is generosity to charities a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is feeding the hungry a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is clothing for those who have little a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
It is the anti-liberals who declare that their so-called Holy Tradition must always take precedence over all of the above. By dismissing all of the above as Human Rights and Social Justice anti-liberals show that they are anti-Gospel. Their Holy Tradition falsely so-called that they say must always take precedence is a matter of tithing mint and rue and herbs of all kinds. What the anti-liberals call Jesus is not the living God but merely a kitsch plaster statue.
I don´t see the relation between social justice and liberalism. Conservatice churches like the evangelicals, charismatic and roman catholics also preach (and sometimes practice) social justice. Just because theological liberalism has stick with this aspect of christianity (while getting rid with the rest) doesn´t mean the rest of Christianity wants Africa to starve to death and all homossexuals die of AIDS.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Having said that, I'll take a stab at explaining Holy Tradition. The version most folks know is, "The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." Which is lovely, and true, but it doesn't help us figure out what things are Holy Tradition, and what things are just our customary ways of doing things.
In the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lerins was disturbed to note that there didn't seem to be a sure-fire way of figuring out the difference. He would have just liked to have used the Holy Scriptures, but he noticed that there were as many different ways of understanding the Scriptures as there were people. So he enquired of many men eminent for their sanctity and learning, and came up with what he considered a sure and universal set of rules. His rules, laid out in his Commonitory, have been used pretty much ever since.
He said that Jesus revealed God to us perfectly and fully, and then gave us the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. God didn't hold anything back. Therefore, those things that were believed and taught from the beginning are more likely to be true than anything new. This is why we reject novel doctrines like the Rapture -- if it were true, the Holy Spirit would have made sure we understood it to be true sometime before the 19th century.
He also said God doesn't play favorites. He reveals the truth to all of us. In general, things that are believed by all Christians are more likely to be true than things believed by a small sect, or just a few.
Finally, he said that it's clear that some of us hear and understand God better than others. If there's a matter that can't be decided from antiquity or universality, then you can try to find out what was believed and taught by people who lived a blameless and holy life. (He warned against counting someone still living among this number -- you want those who finished the race.) If you find a consensus among them, then what they believe is more likely to be true than things believed by people who are less than holy or good.
We look to antiquity, universality, and the consensus of the saints to determine what to believe.
From a practical, how-does-that-work-in-real-life point of view, it means we read the fathers and the lives of the saints. It means we pay careful attention to councils, and especially the ecumenical councils. It means we study icons and especially the divine services, because the rule of prayer is the rule of belief.
And we approach it all with humility. In the Orthodox Church, we have a messy bottom-up approach, rather than a neat and orderly top-down approach. What we count as dogma is fairly limited -- the Nicene Creed, along with anything that has to do specifically with the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Anyway, that's enough for now.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Josephine, you've got to be commended for trying to save this travesty of a thread. And, as usual, I find what you have to say very interesting and informative and helpful in understanding your particular Church tradition. So thank you for that. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
However, Mark Betts clearly has some other apparently less commendable agenda here. And now that Gorpo has decided to jump on some 'bash the nasty libruls' bandwagon, it's looking even more downhill from here on - if that's possible, especially after Betts' last post to Dyfdd. Nastee!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't need to say anything else...
If only... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
However, Mark Betts clearly has some other apparently less commendable agenda here. And now that Gorpo has decided to jump on some 'bash the nasty libruls' bandwagon, it's looking even more downhill from here on - if that's possible, especially after Betts' last post to Dyfdd. Nastee!
Seriously, the original post was so self-righteous that it seemed the poster had dispensed with the need for God altogether. I could be wrong of course, and if I am I'm sorry, but it did get the response it deserved.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One side believes in the importance of adherence to Revealed Wisdom (eg from God), the other has degenerated into the Gospel being purely about Human Rights and Social Justice.
No. One side believes in the importance of adherence to Revealed Wisdom from God as passed down to us in Holy Scripture, the other side has degenerated into following the orders of the human bosses of their church.
Sorry about that, I was answering you in kind using the same sort of language you were using. Maybe too much retaliation there, so a serious point. We mean all sorts of different things by "tradition". A lot of people use the word to describe merely doing things because older people told you to, so it becomes a criticism.
In church usage "tradition" often means the practices and teaching that a church or connexion of churches has accumulated through its history. So it describes the differences between churches,
their local or temporary habits, things that are unessential or accidental to them being churches. So in this ordinary usage church traditions are the things that a church could throw away and still remain a church.
That's not what you mean of course. You mean the tradtions - lets put a capital letter there, the Traditions handed down from Jesus and the Apostles to the first churches. So its almost the opposite of the common meaning of "tradition" because this Tradition describes what is original and universal in the churches, not what is contingent and local.
