|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: So what exactly do you expect us to do?
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In fact, even splits can be healthy, providing 'individuation' to people, and breaking up a monolithic culture, in which people are suppressed and feel claustrophobic. Of course, it can become manic and sectarian.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
If the answer to "what do you expect us to do?" is along the lines of "act as if you believed, and don't cause trouble" then it seems to me that that's possible to do most of the time. The times when it's hardest are when it feels most like lying.
I can agree that reserving judgment and persevering is probably the best course. But I worry sometimes that I'm becoming a more practiced liar, and that church membership is taking me gradually further from God than when I was only semi-participant.
As for "trust the church to be right" then it's true that we take lots of everyday things on trust. Mostly that's not a personal trust - I don't know scientist X or plumber Y well enough to trust that it's right because they say so. My trust is effectively in society's processes for correcting error - peer review and verification in science, word of mouth to drive bad plumbers out of business. This is the opposite of the conservatism that perpetuates past errors for fear of finding something worse. I can trust Wikipedia because if something is wrong then there are processes for putting it right and a group of people who are interested in doing so. How can you trust any publication that needs an imprimatur to certify that it doesn't say anything different from the last one, under a group of people who's interest is in denying that they could possibly have been wrong in the past ? Where's the review process in which we can trust ?
I guess I trust to God that it doesn't matter when we humans get it wrong, and that He's big enough to cope with that and sort it out.
But an orientation to Truth - that we care enough to try to get it right, that we're not cavalier about the truth of what we say - seems to me that does matter.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Within the Church, unity is mainly the concern of people who want to keep us yoked to them forever.
[...]
Why would unity actually be a positive thing? Other than allowing us to throw our weight around, what would it actually help? Again, we have no prestige. Diversity is tremendously helpful, yes, though not because it extends the church's 'influence', but because it frees the people within the church.
Are you an Anglican? It's curious to me that you would insist that the CofE, a state church, has no prestige. If you're right, why doesn't the British media pay more attention to other denominations? In fact, secularisation has probably given the CofE more dominance than it would otherwise have, because the smaller denominations have almost completely disappeared from public consciousness. Fewer people now care about or understand the differences between denominations, which makes it easier just to focus on one.
I agree that in some ways internal diversity enables people of various theological positions and worship preferences to feel freer within the system. I'm currently making use of a local Anglican church that can give me the space I need at this point in time. In other senses, though, smaller denominations may be more liberating; smallness creates greater opportunities for participation, and there may be fewer inhibiting class and social distinctions between clergy and laity. I acknowledge that this kind of freedom wouldn't be so valuable for most people here on the Ship.
Getting back to the topic, though, perhaps the most liberal Christians should follow your example; get involved in a tolerant Anglican church and completely ignore what evangelicals in other congregations and other denominations think.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Are you an Anglican? It's curious to me that you would insist that the CofE, a state church, has no prestige. If you're right, why doesn't the British media pay more attention to other denominations?
Because they aren't forced to by tradition and the existence of the monarchy. I'm talking about real prestige, among the people. I am an Anglican. I'm also someone who knows how atheists talk when they don't know a Christian is listening. I tell you, we have no prestige. We don't even have respect. I don't mind this, I'm just saying that unity for prestige's sake is a bit of a forlorn hope.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In fact, secularisation has probably given the CofE more dominance than it would otherwise have, because the smaller denominations have almost completely disappeared from public consciousness. Fewer people now care about or understand the differences between denominations, which makes it easier just to focus on one.
Nobody cares what the Church says. Most normal people's reaction to seeing them mentioned on television is derision.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In other senses, though, smaller denominations may be more liberating; smallness creates greater opportunities for participation, and there may be fewer inhibiting class and social distinctions between clergy and laity. I acknowledge that this kind of freedom wouldn't be so valuable for most people here on the Ship.
Participation isn't liberation, it's bondage. I say that as someone who spent years volunteering in every imaginable capacity. For years, I was unable to pray in peace, or be still in the presense of the Lord, because I was helping to put on the show. When I go to a CofE church now, I go for Holy Communion.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Getting back to the topic, though, perhaps the most liberal Christians should follow your example; get involved in a tolerant Anglican church and completely ignore what evangelicals in other congregations and other denominations think.
