|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What's a liberal? Who's a liberal?
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Joesaphat: 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?
Just until He finishes repairing His TARDIS.
--------------------
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:
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?
As I say, I'm just not scientifically minded enough for this to bother me, but the possibility (possibility, mind) of heaven being "some sort of physical space though unobservable" does not seem too unpalatable to me.
I'm more interested in your take on 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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
My understanding of eternity is outside of the time flow we observe in this life. So eternity is always "now". When we die, we proceed to the new now "without passing go or collecting 200 dollars" (my thanks to Tom Lehrer). We will all go together when we go. Even though we depart separately. Go figure.
Which, amongst other things, is how I resolve the pre-millenial, post-millenial, a-millenial views about the last days and the general resurrection.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Barnabas62: My understanding of eternity is outside of the time flow we observe in this life. So eternity is always "now".
Agreed with the first part, not with the second part.
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
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.
I wouldn't bother, hatless. It's more or less what I said earlier, and apart from LeRoc nobody else took it up then either.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think it is probably an orthodox Christian belief.
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be; world without end. Amen".
From which you can infer, I think, that Eternity was, is and always will be "now". Of course such understanding is outside human experience in the here and now. So what is it? An article of faith? Probably not. In my case, I'd call it an inkling, a glimpse, maybe also a hope.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.
There's a difference between being theologically liberal and simply being lazy. Some theological liberals can be quite biblically literate, only how they read the bible is quite different, often trying to read through the text, rather than engage with what is said. e.g. I've heard Paul's entire theology dismissed as his attempt at repairing his own personal guilt for his role in Stephen's death.
And of course, one can certainly be a liberal evangelical. There's nothing wrong with that! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
In parallel with what's said above about "liberal" possibly being relabelled as "progressive" some of the negative connotations that accrue themselves to evangelicalism might be prized off if the term "missional" is used instead.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Sipech: Some theological liberals can be quite biblically literate, only how they read the bible is quite different, often trying to read through the text, rather than engage with what is said.
I have the feeling you're painting 'liberal' Bible reading with a rather broad brush here. Also, I'm not sure whether reading through the text and 'engaging with what is said' are mutually exclusive (nor even if the latter can be done without the former).
--------------------
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
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Sipech: Some theological liberals can be quite biblically literate, only how they read the bible is quite different, often trying to read through the text, rather than engage with what is said.
I have the feeling you're painting 'liberal' Bible reading with a rather broad brush here.
I am. That's the point. Liberal/orthodox is not a binary position, it's a spectrum. I might be regarded as a heretic by some, a liberal by others, because I don't affirm the historicity of the virgin birth. Yet to others, I might be considered more orthodox because I do affirm the historicity of the resurrection.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
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?
I suppose I'd say in the new creation. Which I suppose is something like a parallel universe, or one of those sf alternate histories in which someone went back in time and killed Hitler.
quote:
I'm happy to say that Christ is risen, just not in material form.
My problem here is that I don't see how it's possible for Christ to be human and not in material form. Even if we do have immaterial souls - and actually I don't believe we do - I believe we're entirely material - our material bodies are integral parts of us. They're how we relate and communicate.
Also, taking us back to your first point, having a physical resurrection makes sense of a distinction between resurrection and ascension. Not that I think it's of much theological importance, but it's there in our aesthetic and liturgical heritage.
(I add my voice to those who reject the view that belief a physical resurrection is essential to being counted as Christian.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
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.
Their beliefs might have been chosen by experience, not out of necessity at all. There still are people who, like Paul, encounter the risen Christ.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
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.
This.
GK: Thing is, they went back to fishing. They had a scare -- "he is risen" -- but they hadn't seen him, except the women, and the men (like men everywhere) ultimately discounted what the women said, and went back to fishing. THEN they saw him, and that changed everything.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Couple of random thoughts:
One is that the sort of "liberalism" we're talking about here claims for oneself and offers to others a liberty akin to the "free" in "freely translated". Freedom to move away from the letter of the text in order to better put across the spirit.