Now we understand that. Or most of us do. Really we do. The problem with all your posts on the other threads is not that you recognise that this true Tradition exists, or that other people do not recognise that. The problem is that you insist that only one connexion of churches still has it. (see, we can avoid the word "denomination" even though it is perfectly applicable here). And that by some lucky chance it happens to include the church that you are a member of and not the ones the rest of us are. Do guess what, you get to have real pukka Tradition, and the rest of us are left out in the cold. What a surprise!
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The Holy Bible came out of Holy Tradition, so of course it isn't off limits to quote it.
Thank you for your Imperial Permission. That's very kind of you sir. Let me doff my cap.
But meanwhile back in the real world, the Bible includes the only record we have of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. All we really know about the true original Holy Tradition is what's in the Bible.
So it has to act as a sort of regulator or governor of the local and human traditions of the churches.
Of course theology develops through time, and churches accommodate to their local cultural and political environments, yours as well as mine. And as time goes on and we get further and further from the historical Incarnation of the Son of God it becomes ever more imnportant to all churches to get ourselves back on the rails by continually checking our teaching against Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK, let me ask you straight. Let's say the things which most obviously divide the Church, are gay marriage and women priests/bishops. Are these things really more important, or even as important, as common charity and love for one's neighbour?
First, those things are not the things which most obviously divide the Church.
Second, they are not more important than love for God and your neighbour. Which we have on good authority are the most important things of all.
Personally I don't think gay marriage is a particularly important issue for the churches at all and I wish everybody on both sides would just shut up about it. But the command to love our neighbour still applies on that issue and whether we are straight or single or celibate or whatever married gay couples are still our neighbours and we are commanded to love them and excluding them from church hardly seems like a way of doing that. Still less banging on and on about gay marriage as if it was somehow an attack on the rest of us.
Actually I think the ordained ministry of women, or rather the possibility of the ordained ministry of women is an important issue for the churches. Not as important as the two Great Commandments, but pretty important all the same.
And its important because it says something about theology, about what we think of God. Our actions can be symbolic as well as our words. And a male-only ordained ministry symbolises false things about God. In particular it transmits a false Gnostic idea of God that encourages hatred of the material world and of ordinary life. No point in going into much detail here because I've said what I think about it at length in the Dead Horses thread so if you wanted to reply to it you could do it there.
[ 02. June 2012, 16:10: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Mark:
quote:
Please remember these are your words, not mine - I've no intention of taking ownership of them.
You're quite right, they are my words. I was trying with a mixture of humour and hyperbole, to highlight how, to this reader at least, an awful lot of your posts come across. Not just on this thread, and not just on the DH threads, but in general.
Not all of them, but a lot. Going by other comments and responses, I would hazard a guess that I'm not alone.
I was hoping that it would provoke you to consider your posting style a little. Because if you aren't trying to (often, not always) appear of closed mind, and arrogantly dismissive and judgemental of others you could do with revising it a little. Deliberate and persistent use of inaccurate and unfair caricatures to lump "everyone else" into one heap and rubbish them is ... not helpful. If you feel I'm being unfair, please re-read your contributions to just this thread, nevermind the others.
If you still feel I'm being unfair after that, then my apologies for any offence given, but somewhere there's a communication breakdown ...
Josephine: thank you, for both posts (the longer ones if there are more by the time I hit 'Add Reply') - very helpful and informative.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is comforting the bereaved a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is working to help the poor a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is generosity to charities a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is feeding the hungry a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is clothing for those who have little a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
What Dafyd said. Christians ought to be promoting human rights and social justice because Christians ought to be loving their neighbours as we are commanded to in Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Never mind that not so long ago (say back in the 1960's and 1970's) if you wanted to argue against, for example, racial discrimination, or argue for the admission of women to Oxbridge colleges, you had to be ready to provide a reasoned and coherent argument as to why it might be beneficial to adopt such a policy.
I don't know where you were in the 1960s and 1970s but round here the churches were against racial discrimination because it is wrong, not because an anti-racist policy was beneficial in some bean-counting way. Its a matter of morality, not benefit. And left-wing politicians were against it for the same reason. There is right and wrong and racism is wrong. End of story.
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I don´t see the relation between social justice and liberalism. Conservatice churches like the evangelicals, charismatic and roman catholics also preach (and sometimes practice) social justice.
You are confusing theological liberalism and political liberalism. There is no neccessary connection between them. Plenty of theologically conservative evangelicals and catholics are politically left-wing.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...Second, they are not more important than love for God and your neighbour. Which we have on good authority are the most important things of all.
OK.. at least we've found something we're all agreed on - and it IS in the Bible, both old and new testaments!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I don't know where you were in the 1960s and 1970s but round here the churches were against racial discrimination because it is wrong, not because an anti-racist policy was beneficial in some bean-counting way. Its a matter of morality, not benefit. And left-wing politicians were against it for the same reason. There is right and wrong and racism is wrong. End of story.
It is wrong for modern society. It is not Wrong. Not so long ago, pre-marital sex was Wrong. Homosexuality was Wrong. This is the problem with moral absolutes, Ken. They change. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Late in the day with my Hosting on this.
