|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What's a liberal? Who's a liberal?
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
"Liberal" has the same root as "liberty". It's about freedom.
"Liberality" is generosity - giving freely of one's own resources. If you go to a dinner party and your host is liberal with the wine, then the wine is flowing freely. In this sense the opposite of "liberal" is "stingy".
In matters of religious belief, liberalism is the idea that people are free to hold and to express ideas that differ from those held by the majority - freedom of thought. Belief in a broad church. Its opposite is the authoritarianism that demands conformity.
Holding a dissenting belief does not make one liberal - such a belief can be held in an authoritarian way, as something that must be changed. Liberalism is the idea that it is OK to dissent.
I don't know how "liberal" came to be used in US politics to mean "left-leaning".
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Context is surely hugely important, and the context created by the OP is purely theological.
I disagree. Having quote:
theological problems surrounding the idea of a physical resurrection
and debating them is one thing. The context of discussing them in preaching, quite possibly on Easter Sunday, to a congregation that evidently held diverse views on the subject, is not just theological, it's pastoral.
In that sense, I entirely stand corrected. Mea culpa.
I had in mind a far less subtle point: that the OP didn't sweep up an entire set of political propositions and positions into a single phrase, but was looking specifically at ways of understanding the resurrection.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Fair enough. As I've said, I think not holding to a physical resurrection counts as a "liberal" view. I disagree with that view, and to me the physical resurrection seems pretty central (1 Cor 15 in mind particularly and narrative difficulties notwithstanding), but I don't think "liberal" has to be a badge of shame.
Being able to declare together that "Christ is risen" is more important to me at this stage than any attempt to make "what happened to all the fish?"* a shibboleth of who's in and who's out.
==
*as a former thread on Christ's resurrection body was memorably entitled
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The experience of the disciples was not a straightforward one, and I think it does that experience a serious disservice to see it only in terms of the revival of a corpse.
I doubt any serious orthodox theologian has ever seen the resurrection only in terms of the revival of a corpse.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I know that we can't possibly be physically resurrected - (who would get which atoms which have been recycled 1000s of times?) and, if not us, then why Jesus?
Last time this came up, I did a back of the envelope calculation, which if I remember correctly had the result that there are more carbon atoms in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than in all the human beings that have ever lived.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So, one can ONLY be a 'true' liberal if one denies all supernatural claims in the Jesus story, apart from 'in spirit'?
How does the Incarnation work in that? And if it does orthodoxly, then why not the bodily resurrection?
Can the Incarnation work heterodoxly? 'Truly' liberally?
These aren't rhetorical questions.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Those are the sort of reasons I believe in a bodily resurrection, Martin (and the incarnation). But some people seem to manage not to and yet wholeheartedly affirm "Christ is Risen".
[ 28. March 2016, 21:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Context is surely hugely important, and the context created by the OP is purely theological.
I disagree. Having quote:
theological problems surrounding the idea of a physical resurrection
and debating them is one thing. The context of discussing them in preaching, quite possibly on Easter Sunday, to a congregation that evidently held diverse views on the subject, is not just theological, it's pastoral.
Indeed it is. And of course there may be people in the congregation who find it helpful for their own understanding of their faith to hear that there are Christians who believe in the Resurrection without necessarily believing in a physical Resurrection. (On a slight tangent, I recall a priest- in fact a previous vicar of the OPer's church- telling me with some exasperation that he had just had his ear bent by a member of the congregation who objected to his having suggested in his sermon that St John was indeed the author of the Fourth Gospel!)
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Fair enough. As I've said, I think not holding to a physical resurrection counts as a "liberal" view.
No I don't think so. A liberal view would want to invite you to explain your view, and would also want to discuss the other views. Not holding to physical resurrection perhaps may be counted as a non-traditional view. Liberalism is not the opposite of traditional. It means free inquiry, no easy dismissal of ideas, and while it implies progressivism, it does not dismiss traditional ideas. It just doesn't rank the received traditional ideas as higher than more recently acquired knowledge and ideas. It is hostile to appeals to authority and uncritical acceptance of things. It is why we call some higher education the "liberal arts".
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Actually, I think the expressions 'liberal education' and 'liberal arts' are more to do with them being the kind of accomplishments and knowledge that were appropriate to the status of a fully free man (i.e. not a slave or a serf, whether owned or paid).
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Fascinating Eutychus. So NOTHING literally, physically happened, there wasn't even a bloke called Jesus, but there is a story we made up and on its say so there is eternal life, despite that being a tad more complex than a contingent eternal infinite multiverse.
Okayyyyyyy.
