|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Atheists in the United Church of Canada
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Belief in forgiveness, especially towards those who have mistreated you, that is quite something.
"Belief in forgiveness" is a nebulous statement without clear meaning. Is what you're trying to say here different from "it is desirable and admirable for people to forgive those who mistreat them"?
quote:
Let me ask about some bigger beliefs. [..]
I think these are pretty standard Christian beliefs, but are they beliefs that or beliefs in?
They are standard Christian beliefs about the nature of God. I do indeed believe them, and I think that the belief that there is a God to have beliefs about rather underpins the whole lot of them.
quote:
Do they depend on also believing that God exists?
If God doesn't exist, what does it mean to say that Jesus sits at His right hand? If God doesn't exist, what is heaven, and who is expressing the joy?
quote:
Do they make any difference to how you live and think?
My faith certainly makes a difference to how I live and think. To break it down and attribute those differences to individual micro-beliefs would be a challenge.
quote:
Are they easier or harder beliefs than theism?
I'd say that in many ways the more detailed beliefs were harder. Theism, by itself, has few consequences. "I believe that there's some kind of vague Goddy sort of thing, but I'm not really clear about what it is" is a thing that one can believe, but it doesn't have consequences, and places no demands on you.
quote:
Are they about the nature of the world? About facts?
I think all statements of belief are about facts, and in a sense about the nature of the world.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
If one believes that God doesn't exist, it would seem pretty silly to follow someone like Jesus who talked about God all the time and cited God as the reason for all the good behavior he espoused.
[ 08. April 2016, 21:42: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's that tricky word believe again. Non-theist Christians still believe in all the Christian stuff, in forgiveness and love and hope and the new way of being human. ...
Pessimistic I may be, but I can't see any reason why one can believe any of that in a vacuum. Believing that all these things would be good, that the world would be a nicer place if people were like that, is fine, obvious in a way, except that alas is not how people are. Without Christ, what reason is there for believing that those things are ever going to happen, that the world will not be the same grubby place tomorrow that it was yesterday? And what reason is there why I should not just make the best of it by fair means or foul, and probably foul?
I quite simply do not believe that well-meaningness and benevolent aspirations on their own are a sufficient foundation for anything.
So in response to Svitlana's statement
quote:
I think some people simply enjoy the community life of the church. Indeed, the concept of 'belonging before believing' is founded on the idea that people must become accustomed to and actually like church life before they come to faith.
my answer is that that is the byproduct of the faith of those that do believe. A congregation that aspired just to have a community life, that was a gathering solely of those who belonged, but did not believe, would truly be building its house on sand.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
If God doesn't have hands, what does it mean to say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father? Who thinks God has hands?
I don't think God has hands, but I'm very happy to say that
Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.
What sort of belief is this? Does it make sense if I don't think God has hands? If I don't think of God as a being that exists?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's that tricky word believe again. Non-theist Christians still believe in all the Christian stuff, in forgiveness and love and hope and the new way of being human. ...
Pessimistic I may be, but I can't see any reason why one can believe any of that in a vacuum. Believing that all these things would be good, that the world would be a nicer place if people were like that, is fine, obvious in a way, except that alas is not how people are. Without Christ, what reason is there for believing that those things are ever going to happen, that the world will not be the same grubby place tomorrow that it was yesterday? And what reason is there why I should not just make the best of it by fair means or foul, and probably foul?
I quite simply do not believe that well-meaningness and benevolent aspirations on their own are a sufficient foundation for anything.
There is no compelling reason why people would choose love, forgiveness, kindness and hope except for the example of the one who acts only by invitation, by inspiration, and appeal.
Christianity is not based on 'tough titty, you've got to love or you'll pay for it'. It's an impossible dream lived despite its futility. And lived beyond its futility.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
While I believe strongly that the character of the priest does not effect the validity of the communion and God alone makes God's blessing valid, this women needs to gracefully step away from ministry. She is representing her church badly to the community, and play acting her role as a Christian leader. Her vocation is a lie.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If God doesn't have hands, what does it mean to say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father? Who thinks God has hands?
