|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why Dogma?
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
If one accepts that the true value of religious participation (setting aside the practice of a personal spirituality) is in the efficacy of the ritual as religious scholars such as Karen Armstrong would suggest, then, wouldn't it be reasonable to dismiss a literal acceptance of dogmatic beliefs (biblical inerrancy, virgin birth, resurrection,etc.)? Why not instead focus on the teachings of Christ; tend to the least able among us. Dogmatic beliefs only serve to create a picture of Christianity most non-Christians find ludicrous.
I look forward to your responses to this question as I anticipate the possibility of being relegated to Hell for such a blasphemous suggestion.
[ 10. April 2013, 06:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
but of course. But we are only human - our religion can only be what we make it.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I'm afraid I can't see why it is 'reasonable' to dismiss the virgin birth and the resurrection (especially the resurrection). If non-Christians find these doctrines ludicrous, then that is no different from the Amish finding television ludicrous. Should we therefore argue that, in order not to offend the Amish, we should consider it 'reasonable' to take our TV's to the tip?
I don't base my beliefs on what non-Christians find acceptable. If I did that, I would not be a Christian, but logically a non-Christian.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
Shouldn't the efficacy of religious ritual include inspiring us to apply the teachings of Christ and tend to the least able among us?
Dogmatic beliefs may serve to create a picture of Christianity most non-Christians find ludicrous, but they also serve to teach us that there is more to life than what is superficially apparent. If all we can conceive of is an abstract, distant God and a set of rules to guide our behavior, then how do we avoid the hypocrisy of just going through the motions? Isn't the goal an internal transformation as much as a transformation of our outwardly apparent behavior? Dogma gives us the reasons behind the rules and so gives substance to our religious participation.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I don't see any reason to call you to Hell for asking that, and you're not the first to suggest such things.
But if you believe in the efficacy of ritual (as I do), then liturgy is tied in with that. The virgin birth, the Resurrection etc are all part and parcel of the liturgy, so if you just go through the motions without believing it, say because you like the aesphetics, then you are not really partaking in the rituals at all.
Oh wait...
**[[PAUSE]]**
Maybe I need to check out who Karen Armstrong is first.
All I can gather from the Wiki article is that she is much more liberal than when she started out, but that doesn't really explain much.
Perhaps you could expand on what she is suggesting a little?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I'm afraid I can't see why it is 'reasonable' to dismiss the virgin birth and the resurrection (especially the resurrection). If non-Christians find these doctrines ludicrous, then that is no different from the Amish finding television ludicrous. Should we therefore argue that, in order not to offend the Amish, we should consider it 'reasonable' to take our TV's to the tip?
I don't base my beliefs on what non-Christians find acceptable. If I did that, I would not be a Christian, but logically a non-Christian.
This. With bells on.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Khands
The logical end point of your suggestion is the atheist church, currently under discussion on another thread. It remains to be seen whether the idea catches on, but it's not the first time it's been tried, and previous attempts, in the UK at least, haven't lasted very long. British Unitarianism, which is no longer Christian, is now a tiny movement.
These fellowships will continue to exist in a small way if some people find them healthy and supportive, and that's well and good, but there's little sign that mainstream Christianity would benefit by moving in this direction.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
If one accepts that the true value of religious participation (setting aside the practice of a personal spirituality) is in the efficacy of the ritual as religious scholars such as Karen Armstrong would suggest, then, wouldn't it be reasonable to dismiss a literal acceptance of dogmatic beliefs (biblical inerrancy, virgin birth, resurrection,etc.)? Why not instead focus on the teachings of Christ; tend to the least able among us.
If we accept that the separation of ritual on the one hand and dogmatic beliefs is an instance of a harmful dualism to be transcended, then why would we not focus on all three, ritual, ethical teachings, and doctrine?
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
khands
You haven't really explained your point, and it strikes me as something of a non sequitur in any case. If one values ritual, why would that lead to a dismissal of certain Christian ideas?
You also use the word 'reasonable' which is a bit puzzling. Why is it reasonable to dismiss the virgin birth? Do you mean because it contradicts naturalism?