I said that to God yesterday. About the universe. No explanation of it works or is in fact necessary. It IS. That's bad enough. Having Him thinking it, is just outrage upon outrage. Yet I can't get Him out of my head.
So I invited Him in in no uncertain terms, in another Heraclitus loop.
So maybe I'm not so far from those who manage to deny all supernatural claims yet still believe in Him.
[ 28. March 2016, 22:19: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And no... that's my point. A liberalism that says no isn't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And no... that's my point. A liberalism that says no isn't.
Disagree. Liberalism may well say no if reason and inquiry lead to that. Such as we did about young earth creationism.
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 Joesaphat:
I preached about the theological problems surrounding the idea of a physical resurrection. Parishioners and former students alike have said that I'm an 'old liberal.' Never mind the old, but what's liberal, really? Should one feel insulted or wear the badge with pride?
There are a number of different ways in which one can be liberal, some of which are often contrary. So I try to be specific about whether you are talking socially, theologically, economically or ecclesiastically.
A social liberal is one who generally takes a more accepting view on Dead Horse issues. Their opposite would be a social conservative.
Theologically, I'd say a liberal is one who plays fast and loose with biblical interpretation. Their opposite would be theological orthodox (small o). A shorthand might be to see whether they use more eisegesis (liberal) or exegesis (orthodox). Also consider how much of the bible is considered a metaohor. At the liberal extreme, you get a metaphor-phile like JD Crossan who sees next to no history in the gospels; at the other is a metaphor-phobe (fundamentalist) who takes everything at face value. And there's plenty of occupied ground in between.
The economic one is generally about left wing or right wing, though both lay claim to the word liberal because of the positive connotations.
Ecclesiastically, a conservative would be a traditionalist, whereas a liberal would be a nonconformist. So if you like lots of procession, ceremony, dressing up and chanting, then it's likely you're an ecclesiastical conservative. A liberal in this sense is more likely to subscribe to the notion of a priesthood of all believers rather than defining a priest as someone ordained or with any kind of notion of apostolic succession. A cheeky test is that a traditionalist will often have the sane reaction to hearing 'Alleluia' during Lent as an actor does to hearing 'MacBeth' in a theatre.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
These are only indicators. But I think it helps to narrow down the sense in which 'liberal' is being used as it's such a broad word it's open to misinterpretation.
For the record, I regard myself as socially liberal, theologically (mostly) orthodox, left wing and nonconformist.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
I know that we can't possibly be physically resurrected - (who would get which atoms which have been recycled 1000s of times?) and, if not us, then why Jesus? [/QB]
Because God exalted Jesus to be Lord of history and King of the Universe ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Seriously, though the Christian claim was that of exaltation and enthronement, that God decisively exalted the poor teacher of Nazareth to be High King of Heaven and earth. The theological claim of exaltation, made early in the Christian movement later necessitated stories about his bodily resurrection.
So the theological argument is less about the mechanics of resurrection but one of Christology. Some accept Jesus to be a teacher and prophet. Others have a higher Christology, a high view of Jesus.
[ 29. March 2016, 00:41: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Put me in the same corner with Lamb Chopped, and add this to the fire:
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
(1 Cor 15:13-19)
[ 29. March 2016, 01:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
J. Gresham Machen famously asserted that liberalism is not a variety of Christianity but another religion.
The problem with that, as has been pointed out, is that theological liberalism is defined relatively and contextually (despite my reputation on the Ship, there are Christians who think I am theologically liberal), and therefore many and various forms and degrees of liberalism remain within the bounds of historic, credal orthodoxy (whether subscribed to by evangelicals, RCs or whatever).
Machen was right, however, to the extent that some forms of liberalism tip too far and fall off the edge, and denial of the physical (recrudescence of Docetism here?) resurrection is one of them.
Money-grubbing and theologically gauche critics have been known to question how anyone can accept a stipend while denying essential elements of the faith which they claim to represent.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Put me in the same corner with Lamb Chopped, and add this to the fire:
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
(1 Cor 15:13-19)
I've always felt that this is a little over-stated, probably for the audience Paul was worried about when he wrote or dictated it.
It's quite possible to leave the resurrection aside and follow Jesus as a moral teacher and an example to follow. Unlike some better followers of Christ, I find my thinking and feeling moving backward and forward between the example of his life and his teachings, and consideration of these more dramatic resurrection ideas.
(But then we're on Paul with this, and Paul seems to me to have cared less for Jesus' life, much more on having him dead and coming back to life. So I'm not really very keen on Paul.)
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
(But then we're on Paul with this, and Paul seems to me to have cared less for Jesus' life, much more on having him dead and coming back to life. So I'm not really very keen on Paul.)
