|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The millstone that is S**** L******
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Your posting style is much more of a problem than anything you have to say.
Two peas.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Selective and out of context proof texts, a lack of nuance and banging on and on and on about the same issue over and over again - even on threads where it is of no relevance whatsoever to the subject in hand.
There's the point.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Selective and out of context proof texts, a lack of nuance and banging on and on and on about the same issue over and over again - even on threads where it is of no relevance whatsoever to the subject in hand.
There's the point. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I think that is the point.
I am new to the Ship. I thought people were being supportive and generally saying helpful things to someone who was clearly troubled to think that his 20 years of ministery had been wasted. Not only wasted, but a form of collaboration. Then in came Mr Langton banging on about Fuck Knows What, without the slightest regard for anyone's feelings, let alone opinions.
I can only assume that in RL he is one of those sad souls whop stand on street corners berating passers by, telling them they are all going to hell, and making, as a result, slightly less than zero converts.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Thanks oh so much, Steve, for your latest effort in Dead Horses where you managed to indicate that all Christians think as you do, where as non-Christians are free to think otherwise and you can't force them.
Wow. Who knew that Steve Langton was the arbiter of Christian thought? I might have gone for Jesus or the Pope, but no, it turns out that the determiner of true orthodox belief is living right now and gracing the ship with His Presence.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Thanks oh so much, Steve, for your latest effort in Dead Horses where you managed to indicate that all Christians think as you do, where as non-Christians are free to think otherwise and you can't force them.
Wow. Who knew that Steve Langton was the arbiter of Christian thought? I might have gone for Jesus or the Pope, but no, it turns out that the determiner of true orthodox belief is living right now and gracing the ship with His Presence.
I certainly didn't know I was the arbiter of Christian thought. If you read my post in DH you should realise I was saying emphatically that Jesus is that arbiter; and pointing out something you appeared to have missed, that combining OT texts in a particular way - a combination which you were rather sneering at - was something HE had done. Which at least tends to give that combination some authority for Christians. NOT "All Christians agree with me" - just "As a Christian this is how I see it". In this case, that I think Jesus has the authority to combine OT texts as he did and I'm happy to accept that.
If you want to discuss the point Jesus made, and whether I've interpreted it correctly, I'm quite happy to do so - back in DH. My point about non-Christians is simply my general point that Christianity is voluntary and that I don't expect non-Christians to necessarily agree with Jesus, and unlike many Christians even today I don't believe I have authority from God to coerce them or have the state pass laws against them. Surely you're not disagreeing with me about that....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Bibaculus;
quote:
I can only assume that in RL he is one of those sad souls who stand on street corners berating passers by, telling them they are all going to hell, and making, as a result, slightly less than zero converts.
Definitely NOT.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
So Steve Langton, have you said everything you needed to see on this subject, or is there more you need to say?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So Steve Langton, have you said everything you needed to see on this subject, or is there more you need to say?
Depends, I guess, on whether others really want to go on giving me stuff to respond to. If they keep misrepresenting me I may have to keep on pointing out where they've got it wrong....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My point about non-Christians is simply my general point that Christianity is voluntary and that I don't expect non-Christians to necessarily agree with Jesus, and unlike many Christians even today I don't believe I have authority from God to coerce them or have the state pass laws against them. Surely you're not disagreeing with me about that....
And why did you choose to bring that up? Exactly which non-Christian was passing by such that it was necessary to discuss non-Christians?
"General" point? You were responding to me. Not one word of what I had said had anything to do with non-Christians. I certainly wasn't the only one who read your remarks as casting aspersions on the Christianity of anyone who didn't read things the way you read them.
You basically slapped down a statement about what Jesus said, converted it into a statement about what Jesus meant and then said "of course, if you're a non-Christian you don't have to agree with it".
Which is pretty damn close to declaring that you know all there is to know about how to read the Bible like a proper Christian, on a thread full of Christians who don't actually agree with you or are at the very least wrestling with the question.
I'm prepared to assume that sometimes this is just because you are utterly clueless rather than malicious, but it doesn't make it any less enraging.
[ 02. March 2016, 10:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Depends, I guess, on whether others really want to go on giving me stuff to respond to.
Go impale your colon on steeple. The fundamental point of this thread is that people don't want to interact with you. You are a tedious shit that we can't wipe off, so there is venting about it here. Do no mistake these ventings as any interest in what you might respond. Because there is essentially zero chance you will say anything we can't already guess, you bleating tuneless kazoo of a person.
quote:
If they keep misrepresenting me I may have to keep on pointing out where they've got it wrong....