I don't think God has hands, but I'm very happy to say that
Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.
What sort of belief is this? Does it make sense if I don't think God has hands? If I don't think of God as a being that exists?
Well, it's speaking a truth through a metaphorical lens.
Which is pretty much all good theology. I think it's good if God created two angels to whisper to a theologian, one to whisper "it's a metaphor", the other to whisper, "it's true."
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A congregation that aspired just to have a community life, that was a gathering solely of those who belonged, but did not believe, would truly be building its house on sand.
Yes, I think it would be theologically problematic for most Christians!
OTOH, I feel that many British churches, especially MOTR ones, are often driven by pragmatism and unspoken assumptions as much as theology.
The pragmatism in them recognises that church decline is a present reality, and that to demand particular tests and standards of belief for individuals is likely to drive away many of those who do attend. Few such churches have compulsory small group attendance whereby they monitor personal faith. So in theory, there could be a considerable number of members/attenders who don't actually believe - who would know?
However, I think the unspoken assumption is paradoxically the reverse: that the majority are theologically 'traditional', and that they carry the church in terms of numbers, finances and commitment, which is why you don't get a great deal of 'radical' liberal theology (and certainly not of the post-theistic type!) from the pulpit.
YMMV, as they say here.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Is it God's goal to make us Christians, or make us whole?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
While I believe strongly that the character of the priest does not effect the validity of the communion and God alone makes God's blessing valid, this women needs to gracefully step away from ministry. She is representing her church badly to the community, and play acting her role as a Christian leader. Her vocation is a lie.
She also needs to grow up.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Is it God's goal to make us Christians, or make us whole?
That should mean the same thing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
so many words! I got three quarters of the way down page two. I'd add my bit, but it's already been said many times.
Let's hope my post doesn't fall foul of the ship theologians. I used to be a theologian, but now thinking hurts my brain. Yes, I'm a belieber.
Sack that priest, by the way, let her make her money selling her books at street markets.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Pertinent quote. Am watching the episode of "Bones" where they're quarantined in the lab over Christmas, and discussing religion. Zach says something like "I'm a rational empiricist, right down the line--unless you ask my mother. Then I'm Lutheran."
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
I'm uncomfortable with the notion of "metaphor". It seems too often devolve into literalism by proxy- the idea seems to float around that once we crack the metaphorical code we then know the literal truth the metaphor is pointing to and no longer need the metaphor. We understand what the parable means so we can speak directly.
But we can't.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
There is no compelling reason why people would choose love, forgiveness, kindness and hope except for the example of the one who acts only by invitation, by inspiration, and appeal.
But if they are saying he never existed, or that they don't believe the core part of what he said and did, then for them, he is not an example. quote:
Christianity is not based on 'tough titty, you've got to love or you'll pay for it'. It's an impossible dream lived despite its futility. And lived beyond its futility.
That's not what I'm saying - though as an aside, I do think it is better that people live well through fear than that they live badly because they have no fear. That though is a complete tangent as far as this discussion is concerned.
What I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope' are any more than a delusion, a pious aspiration, not suitable for the 'real world', unless it's true.
If God does not exist, believing in 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope' are, as I said earlier, building your house on sand.
Not only that. The 'real world' becomes not his kingdom. If you say there is nothing else, the material, Dawkins, Marxist-Leninist sort of world, does become the real world.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
There is no compelling reason why people would choose love, forgiveness, kindness and hope except for the example of the one who acts only by invitation, by inspiration, and appeal.
But if they are saying he never existed, or that they don't believe the core part of what he said and did, then for them, he is not an example.
There's a book everyone should read called "Mister Pip" by a NZ author. It was shortlisted for the Man Booker prize. They made it into a film with Hugh Laurie.
In it, a young girl growing up in Bougainville during the civil war is inspired and supported through conditions much much worse than any of us have experienced by the example of Pip from Great Expectations.
You can watch the trailer for the film here
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Why does Jesus have to exist in order to be an example? It's only the hardcore conspiracists, the mythers, that deny his existence, but why the obsession with existence?