Making me wonder where Anglican Brat got this pre-resurrection Christianity idea from, since Paul is as early as it gets for Christian writings. If there was a Christianity before the introduction of the idea of a physical resurrection, where's the evidence?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Making me wonder where Anglican Brat got this pre-resurrection Christianity idea from, since Paul is as early as it gets for Christian writings. If there was a Christianity before the introduction of the idea of a physical resurrection, where's the evidence?
People listening to that Jesus guy, whoever they thought he was, and trying to do what he said? And taking comfort in some of what he said?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Making me wonder where Anglican Brat got this pre-resurrection Christianity idea from, since Paul is as early as it gets for Christian writings. If there was a Christianity before the introduction of the idea of a physical resurrection, where's the evidence?
People listening to that Jesus guy, whoever they thought he was, and trying to do what he said? And taking comfort in some of what he said?
Yes but where is this documented? The earliest documents we have are firmly resurrectionist.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
(But then we're on Paul with this, and Paul seems to me to have cared less for Jesus' life, much more on having him dead and coming back to life. So I'm not really very keen on Paul.)
If you believe that Luke wrote Acts, and that he is reliable, it would appear that Peter also took something more than a passing interest in Christ's "coming back to life".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mt--
Sorry, I was thinking in terms of the chronology of the story, not what was written when.
People were following Jesus before his death, according to the gospels. I would think that a good many of them didn't necessarily go on to believe in the resurrection, but *did* go on trying to follow Jesus, as best they could manage. And, given that Jesus' words were probably passed along by word of mouth, many people probably didn't even know about the crucifixion and resurrection, or that he might be God incarnate.
I don't have a problem with the resurrection, nor the miracles. (Atonement (especially penal substitutionary), on the other hand...) I don't know if they happened. But ISTM that someone who finds some truth in what that Jesus guy is reported to have said is following him, or moving in that direction.
Kids don't learn all there is to reading all at once. They start with a few letters, and learn to sound them out and make them into words. But they *are* reading.
FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes but where is this documented? The earliest documents we have are firmly resurrectionist.
Might the earliest documents be resurrectionist because they are Paul's letters, and that was his preoccupation?
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think its an appropriately important focus, you think its a preoccupation. But either way the point remains that a pre-resurrection Christianity isn't documented or evidenced.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Fascinating Eutychus. So NOTHING literally, physically happened, there wasn't even a bloke called Jesus, but there is a story we made up and on its say so there is eternal life, despite that being a tad more complex than a contingent eternal infinite multiverse.
I didn't say I believed that.
I believe in a physical resurrection, along with the incarnation, because I think the whole point of what happened at the cross is that it invades space-time and humanity. And as already stated I'd start with 1 Cor 15, like mousethief.
But on these boards I've come across those who assert a belief in the risen Christ without seeing things in the above terms. I can't get my head round that, but who am I to judge?
It seems to me that a bunch of people here are throwing other people's sincerely expressed doubts in their faces and telling them they're not Christians.
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Theologically, I'd say a liberal is one who plays fast and loose with biblical interpretation.
By that definition, and again as already stated, many, many self-proclaimed evangelicals of my acquaintance are liberal. They parrot what they think the Bible says (or what a preacher told them it said) instead of looking at what it actually says.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I debated this, but I guess I'll throw it in anyway--
I don't think belief in the real resurrection of Christ (that is, body, soul and everything, NOT as a metaphor) is the dividing line between conservative and liberal. I fear it is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian, as Paul wrote:
quote:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:8-10)
It says this at the front of our Church (I did the art work, the sunrise depicts the empty tomb)
I sat in Church on Easter Sunday looking at it and thinking 'is he?' I don't know any more.
I know that we can't possibly be physically resurrected - (who would get which atoms which have been recycled 1000s of times?) and, if not us, then why Jesus?
How do you know that? It's just your assumption.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Sipech: Theologically, I'd say a liberal is one who plays fast and loose with biblical interpretation.
Then everyone is a liberal.
--------------------
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
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Theologically, you should accept it if you are happy with it. If you doubt the reality of the physical resurrection, that probably makes you a liberal.
Labels - I think they are interesting, and I tend to accept them if other people want to use them, but I also define myself with other labels - often contradictory. They don't define who you are, they define how someone else has seen you.