I think Holy Tradition itself, (its roots and shoots etc, and its present Authority) is a proper subject for discussion in Purg. Essentially, it should NOT be discussed as a means of exploring its impact on aspects of biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, or the role of women. All three of those are Dead Horses and if you really want to discuss the impact of Holy Tradition on any one of those Dead Horses, or any aspect of them, then that makes the discussion proper to Dead Horses. The thread title is very unfortunate so I'm going to edit it along the lines of this Host Post, to avoid leading you into temptation - or further temptation.
With that guidance in place, happy for this thread to continue here, discussing in general terms the authority and nature of Holy Tradition. Leave Dead Horse specifics out of it, or if that's really what you want to discuss, do so in Dead Horses, either in an existing thread or a new one.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 02. June 2012, 17:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Could you, Mark, explain as an example of Holy Tradition how veneration of icons became imbedded in Orthodox worship? (I'm not criticizing the custom- I'm thinking it is a good example of the establishment of a Holy Tradition.) This might clarify what exactly we mean by Holy Tradition and give us something more toothsome to discuss than all this tit-for-tat stuff that has been thrown around so far.
I'm afraid I cannot at the moment because I have to go out. However, this link will go some way. Check out the "See Also" section for icon veneration.
Thanks for the link. Okay, the article says that Holy Tradition is theology handed down by the Apostles both orally and in writing and is essentially unchanged. There are stories of an icon "not-made-by-hands" of Christ and one made by Luke of the Virgin Mary. How does the Church collectively discern whether something like these accounts of early icons are part of Holy Tradition or come under the category of edifying stories or gospels not in canon? I'd like to see a paper trail of early Fathers talking about these things to get an idea of how the process of discernment works. There were lots of points of argument in the early church that took centuries to nail down. Yet by Holy Tradition all the answers already existed. Did a great deal of Holy Tradition's definitions come out of the Great Ecumenical Councils?
It seems in keeping with Josephine's point that Holy Tradition and its messages from the Holy Spirit exist absolutely, but sometimes human understanding of them can run aground.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Could you, Mark, explain as an example of Holy Tradition how veneration of icons became imbedded in Orthodox worship? (I'm not criticizing the custom- I'm thinking it is a good example of the establishment of a Holy Tradition.) This might clarify what exactly we mean by Holy Tradition and give us something more toothsome to discuss than all this tit-for-tat stuff that has been thrown around so far.
I'm afraid I cannot at the moment because I have to go out. However, this link will go some way. Check out the "See Also" section for icon veneration.
Thanks for the link. Okay, the article says that Holy Tradition is theology handed down by the Apostles both orally and in writing and is essentially unchanged. There are stories of an icon "not-made-by-hands" of Christ and one made by Luke of the Virgin Mary. How does the Church collectively discern whether something like these accounts of early icons are part of Holy Tradition or come under the category of edifying stories or gospels not in canon?
Partly, we figure it out by what we end up using in our divine services and prayers. So, for example, we've got lots of wonderful stories about St. Nicholas. But our hymns to St. Nicholas don't mention saving sailors at sea, or providing dowries to a poor man's daughters. Instead, they go as follows:
quote:
You were revealed to your flock
as a measure of faith.
You were the image of humility
and a teacher of self-control.
Because of your humble life,
heaven was opened to you.
Because of your poverty,
spiritual riches were granted to you. O holy Bishop Nicholas
we cry out to you:
Pray to Christ our God
that our souls may be saved.
And like this:
quote:
The truth of thy deeds
hath revealed thee to thy flock as a canon of faith,
an icon of meekness,
and a teacher of abstinence;
for this cause thou hast achieved the heights by humility,
riches by poverty,
O Father and Hierarch Nicholas,
intercede with Christ God that our souls may be saved.
One of the icons of St. Nicholas that is widely used shows the Theotokos and our Lord Jesus handing him the Gospel and the bishop's omophorion. That's an allusion to the story of what happened at the Council of Nicea -- Nicholas, who had spent a long time in prison as a confessor of the faith, was so enraged by Arius's insistence that Jesus wasn't really God, that he slapped him. Which is something that bishops are Not Allowed to do. So he was stripped of his episcopacy on the spot, and thrown in prison again. But that night, a bunch of different people had the same dream, that Jesus and Mary gave Nicholas back the signs of his episcopal position -- and so he was restored.
That story counts as part of Holy Tradition, in a way that the story of the widower's daughters, doesn't, because it is part of an icon that is accepted and venerated throughout the Church.
quote:
I'd like to see a paper trail of early Fathers talking about these things to get an idea of how the process of discernment works. There were lots of points of argument in the early church that took centuries to nail down. Yet by Holy Tradition all the answers already existed. Did a great deal of Holy Tradition's definitions come out of the Great Ecumenical Councils?