I think probably quite a lot of people are not sure about such doctrines, or have reservations about them, or just don't know, but to talk about dismissal is very strong. You need to explain why.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
If one accepts that the true value of religious participation (setting aside the practice of a personal spirituality) is in the efficacy of the ritual as religious scholars such as Karen Armstrong would suggest, then, wouldn't it be reasonable to dismiss a literal acceptance of dogmatic beliefs (biblical inerrancy, virgin birth, resurrection,etc.)? Why not instead focus on the teachings of Christ; tend to the least able among us. Dogmatic beliefs only serve to create a picture of Christianity most non-Christians find ludicrous.
It would be reasonable only if the only important thing was to behave ethically. Yet the Christian Faith proposes that a right relationship God is not only an important thing, but the most important and vital thing in all the world. Indeed, the proposition is that a moral life is completely impossible without the grace of the God encountered in Jesus Christ.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Accepting the authority of the teachings of Jesus is premised on a particular understanding of who Jesus is.
The distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxis that some people trod out in order to justify a reduced emphasis on dogma ignores the utter question, "how do we measure what orthopraxis is?"
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
If one accepts that the true value of religious participation (setting aside the practice of a personal spirituality) is in the efficacy of the ritual as religious scholars such as Karen Armstrong would suggest, then, wouldn't it be reasonable to dismiss a literal acceptance of dogmatic beliefs (biblical inerrancy, virgin birth, resurrection,etc.)?
First, the true value of Karen Armstrong talking out of her ass would remain to be determined. Second, even if we consider this statement to be estimable for the sake of argument, then efficacy still requires dogma. A ritual that does not point to some valued truth or the other is not going to move anyone into action. As we see in your next ill-considered rhetorical move:
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
Why not instead focus on the teachings of Christ; tend to the least able among us. Dogmatic beliefs only serve to create a picture of Christianity most non-Christians find ludicrous.
In case you didn't notice, you first sentence precisely proposes exegesis and dogma. You made a statement about Christ's teachings, presumably extracted from the bible, and elected one of them as particularly important. As a matter of fact, you even gave us your version of religious authorities - namely non-Christians inspired by the Zeitgeist.
But, do-gooding on its own isn't a religion, as much good as it may do. You can consult Christ's two great commandments on that.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
looking at history, it cannot be denied that dogmata have danger potential. But, on a phenomeological level, they are a necessary part of any paradigm, religious or otherwise (look around for dogmata in your respective daily business life, in your nation states, etc!)
This being said, one would think that a reasonable way to deal with dogmata is accept them for what they are, without fixing them directly; Clinging to a dogma and fixing one's gaze on it tends to be unhealthy. A dogma is a trellis, on which to grow, or the famous finger pointing to the moon.
Truly enlightened religion would not need dogmata. But unfortunately there is no such thing.
Again, I think the problem starts when giving dogmata centre stage. No dogma can be life-giving when moved there.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
KHANDS - it MUST be BOTH my friend. Inclusion means of tradition, conservatism, even excluding distinctives. We must bear one another's burdens. We who think we are strong must carry the PRECIOUS weak. Even in their rejection of us.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Well, if you ignore the dogma, which really is just a human way of trying to categorise the uncategorisable mystery of Christ's coming in the first place, then you're ignoring the fundamental reason Christ was here and therefore the reason we should pay any attention to what he said.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What, ignoring dogma (what a deliciously ironic concept) means one can't appreciate the uncategorisable mystery of the fundamental reason of the Incarnation and what He said?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What, ignoring dogma (what a deliciously ironic concept) means one can't appreciate the uncategorisable mystery of the fundamental reason of the Incarnation and what He said?
Just to clarify, you're asking me if I think you have to believe it all exactly as set out in the Catechism, Articles of faith, Creeds (delete as appropriate) in order to be able to 'get' Christianity and call yourself a Christian?