I think they should. It would be good for everyone involved.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I was looking for a definition to explain to a friend what was meant by a liberal Christian (which we all seem to understand without defining here), and found this:
Urban Dictionary
After commenting on the grammatical weaknesses of the posters, I came to the bottom of the page, which, if it is the same for you, had an advert which was not entirely appropriate for the page content. (Male gamers only, with image not appealing to any sort of Christian.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Plique-à-jour
I know atheists don't care. Yet when the general culture (which is not entirely atheistic) deigns to record the words of church leaders, it gives a soapbox to Anglicans. It doesn't do the same for Methodists, or others. I suppose I can understand now why this is an irrelevant detail for an Anglican, but to me your position is quite ironic. Let's agree to disagree on that.
As for participation, I wasn't really talking about taking on jobs in the church. Speaking personally, I was a Methodist church steward for several years and it's left me reluctant to get into active church life now. Rather, I was thinking of the more fluid types of worship participation and class equality present in the, yes, less prestigious denominations, such as some of the newer Pentecostal breakaway groups in various parts of the world. But as I said, this sort of freedom isn't terribly relevant to the Ship.
[ 17. September 2013, 13:36: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I know atheists don't care. Yet when the general culture (which is not entirely atheistic) deigns to record the words of church leaders, it gives a soapbox to Anglicans.
They get on the news because of tradition and the monarchy. That's not the general culture.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It doesn't do the same for Methodists, or others. I suppose I can understand now why this is an irrelevant detail for an Anglican, but to me your position is quite ironic. Let's agree to disagree on that.
Make some new friends outside the church without telling them you're a Christian. Listen to what they say when the church is brought up. Don't bring it up yourself, because your bias will be perceptible. Wait for someone to mention the latest pronouncement of the church.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I was looking for a definition to explain to a friend what was meant by a liberal Christian (which we all seem to understand without defining here), and found this:
Urban Dictionary
After commenting on the grammatical weaknesses of the posters, I came to the bottom of the page, which, if it is the same for you, had an advert which was not entirely appropriate for the page content. (Male gamers only, with image not appealing to any sort of Christian.)
What an incredibly biased description - suggests liberal Christians are not 'saved' because they don't take scripture literally.
And I couldn't find the advert!
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Plique-à-jour
IMO tradition and monarchy are elements of general British/English culture, which is a hybrid, slippery thing that encompasses both modernity and tradition. Secularisation has created indifference and hostility towards organised religion, but it's also created a degree of fascination. It's not a straightforward case of everyone either hating or admiring Christianity and Christians.
For example, where I live 'friends outside the church' are just as likely to be Muslims as atheists. The idea that atheists carry all before them takes no account of a more postmodern reading of the culture, which is that many different things are happening at once, that there are different 'tribes' believing and doing different things, maybe swapping back and forth, etc.
Perhaps an authentically postmodern mind would accept the irrelevance of the CofE and its established status as all of a piece. I'll reflect on that.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Leo, that description was typical of most of the references that came up first on DuckDuckGo (which I now use instead of Google, but which is irritatingly USA based. I eventually found:
Church Education Resource Ministry
which sounded more like reality.
I suspected the ad wouldn't appear everywhere. Can't imagine why the system thought I would respond to it.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What do you expect? It's the Urban Dictionary. The Urban Dictionary makes Wikipedia look like the library computer banks on the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D).
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Plique-à-jour
IMO tradition and monarchy are elements of general British/English culture, which is a hybrid, slippery thing that encompasses both modernity and tradition. Secularisation has created indifference and hostility towards organised religion, but it's also created a degree of fascination. It's not a straightforward case of everyone either hating or admiring Christianity and Christians.
No, general culture is how people actually think and live. The only reason they hear more about Anglicans than they do about Methodists is that they're lumbered with it by the aforementioned mechanisms. Left to their own devices, only a vanishingly small minority of people care, or want to hear about it. 'Hate' implies a degree of passion that doesn't exist, for the most part. They'd just rather we shut up and went away.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For example, where I live 'friends outside the church' are just as likely to be Muslims as atheists. The idea that atheists carry all before them takes no account of a more postmodern reading of the culture, which is that many different things are happening at once, that there are different 'tribes' believing and doing different things, maybe swapping back and forth, etc.
Perhaps an authentically postmodern mind would accept the irrelevance of the CofE and its established status as all of a piece. I'll reflect on that.
But your friends outside the church all know you're a Methodist, I presume? Again, try to enter a social circle where nobody knows you're 'religious' and keep it under your hat. I'd be very surprised if you heard 'fascination' expressed when religion eventually got mentioned.