Yes. In fact, St. Vincent of Lerins considered the witness of the Great Ecumenical Councils as the most important witness of antiquity and universality. Not the only witness, but the most important one.
quote:
It seems in keeping with Josephine's point that Holy Tradition and its messages from the Holy Spirit exist absolutely, but sometimes human understanding of them can run aground.
Absolutely.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
I have been debating with myself over the past week or so whether to send a Private Message to Mark about some of the matters that people have raised or whether to say something publicly on one of the DH threads. From the way in which things have played out, it has become clear that perhaps some thoughts may be beneficial to more than just him. Yet even now, I am unsure whether this is a good idea.
Firstly, allow me to say that it is not my intention here to embarrass anybody but merely to share some of my own thoughts based on experience and observation, and I offer my apologies for any offence inadvertently caused.
I have been following the two main DH threads whose subject matter led to this thread, and I have been able to follow the interplay of arguments and feelings with some degree of dispassionate neutrality. On a number of occasions that I read Mark's posts, I've got to admit that they led to some very uncomfortable introspection. Some of you who had the misfortune to be engaged with me in threads in late 2005 to about 2007 will need no explanation to understand what I mean. I saw a considerable amount of my past in those posts, and was reminded of something that I realised a while back, which is that this is how I, too, must have infuriated others, and how I caused more long-standing Orthodox to cringe when reading my very public and terse posts. There are times, Mark, that I have read your posts and thought, 'You really need to put the shovel down'. I posted once or twice but only to try to restore some calm and to clarify some factual and historical points.
At the same time, I do not regret what I said back then or the fact that I believed it, because, allowing for some refinement, those underlying beliefs are much the same today. What I do regret is the often unloving manner in which I said things and my extremely poor judgement in deciding when to say these things. I recall that I would bring up and labour points of difference between Orthodoxy and other confessions for no other reason that to bring up and labour those points as harshly and fiercely as possible, and not because they were pertinent to any exchange that was going on. They were new to me, and a badge of my own change, and I was determined to distance myelf from my previous affiliation, often using them as a stick for beating people who remained where I was. I took the impersonal nature of this medium as licence to treat words on the screen as nothing more than words on the screen, and treated people in a way that I never would were they standing before me.
As I have been around in the Orthodox Church for a bit longer, and got to walk with other people on their journeys, what I have found is that, while most converts of some years would not wish to identify any one thing as the reason for being Orthodox today, most of them will nonetheless have some particular point that made them start looking in the first place. In my case, it was ecclesiology. In Mark's case, it seems to be the ordination of women and matters of human sexuality, (please forgive me if I have misunderstood). Other converts will have had other initial key points. I do think that a true conversion to Orthodoxy (which is a process and isn't an instantaneous thing that is complete as soon as the baptismal water has dried), for such people, must of necessity entail a period of turning away from the old and embracing the new, and sometimes that can be quite a painful experience, emotionally, spiritually, and even socially in some instances, and can open the person up to considerable hostility, and this will manifest itself in most people.
Let us not forget, as well, that those of us in England who come from an Anglo-Catholic background are coming from a culture that lends itself very well to breeding a persecution complex - and not just for those of a FiF persuasion. I was a card-carrying Aff-Cath member and felt the same way. I don't need to go into the ins and outs of why that is or the lasting effects on converts of some years, but please try to imagine for a moment somebody who has been part of a minority within his church, with a need (whether real or perceived) to argue and fight to defend what he believes to be right, and good, and true, against the majority within his own church whom he perceives as working to undermine this, and who are supported by the church authorities. Now imagine that he gives up and finds himelf in another church where what he believes to be right, and good, and true is the standard view of the majority of his new co-religionists. Eventually, what should happen, if the person is properly cared for spiritually, and understands about growth, is that all of the anger and resentment, and mindset of persecution should simply melt away, allowing him to move on with his spiritual life. However, to me at least, it seems quite understandable that this will not be instantaneous. To the new convert, all he feels is that he is now empowered against those people who formerly made him feel marginalised and an alien in his own church. This doesn't justify bad behaviour, but it does go some way to explaining the thinking behind it.
At about the time I was going through my own convertitis phase, another shipmate posted elsewhere that he did not understand the need of some converts to reject their former homes with such hostility. He had moved from one church to another, yet their ecclesiologies and polity, and many of their teachings were very similar. So of course he couldn't understand, and a similar lack of comprehension, I think, is the reason behind some of the other posts on those threads (and this one), that have left me feeling awkward and which have been equally infuriating.