King Arthur has made quite a good example for some. At one time in my boyhood Robin Hood had an influence on me. Later I went through a time of being disturbed by the claims I now accept that neither of them existed, but now I can't see the problem.
Even though we may be confident that Jesus existed, each new school of New Testament criticism reveals him to have been a different sort of person, and therefore changes the nature of his example. I like the fact that Jesus still surprises me, and even adapts to the concerns of thinkers in every age!
I think I disagree about those who choose a good or obedient life out of fear. It might be convenient for those around them, but I don't see it as any sort of salvation. My faith is that we find in Christ that our good and our neighbours' coincide. We act, not in restraint out of fear, but freely and out of love.
And whether it works, whether ultimately we will feel very, very foolish to have chosen the way of love, yes that is a scary step of faith. I don't think we can bolster it with some claim of objective truth, some hard belief.
Believing in Jesus and in him crucified, and in the resurrection, these are believing that the Way of Jesus is the one God honours, the one that unlocks the mystery of existence, the one that offers us the hope of moving towards wholeness. It is faith all the way down, faith which can also be expressed as belief in, but which is not the same as belief that.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But if they are saying he never existed, or that they don't believe the core part of what he said and did, then for them, he is not an example.
Not necessarily. Sometimes, fictional people can have quite an impact.
quote:
What I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope' are any more than a delusion, a pious aspiration, not suitable for the 'real world', unless it's true.
If God does not exist, believing in 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope' are, as I said earlier, building your house on sand.
I disagree. Acting on those values still helps people and makes the world a better place. And IMHO people can and do still choose to act on them, even if they don't believe in God, Jesus, or any other divine being.
quote:
Not only that. The 'real world' becomes not his kingdom. If you say there is nothing else, the material, Dawkins, Marxist-Leninist sort of world, does become the real world.
ISTM that materialism is a point of view, too--especially the rather gray, bleak version Dawkins espoused in the past. (Not sure of his current view.) Or the horrible bleakness of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" books. The real world is still the real world, however people view it. The people in it are still people, and still should be treated decently--because they exist and we exist.
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But if they are saying he never existed, or that they don't believe the core part of what he said and did, then for them, he is not an example.
Not necessarily. Sometimes, fictional people can have quite an impact.
I can see holding up a fictional character as a role model. Ron Weasley as the true friend, for example. Or a real life character about which pious fiction has been written, which is the case with a lot of our saints. (Actually with the older saints the lines are so blurred that I think you just have to accept the story as story and not worry your pretty little head about which bits are fictional; that's not the point of the story.)
But if you have a fictional character, and you reject 2/3 of what they stood for and believed and spoke about in their fictional little world (or little fictional world), how much can you be said to be using them as an example or a role model?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
You need a dialogue between you and them. In the case of Jesus we have these multiple accounts by the gospel writers, so there are always layers to peer into. We are dealing with interpretation from the start.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Interpretation, yes, and also selection. But all we have to go on is the written record we have. Going beyond that is fan fic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Interpretation, yes, and also selection. But all we have to go on is the written record we have. Going beyond that is fan fic.
Going beyond that is life in the spirit, in the resurrection: the spirit leading us into all truth, and setting us free.
Anything else is historical reenactment.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
Yes, Thunderbunk, but what does that mean on the ground, so to speak, how do I do that?
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If God doesn't have hands, what does it mean to say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father? Who thinks God has hands?
I don't think God has hands, but I'm very happy to say that
Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.
What sort of belief is this? Does it make sense if I don't think God has hands? If I don't think of God as a being that exists?
Christ has no hands on earth, but ours - or so says Teresa of Avila
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If God doesn't have hands, what does it mean to say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father? Who thinks God has hands?
"Sits at the right hand" is a metaphor used by a species which has hands. It is entirely reasonable (though perhaps tactless) to talk about sitting at the right hand of a person who, following some kind of industrial accident, perhaps, doesn't have a right hand.