In that case the answer is no I don't think you do. I think there are hundreds of mystics and saints who didn't have theology degrees. But I think dogma comprises the best answers humans can come up with to explain why we need to be speicifically Christian rather than simply good people so in that sense I think it's important.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
KHANDS
I like your OP. I have long thought that a sort of ideal solution would be to keep the buildings, the organisations, community groups, etc of the CofE, but simply remove God! We could keep the rousing hymn tunes, the routine, even the colourful robes and flowers. *sigh*
Ah, well! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
I realize I may be overstepping my bounds offering these thoughts on a sight identifying itself as Christian, but I do believe there is importance in nurturing spirituality as an element of overall health of any individual.
It seems to me modern Christianity has degenerated into an easy to grasp set of tenets aimed at understandability to the least among us. IMO,Christian practitioners would be better off and more able to relate their spirituality to the rest of mankind if dogmata was grasped metaphorically rather than literally.
Why not reach for the truly enlightened religion Desert Daughter suggests? One without dogmata.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
KHANDS: Like most people I find the OP too simplistic. Any teacher, and we could include Marx alongside Jesus, has a certain view of reality and how it works, and how best to live in such a way as to get the best out of how life works. They will make specific suggestions, but typically these would only be expected to work if their view of reality was correct.
So Jesus' largely negative view of wealth is based on the consideration that it leads people away from the Kingdom of Heaven, it being harder for a camel . .you know the rest. If all this dogma about the Kingdom of heaven is bullshit, why ever would I want to take Jesus' view of wealth?
You could try a new secular dogma, that wealth is unjust, even a form of robbery, or a character detroying addiction: and if I now believe your new dogma, then I'm back to the negative view of riches. But if there is no valid truth (aka dogma) about the danger of wealth, I see no point in giving it away, unless I just happen to want to.
Same with Marx. If his view of economic-political reality is true, certain practices make sense. Otherwise they don't.
Dogma is too much of a bogey word these days. To most kids, evolution is part of the given (=dogma) science that they receive. So YECs like to use the D word, as if calling evolution, or the Trinity a dogma makes it automatically oppressive.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't see any reason to call you to Hell for asking that, and you're not the first to suggest such things.
But if you believe in the efficacy of ritual (as I do), then liturgy is tied in with that. The virgin birth, the Resurrection etc are all part and parcel of the liturgy, so if you just go through the motions without believing it, say because you like the aesphetics, then you are not really partaking in the rituals at all.
Oh wait...
**[[PAUSE]]**
Maybe I need to check out who Karen Armstrong is first.
All I can gather from the Wiki article is that she is much more liberal than when she started out, but that doesn't really explain much.
Perhaps you could expand on what she is suggesting a little?
I would recommend Armstrong's book 'A Case for God' and if you feel really daring read it in conjunction with Christopher Hitchens' ' God is not Great'. Two very different views written with great clarity and intelligence. IMO, these should be required reading for all thoughtful Christians.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I realize I may be overstepping my bounds offering these thoughts on a sight identifying itself as Christian,
No. And this attitude with its "I'm going to be naughty hahahaha" undertone isn't really required.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I was re-reading Khands' comment about everything being better if it was metaphorical and helpfully remembered Paul on this subject.
1 Corinthians 15:12-19 says it very nicely. If Christ has not been raised then our faith is futile.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
The religion is what it is, having evolved over two thousand years and continuing to do so. It shouldn't be tailored to suit the zeitgeist, but the zeitgeist will affect its evolution.
What individual Christians take literally or metaphorically or leave open is not as important as whether or not they follow the teaching and example of Christ. I would be very surprised to find a Christian who didn't agree with that.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Well said, Raptor! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As the verbal teaching is metaphoric, enigmatic, oracular, turns all alien cultural preconceptions of the time against themselves, what's left is the example.
Can we agree on what that was? And how transferable is it to our alien culture?
Can we be racist like Jesus was?
Or do we have deconstruction to do even of His example, let alone His verbal teachings.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What individual Christians take literally or metaphorically or leave open is not as important as whether or not they follow the teaching and example of Christ. I would be very surprised to find a Christian who didn't agree with that.