What I saw on those DH threads and what I see here is a new convert to Orthodoxy, in the early stages of having left his former home and having seemingly found support in a new home for his initial conversion points, now releasing some of the pent-up feeling that naturally results with previously feeling marginalised, which came across as harsh and abrasive, not to mention dismissive. Others, at whom this was directed, perhaps not being able to relate to this experience, saw only the terse and dismissive manner in which they were being addressed, and while some responded with reasoned points, others combined this with similarly terse and abrasive posts. I can tell you, as someone who has experienced it that, however harshly or calmly these rebuttals are crafted, to the new convert, they just appear as more of the same sort of opposition that caused the negative feelings in the first place, and merely serves to fuel the fire. In my case I dismissed them all as "ecumenist", "branch theorist", and so forth. Mark's buzzword seems to be "liberal". It is just a different manifestation of the same thing. While I think that a bit of understanding, patience, and introspection from all sides would have been beneficial, people cannot reasonably be expected to respond well to something negative that they do not understand. I think that nobody is to blame here but that what we are seeing is the unfolding of the consequences of something for which there is no rule book, and which people perceive very differently.
The key, I think, is for any new convert to keep away from such emotive discussions on his hot-button issues in public forums such as this for at least two or three years, and to heed the sage advice given by Josephine earlier in this thread. When all is said and done, people convert to the Orthodox Church for their salvation, out of love for Christ. They do not do it to finger-wag at the non-Orthodox, or to start heated debates, or so they can feel vindicated after the difficulties of ther past (which is really nothing other than pride). The time has to come in every convert's life when he stops seeing himself as a convert, and is simply Orthodox, trying to get on with the business of living an Orthodox life: saying his prayers, confessing his sins (which will, in all likelihood, be repetitive), receiving the sacraments, loving Christ, loving his neighbour, taking part in the life and worship of the Church, feeding the poor, struggling with doubts about whether there is even a God to believe in, (yes, it happens), and the rest. That's the Orthodox life. As a priestly acquaintance of mine has said to me in the past, stories of how people become Orthodox are boring. He simply isn't interested. What is important is how people remain Orthodox, for that is where the real challenge lies.
Seven anda half years after I first began to look towards Orthodoxy, I realise that he is right.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
I'd've thought that calling it 'Holy tradition' is trying to decide the issue in advance: who can argue with it if it is holy?
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I'd like to thank you Josephine for your input here. It is true that we are all icons by definition (not "ought to be") and I think yours shines somewhat more brightly than mine does at times.
I'm tempted to use the example of what happened between St Nicholas and Arius to justify my vociferous outbursts sometimes, but I know that won't wash!
I'm sort of glad that those two (now not to be mentioned) subjects have gone. I think I'll give them a miss for a while, as neither are my problem in the Church. I think it's a consequence of having all this burdensome former Anglican-FiF baggage to carry around with me!
Anyway, now it's time for me to sit back and get an education!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Mark Betts: quote:
I'm tempted to use the example of what happened between St Nicholas and Arius to justify my vociferous outbursts sometimes, but I know that won't wash!
Well, maybe it would, if you were pretty sure that your shipmates would dream of Christ and his Mum coming to you and saying, "Calm down, it's alright. They're icons, too. They just need some spiffing up- like some other people I know." ![[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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Michael Astley, by his own admission, has mellowed. And it seems that Mark has belatedly listened.
My point is that what Michael said about new converts applies across the board and irrespective of denominational change.
He is right. It also applies to new converts to Christianity of whatever brand. 10 minutes after conversion all is clear and absolute. 10 years after the realities set in.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Seriously, the original post was so self-righteous that it seemed the poster had dispensed with the need for God altogether. I could be wrong of course, and if I am I'm sorry, but it did get the response it deserved.
Yet the self-righteous language in my post was quarried from things you've said in this thread.
The only times you've mentioned God in this thread have been when you've used his name as a stick to beat the liberals with.
If you don't like what I said about my opponents, then stop saying those things about your opponents.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'd like to thank you Josephine for your input here. It is true that we are all icons by definition (not "ought to be") and I think yours shines somewhat more brightly than mine does at times.
I'm tempted to use the example of what happened between St Nicholas and Arius to justify my vociferous outbursts sometimes, but I know that won't wash!
I'm sort of glad that those two (now not to be mentioned) subjects have gone. I think I'll give them a miss for a while, as neither are my problem in the Church. I think it's a consequence of having all this burdensome former Anglican-FiF baggage to carry around with me!
Anyway, now it's time for me to sit back and get an education!
I really think you ought to thank Michael Astley, too, even though he doesn't speak in a warm, motherly tone. He is speaking some hard truths in a pretty gentle way that I believe you'll find useful once you absorb their gist.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I was struck by Michael's post too. I found it quite moving, in fact. It also made me realise that I do similar things on other threads - not on this issue - but I do tend to bash charismatics and evangelicals who take a more 'literal' approach than I do know - essentially trying to 'beat up' my own past by beating up present day adherents of the things I used to espouse.
So, yes, guilty too. Mea culpa.
Shamwari is right, these things happen to converts of all kinds and in all traditions.
To a certain extent, I think the turmoil involved is understandable and necessary. Mark Betts is still working through the implications of his conversion. As indeed, so are the rest of us in whatever setting we find ourselves in.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I really think you ought to thank Michael Astley, too, even though he doesn't speak in a warm, motherly tone. He is speaking some hard truths in a pretty gentle way that I believe you'll find useful once you absorb their gist.