And a translation can be "too free" or too literal.
The other is that if I fell into the hands of (or was otherwise dependent on the goodwill of) Muslims, I would prefer them to be liberal Muslims. And if liberal is what we want others to be in dealing with us, maybe we should return the favour...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Russ - that gets us back to "liberality", which I'm confident everyone here at least would subscribe to. So no arguments there.
But liberal is a word with many understandings. To adopt "liberal" as an identity (as in I am a liberal) needs unpacking as to context. In the context of theological liberalism, it has gone through numerous iterations over the years. There is no point in comparing someone making the claim at the end of the 19th century with now, except for historical interest, as the understanding of what is meant has changed.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think it is probably an orthodox Christian belief.
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be; world without end. Amen".
From which you can infer, I think, that Eternity was, is and always will be "now". Of course such understanding is outside human experience in the here and now. So what is it? An article of faith? Probably not. In my case, I'd call it an inkling, a glimpse, maybe also a hope.
In a modern, aesthetic sense, I have interpreted "world without end" as a putting of human beings in their place, where, given our short life spans and the age of the world/universe, it approximates to eternity.
In the sense of expressing knowledge at the time the formula or words was composed, it was a statement of fact.
(Both of the above are my liberal interpretations.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My understanding of eternity is outside of the time flow we observe in this life. So eternity is always "now". When we die, we proceed to the new now "without passing go or collecting 200 dollars" (my thanks to Tom Lehrer). We will all go together when we go. Even though we depart separately. Go figure.
Which, amongst other things, is how I resolve the pre-millenial, post-millenial, a-millenial views about the last days and the general resurrection.
Yes, and time is inextricably linked with space, and therefore matter. Eternal life in this sense cannot be material.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Sipech: Liberal/orthodox is not a binary position, it's a spectrum.
I'm OK with that, but I still don't believe that 'taking everything at face value' vs 'playing fast and loose' are the right terms to describe the extremes of this spectrum.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My understanding of eternity is outside of the time flow we observe in this life. So eternity is always "now". When we die, we proceed to the new now "without passing go or collecting 200 dollars" (my thanks to Tom Lehrer). We will all go together when we go. Even though we depart separately. Go figure.
Which, amongst other things, is how I resolve the pre-millenial, post-millenial, a-millenial views about the last days and the general resurrection.
Yes, and time is inextricably linked with space, and therefore matter. Eternal life in this sense cannot be material.
Because our physical universe and its rules are not only immutable, but the only imaginable reality?
--------------------
"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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
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? 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.
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
No I doubt the physicality of resurrected life, not the same thing
But if the resurrected life is/was non-physical, how could it be clung on to (or not)(Mary Magdalene), touched (Thomas), break bread (the Emmaus story) and cook and eat fish (breakfast on the lake shore and an upper room appearance).
I'm not saying that a non-material resurrection is an impossible idea - just that it is one which the New Testament documents consistently run counter to.
(And from my point of view, if they are wrong about something which is so central to their existence and message, why would I feel that anything else they had to say was trustworthy?)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
My problem here is that I don't see how it's possible for Christ to be human and not in material form.
I don't think that human = material form.
I think that being human is something else. But I do agree that it needs a physical expression, which is why I think that Jesus describe Himself as the way the truth and the life, or as the light of the world, or as the word.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
What I don't believe about Jesus' resurrection:- I don't believe it is a metaphor for "He is still in our memories", such as we sometimes say of people who are deceased: "(s)he is still with us in spirit". It was more than that.
- I don't believe that the resurrected Jesus was some kind of visible ghost or spirit. I think these are rather modern concepts anyway.
So, where does that leave us? Can we just go through a process of deduction, striking these until the only option left is a physical body with atoms, DNA and digestion of fish? I believe that we can never limit God's options like that.
