|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can't we do without this?
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I have been thinking about those bits of the Christian faith that are difficult or awkward. I suspect that we all have bits that we feel a little bit uncomfortable with - the bits we quietly ignore or the parts of the Creed where we metaphorically cross our fingers when we say it.
So, what part of the Christian faith would you like to see quietly (or not so quietly!) dropped?
What I am looking for here is something which you think causes unnecessary difficulty and which you think could be omitted without compromising the Christian faith as a whole.
Please feel free to make a nomination. But please also provide some defence for your position.
To start, I will would like to nominate The Second Coming
Why is it a problem?
Well, to begin with the bleeding obvious and to quote the words of 10CC, 'two thousand years and he ain't shown yet.' The early Church appear to have believed that the world was about to end and that Jesus would return as part of the final denouement. But it didn't happen.
Another reason for my nomination is that there have been endless apocalyptic groups who have done all sorts of crazy things based on the expectation that 'Jesus is coming soon'. Quite frankly, it's an embarrassment to any serious thinking Christian.
I well remember the time when, as a teenage new Christian, I read too much of Hal Lindsay and got myself scared shitless. Too many people end up like that, I have found. It's not healthy.
It is also a cause of some disgrace to the credibility of the Christian faith that so many have made predictions about the Second Coming and been proven 100% wrong. It just makes us a joke, doesn't it?
Finally, the expectation of a literal return of Jesus (and all that is commonly associated with it) really makes less and less sense the more we know about the universe and how it came into being and how it will probably end (in billions of years time). Believing that God will suddenly step in and wrap things up seems increasingly absurd.
Will it make a difference to the Christian faith?
I really don't think so. Let's face it, we kept things going for 2000 years. Will we really be shattering the faith if we expect to keep going for the indefinite future?
In fact, I would argue that the Christian faith would benefit by dropping this belief. Instead of sitting back and saying 'we will let God sort out all the problems with the world' we would have to take seriously our responsibility to work for Kingdom of God to come to fruition 'on earth as it is in heaven'.
So that's my nomination. What's yours?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's the odd and difficult parts that inspire growth and understanding. If science left out the bits that didn't fit the current paradigm, it would never progress. We'd still be believing Aristotle and thinking he was cutting edge. I think a similar thing applies to theology. The things I find most difficult or unbelievable or absurd may be the things I need to spark my spiritual growth.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
I might counter yours another time if no one else does, but in the spirit that this seems to be posted in, I would choose to nominate the virgin birth.
Why is it a problem?
Because its historicity is very hard to defend. Most of Jesus' ministry was done in the presence of many witnesses who generated the oral history on which the gospel writers drew. Yet of all his followers, we only know of one who was around at his birth, Mary. The single witness is inherently more doubt-worthy than the multitude who witnessed Jesus resurrected. It would naturally be in Mary's interests to say that she was a virgin prior to her giving birth to Jesus' siblings.
Then there is also the issue with the Septuagint mistranslation of Isaiah 7 which makes the whole thing very suspect.
Will it make a difference to the Christian faith? A bit, to some.
I have heard an increasing trend not to argue from the point of historicity but to say, "if the virgin birth didn't happen then christianity falls apart because..." with an argument that usually falls along the line of original sin. It's one that I fail to find convincing as it implies that simply by being human one is born in sin. To try to remove this possibility from Jesus by invoking a virgin birth throws the baby (almost literally) out with the bathwater as the logical conclusion is that Jesus wasn't fully human. In other words, my case is that arguing for a virgin birth is implicitly docetist.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
For me, it's the so-called texts of terror; the Old Testament passages in which God apparently commands the Israelites to commit genocide. How that harmonises with the Jesus who apparently wishes his followers to 'repay evil with good', 'not resist an evil person' and so on is, let's say, tricky...
(Incidentally, I'd go for option 6 in the article I linked to.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I would nominate the Epistles, especially those of St Paul
Why are these a problem?
We know that he says that "The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life", but did that stop him writing those letters (and setting a fashion that has lasted to this day)? No, it did not. These bossy and bitter diatribes against the church in various places are used week after week to berate God's people such that the Gospels are put firmly into second place. While there is agreement about the content and meanings of the Gospels there is nothing like that about the Epistles. No wonder His Church is divided.
Would there be a problem without the Epistles?