Ah, which is more true - our perception of ourselves, or other's perceptions of us. I suspect that people are less wrong about you than you are capable of understanding.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So Steve Langton, have you said everything you needed to see on this subject, or is there more you need to say?
If they keep misrepresenting me I may have to keep on pointing out where they've got it wrong....
It is a fantastic coincidence that we all get it wrong the exact, same way.
You are an amazingly effective mis-communicator.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So Steve Langton, have you said everything you needed to see on this subject, or is there more you need to say?
Depends, I guess, on whether others really want to go on giving me stuff to respond to. If they keep misrepresenting me I may have to keep on pointing out where they've got it wrong....
Zero interest. Fuck off. Find somewhere else to fill up with your tedious shit.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: Depends, I guess, on whether others really want to go on giving me stuff to respond to. If they keep misrepresenting me I may have to keep on pointing out where they've got it wrong....
So you're going to stay here, repeating the same thing, until everyone agrees with you? Is that the plan?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's what he's done since he boarded the Ship so at least there's consistency.
What was it Einstein said about repeating the same mistaken process over and over again and expecting the result to be different each time?
I wonder if there is a group somewhere called Anabaptists Anonymous?
'My name is Steve Langton and I am an Anabaptist ... You know how it is, you go online and give it your best shot ... the pain-meaning of scripture, the evils of Constantinianism ... and all you get is 'context, context, context ...' when what I want to get across is 'Constantine ... Constantine ... Constantine ...'
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
pain-meaning ...
I like it!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My point about non-Christians is simply my general point that Christianity is voluntary and that I don't expect non-Christians to necessarily agree with Jesus, and unlike many Christians even today I don't believe I have authority from God to coerce them or have the state pass laws against them. Surely you're not disagreeing with me about that....
And why did you choose to bring that up? Exactly which non-Christian was passing by such that it was necessary to discuss non-Christians?
Do I need to 'know', on a site like this, exactly which non-Christian is 'passing by' to take the trouble to register the point that that I'm discussing something on which the Christian and nonChristian views may differ? NonChristians read this site; I allowed for it in my response.
quote:
"General" point? You were responding to me.
It's not all about you, you know.
quote:
Not one word of what I had said had anything to do with non-Christians.
Except for the quite real possibility that a nonChristian might be reading the thread and I wanted to clarify things for any such person....
quote:
I certainly wasn't the only one who read your remarks as casting aspersions on the Christianity of anyone who didn't read things the way you read them.
So sad we live in an environment where people prefer to imagine they've been offended rather than actually discuss issues....
quote:
You basically slapped down a statement about what Jesus said, converted it into a statement about what Jesus meant and then said "of course, if you're a non-Christian you don't have to agree with it".
As I recall, you were querying the validity of an interpretation of Genesis which combined a passage from one chapter with another from the next chapter - and indeed you seemed a bit sneery about what principle of interpretation might be being used. All I actually did was to point out that combining those two passages was not some recent oddity but went back to Jesus himself who made a point by combining those passages in that way.
I also pointed out that for most Christians (though it transpires maybe not for the typical Shipmate), as we consider Jesus to be rather more than just another guy on a level with us, and indeed regard him as having considerable authority in matters of the Word of God, most Christians would reasonably accept that Jesus knew what he was doing in making that connection, and for Christian teaching related to those texts we could regard the connection as authoritative. (and being aware that non-Christians read SoF material, I clarified that non-Christians didn't need to agree with us about that; and that unlike some Christians, I regarded their acceptance or not as voluntary....)
Yes, I've also expressed an opinion on what Jesus meant by making that connection, and tried to state my reasons for it. That is NOT any kind of expression of infallibility on my part. It is simply me putting my view forward for discussion. What is wrong with you that you interpret it otherwise?? And what is wrong with the Ship if you can seriously claim that you aren't the only one...??
quote:
Which is pretty damn close to declaring that you know all there is to know about how to read the Bible like a proper Christian, on a thread full of Christians who don't actually agree with you or are at the very least wrestling with the question.
Which is nothing of the kind, except in your mind for reasons I can't profess to understand....
quote:
I'm prepared to assume that sometimes this is just because you are utterly clueless rather than malicious, but it doesn't make it any less enraging.