So, what about Paul? To me, he was describing something he didn't fully understand either. He didn't have our concepts of atoms, DNA and food digestion; he wasn't trying to explain it in those terms. And he wasn't writing a physics tract. What he did understand is that the resurrection gives us hope and comfort, and that's what he's mostly writing about.
Concentrating on atoms, DNA and food digestion is asking the wrong questions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Oh I think eternal can be material. I think the best "imagining" of this is to be found in Lewis's The Great Divorce.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I am not theologically liberal. I make no claim to be and have no objection if I'm accused of not being so. I've agreed (as so often) with what Lamb Chopped has said, and also with Mousethief. The passage from 1 Cor 15 which he cited, was the reading here this morning.
There is, though, a difference between saying resolutely that the Resurrection as Christians have understood it through history never actually happened, that it is just a symbolic story, and saying that one finds it difficult to believe something that goes against how biology etc normally works. One is unbelief. The other is weak belief. One is looking at the leap of faith and saying, 'I don't want to jump'. The other is saying 'couldn't we lower the bar a bit?'
So of those like Joesaphat, Thunderbunk and Boogie (among others) who have sort of queried the conventional understanding, I'd ask three questions:-
First, was the tomb empty? If so, where had the body gone? If one says, 'it wasn't empty', 'the whole story was an imaginative crafting to express some greater truth' or 'the disciples stole the body', then that is 'I don't want to jump'. If one says 'the body had gone, but I find it difficult to proclaim the conventional version' or even 'but other people find it hard to believe something so unscientific' that is more 'couldn't we lower the bar a bit?'
The linked article by Eric Alexander, whoever he might be, on the Progressive Christianity site seems to be more 'I don't want to jump'. But which are shipmates who claim to be theologically liberal aligning themselves with?
Second, am I the only person slightly troubled by Boogie's
quote:
Is it essential to believe everything Paul believed?
There's much that St Paul says that is difficult to understand. St Peter says as much. But given the choice between who knows more about God's truth, St Paul or me or any other shipmate for that matter, I tend to think it's healthier to assume St Paul knows more than I do, that I can trust his judgement more than my own. And that's even without making an allowance for whatever one's understanding is of the authority of scripture.
My third question might sound odder. It's why choose a liberal interpretation? What benefit does it give one over accepting the full traditional Christian package in its complete New Testament and Nicene form?
I can see that for some people it may be easier at first if the bar is a bit lower and then for it to be progressively raised as we walk in faith and our faith muscles are stretched. But it must be better to believe more, rather than to be content with continuing to believe less.
I suspect this is a very alien thought to some shipmates. But why do so many of us feel we are obliged to pick over and question each piece of theological truth for ourselves? Why not just accept the entire package, gratefully and with joy? It takes one so much further.
My apologies, by the way to Lamb Chopped and Mousethief if you are horrified that somebody who has written what I've just written has also aligned themselves with your earlier words.
[ 29. March 2016, 19:26: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Enoch, you've articulated beautifully the position I also hold. Thank you.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But why do so many of us feel we are obliged to pick over and question each piece of theological truth for ourselves? Why not just accept the entire package, gratefully and with joy? It takes one so much further.
I can't speak for Thunderbunk or Boogie or anyone else, but I find that question deeply disturbing. "Theological truth" is defined in so many ways. When I first came to faith in my teens it was such a wonderful thing that I swallowed the whole conservative evangelical package, which was what I was around at the time. For years I accepted it all and didn't think about it - basically turning my brain off.
I don't like being labelled as a liberal. It has too many connotations of being fluffy and woolly and unsure of what you believe. I don't like "progressive" either, that sounds as though you're saying everyone else is back in the dark ages. I get called "left of field" and am not sure what to think about that.
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How would Paul or Peter know any more about God's truth, whatever that is, than we do? Apart from having stared Him in the face? As did Pilate and Herod. How did that privilege them with esoteric knowledge?