Actually, there would. The NT would be very short indeed and a lot of preachers wouldn't have a scriptural basis for their sermons, homilies and talks. Come to think of it, there wouldn't be a scriptural basis for a lot of our preachers, but would that be so bad if we had no more than:
- All the scripture Christ had
- The accounts of His life, death and resurrection
- The adventures of the early church
- The hippy-trip that is the Revelation of St John?
[ 16. June 2014, 20:03: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In the interest of this being Purgatory I'm going with a defence of the Second Coming.
Of course it's a doctrine that has had some really whacky interpretations. I'm not going to defend those whacky misinterpretation - the writings of Hal Lindsay, those who have predicted a date for the Second Coming, or those who have declared that we don't need to care for the earth or protest poverty because Christ is Coming.
I will defend why I think the Church needs to believe in the Second Coming.
1. We pray as Jesus taught us "your Kingdom come, your will be done as it is in heaven". I believe that God answers prayer, that the Kingdom is coming in all it's fullness, a time when the will of God will be done on earth.
2. I don't believe that because God is going to bring in His Kingdom that therefore we are excused from working towards that happening. We have the promise that our efforts will not be in vain, that despite whatever setbacks we experience in our efforts to bring justice, peace, equality, righteousness to our world will be overcome.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Kitten
Shipmate
# 11953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"your Kingdom come, your will be done as it is in heaven."
I've never thought of that as Second Coming related but more a request to know gods will and for his aid in acting according to his will so as to help create his kingdom on earth.
--------------------
Happiness is not having what we want but wanting what we have.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I tend to agree with the statement about the Second Coming, but I would probably try to get along as well without the book of Revelation entirely.
The "terror texts" are annoying, but one can ask how important they are to modern Jews, too, as well as to Christians.
Another way to go at this is to ask what parts one would like to emphasize rather than to eliminate.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile
The single witness is inherently more doubt-worthy than the multitude who witnessed Jesus resurrected. It would naturally be in Mary's interests to say that she was a virgin prior to her giving birth to Jesus' siblings.
So our Lord was born to a liar?
Doesn't seem plausible to me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's not the texts or creeds that are problematic, it's our epistemologies, our dispositions, our weakness, our ignorance. I look forward to doing without that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Firstly, the Second Coming is probably more meaningful to people who believe that the world has problems that it needs to be delivered from. Especially to people who are in the midst of such problems.
Secondly, despite all the lip service now paid to Christian unity, I feel that disunity is the inevitable outcome of a religion that seems to have been created for the moment. The information and spiritual direction in the four gospels or in some of the epistles could perhaps have been expressed more concisely, and we could instead have had an extra text that gave more instruction about spiritual disciplines and about the structure of institutional Christianity for the long term. Then we wouldn't have had to disagree about these things so much! (But we probably still would, I suppose.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, it's the so-called texts of terror...
Thanks for this. Just read the book of Joshua last weekend.
I'd nominate the part after King David has an affair with Bathsheba and one of his sons rapes his daughter. The daughter never did anything wrong beforehand. She goes into seclusion and is never mentioned again. No gradual healing, no battle to regain dignity. She's just destroyed and forgotten.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It's all well and good to ask "Can't we do without this?" when it comes to Sacred Scripture, so long as we come round to the fact that the answer is, and will always be, "No."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
It's all well and good to ask "Can't we do without this?" when it comes to Sacred Scripture, so long as we come round to the fact that the answer is, and will always be, "No."
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the interest of this being Purgatory I'm going with a defence of the Second Coming.
Of course it's a doctrine that has had some really whacky interpretations. I'm not going to defend those whacky misinterpretation - the writings of Hal Lindsay, those who have predicted a date for the Second Coming, or those who have declared that we don't need to care for the earth or protest poverty because Christ is Coming.
I will defend why I think the Church needs to believe in the Second Coming.
1. We pray as Jesus taught us "your Kingdom come, your will be done as it is in heaven". I believe that God answers prayer, that the Kingdom is coming in all it's fullness, a time when the will of God will be done on earth.
2. I don't believe that because God is going to bring in His Kingdom that therefore we are excused from working towards that happening. We have the promise that our efforts will not be in vain, that despite whatever setbacks we experience in our efforts to bring justice, peace, equality, righteousness to our world will be overcome.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's not the texts or creeds that are problematic
Texts are fine. Creeds, not so much. Let's get rid of those.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I say it's all or nothing, because Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life' and was curiously reticent on the subject of which parts of (Old Testament) Scripture should be edited out. Maybe you could make a case for taking some of the New Testament out of the canon, but are we any more likely to get the editing right than the various ecumenical church councils in the fourth century, who had the advantage of being fifteen hundred years or so closer in time to the actual events?