No I doubt the physicality of resurrected life, not the same thing
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I debated this, but I guess I'll throw it in anyway--
I don't think belief in the real resurrection of Christ (that is, body, soul and everything, NOT as a metaphor) is the dividing line between conservative and liberal. I fear it is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian, as Paul wrote:
quote:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:8-10)
aaargghh, no, no, no. I follow Christ with all the energy I can muster.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
And to all of you who identify orthodoxy with a physical resurrection (assuming by that that Christ's risen body can be apprehended physically and not merely that his corpse has been glorified): well, where is it? You know, physical things if they are to be called physical in any meaningful sense, can be measured, observed, located... so where is he? And how come he can be eaten and united with us in the eucharist? And how will God be 'all in all' as the same Paul you drag as evidence, said?
I'm happy to say that Christ is risen, just not in material form.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And to all of you who identify orthodoxy with a physical resurrection (assuming by that that Christ's risen body can be apprehended physically and not merely that his corpse has been glorified): well, where is it?
In heaven, wherever that is. That's the whole point. "There is a man in heaven". quote:
And how come he can be eaten and united with us in the eucharist?
Not something this Zwinglian feels the need to affirm. quote:
And how will God be 'all in all' as the same Paul you drag as evidence, said?
I don't know, but I'd be curious to know how you deal with that bit about the resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor 15.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Fret not Eutychus. I KNOW you don't. What I said, ambiguously put, was a corollary or reiteration of the paradoxical, or 'spiritualized', entirely metaphoric position articulated by Anglican_Brat for example.
It's like those who love the naked form in art but are impotent, asexual. Rosetti was such I believe.
And n... that goes without saying, saying no to nonsense, to wrong. Mandatorily denying the bodily resurrection is a compulsion.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
In heaven, wherever that is. That's the whole point. "There is a man in heaven".
That's precisely my point, do you truly believe heaven's a place, somewhere?
I cannot understand how anyone can believe with Calvin (not just Zwingli) that Christ cannot be present in the eucharist because 'his body is in heaven and not here,' as if heaven were still a place up there. Modern cosmology anyone?
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know, but I'd be curious to know how you deal with that bit about the resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor 15.
Is it essential to believe everything Paul believed?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
That's precisely my point, do you truly believe heaven's a place, somewhere?
To the extent that Christ "makes all things new", I'm hedging my bets, but in my limited understanding of theoretical physics I don't see much problem with there being some sort of physical space we cannot accurately identify.
quote:
I cannot understand how anyone can believe with Calvin (not just Zwingli) that Christ cannot be present in the eucharist because 'his body is in heaven and not here,'
I didn't say "because". I don't have any problem reconciling my belief in a physical resurrection body with the real presence, simply because I have never believed in the latter, and I don't see it as foundational to my faith in the way that I find the resurrection to be.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes but where is this documented? The earliest documents we have are firmly resurrectionist.
Might the earliest documents be resurrectionist because they are Paul's letters, and that was his preoccupation?
As Paul's encounter with Jesus did not happen until after he was raised from the dead, it is perhaps not so much preoccupation as his way of relating with Christ.
I wonder whether our view of who we are following - the man Jesus who walked and taught, or the risen Christ who continues to show us the way, colours our attitude. If we can see him as both/ and, while allowing others to see him as one or the other, are we liberal?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know, but I'd be curious to know how you deal with that bit about the resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor 15.
Is it essential to believe everything Paul believed?
Perhaps not; in the passage in question, one might query his understanding of fish and animals having different types of "flesh", for instance.
But there is little doubt to my mind that here, he is (i) arguing in favour of a decidedly bodily resurrection of Christ and (ii) using that as a foundation on which to affirm the hope of the general resurrection, and (iii) explicitly staking the truth of the Gospel message itself on that specific claim.
My view is that if you're going to disagree with Paul on that, you have little grounds for paying attention to him on anything else. This all the more so in view of the fact that his preaching in Acts consistently and unequivocally focuses on the bodily resurrection despite it being controversial even then.
[ 29. March 2016, 07:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know, but I'd be curious to know how you deal with that bit about the resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor 15.
Is it essential to believe everything Paul believed?
Please, no. All that stuff about wearing your hair short and not offending the angels, and being caught up into the air to meet the Lord on the clouds...
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
See my above post.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Is there one liberal conservative debate that goes on in Christianity? The same debate that is sometimes about one subject and sometimes another? Does the same debate happen in Islam and Sikhism, in psychiatry, economics, town planning, cookery and archery?
Though it appears to be about, on this page, the resurrection, is it really about us and not where we stand, but how we choose where we stand; what we are about as people?
How else do you explain beliefs that have clearly been chosen, not arrived at by considering evidence, but chosen because 'they must be true', because they are necessary - necessary for reasons into which we seem to choose not to have insight.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
That's precisely my point, do you truly believe heaven's a place, somewhere?