Yes of course, thankyou Michael, there was much truth in what you said.
I'm eating my humble pie now, as we speak, so sorry to Dafyd, and yes I was far too hasty and presumptious in what I said to you.
Sorry to everyone else I've offended, old Uncle Tom Cobley and all!
[ 02. June 2012, 19:48: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is right and wrong and racism is wrong. End of story.
It is wrong for modern society. It is not Wrong. Not so long ago, pre-marital sex was Wrong. Homosexuality was Wrong. This is the problem with moral absolutes, Ken. They change.
Moral absolutes don't change. God doesn't change. Humans change their ideas of morals because we are sinners.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It is wrong for modern society. It is not Wrong. Not so long ago, pre-marital sex was Wrong. Homosexuality was Wrong. This is the problem with moral absolutes, Ken. They change. quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Moral absolutes don't change. God doesn't change. Humans change their ideas of morals because we are sinners.
Sorry, but Ken is absolutely right about this - Moral absolutes don't change
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Many years ago the Moral Rearmament Movement dealt in Moral Absolutes.
Fine.
But, in practice, they caused havoc and absolute damage in human relationships. I speak as one who had to pick up the pieces.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Many years ago the Moral Rearmament Movement dealt in Moral Absolutes.
Fine.
But, in practice, they caused havoc and absolute damage in human relationships. I speak as one who had to pick up the pieces.
But who are they? Do they have Authority to dictate to everyone else what these Moral Absolutes are?
I've read the Wiki Article:
Moral Re-Armament
...and there is much I could say, but it will cause offence - so, best you judge for yourselves, lest I upset people from across the pond.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts
Holy Tradition also tells us how we should interpret the Bible. Can mere laymen of various denominations be trusted to interpret for themselves? Well, with what's been going on in the churches for the last 50 years (and long before that) I know what I think!
It is rather unfortunate that "mere laymen" have been burdened with an organ called a "brain" (well most of them anyway). I can't imagine what they do with this bit of kit. Clearly in some ecclesiastical circles the sacrament of lobotomy should be introduced as the new circumcision.
And of course we have the problem of "the Big Fib". Yes, I'm talking about Proverbs 4:7 - "In all your getting, get understanding". Being commanded to think for ourselves? Bit difficult post-lobotomy, innit? So the Bible was obviously joking. But then again... why bother with the Bible when we've got "Holy Tradition" (aka Clericalism's "Little Red Book").
BTW - I'm a loose cannon and bloody proud of the fact. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
@ Michael - quite - and that's why a major part of the self-examination a prospective convert should enquire into is *am I running TO something I truly believ*e OR *am I running FROM something I dislike*?
[ 02. June 2012, 22:07: Message edited by: Jahlove ]
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It is wrong for modern society. It is not Wrong. Not so long ago, pre-marital sex was Wrong. Homosexuality was Wrong. This is the problem with moral absolutes, Ken. They change. quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Moral absolutes don't change. God doesn't change. Humans change their ideas of morals because we are sinners.
Sorry, but Ken is absolutely right about this - Moral absolutes don't change
Obviously moral absolutes don't change - by definition, to use that much-abused phrase correctly for once. Th'at's what "moral absolute" means. The important question is, do moral absolutes exist? My opinion is that they do, but they are general principles such as "Treat others the way you'd like them to treat you" and "act in ways that tend to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number" (the ancient and modern formulations, respectively, of utilitarianism), rather than specific commands and prohibitions. Therefore, ordaining women and taking it up the tradesman's are not absolutely forbidden for all time.
[ 02. June 2012, 22:27: Message edited by: Steve H ]
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I thought Michael's Astley's post was a kind of public PM, a classic example of "too personal for public Purg" but very helpful on this occasion. Thanks Michael - on this occasion! My Hostly instincts twitched a bit, but sometimes a bit of inconsistency can be particularly blessed.
It did bring up a couple of thoughts re Tradition and Authority - from "left field". Concerning novitiate processes.
Going way back, it always amuses me that Paul of Tarsus was a bit hot for the church to handle early, on. Acts 9 stories suggest a fair bit of "opening mouth and putting foot in". I love the line "Then the church enjoyed a time of peace". Paul had a long apprenticeship. Still stroppy and spiky at times afterwards, but he learned a thing or two.
Which got me thinking about novitiate processes and discipleship. I think there's a fairly disciplined approach within Orthodoxy, isn't there? Catholics used to be taught the Catechism, still may be.
And within protestantism, there is the notion of mentoring as well.
I suppose the danger these days is of a kind of impatience. Thinking you can run before you can walk. It does seem particularly prevalent in considerations of "hot-button" issues.