I'm not arguing for the inerrancy of Scripture; I don't believe that. I'm not even arguing to keep all the doctrine (I'm not sure I believe in the virgin birth either). I just think it's wrong to airbrush all the controversial bits out.
This is our faith, warts and all. Pretending the warts aren't there is... just wrong. Unhistorical. Unhealthy. Unworthy of our Lord, who claimed to *be* the Truth.
If He's right, we have nothing to be afraid of.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, it's the so-called texts of terror...
Thanks for this. Just read the book of Joshua last weekend.
I'd nominate the part after King David has an affair with Bathsheba and one of his sons rapes his daughter. The daughter never did anything wrong beforehand. She goes into seclusion and is never mentioned again. No gradual healing, no battle to regain dignity. She's just destroyed and forgotten.
Not to mention the utter repugnance of the penalty for David's sin falling on his baby son - who's done fuck all wrong and dies.
Do people *really* believe God does that sort of sick shit?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
This is why I find the 'progressive revelation' idea of interpreting it all through the lens of Jesus (being the 'visible image of the invisible God and all) so compelling. Some people say it's subjective and therefore useless as an interpretive method, but I think that's simply not right; it is based on our revelation in the Bible of what Jesus is like, how he lived and how he taught his followers to live.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So our Lord was born to a liar?
Doesn't seem plausible to me.
Less plausible than a virgin birth? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's not the texts or creeds that are problematic
Texts are fine. Creeds, not so much. Let's get rid of those.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, it's the so-called texts of terror...
Thanks for this. Just read the book of Joshua last weekend.
I'd nominate the part after King David has an affair with Bathsheba and one of his sons rapes his daughter. The daughter never did anything wrong beforehand. She goes into seclusion and is never mentioned again. No gradual healing, no battle to regain dignity. She's just destroyed and forgotten.
Not to mention the utter repugnance of the penalty for David's sin falling on his baby son - who's done fuck all wrong and dies.
Do people *really* believe God does that sort of sick shit?
Plenty of that sort of sick shit happens to this day, mostly to people who have done no wrong.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Karl: quote:
Not to mention the utter repugnance of the penalty for David's sin falling on his baby son - who's done fuck all wrong and dies.
Do people *really* believe God does that sort of sick shit?
Some people do. Some people believe God will heal any illness 'if your faith is strong enough', which is the same idea from a different angle (if you're not healed there's something wrong with you).
I think they're wrong, but I'd rather try to persuade them that God isn't like that by pointing to what Jesus said in the New Testament than by taking the story about David's son out and pretending it didn't happen. Just as I'd prefer to leave the story about David's daughter in; the poor woman was raped by her brother and had to spend the rest of her life in purdah. The only memorial she has is a few lines in the book of Joshua; if you take that out she's gone completely. Surely, pretending she never existed is more disrespectful than acknowledging what was done to her?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, it's the so-called texts of terror...
Thanks for this. Just read the book of Joshua last weekend.
I'd nominate the part after King David has an affair with Bathsheba and one of his sons rapes his daughter. The daughter never did anything wrong beforehand. She goes into seclusion and is never mentioned again. No gradual healing, no battle to regain dignity. She's just destroyed and forgotten.
Not to mention the utter repugnance of the penalty for David's sin falling on his baby son - who's done fuck all wrong and dies.
Do people *really* believe God does that sort of sick shit?
Plenty of that sort of sick shit happens to this day, mostly to people who have done no wrong.
Shit happening and God doing shitty things are very different. Especially when the reason given for him doing it is shitty.
If I believed this I'd be a nervous wreck, constantly in fear that this bastard God would murder my children because of some transgression of mine.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's all well and good to ask "Can't we do without this?" when it comes to Sacred Scripture, so long as we come round to the fact that the answer is, and will always be, "No."
Rather than simply making this essentially conservative assertion, would you care to defend it?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Shit happening and God doing shitty things are very different. Especially when the reason given for him doing it is shitty.
If I believed this I'd be a nervous wreck, constantly in fear that this bastard God would murder my children because of some transgression of mine.
I'm not sure God killing babies for no reason at all (which he quite demonstrably does all the time) is much better than God killing a baby for a reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Rather than simply making this essentially conservative assertion, would you care to defend it?