I don't agree with it, because it is basically self-contradictory. The process of "taking literally or metaphorically or leaving open" is nothing but the inevitable intellectual engagement necessary to "follow the teaching and example of Christ". The idea that one can somehow separate these is just plain delusional. Our new friend KHANDS, for example, is rather dogmatic in his anti-dogmatism. Just because he apparently reduces the gospel to being nice to each other does not mean that he is at a loss what a Christian must be like and do. His exegesis is pants and his dogma is trite, buy they are as definitive as any ex cathedra of Rome.
There is a simple principle at work here. One cannot be an ...ian/ist without holding fast to some dogma. Because in order to be identifiable as ...ian/ist, one must be distinguishable at least in one aspect from non-...ians/ists. And whatever that one distinct aspect may be, it then can be understood as a dogma of ...ianity/ism. The only other possibility is to not be an ...ian/ist.
Personally, I regret deeply that so few dogmas are available. What could be better than having access to more definitive truth? It seems to me that anti-dogmatism is merely a proxy for a fight about authority. Dogmas are fine, as long as they are mine...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
If one accepts that the true value of religious participation..wouldn't it be reasonable to dismiss a literal acceptance of dogmatic beliefs...
Must acceptance be literal?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It seems to me modern Christianity has degenerated into an easy to grasp set of tenets aimed at understandability to the least among us.
So, what's your understanding of the incarnation? Can you grasp it?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
KHANDS: quote:
I realize I may be overstepping my bounds offering these thoughts on a sight identifying itself as Christian, but I do believe there is importance in nurturing spirituality as an element of overall health of any individual.
What mousethief said. We aren't delicate flowers, and you'd have to go further than that to seriously ruffle feathers here. There are a number of Christians here who regularly freak more people out with their opinions (often about dogma ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) than you and your current offering.
--------------------
"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
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
I deny Mousethief's assumption that I'm being sarcastic in any way; I simply don't want to offend anyone while at the same time challenging basic Christian tenets.
As I offered earlier I believe spiritual engagement to be an essential human endeavor.
Some of you have suggested most Christians find following Jesus' humanitarian direction fundamental to your religious engagement. From my perspective, viewing the political maneuverings of the Christian Right in the US, I really don't see the adherence.
So, it makes me think that a mind set of holier than thou (Jesus is my savior, I'm just a humble servant, accept the lord or perish)-the exclusivity of the perspective-is truly wrong-headed. Christians would serve the earth and mankind more effectively by dropping the beliefs that make one a 'Christian' and embracing the teachings of Christ.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
I deny Mousethief's assumption that I'm being sarcastic in any way; I simply don't want to offend anyone while at the same time challenging basic Christian tenets.
As I offered earlier I believe spiritual engagement to be an essential human endeavor.
Some of you have suggested most Christians find following Jesus' humanitarian direction fundamental to your religious engagement. From my perspective, viewing the political maneuverings of the Christian Right in the US, I really don't see the adherence.
So, it makes me think that a mind set of holier than thou (Jesus is my savior, I'm just a humble servant, accept the lord or perish)-the exclusivity of the perspective-is truly wrong-headed. Christians would serve the earth and mankind more effectively by dropping the beliefs that make one a 'Christian' and embracing the teachings of Christ.
I try to embrace the teachings of Christ. I also believe that Jesus Christ is God, and he is the creating Word who made the Sun, the stars, and the earth.
I follow the way of Christ because he is God. The beliefs ABOUT Christ support the teachings OF Christ.
[ 28. January 2013, 00:37: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
Dogmatic beliefs only serve to create a picture of Christianity most non-Christians find ludicrous.
This is a dogmatic belief.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
Christians would serve the earth and mankind more effectively...
Why should Christians' goal be to serve the earth and humankind rather than to love God and neighbor?
By analogy, I can say that the government could improve its profit margin if it cut off Social Security benefits at age 70, but that's pretty much beside the point: the goal of government is not to make a profit, nor is the goal of Christians to serve the earth; that service is a byproduct of our faith.
quote:
...by dropping the beliefs that make one a 'Christian' and embracing the teachings of Christ.
Why would any Christian accept the claim that Christ taught nothing of what we believe about him, or about God, or about the way things work? We believe that "the teachings of Christ" and "the beliefs that make one a 'Christian'" are one and the same.