I'm probably not the best person to help you with your needless self-inflicted rage.... But I hope you do sort it out. And I wish I could think of a way of saying that which you won't misinterpret....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Do I need to 'know', on a site like this, exactly which non-Christian is 'passing by' to take the trouble to register the point that that I'm discussing something on which the Christian and nonChristian views may differ?
You're doing it again. You're still putting forward the idea that there is "the Christian view". The entire bloody point of the Dead Horses thread is that there is not one Christian view, and that Christian views may differ.
[ 02. March 2016, 23:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Orfeo, he's just not doing that. It's because by his definition neither you nor I is a Christian. It's the true Scotsman fallacy in its starkest form. You are only a Christian if you accept his very idiosyncratic viewpoint, based entirely on his interpretation of one short sentence.
[ 03. March 2016, 01:08: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I suspect that people are less wrong about you than you are capable of understanding.
Well said. I imagine this applies to most of us.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
I certainly wasn't the only one who read your remarks as casting aspersions on the Christianity of anyone who didn't read things the way you read them.
So sad we live in an environment where people prefer to imagine they've been offended rather than actually discuss issues....
Given that Orfeo drafts legislation, and I'm a professional editor, I think I can safely say that we're pretty good at the nuance of language.
If both of us are picking up on something you've said, we're probably not "imagining" it.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
You know, I believe that SL has a self-image of being St George bravely battling the dragon on this website for the sake of some unknown fair maiden (presumably some unknown non-Christian) who will accidentally come across his words and be convicted of the truth of them.
I for one have been that person in the past. I have been you, Steve. I know you're not listening, but the quicker you realise that this is stupid, the sooner you can begin to apologise to all the people your blundering about has hurt and the sooner you can engage yourself in actions that are actually beneficial.
Of course, I also appreciate the stupidity of trying to talk to someone who isn't actually interested in listening.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
I certainly wasn't the only one who read your remarks as casting aspersions on the Christianity of anyone who didn't read things the way you read them.
So sad we live in an environment where people prefer to imagine they've been offended rather than actually discuss issues....
Given that Orfeo drafts legislation, and I'm a professional editor, I think I can safely say that we're pretty good at the nuance of language.
If both of us are picking up on something you've said, we're probably not "imagining" it.
Literary translator here, by training at least. Picking up nuance is my stock in trade. There is no nuance in SL's utterances; only blundering stupidity.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: So sad we live in an environment where people prefer to imagine they've been offended rather than actually discuss issues....
By your own admission, your reason for being here is to keep repeating the same thing until everyone agrees with you. How is that a discussion?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Who won't listen or who is incapable of listening?
SL likes to self-identify as an 'absent-minded professor.' I don't know how 'absent-minded' he is but he's certainly no 'professor' ...
As far as his ability to 'think outside the box' goes, he has never demonstrated the ability to think in any way other than along particular tramlines laid down for him by a particular interpretative framework and a particular form of conservative evangelical exegesis which he fondly imagines to be the 'plain-meaning of scripture' ... or as I slipped Freudianly on the keyboard recently, to Baptist Trainfan's amusement - the 'pain-meaning of scripture.'
Whilst SL is certainly capable of distinguishing between allegory and other literary forms within this framework, he seems incapable of recognising that there are other approaches to scriptural interpretation and issues around tradition/Tradition and so on than those he espouses himself ... or, rather, whilst he does recognise that other approaches exist he's unwilling to engage with them other than to point out that he thinks they are wrong.
Over and over and over again.
It's like a fixation.
I don't agree with the RCs, for instance, on Papal Infallibility, but I wouldn't try to vire that into every single discussion or engagement with an RC Shipmeet or with any RCs I meet in real life ...
Gamaliel: What's the RCC line on the possibility of life on other planets, for instance?
RC poster: Well, there are various views, the Vatican ...
Gamaliel: Ah - there we have it! The Vatican ... the Vatican ... you are listening to a single man - the Pope, the Bishop of Rome ... you are not going by the plain-meaning of scripture ...!'
Later ...
Gamaliel: Tell me, what's the RCC position on the Second Coming?
RC Shipmate: Well, there are a range of different views, some believe that ...
Gamaliel: Some believe that ... ? Some believe ... what is this 'some believe'? Have they not read the plain-meaning of scripture?
And so on and on and on and on and on it goes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I've met many a Christian who is just as convinced as Steve that their take on Christianity is the Only Right and True Path to Salvation.