What more defense can there be than "It's Scripture?" "The mouth of the LORD hath spoken it," and we live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
[ 17. June 2014, 12:09: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Rather than simply making this essentially conservative assertion, would you care to defend it?
What more defense can there be than "It's Scripture?" "The mouth of the LORD hath spoken it," and we live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
I think the point made was to look at the assumptions inherent within. For example what do you mean by "It's Scripture" - maybe
this thread may help.
Do you mean the collection of 66 books that are commonly recognised under the term 'the bible' to be synonymous with 'scripture', do you leave out some books or add others (e.g. the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books, gospel of Thomas, Shepherd of Hermas)?
Then what reasons might one employ to equate whatever set of writings (i.e. the etymological sense of 'scriptures') you choose to be equated with "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"?
In short, all things may be questioned. Holding on too firmly to our beliefs has the effect, not of affirming them, but of squashing them out of all recognition.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
In short, all things may be questioned.
Of course, though not if you want to be a Christian. For Christians, the definitive word has been spoken, irrevocably, in Jesus, whom we encounter in this set of books at the center of this community called the Church.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I always thought specific parts of the bible were only troublesome to literalists and inerrantists. Don't worry about the specifics so much. The parts about being kind to each other, sharing, fairness and gentleness continue to apply. The mythology and various prophetic bits, where inaccurate, are pretty well obsolete, and where accurate are either happy coincidence and a sign that the writers were at least as bright as we are today at predicting things. They just lacked electronic gadgets.
As for the second coming, I think we missed it and happily kill Jesus daily.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
In short, all things may be questioned.
Of course, though not if you want to be a Christian. For Christians, the definitive word has been spoken, irrevocably, in Jesus, whom we encounter in this set of books at the center [sic] of this community called the Church.
That made no sense. In effect, if you pronounce view X then in order for me to be a christian I have to agree unquestioningly with your proposition.
This is a discussion board where there are a variety of views. While I may think many are wrong, just as many think I am wrong over a great many matters.
But you fail to address to the point of precisely what you mean by the "definitive word". Which Jesus is it? The Jesus of the synoptics, the Jesus of John's gospel or the gospel of Peter?
What about the interpretations? Would you subscribe to the Jewish mystic of Geza Vermes, the peasant of JD Crossan or the itinerant rabbi of NT Wright?
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the interest of this being Purgatory I'm going with a defence of the Second Coming.
…
I will defend why I think the Church needs to believe in the Second Coming.
Realizing my presumption, Alan Cresswell, let me add a third reason to your list. No second coming means:
3. No "time of the final restoration [apocatastasis] of all things" (χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων) [Acts 3:21] .
One can't really be a Christian universalist without it.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Shit happening and God doing shitty things are very different. Especially when the reason given for him doing it is shitty.
If I believed this I'd be a nervous wreck, constantly in fear that this bastard God would murder my children because of some transgression of mine.
I'm not sure God killing babies for no reason at all (which he quite demonstrably does all the time)
You say he does. I say he doesn't. I say shit happens, not because God does the shit, but because we live in a real world in which shit happens.
And if he is into child murder, he can fucking well leave my kids out of it. And me, for that matter.
Do feel free to wander around mortuaries telling grieving parents God killed their child. I'm sure it'd mean we'd soon be free of you here.
[ 17. June 2014, 13:25: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the interest of this being Purgatory I'm going with a defence of the Second Coming.
…
I will defend why I think the Church needs to believe in the Second Coming.
Realizing my presumption, Alan Cresswell, let me add a third reason to your list. No second coming means:
3. No "time of the final restoration [apocatastasis] of all things" (χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων) [Acts 3:21] .
/tangent
How do you get restoration from ἀποκαταστάσεως
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Away from (Apo)
going down/according to (Kata)
standing/insurrection (stasis)
[ 17. June 2014, 13:42: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So our Lord was born to a liar?
Doesn't seem plausible to me.
Less plausible than a virgin birth?
If we both assume that the atheistic and inherently amoral philosophy of naturalism is true, and therefore no supernatural intervention in the natural order is possible (i.e. no miracles can take place) and no God with a moral character exists, then I suppose a deceitful Mary would be more plausible than the virgin birth.
Trouble with that is there is no need for a Jesus, a Church or any form of Christianity.
So, no, your theory is quite obviously far more implausible than the virgin birth idea.