But it doesn't make any sense to talk about being Jason's right-hand man if there's no Jason.
[ 10. April 2016, 14:27: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It is faith all the way down, faith which can also be expressed as belief in, but which is not the same as belief that.
We have here a binary opposition between 'belief that' and 'belief in', where 'belief in' is the favoured term.
Let us deconstruct.
Take an example of 'belief in'.
quote:
My faith is that we find in Christ that our good and our neighbours' coincide.
What is meant by 'good' here? Perhaps we mean material well-being and happiness. The security of knowing that ends will meet everyday. But suppose I have belief in my neighbour's security of knowing that ends will meet, but don't believe that my neighbour's ends will meet? Well, I can take steps to bring it about that my neighbour's ends will meet. Then I do believe that my neighbour's ends will meet.
But if I can bring it about that belief that, but do not? If I hold onto my belief in? What is that then? That's no longer belief in at all. That's wishful thinking.
Belief-in strives to become belief-that. Belief-in that does not strive to become belief-that is dead.
--------------------
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
The content of the belief that Jesus sits at the Father's right hand is that Jesus does the Father's bidding, thinks the Father's thoughts, understands the Father's heart, etc. It's a statement about Jesus. That is what we are being asked to believe, not any claim about God's limbs, or that there is some place where Jesus is spatially to the right of God the Father.
Jasons, of course, come and go, exist and stop existing. God isn't like that. It makes no sense to think that God might stop existing.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Dafyd: Let us deconstruct.
Your post is a good example of why it's probably not a good idea to deconstruct belief-in.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Or not, acording to someone on here who says that she did't say that.
Doesn't really matter who actually said it, the song is lovely!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dafyd: Let us deconstruct.
Your post is a good example of why it's probably not a good idea to deconstruct belief-in.
I wasn't deconstructing belief-in. I was deconstructing the opposition between belief-in and belief-that.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dafyd: Let us deconstruct.
Your post is a good example of why it's probably not a good idea to deconstruct belief-in.
I wasn't deconstructing belief-in. I was deconstructing the opposition between belief-in and belief-that.
Slide a knife for me here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think there is a real difference, although it can be tricky. I believe in forgiveness can be rephrased as I believe that it is good to forgive. The in becomes a that.
Belief in, is a personal commitment. You're not saying you believe forgiveness exists, but that you think it is the best way and, presumably, would be determined to practise it yourself.
Belief that, is an inferior form of knowledge. You believe that something is the case, although you lack the evidence to enable you to say you know. It can be about quite plain matters of fact, like who will win tomorrow.
'Belief in' can generally be rephrased using 'faith': I have faith in forgiveness (as a way to repair relationships, say). It would be pistis in the writings of Paul, not believing that Jesus existed, but making him your Lord, identifying with him, following his example, standing for him, taking his name, etc.
I think we've become distracted by a sort of modernist agenda that thinks religions are about beliefs in the factual or 'that' sense. God created the world in six days, miracles really happen, the tomb was empty, Mary remained a virgin.
The Dawkins troop home in on these beliefs which are ridiculous to them, and I think we are foolish if we agree to this as an arena for engagement.
Much more typical of Christianity are beliefs such as that the poor are blessed, that you have to lose your life to find it, that sinners are leading the way into the kingdom, that I should love God and my neighbour as myself.
I've expressed all those with 'thats', but they are beliefs that entail action and commitment. They are things to believe in, not opinions to hold, ways of living, not examples of right thinking.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Jasons, of course, come and go, exist and stop existing. God isn't like that. It makes no sense to think that God might stop existing.
Now I'm completely confused. I had said that your list of beliefs about Christ didn't make sense without an underlying belief in God - that it didn't make sense to talk about Christ sitting at the Father's right hand without the Father.
You seemed to be disagreeing, and now you seem to be agreeing.
As regards "belief-in" vs "belief-that", I tend to try to avoid belief-in statements, except an generalities, because they're too woolly, nebulous, and open to interpretation. Rephrasing them as "belief-that" statements tends to clarify the meaning, and also point at some of the consequences.