You can SEE the evolution of Paul's thinking and Peter's. You can SEE Paul desperately trying to work out the salvation of the Jews in Romans as he's going along. You can SEE Peter steeped in Jewish mysticism and superstition even after his abandonment of Jewish legalism itself YEARS after Jesus' resurrection.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Enoch: 'couldn't we lower the bar a bit?'
This is a characterisation of liberal theology I don't agree with. I don't see that I'm lowering the bar in any way.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
As someone who mixes in liberal and often academic Christian circles (although also some conservative ones) and who holds a progressive view on gender/sexuality related Dead Horses, I do find the idea that my non-liberalism and (IMO) standard Christian orthodoxy is somehow backwards to be frustrating. It doesn't come from my friends, but it is definitely an attitude that exists. I find that there is a degree of hypocrisy surrounding self-satisfied, self-identified Nice Liberal Christians who aren't like those Nasty Evangelicals. At least the really nasty evangelicals know they're nasty!
Also, as I think has been mentioned, liberal is not the opposite of evangelical - there are liberal evangelicals, and conservative evangelicals who are progressive on sexuality/gender. Personally I feel I identify most as an evangelical Catholic.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suspect this is a very alien thought to some shipmates. But why do so many of us feel we are obliged to pick over and question each piece of theological truth for ourselves? Why not just accept the entire package, gratefully and with joy? It takes one so much further.
The problem with accepting "the whole package"
without thinking for yourself,is that when you start to think about it, if you find something
either in the package or in how it's been sold to you that you can no longer accept the natural
reaction would be to drop the whole thing.
I wonder what would have happened if I had been
exposed to some "liberal" ideas when I started to question my faith. Maybe I would still be a Christian?
If "liberal" means being able to talk about things without drawing lines in the sand that can't be crossed. And NOT defining "Christian"
as on MY side of the line, then it can only be a good thing. But if it means I'm more advanced and better than you of course it isn't.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
In my understanding, the bodily resurrection makes sense if one accepts the essential Christian claim, that Jesus is Lord, which is the earliest proclamation of the Church.
I'm going to go out on the limb and say that if a person simply understands Jesus as a good teacher, like Socrates or Buddha, then one could dispense with a theology of Resurrection altogether. For some people, including perhaps some in the Church, this might be sufficient.
However, the Church's historic claim is that Jesus is more than just a good teacher. The claim is simply put, that Jesus is the Lord of history, the firstborn of creation, the incarnate God, who rightly receives all praise and glory. You really can't support this Christological claim if nothing happened after Good Friday.
To me, the theology of resurrection makes sense as a theological claim, than a debate over the mechanics of the Resurrection body, physical versus spiritual, etc. The important question is not, "what is the nature of Christ's body", but "Is Jesus Lord?"
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm still hoping for a view on 1 Cor 15 from anyone who does not hold to the bodily resurrection of Christ, particularly in view of my post here.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm genuinely curious. I've asked this question before when this subject has come up and nobody seems to want to give me an answer.
--------------------
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 Joesaphat:
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.
Does that energy reflect all the faith you can muster?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
ExclamationMark: Does that energy reflect all the faith you can muster?
Er, does Joesaphat need to justify his faith for you to judge?
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jesus is Lord because He rose from the dead.
Jesus rose from the dead because He is Lord.
So will we all.
All will be well.
So be kind.
It IS that simple.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm still hoping for a view on 1 Cor 15 from anyone who does not hold to the bodily resurrection of Christ, particularly in view of my post here.
I do hold to the bodily resurrection. But putting myself in another's shoes it looks to me like another passage that I'd interpret differently. You would take certain aspects of that passage more literally than I would. It's a bit like a YEC pointing me to various passages in Genesis or in Jesus' references to creation and saying "What do you think of that then?". Well, I think lots of things, some of them are different interpretations, some of them simple disagreements, some of them similar.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The reason I find it difficult to apply that logic to this passage is that Paul seems (at least to me), not only to adduce the bodily appearance of Christ to eyewitnesses as evidence supporting the resurrection of our own bodies, but also to assert that if no such resurrection has taken place, our faith is vain.