I'm not talking about atheists 'carry[ing] all before them'. I'm just saying that the Church of England doesn't have the prestige that you've suggested would be aided by attempting to appear united. Indeed, many different things are happening at once. Outside of a single church, this is greatly aided by the cooling medium of secular society's indifference. To me, accepting the irrelevance of the CofE and its established status as all of a piece is simply accepting the self-evident, but I don't know whether it would qualify as postmodern. (I don't think it wouldn't, I just don't know what application that word has in this context.)
Happy reflecting.
[ 17. September 2013, 17:58: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Plique-à-jour
I didn't say that random people would be fascinated by religion, but it's clear to me that a certain fascination still exists more broadly. Religion pops up in contemporary novels, even if neither author nor fictional protagonists are conventionally religious. Modern artists are still fascinated by religious symbols; pop stars such as Lady Gaga make use of religious tropes; in women's fashion boutiques you can find plenty of t-shirts and jewelry stamped with crucifixes. Indeed, the success of the New Atheist authors suggests that at least among readers there's a sense that religion still matters, even if it's undesirable.
I'm a bit confused about your reference to my 'social circle'. On the one hand you imply that people are indifferent to Christianity, but you also suggest that they deeply disrespect it. If they're indifferent, why would it even come up in conversation? In my experience, people are more likely to comment on something if they're either bothered by it, or if they like it. In any case, I've heard quite a few people criticise Christians, churches or religion in general; I don't need to change my 'social circle' for that. Local Muslims don't criticise Christianity very often, unless they're explicitly hoping to make converts. Usually they're just curious.
We can both agree that this is a post-Christian culture to the extent that knowledge or acceptance of orthodox Christian beliefs can't be assumed, and that religious considerations aren't usually taken into account in the public arena.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I know atheists don't care. Yet when the general culture (which is not entirely atheistic) deigns to record the words of church leaders, it gives a soapbox to Anglicans.
They get on the news because of tradition and the monarchy. That's not the general culture.
Of course, that's just the UK. In the US the soapbox is generally given to extreme right-wing "non-denominational" preachers, who call themselves "Christian" without qualification, in the media buys into that, infuriatingly giving the impression that their views are the default Christian view.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Karl:
(Tangent: Tech Anal Chesterfield. Not CSC by any chance).
As to your point, despite the interesting posts, I've just got back from hols, and I confess that I have not read all the posts. So if I'm just saying what has already been said, I'll take any rebuke.
So when I was a Conservative I had a ready reply, and I still think it's worth considering.
Because there are denominations that are up-front liberal: Quakers and Unitarians spring to mind. And if you think there should be a set of options for those who are drawn to Christ but less so to dogma, it sort of makes sense that these should be live options, whereas at present, the Unitarian church is really pretty run down. Would it not be a good thing for those who are decided liberals, to try and get involved to breathe life (and resources) into such a denomination, so that it could exist as a viable alternative in the UK religious scene?
I did (in my journey from JW to conservative calvinist) attend a Unitarian church in Manchester and it was ok. They tend to be stronger in t'North, but don't know about C'field.
Ever thought of that?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'm happy in my church; very happy. I don't get problems there. It's the wider church that I'm addressing in my OP. In that context, your post could be interpreted as "piss off and join the Unitarians" ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Which I'm unlikely to do because I'm not one.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm happy in my church; very happy. I don't get problems there. It's the wider church that I'm addressing in my OP.
Liberal Christianity is problematic for the church in general, because in the long run it seems to undermine institutional vitality, even though it's helpful to the individuals who adopt it. And most of us in Britain have adopted it to a greater or lesser degree.
As for what anyone can 'do' about this, though, I don't think there's much to be done. Just because other people disagree with you it doesn't mean you have to do anything about it. Christians in other churches almost feel obliged to cast a critical eye over the CofE occasionally. But most of their time should be devoted to their own future development and not the CofE, because the CofE certainly isn't spending much of its time thinking about them.
Ironically, the pressure might be lifted from liberal Anglicans were their church disestablished, because British evangelicals from outside the CofE would probably lose interest in the denomination from that point onwards.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm happy in my church; very happy. I don't get problems there. It's the wider church that I'm addressing in my OP.
Why do you care what they think? I mean, apart from posters on here, why would you come into contact with them? If you can doubt so much that we don't know about, why not dismiss the provably false idea that everyone in the Church is somehow in some wider communion with each other, even though they don't agree at all on what they're supposed to do?