"I believe in love" might make a good song lyric, but it's all too easy to leave it there as some sort of pious content-free mouthing that doesn't have consequences. Once you start phrasing it as "I believe that people should (I should)..." then you begin to encounter real-world consequences.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Much more typical of Christianity are beliefs such as that the poor are blessed, that you have to lose your life to find it, that sinners are leading the way into the kingdom, that I should love God and my neighbour as myself.
I've expressed all those with 'thats', but they are beliefs that entail action and commitment. They are things to believe in, not opinions to hold, ways of living, not examples of right thinking.
I disagree with your dichotomy in your final statement here. Yes, they are beliefs that entail action and commitment, and they are also opinions to hold and examples of right thinking. The one follows the other.
And for me, all these little beliefs are consequences of the big belief, which is that Jesus Christ died, and is alive, and is Man, and is God.
[ 11. April 2016, 01:58: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I wasn't deconstructing belief-in. I was deconstructing the opposition between belief-in and belief-that.
Slide a knife for me here.
I believe in Christianity.
Someone else might believe in Christianity vs Islam. As far as they're concerned Christianity is only good if Islam is also evil.
(Does that analogy help? I can come back when more awake and less busy.)
--------------------
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
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
What I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope' are any more than a delusion, a pious aspiration, not suitable for the 'real world', unless it's true.
I'm with Enoch on this one. I might re-arrange it a little and think that whatever solvent of the mind one applies such that belief in God goes all gooey and smears away into nothing, also does a great job of removing the tough stains of belief in 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope'.
Unless one is rather choosy about where one applies the rag. But that's a religious man's trick, right?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I wasn't deconstructing belief-in. I was deconstructing the opposition between belief-in and belief-that.
Slide a knife for me here.
I believe in Christianity.
Someone else might believe in Christianity vs Islam. As far as they're concerned Christianity is only good if Islam is also evil.
(Does that analogy help? I can come back when more awake and less busy.)
Yeah, no. I don't know that belief-in vs. belief-than is a case of "you must hate one to love the other." It's more a matter of where one is applied versus the other. Which can't be known without knowing where each is applied. If they are meant to be mutually exclusive, defining one automatically defines the other.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
What I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope' are any more than a delusion, a pious aspiration, not suitable for the 'real world', unless it's true.
I'm with Enoch on this one. I might re-arrange it a little and think that whatever solvent of the mind one applies such that belief in God goes all gooey and smears away into nothing, also does a great job of removing the tough stains of belief in 'love, forgiveness, kindness and hope'.
Unless one is rather choosy about where one applies the rag. But that's a religious man's trick, right?
I think I can agree with the quote from Enoch at the top of your post, but that's because I read it differently from you, and from the way Enoch meant it, I think.
I think there's no reason to believe love etc. are any more than a delusion, unsuitable for the real world, unless it's true. That is, no reason other than love being the better way.
I don't think there is some other truth that guarantees the way of love. I don't think that love is the way to live because God said so, or because Scripture instructs it. I think that love is the reason. I think that saying God is love is another way of saying that love is the way. I think that love commends itself, not merely as a handy tactic, but as that which unlocks life, that love is divine, that God is love.
I don't think we are to get our heads round conceptual beliefs (about God, authority, sin, etc.) that also happen to entail a commitment to love. I think we are asked to choose love and trust that it is not a vague and fluffy approach for the soft headed, but The Way. And there is no guarantee. And to someone who says, 'Nah. I'd rather go on thinking the worst of everyone,' there is really nothing to say, no argument to offer.
Similarly, God doesn't need hands for Jesus to sit at the stereotypically preferred of them, and nor does God's existence offer any extra strength to the position of Jesus. God's existence is not like a Jason's, something that might begin and end. It's not an additional fact.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
... I think we are asked to choose love and trust that it is not a vague and fluffy approach for the soft headed, but The Way. ...