In order to understand and value any authority, you have to sit under it for a while. Obedience teaches us uncomfortable things about ourselves. The temptation is that if we get uncomfortable with a particular aspect of the Christian tradition at work where we are, we move rapidly into "pick 'n mix" mode. Or just become mobile dissidents. Not good, either of those.
Strange talk from an institutional Dissenter like me. But I'm learning to value Tradition(s) as sources of riches as well as fuel for my stroppiness. I'm a much gentler dissenter than in my fiery youth. Better for that, I think. I still believe in the inestimable value of conscience and the Quakerish notion of "inner light". But none of us do well in a church of one - ourselves. The church is a communal adventure. "We" rather than "just me".
Quoting yet again my favourite lesson learned from the Ship.
"Growing up is when you realise it's not all about you". Holy Tradition(s) and Authority are a challenge to our individuality. Our individuality can lead us right up the garden path. The center of "SIN" is "I".
And that's more than enough from me!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And there was EE getting upset at me when I suggested that he might be guilty of spiritual pride and 'prelest'
It's here by his own admission ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I'm in a quandary here. Because when I read some of Mark's posts - and admittedly he's toned them down since, I want to run in the opposite direction and become the hottest Prot' that there ever was - or else become a Buddhist or something ...
And then along comes Pope Etymological Evangelical with HIS correct take on scripture and his inordinate pride in his own discernment and that makes me want to run screaming into the arms of Holy Mother Church to protect me from the likes of him ...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Beyond that, what Barnabas62 said.
And, as this is Hell, @EE - I've met plenty of people in Big T Traditional circles, both RC and Orthodox who use their brains rather more than you do, sunshine ...
The irony is delicious.
But it doesn't detract from my apologies to EE over on less Hellish threads.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Gamaliel, my old mate. Maybe we should start a church for would-be mobile dissenters who have come in from the cold?
Nothing but Welsh hymns and set where it rains a lot. The foothills of Snowdon. Lovely views on those rare days when the mist clears.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
And then along comes Pope Etymological Evangelical with HIS correct take on scripture and his inordinate pride in his own discernment and that makes me want to run screaming into the arms of Holy Mother Church to protect me from the likes of him ...
A "Pope" who encourages people to think for themselves?
Whatever next...?
(BTW... there are actually two quite different meanings to the word "pride", which CS Lewis recognised, and which you could do well to acknowledge. I'll put something about that on the "Great Sin" thread later...
But if you're enjoying my juicy admission of "pride", please do have lots of fun. I do so like to keep people happy, ya know...)
[ 03. June 2012, 09:51: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
as this is Hell
Check again, old chap.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Nice one , Marvin.
Gamaliel, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking, "must be a kind of Hell for you".
Should I get out my Hostly Hat? Those dreaded bold words again? Not this time. A blessed inconsistency at work, I'm sure. Even a bit of Host-lite "as it's Sunday".
But apologies are not transferable, as you know.
B62, sitting on Hat, writing as a Shipmate, hoping you'll all play nicely after this ambivalent post.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I thought Michael's Astley's post was a kind of public PM, a classic example of "too personal for public Purg" but very helpful on this occasion. Thanks Michael - on this occasion! My Hostly instincts twitched a bit, but sometimes a bit of inconsistency can be particularly blessed.
It did bring up a couple of thoughts re Tradition and Authority - from "left field". Concerning novitiate processes.
Going way back, it always amuses me that Paul of Tarsus was a bit hot for the church to handle early, on. Acts 9 stories suggest a fair bit of "opening mouth and putting foot in". I love the line "Then the church enjoyed a time of peace". Paul had a long apprenticeship. Still stroppy and spiky at times afterwards, but he learned a thing or two.
Which got me thinking about novitiate processes and discipleship. I think there's a fairly disciplined approach within Orthodoxy, isn't there? Catholics used to be taught the Catechism, still may be.
And within protestantism, there is the notion of mentoring as well.
I suppose the danger these days is of a kind of impatience. Thinking you can run before you can walk. It does seem particularly prevalent in considerations of "hot-button" issues.
In order to understand and value any authority, you have to sit under it for a while. Obedience teaches us uncomfortable things about ourselves. The temptation is that if we get uncomfortable with a particular aspect of the Christian tradition at work where we are, we move rapidly into "pick 'n mix" mode. Or just become mobile dissidents. Not good, either of those.
Strange talk from an institutional Dissenter like me. But I'm learning to value Tradition(s) as sources of riches as well as fuel for my stroppiness. I'm a much gentler dissenter than in my fiery youth. Better for that, I think. I still believe in the inestimable value of conscience and the Quakerish notion of "inner light". But none of us do well in a church of one - ourselves. The church is a communal adventure. "We" rather than "just me".
Quoting yet again my favourite lesson learned from the Ship.
"Growing up is when you realise it's not all about you". Holy Tradition(s) and Authority are a challenge to our individuality. Our individuality can lead us right up the garden path. The center of "SIN" is "I".