This is usually a doctrinal basis sold to them way back when they were impressionable and unformed (in Christian terms that is): it played a vast part in making them what they are and there is now absolutely now shifting it. It has, AFAICT, bugger all to do with being an Aspie or an inability to make small talk.
If you ever need a clue to spotting one, it is that they cite the Epistles over the Gospels. Remember, it isn't Paulianity.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Lack of nuance' - like Eliab recognising the 'plain meaning' but going every which way to avoid it? And from where I'm standing it's actually that approach which looks to be too 'black and white' and lacking 'nuance'.
Really? I would never (contra Rook) have guessed that that would be your objection to my position.
You simply haven't understood my arguments if you think they are 'black and white'. I'm distinguishing, for example, the "probable" or "apparent" meaning of the text from what you are calling the "plain" meaning, I'm distinguishing the likely meaning of the text considered as a historical human document from its meaning considered as scripture, I'm distinguishing the specific human intention behind the words from their divinely inspired meaning, and distinguishing the general world-view and opinions of the human author from his specific intentions. All those are relevant to (what I am claiming is) the right way to read the text, and they are all nuances.
You're welcome to challenge me about whether these are useful or necessary distinctions, whether I'm applying them correctly, and even (since this Hell) whether I'm applying them in good faith. As (I hope) should be clear, I'm not sure of my interpretive ground and I would very much like to be challenged on it, but I really do not feel I have much of a case to answer in regard to putting forward an un-nuanced argument. That's just a misreading. I'm quite obviously arguing for a nuanced approach to scripture. 'Nuanced' does not mean 'reasonable', or 'right', of course.
I'd rather take this up on the DH thread, as I see no reason not to keep our very deep disagreement more-or-less civil, but I'm happy to discuss it here if the hosts permit (particularly if you want to argue that I'm making the argument as an excuse for disobedience or otherwise in bad faith - I deny that, but it's a more plausible objection than lack of nuance).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've met many a Christian who is just as convinced as Steve that their take on Christianity is the Only Right and True Path to Salvation.
This is usually a doctrinal basis sold to them way back when they were impressionable and unformed (in Christian terms that is): it played a vast part in making them what they are and there is now absolutely now shifting it. It has, AFAICT, bugger all to do with being an Aspie or an inability to make small talk.
If you ever need a clue to spotting one, it is that they cite the Epistles over the Gospels. Remember, it isn't Paulianity.
I think that applies in Protestant terms and in Protestant circles ... we see a similar thing in the more Catholic and sacramental traditions but in a different kind of way and without the almost exclusively Pauline basis ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd rather take this up on the DH thread, as I see no reason not to keep our very deep disagreement more-or-less civil, but I'm happy to discuss it here if the hosts permit (particularly if you want to argue that I'm making the argument as an excuse for disobedience or otherwise in bad faith - I deny that, but it's a more plausible objection than lack of nuance).
I think that Steve thinks we're trying to be clever-clever with Scripture in order to find ways of wriggling out of doing what it clearly says, especially on DH issues.
I also think that he thinks the "State Church" idea has almost irrevocably corrupted the way that most Christians - at least in historic Western nations - approach Scripture.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I think he goes further than that, he believes that it's also corrupted the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and Rome as well ... although he'd see Roman corruption as a 'given' and par for the course ...
But you're right in terms of how this 'paranoid universe' take on things colours his thinking ... because Baptists and other non-conformists are tarred with the same Constantinian brush as far as he's concerned because they are not as 'separated from the world' as he thinks they should be - even though he has yet to articulate in any meaningful way what this actually means in practice in a messy, inter-related, inter-dependent and complex society ... one where we are all complicit, if that's the right word, in the commercial, social and cultural relationships that make up our communities and societies.
The point of course, is that SL's worldview is a neat, manageable and highly reductionist one because it boils everything down to a neat set of propositions, irons out all complexity and nuance and sets everything up in a dualistic kind of way where there's 'the world' and there's 'the church' - defined in a fairly tight and close-knit fashion - there's you and there's me, there's right and there's wrong, there's black and there's white ... and there are few shades of grey.
Welcome to the myopic parallel universe of Steve ...
It's an attractive philosophy because it divides the world very neatly into goodies and baddies and there are very clear villains - such as Constantine, such as the State Churches ... such as those nasty people over there who aren't like us ...
It also saves us from having to think too hard.
Outside of the box? Inside the padded cell more like.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Many years ago - I won't go into details - I attended a Bible study group with some American Evangelicals.