As I said earlier, the stuff about fish, birds and stars all having different kinds of "body" certainly represents a different understanding of theoretical science to the one we have, but aside from that, isn't the whole point of his argument that the resurrection is, indeed has to be, more than a metaphor? The disciples actually met the risen Christ and recognised him as having more of a body than a ghost or Docetic appearance would, so we can be sure that our resurrection will be equally tangible (another Great Divorce fan here).
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
You've added the word bodily. It's not in the passage. You also added the words "no such". The passage just talks about dependence on the resurrection rather than a particular form of resurrection.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... so we can be sure that our resurrection will be equally tangible (another Great Divorce fan here).
How tangible is a person who can walk through walls and teleport?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm still hoping for a view on 1 Cor 15 from anyone who does not hold to the bodily resurrection of Christ, particularly in view of my post here.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm genuinely curious. I've asked this question before when this subject has come up and nobody seems to want to give me an answer.
Well, Paul says "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body". Whatever Paul means by a spiritual body it must be something different from a physical body.
He starts the chapter with a list of appearances of the risen Christ. I think it's important that the gospels, which give different accounts of so many incidents in the life of Jesus, often disconcertingly different and irreconcilable accounts, completely part company when it comes to the appearances. There is no overlap of accounts at all. Each gospel writer has their own set, apart from Mark who has none. Luke explicitly sets all his in and around Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus will be seen in Galilee.
I don't see all this as a regrettable lack of coherence just when we come to the crunch matter of the historical resurrection. I see it as telling us something vital about the nature of resurrection. I think resurrection is something that happened gradually to the disciples, a process more than an event, with a personal, intimate component, and that it was hard to express in simple language.
Paul includes in his own list of appearances the thing that happened to him on the way to Damascus. This must be a year or two later. It is given two conflicting descriptions in Acts. It has a different character from the gospel appearances, which are reunions of the bereaved, and is more like a ghostly visitation, terrifying and disabling. It is clearly part of a crisis in Paul's life and identity.
But Paul insists that it is the same, another resurrection appearance. I think this devalues the gospel stories.
Finally, think about how Paul ties the resurrection of Jesus to a belief in general resurrection. If the dead are not raised, Christ was not raised, and vice versa, and if Christ is not raised, then you are still in your sins. This takes a lot of analysing, but we can say that Paul insists on resurrection because it is crucial to his understanding of how we relate to God in Christ. This does not help in establishing a historical resurrection.
Now, what I think I'm doing here is refusing to collapse the complexity of scripture into a Modernist search for factoids. Does that make me a liberal?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
[cross-post: this was to mdijon]
The word "body" is in the second part of the passage, which to my mind is built on the first part; indeed, "what kind of body" is the key question dealt with in verses 35-49.
If Paul wasn't thinking in terms of some form of, can we say "tangible" (to avoid "bodily") resurrection of Christ in the first part of the chapter, I find it much harder to follow his train of thought/argument here.
And if we accept Paul's affirmation of a resurrection body for us, it seems no more difficult to accept one for Christ (albeit as a special case compared to the general resurrection, as discussed at length here before).
To put it another way:
I agree with those who think speculation about the exact composition of Jesus' resurrection body is a waste of time, as indeed is speculation on the exact composition of ours.
More precisely, what I disagree with, on the basis of this passage, is the notion that Jesus' resurrection was the resurrection of a hope rather than of him as a person in his own right (if I can put it that way), and by extension the idea that there is no life after death - a position quite a few of my "liberal" friends seem to adopt and which seems to be linked with their views on the form Christ's resurrection took.