To the extent that Christ "makes all things new", I'm hedging my bets, but in my limited understanding of theoretical physics I don't see much problem with there being some sort of physical space we cannot accurately identify.
Then I'm sorry to say your understanding of theoretical physics is indeed limited. If it's physical, it can be measured. That's the very definition of physical, even if we are not yet able to measure it.
[ 29. March 2016, 07:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
hatless: Does the same debate happen in Islam and Sikhism, in psychiatry, economics, town planning, cookery and archery?
The conservative vs liberal debate in My Little Pony fandom is particularly nasty.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Then I'm sorry to say your understanding of theoretical physics is indeed limited. If it's physical, it can be measured. That's the very definition of physical, even if we are not yet able to measure it.
(I took the liberty of fixing your code back there)
Let me try again.
As I understand it, there are bits of the universe and dimensions we hypothesise to exist but cannot see. In view of that, I'm not too worried about trying to play some variation on "where's Wally" for the current location of Christ's resurrected body in the observable universe.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
(Physical) matter is any substance which has mass when at rest and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter, even though stuff beyond electrons, neutrons etc makes it a bit trickier these days: 'physical,' or material is widely if loosely used as a term for the substance that makes up observable objects.
[ 29. March 2016, 07:58: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Then I'm sorry to say your understanding of theoretical physics is indeed limited. If it's physical, it can be measured. That's the very definition of physical, even if we are not yet able to measure it.
(I took the liberty of fixing your code back there)
Let me try again.
As I understand it, there are bits of the universe and dimensions we hypothesise to exist but cannot see. In view of that, I'm not too worried about trying to play some variation on "where's Wally" for the current location of Christ's resurrected body in the observable universe.
It's really not a variation on Where's Wally... it's a vision of the kingdom of heaven which is akin to Scientology and belief in Xenu 'somewhere in space' though completely unobservable as far as we can tell. No thanks. Sometimes, what used to be orthodoxy (God exists beyond the seventh heaven, the lunar sphere, where Jesus dwells bodily and heaven is in his company) simply needs to be revised.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
hatless: Does the same debate happen in Islam and Sikhism, in psychiatry, economics, town planning, cookery and archery?
The conservative vs liberal debate in My Little Pony fandom is particularly nasty.
"You don't really understand ponies. You don't really care for them, do you? You don't know how to make them happy, or protect them. I'm sorry to say it, but I'm not actually sure that you even like pink."
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm so out of my depth here that I'll have to resort to quoting from Wikipedia:
quote:
Some parts of the Universe are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth, so these portions of the Universe lie outside the observable universe (...) there is a "future visibility limit" beyond which objects will never enter our observable universe at any time in the infinite future.
In my layman's estimation, this would mean that the resurrected Christ could be non-observable to us now if God can achieve FtL travel, which you may feel is offside right away, but to my little brain, this is not too much of a problem.
[x-post]
[ 29. March 2016, 08:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm so out of my depth here that I'll have to resort to quoting from Wikipedia:
quote:
Some parts of the Universe are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth, so these portions of the Universe lie outside the observable universe (...) there is a "future visibility limit" beyond which objects will never enter our observable universe at any time in the infinite future.
In my layman's estimation, this would mean that the resurrected Christ could be non-observable to us now if God can achieve FtL travel, which you may feel is offside right away, but to my little brain, this is not too much of a problem.
[x-post]
The comoving distance (or radius) of the observable universe is now about 46.6 billion light years, and ever increasing as the universe expands. Are you really saying that God zapped the physical body of Christ some 50 billion light years away so we can't see it, and that's where heaven is, some sort of physical space though unobservable?
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
It's really not a variation on Where's Wally... it's a vision of the kingdom of heaven which is akin to Scientology and belief in Xenu 'somewhere in space' though completely unobservable as far as we can tell. No thanks. Sometimes, what used to be orthodoxy (God exists beyond the seventh heaven, the lunar sphere, where Jesus dwells bodily and heaven is in his company) simply needs to be revised.
OK, that's a much fairer challenge to my mind.
I think the underlying question here is about the interaction between the cosmology of Biblical times and the essential tenets of the faith, and the resurrection is probably a point at which that question comes into sharp focus.
(Come to think of it the cosmology question might be central to the theological "liberal/conservative" debate as a whole).
I've probably demonstrated quite amply that arguing the physics of this is way beyond me. All I can say is that for my part, I have come to the conclusion that rejecting the bodily resurrection on the grounds of outdated cosmology is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and placing a little too much faith in our current scientific understanding.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