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hugorune
Apprentice
# 17793
|
Posted
Take this from someone who is only now rediscovering their faith (and presently struggling with points of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, such as his belief in a real Satan) - but I think it's disingenuous to insist upon complete doctrinal rigidity. The most basic elements of Christianity are surely more important, than whether absolutely everything in the Bible is meant to be literal or metaphorical, or exactly what happens in the Eucharist - although I'm sure there are those who would want to smite me for uttering such heresies.
I believe faith and teaching can be strong, yet tolerant. Time will tell whether I can maintain that viewpoint.
--------------------
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Posts: 47 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.
While that is true in part, I think its more helpful to realise that belief includes both allegience to, and knowledge of. Without assenting to the propositions of Christianity about Jesus then who are we putting our faith in?.
Our belief in Jesus needs to be firmly rooted in the reality of the actual historical man who lived, died and rose again. Belief in Jesus has to mean not only belief in the ideas that Jesus represents, but also belief in certain facts about Jesus. That He was God, that He was sinless, that he was born as a man among His people as one of us, that He died for the World, and that He defeated death and sin in order to bring us back to a right relationship with God. That He rose back to life as a signifier and guarantee of that.
There are some propositions about Jesus that are of secondary importance of course. But I think belief in certain essential facts about Him is necessary for our belief in Him to have any meaning outside ourselves. And thus necessary for our Salvation.
Really? Then that's salvation for the severely learning-disabled off of the table then, isn't it?
...and Jesus said, 'What is that to you? You follow me..."
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hugorune
Apprentice
# 17793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If you can doubt so much that we don't know about, why not dismiss the provably false idea that everyone in the Church is somehow in some wider communion with each other, even though they don't agree at all on what they're supposed to do? [/QB]
Don't you think, though, that the communion of all believers is rather important? We all believe in the same God, we all commit the same sins (with a few bits of individual flavour), and we are all redeemed the same way, from Catholics to Calvinists. Or so I thought.
--------------------
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Posts: 47 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If you can doubt so much that we don't know about, why not dismiss the provably false idea that everyone in the Church is somehow in some wider communion with each other, even though they don't agree at all on what they're supposed to do?
Don't you think, though, that the communion of all believers is rather important? We all believe in the same God, we all commit the same sins (with a few bits of individual flavour), and we are all redeemed the same way, from Catholics to Calvinists. Or so I thought.
No, I don't think it's important at all. We don't believe God wants us to do the same things, we don't believe that grace has the same meaning for how we should live, we don't believe that the same participation in the world is required of Christians. Until secularism began to make inroads, people were content to define themselves by their doctrinal differences rather than their membership in the big tent. I see no reason why, now we're civilised enough or moderated enough not to harm each other, we can't be like those relatives who only hear from each other at Christmas or New Year. There's a certain percentage of indifference in the idea of 'live and let live', it's not an adversarial thing.
[ 22. September 2013, 21:58: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If you can doubt so much that we don't know about, why not dismiss the provably false idea that everyone in the Church is somehow in some wider communion with each other, even though they don't agree at all on what they're supposed to do?
Don't you think, though, that the communion of all believers is rather important? We all believe in the same God, we all commit the same sins (with a few bits of individual flavour), and we are all redeemed the same way, from Catholics to Calvinists. Or so I thought.
No, I don't think it's important at all. We don't believe God wants us to do the same things, we don't believe that grace has the same meaning for how we should live, we don't believe that the same participation in the world is required of Christians. Until secularism began to make inroads, people were content to define themselves by their doctrinal differences rather than their membership in the big tent. I see no reason why, now we're civilised enough or moderated enough not to harm each other, we can't be like those relatives who only hear from each other at Christmas or New Year. There's a certain percentage of indifference in the idea of 'live and let live', it's not an adversarial thing.
Until someone gets hurt. And every single faction has a large subset who think that the other faction is engaging in direct harm. I've heard folks say that conservatives harm gay folks by telling them they're going to hell. The liberals harm gay folks by telling them they're not going to hell. The conservatives are harming people by claiming that the only charity that works is private charity. The liberals are harming people by taking their resources without their consent. It goes on, and on, and on.
These aren't necessarily abstractions that only affect the individuals who harbor them.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If you can doubt so much that we don't know about, why not dismiss the provably false idea that everyone in the Church is somehow in some wider communion with each other, even though they don't agree at all on what they're supposed to do?
Don't you think, though, that the communion of all believers is rather important? We all believe in the same God, we all commit the same sins (with a few bits of individual flavour), and we are all redeemed the same way, from Catholics to Calvinists. Or so I thought.