The theme of their study was "total separation from the world". Having agreed that they didn't drink or smoke or go to naughty movies, they concluded that they were indeed "separated" and went their ways.
I was left thinking, "Is that it?" - for there was no engagement with anything which might have appeared philosophical, no critique of political positions, no discussion of how the church should be incarnated in the world, no questioning of the way the economy worked. I suspect that, Stateside, these good folk would have been more "separated" as they would have sent their children to "Christian" schools and universities, used "Christian" tradespeople and, indeed, lived much of their lives in an Evangelical bubble.
I'm not saying that SL thinks like that, indeed it's not an attitude I've often encountered in Britain. But I do wonder what his vision of "purity" and "separation" entails.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But I do wonder what his vision of "purity" and "separation" entails.
We'll never find out, as he consistently dodges those questions.
I can only assume that's because they're too compromising to answer, but it might be because such practicalities have never concerned his ridiculously supine mind.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But I do wonder what his vision of "purity" and "separation" entails.
We'll never find out, as he consistently dodges those questions.
I can only assume that's because they're too compromising to answer, but it might be because such practicalities have never concerned his ridiculously supine mind.
If nobody has ever told him, how can he tell us?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Baptist Trainfan: But I do wonder what his vision of "purity" and "separation" entails.
It entails that he's better than us. That's the whole point.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But I do wonder what his vision of "purity" and "separation" entails.
We'll never find out, as he consistently dodges those questions.
I can only assume that's because they're too compromising to answer, but it might be because such practicalities have never concerned his ridiculously supine mind.
If nobody has ever told him, how can he tell us?
If only we had clear and unambiguous instructions from scripture...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In fairness, I would expect a lot more and a lot better from the Anabaptist Network - and to be blunt, I'm not sure that SL is at all representative of the Network - which as he's told us, is quite diverse.
I've certainly found that Baptist churches in general do discuss and consider these sort of issues - rather than simply throwing proof-texts at them.
Same with Anglican evangelicals and others.
How SL comes across to me is a typical 1960s/70s style Banner of Truth-ish Reformed evangelical with a layer of Anabaptism scooped on top for good measure ... which is fair enough - there's room for that - but once he's said that, there's not a lot to say.
On one level, I'm all on favour of a principled, stalwart evangelicalism - but its shadow side can often be a binary, judgementalism and an overly dualistic approach to life.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think that Steve thinks we're trying to be clever-clever with Scripture in order to find ways of wriggling out of doing what it clearly says, especially on DH issues.
Yes, and if he'd put it that way, I would willingly acknowledge that he has an arguable case. I think that my position can be defended (obviously, or I wouldn't hold it), but there most definitely is a tension in my thinking between my intellectual conviction about what St Paul (probably) meant, and my moral conviction that what he appears to have meant is plainly wrong. As long as I continue to hold both of those views, the way in which I try to reconcile them is going to be open to challenge.
But what SL actually said was that my view was 'black-and-white' and 'lacking in nuance'. He's just wrong about that.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Are Christians not supposed to say that Paul was wrong?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are Christians not supposed to say that Paul was wrong?
Paul is basically the number 2 man in the bible, for all practical guidance. Questioning him is fraught with difficulty for Christians.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
So they just ignore him.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So they just ignore him.
I think it is more that they interpret what was written differently.
But very few seem willing to go as far as wrong.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are Christians not supposed to say that Paul was wrong?
Depends on the Christian, I suppose. But it's Paul's words as recorded in the Bible, not Paul the man, that on a specifically Protestant view presents the difficulty.
I think the point on which most (though certainly not all) Christians would at least ostensibly agree is that the Bible is some sort of authority, and is useful for telling us things about God, faith and morality that we might not otherwise have been able to get.
The approach that Steve L appears to endorse is that if it is tolerably clear that the Bible says X, and my culture, upbringing, desires, prejudices, feeble human understanding or whatever causes me to think 'not-X' than I should take that as a correction of my mistake, because God, speaking through the Bible, knows better than I do, and obedience and humility should lead me to re-think.
I can't just dismiss that. There's clearly some force to it, once you grant the pre-supposition that Steve and I share, that the Bible is an authority for faith and life. If that's right then there will be times that I will find my views challenged by scripture because I'm wrong. If I say that the Bible is wrong, whenever it says something I can't accept, then I'm cutting myself off from a (supernaturally inspired) source of truth that could correct my errors. Being human, it's a given that however wise and good I might aspire to be, I'm wrong about something important.
