Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Oh, Lord.
Nice idea but absolutes are imaginary.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:This. With bells on.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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:
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.)?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote: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.
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?
quote:No. And this attitude with its "I'm going to be naughty hahahaha" undertone isn't really required.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I realize I may be overstepping my bounds offering these thoughts on a sight identifying itself as Christian,
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote:Must acceptance be literal?
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...
quote:So, what's your understanding of the incarnation? Can you grasp it?
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.
quote: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
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.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) than you and your current offering.
quote: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 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.
quote:This is a dogmatic belief.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
Dogmatic beliefs only serve to create a picture of Christianity most non-Christians find ludicrous.
quote:Why should Christians' goal be to serve the earth and humankind rather than to love God and neighbor?
Originally posted by KHANDS:
Christians would serve the earth and mankind more effectively...
quote: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.
...by dropping the beliefs that make one a 'Christian' and embracing the teachings of Christ.
![[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.
quote:Or, more accurately, to cherry pick the bits of Jesus teachings that are compatible with modern liberal agenda and forget about all the rest.
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]
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote:She thinks religion and science are incompatible.
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?
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Okay, I'll play. Stump me, IngoB!
Originally posted by IngoB:
Only few doctrines are dogma, after all, and they are quite generally of the kind that stumps the non-believer.
quote: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.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote: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?
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Evangeline:
... I find it entirely reasonable that an infinite God would create a vast universe that is full of incredible things...
quote:If you are referring to the moral and social aspects of Jesus' teaching, this attitude would reduce Jesus to a teacher of social behaviour.
Christians would serve the earth and mankind more effectively by dropping the beliefs that make one a 'Christian' and embracing the teachings of Christ.
quote:Do you understand how God can become incarnate then? If so, please explain it to me, because I sure do not! I merely know that I cannot prove this to be logically impossible. But that it in fact has happened I believe by faith alone, and the precise mechanism is a near complete mystery to me. (And yes, I did try to understand. The more I learned, the more mysterious it became...)
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Okay, I'll play. Stump me, IngoB!
Originally posted by IngoB:
Only few doctrines are dogma, after all, and they are quite generally of the kind that stumps the non-believer.
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
....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.....
quote:I'm with you on the power of Jesus to change lives and the Holy Spirit shaboodle, but the "personal relationship with Jesus" language leaves me cold.
Originally posted by shadeson:
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.
quote:
A “personal relationship with Jesus” – what’s that all about? If it’s equivalent to “faith in Jesus Christ”, fine. But it’s not, is it? It’s a shibboleth that inflates to an unmediated experience of walking and talking with an invisible person, of spending quality time together, and if it doesn’t work out, well, “Down, dooby do, down down”.
In fact, with Luther and Barth, having a “personal relationship with Jesus” could be said to be the opposite of faith, a theologia gloriae, faith being unanchorable in psychology, not a feeling but a self-negation, sub specie crucis.
The phrase itself is hardly biblical; indeed it is quite zeitgeisty, religious coinage in our being-in-a-relationship economy. In fact, talking with people about their “personal relationship with Jesus”, I invariably conclude that they are in the realm of projection and fantasy.
quote:I could agree with this sentiment, but not the ensuing quote. I am not a fan of the phrase, "personal relationship with Jesus." But I think the reality that motivates it is right on target. Until we come to recognize the reality of the living Lord, we really are in the dark. And, once that reality has come to life within us, we are truly alive. As long as Christ is an abstraction, the notion of faith is an odd one, rather like believing in quarks. We may be able to muster the argument, but none of it has any life-changing reality AFAICS.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I'm with you on the power of Jesus to change lives and the Holy Spirit shaboodle, but the "personal relationship with Jesus" language leaves me cold.
Originally posted by shadeson:
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.
quote:Oh, sorry. When you said there are doctrines that stump the non-believer, I took it that you meant we were confounded by them and unable to offer an explanation. In the example you cite, however, the non-believer is not the least bit stumped, and easily answers that he believes it’s all arrant mystical nonsense. So, we’re in the same position of not-stumpedness.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Do you understand how God can become incarnate then? … the precise mechanism is a near complete mystery to me.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Okay, I'll play. Stump me, IngoB!
Originally posted by IngoB:
Only few doctrines are dogma, after all, and they are quite generally of the kind that stumps the non-believer.
quote:I'm offering these thoughts as my opinion not as any hard and fast absolutes.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's ironic, though, that KHANDS himself puts forward a set of beliefs, without any argument or evidence, thus 'spiritual engagement is essential', a mind set of holier than thou 'is wrong headed', Christians should drop their beliefs, and embrace the teachings of Christ.
Maybe the argument is 'true because I say so'!
quote:I'm with you on the power of Jesus to change lives and the Holy Spirit shaboodle, but the "personal relationship with Jesus" language leaves me cold.
Originally posted by Evensong :
quote:This, of course, deracinates liturgy in such a way as to make mummery of it.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
The value of the liturgy...is (or can be) aesthetic in nature and in that way provide considerable solace and beauty, which, I guess, is religious in nature.
quote:No. If this is your attitude, then it would rather be correct to say that the believers are stumped, whereas the non-believers are not. Of course, I think your attitude is intellectually lazy, to say the least. But my original point was not at all to insult your mental capacity. Rather, my point was that dogma typically safeguards important doctrines against "common sense", where that "common" includes both believers and non-believers. It is exactly because the Incarnation is common-non-sensical that one needs a dogma to secure it. That was my actual point. (Please note that common-non-sensical is not the same as illogical. But if one listens to a Christian mystery and does not intellectually respond with "WTF?", then one has not understood it properly...)