No, I don't think it's important at all. We don't believe God wants us to do the same things, we don't believe that grace has the same meaning for how we should live, we don't believe that the same participation in the world is required of Christians. Until secularism began to make inroads, people were content to define themselves by their doctrinal differences rather than their membership in the big tent. I see no reason why, now we're civilised enough or moderated enough not to harm each other, we can't be like those relatives who only hear from each other at Christmas or New Year. There's a certain percentage of indifference in the idea of 'live and let live', it's not an adversarial thing.
Until someone gets hurt. And every single faction has a large subset who think that the other faction is engaging in direct harm. I've heard folks say that conservatives harm gay folks by telling them they're going to hell. The liberals harm gay folks by telling them they're not going to hell. The conservatives are harming people by claiming that the only charity that works is private charity. The liberals are harming people by taking their resources without their consent. It goes on, and on, and on.
These aren't necessarily abstractions that only affect the individuals who harbor them.
I'm not sure whether you're disagreeing with me or concurring. I'd agree with everything you'd said here.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.
While that is true in part, I think its more helpful to realise that belief includes both allegience to, and knowledge of. Without assenting to the propositions of Christianity about Jesus then who are we putting our faith in?.
Our belief in Jesus needs to be firmly rooted in the reality of the actual historical man who lived, died and rose again. Belief in Jesus has to mean not only belief in the ideas that Jesus represents, but also belief in certain facts about Jesus. That He was God, that He was sinless, that he was born as a man among His people as one of us, that He died for the World, and that He defeated death and sin in order to bring us back to a right relationship with God. That He rose back to life as a signifier and guarantee of that.
There are some propositions about Jesus that are of secondary importance of course. But I think belief in certain essential facts about Him is necessary for our belief in Him to have any meaning outside ourselves. And thus necessary for our Salvation.
Really? Then that's salvation for the severely learning-disabled off of the table then, isn't it?
...and Jesus said, 'What is that to you? You follow me..."
And I say back "it matters much to me, because these people are my brethren. Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
A God we can't answer back to is a bit of a megalomaniac. I seem to recall Abraham did so, and so did the woman to whom Jesus talked about dogs and children's tables.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hugorune
Apprentice
# 17793
|
Posted
My faith as a child (and a teenager) relied on the Bible (as translated in English, in practice) being literally true, down to every detail. That faith was eroded down under a barrage of factual information from scholars, along with a personal loss of connection with God.
A long time later, following an experience, my faith is re-established as an adult, but it no longer demands that I throw out the criticism that my intellect demands of me, and blind myself to truth. Instead God calls me to see His Word as a living book, written by men thousands of years ago, in the context of the time. The truth in it is made more powerful, not less, by the fact that it is not necessarily literal, and it does not ask me to close my eyes to what God reveals to us in the world through our senses, our reason, our philosophy, and our science.
I can't, as the Calvinist van Til insists in his presuppositional apologetics, dismiss the reason of secular people as inferior to that of Christians by definition. Our mind was given to us all by God, and when we insist that we must play a game of pretend with our rationality, we close the church off to all but the narrow-minded. That is a fate that it appears Christianity may be heading toward, although in the context of history and God's plan, things may look different in the not too distant future.
Posts: 47 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's much better, though I don't like the reference to Marcion, nor the suggestion that it is only liberals who regard language about God as limited (that view is highly orthodox)
Do you mean the eastern tradition of the apophatic?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's much better, though I don't like the reference to Marcion, nor the suggestion that it is only liberals who regard language about God as limited (that view is highly orthodox)
Do you mean the eastern tradition of the apophatic?
neither specifically. Aquinas will do.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Karl:
Sorry if you though I wanted to to piss off.
Not knowing exactly how far on the liberal scale you are (and these terms are extremely vague) I can't say whether given those convictions as settled, I could stay in the CofE.
But I'm interested in whether you would think it a good thing for there to be a thriving liberal christian denomination which was explicit about not including the traditional doctrines as part of what it means to follow christ.
Not necessarily, of course, the Unitarians.
Or do you think that the CofE already is such a denomination?
Personally it is hard for me to stand up each Sunday and go through a liturgy based on things I do not believe. I had enough of that with the JWs, who contrary to what many suppose, encourage people who are doubters to stay in there movement (so long as they don't actively campaign against any of the beliefs).
In fact I find some of those doctrines rather hard to accept. But maybe the point at which I would say that unless I can belief at least this much, it's not worth being a christian at all, is reached sooner with me than with you. And I claim no right nor wrong in that, and was non attending for nearly two years because of these issues.