[ 17. June 2014, 13:50: 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
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
WE could do woithout inerrancy and literalism. Much of the Bible is myth.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I say shit happens, not because God does the shit, but because we live in a real world in which shit happens.
And if he is into child murder, he can fucking well leave my kids out of it. And me, for that matter.
Do feel free to wander around mortuaries telling grieving parents God killed their child. I'm sure it'd mean we'd soon be free of you here.
This reminds me of arguments I've heard of in which God is described as being relatively powerless. I've never read up on the theology of this, but I suppose it counters some of the problems of a God who's presented as all-powerful. The problem that arises instead is that a powerless God can seem somewhat unnecessary.
I think I lean more towards what some would see as the 'nasty God' scenario, in which God both gives life and takes it away. This fits in with my more fatalistic mindset, I suppose.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
WE could do woithout inerrancy and literalism. Much of the Bible is myth.
Precisely. I agreed with this above. Some of the lessons about kindness, love, justice, fairness continues to apply.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Shit happening and God doing shitty things are very different. Especially when the reason given for him doing it is shitty.
If I believed this I'd be a nervous wreck, constantly in fear that this bastard God would murder my children because of some transgression of mine.
I'm not sure God killing babies for no reason at all (which he quite demonstrably does all the time) is much better than God killing a baby for a reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Rather than simply making this essentially conservative assertion, would you care to defend it?
What more defense can there be than "It's Scripture?" "The mouth of the LORD hath spoken it," and we live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
For an Anglican, you have what would seem to be a quite fundamentalist approach to Scripture. I'd see the scriptural canon as a collection of books written and compiled by numerous persons, variously giving their nationalistic interpretations of history, their primitive theological justifications for their nationalism and wanton war-making, a sample of poetry of various purposes, creation mythology and other myths, some more advanced ethical teaching, accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (with some embellishments), history of the early Jesus Movement/Church, and a series of essays in the form of letters attempting to work out a theology and ethos for the early Church.
As to God deliberately killing babies, I'm not sure what you mean, Zach. Are you referring to spontaneous abortion, disease, and other biological processes of the natural world? If so, I hardly see that these are acts of God.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think I lean more towards what some would see as the 'nasty God' scenario, in which God both gives life and takes it away. This fits in with my more fatalistic mindset, I suppose.
How would you square speaking to someone who has just lost a child and worshipping the God who's responsible for doing it, deliberately, and causing all that grief and anguish?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Karl
Since we live in a highly pluralistic society I'd avoid talking about God to a bereaved parent unless I knew where they were coming from. I haven't been trained in ministering to the bereaved and it's not my job to burden unhappy people with beliefs that they don't share.
However, I live in an area with a high Muslim population, and I understand that Muslims tend to be more at ease with the notion of God giving and taking life. There's a certain comfort for them in the idea that God is piloting the universe, that he's allotted a certain amount of time to each person. 'God's in control' gives some people strength in their sadness.
In popular religion there does seem to be a vague notion of God 'needing' the presence of a special person, which is then used as an explanation as to why they had to die. 'Heaven is missing an angel' is a concept that makes death tangible to some, and 'the good die young' implies that there's some sort of divine system in place. I don't know to what extent Christian clergy try to 'correct' these ideas when ministering to mourners. Do they prefer to emphasise the randomness of it all?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
In short, all things may be questioned.
Of course, though not if you want to be a Christian. For Christians, the definitive word has been spoken, irrevocably, in Jesus, whom we encounter in this set of books at the center of this community called the Church.
I really have difficulties with this.
What you seem to be saying is that Christians should just accept what they're told and never question. That's the way that led to Christians defending slavery.
In my experience, ALL progress in faith comes through questioning and examining things, rather than just taking things as given.
And perhaps - in the face of huge problems in our world caused by religious fundamentalists - we ought to be encouraging people to question what they are being told.
Does raising questions about the Second Coming, or the Virgin Birth (or whatever), really place me and others outside the Christian faith? What kind of a shitty deity do you think you are worshiping who would want such mindless adherence?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What's wrong with the oecumenical creeds? Even I can say them!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
WE could do woithout inerrancy and literalism. Much of the Bible is myth.
That is itself getting dangerously close to accepting a literalist mindset, if you'll pardon my saying so.