[ 30. March 2016, 08:08: 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
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
N T Wright (who is definitely not on the liberal side of this debate!) reckons that "physical" and "spiritual" are pretty bad translations of what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 15, esp. 42-49. His argument is that the Greek words Paul uses cannot mean "made out of physical stuff" vs "made out nebulous, spiritual stuff" (my words, not Wright's, or Paul's for that matter); it's about what animates or powers the body. The pre-resurrection body is powered by what's mortal and doomed to die; the post-resurrection body is powered by what comes from God, what comes the Spirit, which is immortal. It doesn't say anything about what it's made from, so to speak.
Which I know isn't a clincher for an argument in favour of bodily resurrection, either for Jesus or for us. But if Wright's right ( ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) about the Greek words, then neither is it the clincher for arguing against bodily resurrrection that people hold it to be, either.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
How tangible is a person who can walk through walls and teleport?
Teleporting is not the same as walking through walls. (Does nobody read classic X-Men these days?)
While walking through a wall is difficult while tangible, teleporting isn't. (Well, teleporting is difficult, but not for that reason.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Well, Paul says "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body". Whatever Paul means by a spiritual body it must be something different from a physical body.
Agreed. But as posted above, to me it suggests a body belonging to the subject, not something that happened to the observer, which is what you imply here: quote:
I think resurrection is something that happened gradually to the disciples
Perhaps it's the linguist in me, but while this sounds very elegant and poetic, it seems to me that you are making "dog bites man" into "man bites dog".
Certainly it's confused, and confusing, but the disciples don't go around shouting "he resurrected me", they go around shouting "he is risen" - and this despite the multiple conflicting accounts and cases of (initially) mistaken or concealed identity.
quote:
But Paul insists that it is the same, another resurrection appearance. I think this devalues the gospel stories.
I think this is your strongest argument, and the one I'm most open to persuasion by. However, back in 1 Cor 15 Paul does seem to qualify that insistence, citing his own case as being "as to one untimely born".
Moreover, as I said to mdijon, if this is only about "appearances" that have more to do with the impact on the beholder than on the destination of the subject, that would run counter to Paul's train of thought in 1 Cor 15, where the emphasis is on some kind of body for our selves (again, as opposed to something that someone else experiences about us once we're gone, an idea I know you hold dear).
quote:
we can say that Paul insists on resurrection because it is crucial to his understanding of how we relate to God in Christ. This does not help in establishing a historical resurrection.
Not directly, no, I agree. But as pointed out above, to my mind it suggests Paul assumed one. And if that assumption is wrong, I return to my question of why we should pay any attention to anything else he said.
quote:
Now, what I think I'm doing here is refusing to collapse the complexity of scripture into a Modernist search for factoids. Does that make me a liberal?
I don't know, but I'm unfailingly fascinated by the juxtaposition of your posts on threads on the resurrection and your interest in graveyards as displayed in your sig.!
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
N T Wright (who is definitely not on the liberal side of this debate!) reckons that "physical" and "spiritual" are pretty bad translations of what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 15, esp. 42-49. His argument is that the Greek words Paul uses cannot mean "made out of physical stuff" vs "made out nebulous, spiritual stuff" (my words, not Wright's, or Paul's for that matter); it's about what animates or powers the body. The pre-resurrection body is powered by what's mortal and doomed to die; the post-resurrection body is powered by what comes from God, what comes the Spirit, which is immortal. It doesn't say anything about what it's made from, so to speak.
This makes some sense.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This makes some sense.
It makes enough sense for me to want to cast around for an alternative to "bodily" (see above) and avoid speculation about the digestive processes of the risen Christ ("what happened to all the fish").
Where I'm digging my heels in is the (sometimes) connected notion that "resurrection" is in the eye of the beholder, not the subject, and the notion connected to that which is that there is no life after death (except in the minds of those you leave behind). The less tangible you make Christ's resurrection, the easier that idea becomes to entertain.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
My third question might sound odder. It's why choose a liberal interpretation? What benefit does it give one over accepting the full traditional Christian package in its complete New Testament and Nicene form?