And it doesn't help me much to say that all it's about is following Jesus, because I'm pretty poor at that. And I wonder how much those who reduce (or maybe raise) christianity to that level, really look at what a life of following in the footsteps of Jesus would really mean?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Karl:
Sorry if you though I wanted to to piss off.
Not knowing exactly how far on the liberal scale you are (and these terms are extremely vague) I can't say whether given those convictions as settled, I could stay in the CofE.
But I'm interested in whether you would think it a good thing for there to be a thriving liberal christian denomination which was explicit about not including the traditional doctrines as part of what it means to follow christ.
Not necessarily, of course, the Unitarians.
Or do you think that the CofE already is such a denomination?
Personally it is hard for me to stand up each Sunday and go through a liturgy based on things I do not believe. I had enough of that with the JWs, who contrary to what many suppose, encourage people who are doubters to stay in there movement (so long as they don't actively campaign against any of the beliefs).
In fact I find some of those doctrines rather hard to accept. But maybe the point at which I would say that unless I can belief at least this much, it's not worth being a christian at all, is reached sooner with me than with you. And I claim no right nor wrong in that, and was non attending for nearly two years because of these issues.
And it doesn't help me much to say that all it's about is following Jesus, because I'm pretty poor at that. And I wonder how much those who reduce (or maybe raise) christianity to that level, really look at what a life of following in the footsteps of Jesus would really mean?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
VDMA
Apprentice
# 17846
|
Posted
Dear Karl,
As an orthodox Christian believer, I certainly don't want you - or anyone like you - to "fuck off and die". You are my brother.
What you must understand is that it is literally pointless to follow Jesus as Lord if His claims were false. He said He'd be raised, and if He was not raised, He was just a fool. Why do you follow a fool? No matter how good His teachings, they are pointless if He was wrong about the most important thing He ever taught. If we follow Him simply for the teachings, we are believers in a social program, not a Person.
I believe the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because the men who penned Scripture achieved two superhuman ends: 1. they did not boast, but acknowledges their failures, and 2. the truths of the teachings they pass down are so utterly unexpected, supernatural, and superhuman that no Mere Man could ever have taught them in the history of the world. Are Confucians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, or pagans taught by their master(s) to forgive every wrong? To go the extra mile not only with those you love, but with those you hate as well? Everything Jesus of Nazareth taught smacks of human madness - but brilliant madness, absolutely pure genius. It was wait humanity was waiting to hear, but was too afraid to say it for endless centuries.
If you believe the stories of Alexander the Great's feats even though the first written accounts of him were 200 years after he died, then why not believe Christ's sayings are true and accurate after a mere 30 years had elapsed since His death? Those who wrote down His sayings and actions were honest enough to debase themselves for their own failings, lies, hypocrisy, and stupidity. It's incredibly unlikely that they just lied and forged the story of the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth, after recording all of Jesus' teachings against lies and falsehood. Cultists or power-hungry men are not that stupid.
You must understand that if God is truly God, He can do anything. The Virgin Birth is peanuts in comparison to God's power as the omnipotent eternal master of time, space, and reality. The simple decision of God to resurrect Christ is less than the effort we expend to lift a finger. If you won't believe these things, it is not for lack of sincerity on the part of the writers of the testimonies, nor for lack of an all-powerful God - you just refuse to believe.
Why should you refuse? I refused for many years, as a cradle atheist, because of a faulty Enlightenment rationalism that dominates our age and infected my mind. It was only when I learned about the qualities that Christians claim for God that I was converted to this dying and rising Saviour. Logic and rationality leads to the truth, in this case... somewhat ironically.
Do not approach God and the claims about Christ with emotion and feeling, at first. We must all come in the light of clear reason. Do not separate the faith from reason, as the West has tried to do for 250 years.
I do not hate you, nor do I want you to fuck off and die. We are brethren in terms of the creation, if nothing else. I seek fellowship with everyone, because that was what Jesus did and told us to do. Christ Jesus has lifted us above petty hatred by His resurrection and ascension. If these things are not true, we are still in our atrophy, entropy, and sin. No amount of nice teachings or social justice can save us. Only the grace of God will do it.
We're all praying that tortured souls find peace...
--------------------
Des Christen Herz auf Rosen geht, wenn's mitten unterm Kreuze steht.
Feel free to visit the Anglican Forums: http://forums.anglican.net/
Posts: 29 | From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