You can perhaps accuse me of being as over-literal with your words, as I woulds suggest you are being when you make an issue out of whether God has a right hand or not. Nevertheless, unless God is, who is doing the asking?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Personally I would say that love is inherently normative. As John says, this is the judgment: that light came into the world.
Generally theology has to go down this path anyway, otherwise we skewered by the Euthyphro dilemma but that's another story.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't know that belief-in vs. belief-than is a case of "you must hate one to love the other." It's more a matter of where one is applied versus the other. Which can't be known without knowing where each is applied. If they are meant to be mutually exclusive, defining one automatically defines the other.
I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Not at all. And it seems to me that making them mutually exclusive does result in a 'hate one to love the other' attitude.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Has anyone here said that belief-in and belief-that are mutually exclusive?
quote:
Leorning Cniht: As regards "belief-in" vs "belief-that", I tend to try to avoid belief-in statements, except an generalities, because they're too woolly, nebulous, and open to interpretation.
So what? Just because you don't want to deal with those things, it doesn't mean that other people can't.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't think we are to get our heads round conceptual beliefs (about God, authority, sin, etc.) that also happen to entail a commitment to love. I think we are asked to choose love and trust that it is not a vague and fluffy approach for the soft headed, but The Way. And there is no guarantee. And to someone who says, 'Nah. I'd rather go on thinking the worst of everyone,' there is really nothing to say, no argument to offer.
I agree.
I also think that love, kindness and forgiveness are far from the 'fluffy gooey' path. They are the hardest, toughest path there is. As Jesus found.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Leorning Cniht: Belief in forgiveness" is a nebulous statement without clear meaning. Is what you're trying to say here different from "it is desirable and admirable for people to forgive those who mistreat them"?
To me, there is a world of difference between these statement "I believe in forgiveness" and the one you mentioned here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I also think that love, kindness and forgiveness are far from the 'fluffy gooey' path. They are the hardest, toughest path there is. As Jesus found.
I've got two daughters. Should I bring them up to follow the hardest, toughest path there is? That doesn't sound much like love to me. Should I bring them up to be crucified? To end their lives crying that love, kindness, and forgiveness have forsaken them?
If I love my children I won't do that.
Not unless I believe that the one who does not exist because the source of all existence will bring them life out of death.
--------------------
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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Dafyd posted
Not unless I believe that the one who does not exist because the source of all existence will bring them life out of death.
I am still trying to get my head around this. What on earth does it mean?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
shamwari: I am still trying to get my head around this. What on earth does it mean?
Yeah, me too. I am still trying to get my head around God also. What on earth does it mean? I don't think I'll ever manage.
I don't think we'll ever manage to understand God through meaningful sentences. We are puny beings, bound by the laws of this Universe, who happened to come up with language to make a little sense of it. How on earth can we think that language would be enough to make sense of God? (This very much includes the sentence "God exists.")
Wouldn't it be nice if we could string human sentences together, sentences that have a clear meaning to us, and in the end they will make us understand Him. That's not going to happen.
What I have are stumbling, stammering phrases that may not even make logical sense. What I have is silence, the contemplation of art and nature. Shouting to Him in incoherent prayer sometimes. Talking to people around me and those who have gone before us in these 2000+ years, and who also tried to make sense of it all. Even that won't be enough.
--------------------
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think he's trying to mock those who won't straightforwardly talk about God and say that God exists and is real.
I would point to the preferred Jewish way of naming God, which is to talk about 'the name'.
I would link it to the deep, indeed terrifying question of what we wish for our children (I no longer think you can bring children up). A fine existential hook. If you wish for them the way of love, it is going to be with trembling as well as hope. No credal belief gets you off the barbs of that one. Such is life, such is faith.
I like 'the one who doesn't exist because he is the source of existence', a pleasingly awkward phrase, like G-d or HaShem, reminding us that we cannot address God, but God addresses us.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
... I don't think we'll ever manage to understand God through meaningful sentences. ...
I find other human beings difficult enough to understand.
And that isn't just being flippant. If not a theological statement, it is at least one that has theological significance.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Enoch: I find other human beings difficult enough to understand.
Absolutely.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