And that's more than enough from me!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Thank you for this. I'd have pressed a 'like' button for Josephine's post too.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
A "Pope" who encourages people to think for themselves?
Whatever next...?
I have to speak up for the current Pontiff here. In his book "Jesus of Nazereth", Pope Benedict XVI does indeed tell us much about Jesus, but he also clearly wants us to think these things through for ourselves.
I would thoroughly recommend this book to Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox alike.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
I would thoroughly recommend this book to Christians.
There fixed it for you.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
I would thoroughly recommend this book to Christians.
There fixed it for you.
OK, I'll buy that. No wait:
I would thoroughly recommend this book to ALL Christians.
Done.
[ 03. June 2012, 16:16: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Whoops ... sorry, I should have checked. I'm so used to sparring with Etymological Evangelical now that I just automatically went into Hell mode.
Still, it just shows that I'm not infallible. Unlike him ... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Pots and kettles, EE, dear boy. It ill behoves a fundie like you to accuse the Pope of not allowing people to think.
Whoops again ... that's getting a bit Hellish too.
I'll play nicely. It might be an idea, though, if you were to look in the mirror, say, 'I am not infallible. My interpretation of scriptures is just that - an interpretation. My interpretation may be wrong on some points and right on others ... My own subjective views are not the yardstick by which these things are measured, as much as I would like them to be ...'
@Barnabas62. Nice idea, but I'd rather the church you describe be set against the Brecon Beacons rather than the foothills of Snowdon. I'm from South Wales so I can't be doing with those Gogledd up in North Wales who talk through their teeth and use sibilant s-es - 'Mrsss Jonessss' instead of talkin' tidy like wor we do do.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I thought Michael's Astley's post was a kind of public PM, a classic example of "too personal for public Purg" but very helpful on this occasion. Thanks Michael - on this occasion! My Hostly instincts twitched a bit, but sometimes a bit of inconsistency can be particularly blessed.
Thank you for your understanding, Barnabas62, and thanks to others for theirs. I think it was a kind of combination of guidance to an Orthie newbie, a highlighting of perhaps ill-advised choices from the other side, and perhaps a bit of catharsis for myself. As somebody who has demonstrated great patience with me in the past, I'm sure you understand.
And yes, I'll respect the boundaries in future.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'll play nicely. It might be an idea, though, if you were to look in the mirror, say, 'I am not infallible. My interpretation of scriptures is just that - an interpretation. My interpretation may be wrong on some points and right on others ... My own subjective views are not the yardstick by which these things are measured, as much as I would like them to be ...'
There is a book about it.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
In his book "Jesus of Nazereth", Pope Benedict XVI does indeed tell us much about Jesus, but he also clearly wants us to think these things through for ourselves.
Yes, in the same way that Henry Ford is reported to have wanted everyone to be able to freely choose the colour of their car. The Pope only wants us to think things through for ourselves so long as we come to the same conclusions he and his church have come to.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The Pope only wants us to think things through for ourselves so long as we come to the same conclusions he and his church have come to.
I knew someone would say that... but supposing there's things in it which you ought to know, but you don't because you refuse to read it? Then how can you say that your views are balanced? Nobody (including Benedict) has said you should learn your theology from this, and only this book.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
...then again, I suppose the Raëlians would insist we read all their books for the same reason.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
but supposing there's things in it which you ought to know, but you don't because you refuse to read it? Then how can you say that your views are balanced? Nobody (including Benedict) has said you should learn your theology from this, and only this book.
It doesn't matter how you phrase it, Mark, it still makes "he clearly wants us to think these things through for ourselves" a big fat lie.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Amusingly, I've found a couple of times in scripture when "judge for yourselves" is used. But in both cases, the use is rhetorical, meaning "the answer is obvious,really".
Here they are
Acts 4v19: But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!"
1 Cor 11v13: Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Advanced logic-choppers can have a meal with both, of course, but it is clear that the intent was "no need to bother!".
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I thought Michael's Astley's post was a kind of public PM, a classic example of "too personal for public Purg" but very helpful on this occasion. Thanks Michael - on this occasion! My Hostly instincts twitched a bit, but sometimes a bit of inconsistency can be particularly blessed.
Thank you for your understanding, Barnabas62, and thanks to others for theirs. I think it was a kind of combination of guidance to an Orthie newbie, a highlighting of perhaps ill-advised choices from the other side, and perhaps a bit of catharsis for myself. As somebody who has demonstrated great patience with me in the past, I'm sure you understand.
And yes, I'll respect the boundaries in future.
You're very kind, Michael. In your earlier years you had a really memorable Ship Name about which I've had a truly senior moment of amnesia! Possibly "Back to Front" or something like that? ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
But I never doubted that you were a sincere learner and it's been a privilege to see just how much you've learned.
Perhaps you can accept the compliment that I knew the last sentence of your post was true before you posted it.
And all that was proper to a PM as well! An inconsistency which I hope is to some extent blessed!
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