What you pretty clearly mean is that we should drop our beliefs about Christ and adopt Christ's moral teaching alone, or something. But why on earth would you pick out a sub-set of his teachings as being important, and—moreover—why on earth should we accept anyone's judgment in doing so? It's amazing what an anti-holistic approach this is.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
Oh well, if people in a secular country find the beliefs of christians to be ludicrous, why don´t they just embrace the gift of living in a secular society and stay away from the churches that preach those ludicrous stuff? It´s not like anybody is forcing them to come.
But if one who denies those ludicrous beliefs still finds the ritual and the community sense to be meaningful, then why not build their own communities without beliefs instead of telling what the existing communities should do? Why don´t they stay in the pews instead of trying to become pastors and priests of a religion in which they don´t believe?
Most of all, whenever I see liberals sugesting what the church should do to remain relevant, I have to laugh hard. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Look what churches like the ELCA or EPCUSA, or any of the scandinavian lutheran churches are doing since decades to "stay relevant" and just look at the pathetic results. It´s not like the youth or the secular society is barely interested in their rituals.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
What you pretty clearly mean is that we should drop our beliefs about Christ and adopt Christ's moral teaching alone, or something. [/QB]
Or, more accurately, to cherry pick the bits of Jesus teachings that are compatible with modern liberal agenda and forget about all the rest.
But if we have to choose which bits are relevant and which are not, then we don´t need a Lord at all. We should just believe whatever we want to, and the whole "follow the teachings of Christ" would be bollocks.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Suppose I love weddings and wanted to have one myself. Only problem is that I don't have a partner. So I throw a wedding for myself.
Now I imagine some people would come just for the heck of it and it does seem like a bright idea. But others would question the value of a wedding, the value of a ritual if it was devoid of any deeper meaning.
Christian liturgy from the simple to the ornate, is an expression of the Church's love for God. The reason for example, that cathedrals are built in splendor and beauty is that its builders wanted to demonstrate the depth of their love for God. Yet even the greatest cathedral built is only a tiny drop in the infinite love of God towards creation.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I deny Mousethief's assumption that I'm being sarcastic in any way; I simply don't want to offend anyone while at the same time challenging basic Christian tenets.
As I offered earlier I believe spiritual engagement to be an essential human endeavor.
Some of you have suggested most Christians find following Jesus' humanitarian direction fundamental to your religious engagement. From my perspective, viewing the political maneuverings of the Christian Right in the US, I really don't see the adherence.
So, it makes me think that a mind set of holier than thou (Jesus is my savior, I'm just a humble servant, accept the lord or perish)-the exclusivity of the perspective-is truly wrong-headed. Christians would serve the earth and mankind more effectively by dropping the beliefs that make one a 'Christian' and embracing the teachings of Christ.
Like I said, this is only tenable if knowing God isn't really that important. That is not what Christians believe. So far as Christians are concerned, humanity's presumption it can live without God is the whole problem.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
While I'm paddling this canoe...
“Jesus does not give recipes that show the way to God as other teachers of religion do. He is Himself the way.” Karl Barth
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I try to embrace the teachings of Christ. I also believe that Jesus Christ is God, and he is the creating Word who made the Sun, the stars, and the earth.
This is a bit of a tangential question, I suppose, but I wonder how you reconcile that belief with the knowledge of the vastness of the universe and what it'smade of etc?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I try to embrace the teachings of Christ. I also believe that Jesus Christ is God, and he is the creating Word who made the Sun, the stars, and the earth.
This is a bit of a tangential question, I suppose, but I wonder how you reconcile that belief with the knowledge of the vastness of the universe and what it'smade of etc?
Not speaking for ANglican Brat but I find it entirely reasonable that an infinite God would create a vast universe that is full of incredible things, many of which are at the moment anyway, beyond our comprehension. There are a great many things in religion generally and Christianity specifically that I find more difficult to reconcile than that.
What is it about a vast universe of stars, galaxies, black holes etc that you find incompatible with a creator God?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
What is it about a vast universe of stars, galaxies, black holes etc that you find incompatible with a creator God?