The bible contains books in many genres. Yes, it has myth. It also has "histories" (not to be confused with modern-era historiographies), it has poetry, wisdom compilations, law, instructive narratives, prophecy (not to be confused with divining the future), apocalyptic, songs, letters... Lots of those genres won't fit into the literal truth vs. myth paradigm.
The discipline of scripture needs the reader to engage with what the writer was striving to convey, to whom, and why he or she felt impelled to communicate in this way. No different to reading any ancient text actually. Just reading it as if it was written by somebody in the same culture as us, a couple of days back, makes no sense at all. Yet here we are doing just that.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
WE could do woithout inerrancy and literalism. Much of the Bible is myth.
The bible contains books in many genres. Yes, it has myth. It also has "histories" (not to be confused with modern-era historiographies), it has poetry, wisdom compilations, law, instructive narratives, prophecy (not to be confused with divining the future), apocalyptic, songs, letters... Lots of those genres won't fit into the literal truth vs. myth paradigm.
The discipline of scripture needs the reader to engage with what the writer was striving to convey, to whom, and why he or she felt impelled to communicate in this way. No different to reading any ancient text actually. Just reading it as if it was written by somebody in the same culture as us, a couple of days back, makes no sense at all. Yet here we are doing just that.
Amen to that!
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
This is why I find the 'progressive revelation' idea of interpreting it all through the lens of Jesus (being the 'visible image of the invisible God and all) so compelling. Some people say it's subjective and therefore useless as an interpretive method, but I think that's simply not right; it is based on our revelation in the Bible of what Jesus is like, how he lived and how he taught his followers to live.
Amen. Scripture is subject to Jesus, not the other way around. I think that's why Jesus sometimes seems to play fast and loose with the Scriptures, as in "You have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . ." and passages like that.
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
For an Anglican, you have what would seem to be a quite fundamentalist approach to Scripture. I'd see the scriptural canon as a collection of books written and compiled by numerous persons, variously giving their nationalistic interpretations of history, their primitive theological justifications for their nationalism and wanton war-making, a sample of poetry of various purposes, creation mythology and other myths, some more advanced ethical teaching, accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (with some embellishments), history of the early Jesus Movement/Church, and a series of essays in the form of letters attempting to work out a theology and ethos for the early Church.
Yowza! What a weak-tea scripture you have there in your hand, sir! Surely leaving out any mention of divine inspiration or the Holy Spirit or the phrase "Word of God" was merely an oversight on your part.
What happened to "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God," to quote the Chicago Quadrilateral of 1886?
Or, "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as 'containing all things necessary for salvation,' and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith," to quote the Lambeth Resolution of 1888?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
I nominate "the Bible." What I mean is not the Scriptures themselves, in whole or part, but the practice of binding them all together in one volume and calling it "The Bible." I think that lends itself to the attitude of treating this library of diverse texts written over hundreds of years as if they are one book speaking in one voice, which is of course God's. In reality there are many voices speaking through the texts, including (I believe) God's but also those of some very fallible humans. And I think recognizing this actually leads to a richer understanding of the Scriptures and of our relationship with God.
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I like the cut of your gib! Well put.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
What happened to "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God," to quote the Chicago Quadrilateral of 1886?
Or, "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as 'containing all things necessary for salvation,' and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith," to quote the Lambeth Resolution of 1888?
We learned some things and decided somethings were decidedly wrong. Like human beings are not evolutionarily special, that men and women might move toward equality, that skin colour doesn't define us. I would note though that strict inerrancy and literalist approaches are different than this and unfortunate developments. The bible contains good and bad examples, and some absolutely rejectable ideas. But the core message as posted about above is valid.
The weak tea is the appeal to the old formulas in my opinion. It means the thinking has all been done for us by long dead white guys.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Does raising questions about the Second Coming, or the Virgin Birth (or whatever), really place me and others outside the Christian faith? What kind of a shitty deity do you think you are worshiping who would want such mindless adherence?
The same shitty deity who once said "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," and who says to Job (I paraphrase) "Where the hell were *you* when I made the world?"
Everyone has questions, and everyone has doubts. Part of the work of faith is to trust that those things which are difficult for us to grasp or believe are true, and to commit ourselves to work through our doubts and questions. Speaking personally, if Jesus is not going to return in glory to put all things right, then I can't work out why the fuck I ought to bother with all this.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Speaking personally, if Jesus is not going to return in glory to put all things right, then I can't work out why the fuck I ought to bother with all this.
That's what I was thinking, but I'm glad someone with credentials said it instead of me!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