Because believing has nothing to do with choosing? I can't choose to believe things; they either seem true or not. That's what believing means to me. I don't question the physical bodily resurrection because of any benefit to doing so; I find I just dp; it's an incredible claim and I can't make myself believe it.
quote:
I suspect this is a very alien thought to some shipmates. But why do so many of us feel we are obliged to pick over and question each piece of theological truth for ourselves? Why not just accept the entire package, gratefully and with joy? It takes one so much further.
For the same reason. I can't choose to believe things, packaged or individually. If the bodily physical resurrection doesn't seem likely to be true, then no amount of determination my part is going to make it seem any more likely.
For me, the whole thing is in the "don't know, not enough evidence either way" category.
[ 30. March 2016, 08:39: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
'strewth, the physical IS spirit.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I am not theologically liberal.
My third question might sound odder. It's why choose a liberal interpretation? What benefit does it give one over accepting the full traditional Christian package in its complete New Testament and Nicene form?
I can see that for some people it may be easier at first if the bar is a bit lower and then for it to be progressively raised as we walk in faith and our faith muscles are stretched. But it must be better to believe more, rather than to be content with continuing to believe less.
I suspect this is a very alien thought to some shipmates. But why do so many of us feel we are obliged to pick over and question each piece of theological truth for ourselves? Why not just accept the entire package, gratefully and with joy? It takes one so much further.
My apologies, by the way to Lamb Chopped and Mousethief if you are horrified that somebody who has written what I've just written has also aligned themselves with your earlier words.
Right. Pause to deflate a little. Now start an answer.
To a theological liberal, this comes over as patronising and insulting: liberal faith is not weaker or less developed than more orthodox faith, and does not necessarily become more like orthodox faith over time. I suspect it's down to personality types as much as anything else - remembering that our individual personalities, with all their quirks, are gifts of God in creation and to be cherished.
My faith doesn't develop in the way you seem to be describing. My faith develops as I explore God based on the experiences, the hints I get in prayer and when reading the biblical and other narratives. In particular, it is currently developing via prayerful engagement with Julian's Revelations of Divine Love. This sets up a dialogue with the life of the spirit within, which refines, strengthens and generally nurtures my faith.
My first concern is authenticity, which in this case means ensuring that life and faith are as close to being the same thing as possible. I am aware this can be narcissitic - to me, one of the main points of being part of a faith community is to prevent this process, however necessary of itself, from becoming an ego-fest.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... so we can be sure that our resurrection will be equally tangible (another Great Divorce fan here).
How tangible is a person who can walk through walls and teleport?
Sorry, I missed this earlier.
In The Great Divorce CS Lewis offers the idea that (just as your car drives through a bank of fog because it is more solid than the fog), the stuff of Heaven (including bodies) is more solid than the most solid stuff of this world.
I wouldn't advance this as gospel and would file it firmly under "idle speculation". Besides, doubtless some heartless liberal scientist will be along soon to explain why the idea contravenes some fundamental principle of physics or other.
I like it nonetheless, if only for the reversal of perspective it generates.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... so we can be sure that our resurrection will be equally tangible (another Great Divorce fan here).
How tangible is a person who can walk through walls and teleport?
Sorry, I missed this earlier.
In The Great Divorce CS Lewis offers the idea that (just as your car drives through a bank of fog because it is more solid than the fog), the stuff of Heaven (including bodies) is more solid than the most solid stuff of this world.
I wouldn't advance this as gospel and would file it firmly under "idle speculation". Besides, doubtless some heartless liberal scientist will be along soon to explain why the idea contravenes some fundamental principle of physics or other.
I like it nonetheless, if only for the reversal of perspective it generates.
Well, it's a bigger problem than that. A car goes through fog by pushing the fog aside. We'd notice if things were being pushed aside by "more real" objects passing through them.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