I assume she is more worried about attributing this to Jesus Christ, the man. That is fair enough, the Incarnation is a central mystery of the Christian faith. Without faith Anglican_Brat's statement makes no sense at all.
And that brings us neatly back to the OP. Dogma does not destroy, it protects religious mystery. Or at least it should and as far as traditional Christianity is concerned, does. Only few doctrines are dogma, after all, and they are quite generally of the kind that stumps the non-believer.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I deny Mousethief's assumption that I'm being sarcastic in any way; I simply don't want to offend anyone while at the same time challenging basic Christian tenets.
As I offered earlier I believe spiritual engagement to be an essential human endeavor.
Some of you have suggested most Christians find following Jesus' humanitarian direction fundamental to your religious engagement. From my perspective, viewing the political maneuverings of the Christian Right in the US, I really don't see the adherence.
So, it makes me think that a mind set of holier than thou (Jesus is my savior, I'm just a humble servant, accept the lord or perish)-the exclusivity of the perspective-is truly wrong-headed. Christians would serve the earth and mankind more effectively by dropping the beliefs that make one a 'Christian' and embracing the teachings of Christ.
I can see that you are sincere about your beliefs. I'm not sure if they could be classed as 'dogmatic', but perhaps we might call them doctrinal, and representative of your own faith, and all unevidenced.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
This is a bit of a tangent, but may I say welcome Khands? It's good to have you aboard - and such a pleasant change to have someone who can be polite while raising a controversial topic!
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
What is it about a vast universe of stars, galaxies, black holes etc that you find incompatible with a creator God?
She thinks religion and science are incompatible.
Can't get over the false dichotomy.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Only few doctrines are dogma, after all, and they are quite generally of the kind that stumps the non-believer.
Okay, I'll play. Stump me, IngoB!
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I try to embrace the teachings of Christ. I also believe that Jesus Christ is God, and he is the creating Word who made the Sun, the stars, and the earth.
This is a bit of a tangential question, I suppose, but I wonder how you reconcile that belief with the knowledge of the vastness of the universe and what it's made of etc?
The vastness of the universe testify to the incredible power of the eternal Word to sustain and uphold the cosmos. Athanasius in his treatise, On the Incarnation of the Word ponders the mystery that the Word can both simultaneously become flesh in the person of Jesus and also eternally sustain the universe at the same time.
The belief that the Word created the cosmos is not a question really of "how the universe came to be", but "why the universe was created." It was created as a result of the reciprocal love between Father and Son in the Godhead. The Father willed the Creation and the Word, in loving response, fulfilled the Father's will and brought all things into being. The reason for the wonder and complexity of the universe is simply put, that it was made by and through love.
And that is an example of the beauty of Christian "dogma."
Dogma ultimately deals with meaning and how meaning shapes our lives. Science answers the question of "how" while faith and belief attempt to answer the question of "why." And that is why dogma has its place because human beings need to at least investigate the answer of "why".
[ 28. January 2013, 10:21: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
... I find it entirely reasonable that an infinite God would create a vast universe that is full of incredible things...
I find it slightly depressing how people find things to be entirely reasonable based on entirely unreasonable premises. Like, for example, the premise that God is 'infinite'. What does that even mean?
If this is too tangential, I'll start a new thread on it, because I've heard it said many times in different contexts.
[ 28. January 2013, 10:29: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
Originally posted by KHANDS
quote:
Christians would serve the earth and mankind more effectively by dropping the beliefs that make one a 'Christian' and embracing the teachings of Christ.
If you are referring to the moral and social aspects of Jesus' teaching, this attitude would reduce Jesus to a teacher of social behaviour.
The power of Jesus to change lives lays in the acceptance of Jesus as God himself and the start of a personal relationship with him.
As for all the rest of the stuff that is hung onto Christianity - dogma, as you call it, I think you can believe as much as you like.
Belief in statements means nothing unless they cause a change in a person - when they then become 'faith'.
The problems with belief arise when we try to teach them as truths to others and say why they must be accepted. How can I tell someone that it is deperately important to believe in the virgin birth in order to be a Christian?
What a Christian comes to believe in the course of their journey with Jesus does not come from theology, but from the Holy Spirit
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