Hence the problem with the anti-gay stuff in the Bible. The Bible does look to me like it contains anti-gay sentiment - I'd love to believe the revisionist case, but I'm not convinced. On the other hand, I'm at a loss to see any moral basis for being anti-gay whatsoever. I can't see how that could possibly be right. So I either try to force myself to believe something that seems wrong, damaging, and evil, OR I reject the Bible as nonsense, OR I try to read the Bible in some other way than what Steve L is calling 'the plain meaning'.
I'm arguing that the third approach is correct - that coming to the Bible as Scripture means coming to it with the best ethical understanding I can bring. I don't think it is desirable (or even possible) to come to scripture as an ethical empty vessel, and obediently and uncritically accept the 'plain meaning'. I don't think that's how the Bible is designed to teach us.
Saying simply that Paul's (inspired) words are just wrong, and therefore we needn't bother further, would be an easy way to resolve the dilemma, but it's not a step that many Christians are willing to take. This is because (in my case at least) we've taken so much of value from Paul - how we are supposed to live now that we've received God's forgiveness, what it is that Jesus has done for us and the cosmic implications of that, why we ought to be part of, and love, the church of Christ even though that church is so often unworthy of him. There is so much there that really is inspired - that gives us truth we couldn't have found on our own, for me to be untroubled when the apostle seems to go wrong.
Hence I disagree with Steve's approach to the text - and disagree very strongly because the anti-gay conclusion he draws from it is one that appals me - I think he holds it because of an honest commitment to presuppositions which I share. I also recognise that, as I'm avowedly compromising with the text, there are arguments with real merit that could be made from Steve L's position against mine.
The criticism he actually made was not one of those arguments - that doesn't mean that there aren't any.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can't just dismiss that. There's clearly some force to it, once you grant the pre-supposition that Steve and I share, that the Bible is an authority for faith and life. If that's right then there will be times that I will find my views challenged by scripture because I'm wrong. If I say that the Bible is wrong, whenever it says something I can't accept, then I'm cutting myself off from a (supernaturally inspired) source of truth that could correct my errors.
The Bible clearly is an authority, and as a GLA I'd say that it is the ultimate authority, that it has the sort of primacy Article 6 gives us. But there is also the authority tradition, and the ability to use our reason in the interpretation of scripture. That's as I understand the rest of your post.
Upthread, someone asked where SL was coming from. He gave us the answer in one of his earliest posts on these boards - he would come home from work and study his Bible. Nothing there about the guidance from others who have in turn taken guidance from others, and so forth. Just SL sitting down at a desk, on his own, studying and reaching his own conclusions. It really is very sad, and it is a method all but guaranteed to lead to error and idiosyncrasy. I am reminded of a man referred to by Hugh Trevor-Roper in one of his works on the English Civil Wars. This man believed that the reference in Revelations to the pouring out of the vials was indeed a reference to the forthcoming publication of a book he had written - from memory, it was the 4th vial. SL is in this same line, the same tradition.
He's not alone in that. A regular poster on these boards, one who is ordained clergy in a mainline US tradition, who several times a year will come out with a biblical interpretation that is so far out that it is not even in left field, but well over the stand and into the street beyond. It's why Madame and I have never studied Revelations on our own save to enjoy the glorious writing.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Eliab, I guess some of us get around the problem you outline by believing that the HOly Spirit is still active in the church and is guiding it, bit by bit, into fuller understanding of what is true and God's Will. Jesus said that the SPirit would lead us into truth...and I see no reason to believe that that stopped when the canon of the New Testament was last settled. Certainly the pre-reformation church (eastern and western) and its RC/Anglican/Lutheran offspring have acted on the basis that the Spirit is active and can guide individuals and the church as a whole into new understanding.
I have no trouble, as a Christian, in saying that in some cases we do know better than Paul (or any of the epistle writers) -- at least as affects living in our world today, rather than his world 2000 years ago. I don't have to explain away what Paul says because he was talking about something other than I am. And I fully and easily admit that my position is new, it's not his, or what the church believed historically. But sometimes what the church believed historically was wrong -- certainly wrong today, and sometimes wrong even when the belief was fresh and new.
Are there problems with this approach -- of course. One has to pray, and test what is new and unprecedented. It can't be just one person's belief that justifies doctrinal change.
But doctrinal change (or development, if you will) has gone on in the past, and been accepted by Christians based on the assumption that it was prompted and then verified through the Holy SPirit. I don't see that that process has ended, or will end, short of the Parousia.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