Originally posted by Yorick:
Oh, sorry. When you said there are doctrines that stump the non-believer, I took it that you meant we were confounded by them and unable to offer an explanation. In the example you cite, however, the non-believer is not the least bit stumped, and easily answers that he believes it’s all arrant mystical nonsense. So, we’re in the same position of not-stumpedness.
quote:Is today Professor Irwin Corey day on the Ship? It seem like half the posts I read today are gibberish.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
This, of course, deracinates liturgy in such a way as to make mummery of it.
quote:Right, okay. Yes, I can go along with that. Thanks for explaining it so honestly.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is exactly because the Incarnation is common-non-sensical that one needs a dogma to secure it. That was my actual point.
quote:If you are able to believe something is true, and yet not believe its opposite is false, then you have jettisoned the excluded middle and with it reason itself, and can consequently prove anything and nothing.
Originally posted by blackbeard:
One of the difficulties of dogma, it seems to me, is when it goes from "this is what we consider, after much thought, to be right", through "this is the official teaching" through "This is the truth, and if you don't agree, you are WRONG!" ....
quote:I have read this five times and still can't understand what you are saying.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you are able to believe something is true, and yet not believe its opposite is false, then you have jettisoned the excluded middle and with it reason itself, and can consequently prove anything and nothing.
quote:No, I'm thinking its more of a Why Johnny Can't Read Day on the Ship.
snark from a host:
quote:Is today Professor Irwin Corey day on the Ship? It seem like half the posts I read today are gibberish.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
This, of course, deracinates liturgy in such a way as to make mummery of it.
[and here is what the snark omitted:]
In its nature, liturgy is a bridge from the cosmos to the divine.
Music, art, architecture, solace, and beauty are merely consequences of the mystical interchange—intercourse, commerce, communication—between the created and the uncreated.
quote:Welcome to my world...
Originally posted by Boogie:
I have read this five times and still can't understand what you are saying.
quote:What means of access to the teachings of Jesus, un-mediated by Paul and the Gospels, are we supposed to have? These are the earliest documents relating to Jesus; even the "Gnostic" gospels are later.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
Bostonman: You seem to be confusing the teachings of the man Jesus with the Christ, established after the fact by the Gospel writers and Paul.
quote:I thought we were taught to love God with .....our minds?
Originally posted by IngoB
It is exactly because the Incarnation is common-non-sensical that one needs a dogma to secure it.
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
What means of access to the teachings of Jesus, un-mediated by Paul and the Gospels, are we supposed to have? These are the earliest documents relating to Jesus; even the "Gnostic" gospels are later.
Did you dig up his diary or something?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
New thread, if any are interested: quote:This sounds like, "I love your hair, your skin, your teeth... it's just that the person inside is so annoying! If only you were dead, the rest would be perfect! Then I could still wrap your arms around me..."
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
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.
quote:A) Johnny has stolen the car.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I have read this five times and still can't understand what you are saying.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you are able to believe something is true, and yet not believe its opposite is false, then you have jettisoned the excluded middle and with it reason itself, and can consequently prove anything and nothing.
quote:I'm rarely accused of not loving God sufficiently with my mind... it is my heart that I worry about. At any rate, I hardly preach obscurantism here. Quite to the contrary, I do believe that attempting to comprehend God to the best of our individual intellectual ability is an outright duty of a good Christian life. However, this does not mean that God can be comprehended fully, in this life or the next, by a finite intellect. Rather it is the case that where we truly start to see God our ratiocination must break down, just as our eyes must be blinded if we attempt to stare at a supernova from close distance... The point of our intellectual effort is not to pin down God with our concepts. Rather it is to eliminate intellectual idolatry, it is to not stop short of what we are capable of thinking, being content with a false godlet of our own imagination. We must push our mind to where it cannot go any further towards God, then the remaining mystery truly is God, at least to us.
Originally posted by shadeson:
I thought we were taught to love God with .....our minds?
quote:In what sense are you talking here of "necessity"? It is not absolutely required that a doctrine be crucial for salvation to become dogma (of the RCC), merely that it be true. Anyhow, here are some reasons from the Catechism:
Originally posted by shadeson:
In any case, why is the dogma associated with the virgin birth so neccessary? It's there because of more dogma about God needing a perfect sacrifice. And so on and so forth.
quote:And just for kicks, here is St Jerome slamming typical (modern day) Protestant objections to the perpetual virginity.
Mary's virginal motherhood in God's plan
502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.
503 Mary's virginity manifests God's absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures." [Council of Friuli (796): DS 619; cf. Lk 2:48-49]
504 Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary's womb because he is the New Adam, who inaugurates the new creation: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven." [1 Cor 15:45,47] From his conception, Christ's humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure." [Jn 3:34] From "his fullness" as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace." [Jn 1:16; cf. Col 1:18]
505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?" [Lk 1:34; cf. Jn 3:9] Participation in the divine life arises "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". [Jn 1:13] The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit's gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God [cf. 2 Cor 11:2] is fulfilled perfectly in Mary's virginal motherhood.
506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith "unadulterated by any doubt", and of her undivided gift of herself to God's will. [LG 63; cf. 1 Cor 7:34-35] It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ." [St. Augustine, De virg., 3: PL 40, 398]
507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse." [LG 64; cf. 63]
quote:Mousethief has got his terminology incorrect. He meant to say 'you have jettisoned the law of noncontradiction'.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I have read this five times and still can't understand what you are saying.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you are able to believe something is true, and yet not believe its opposite is false, then you have jettisoned the excluded middle and with it reason itself, and can consequently prove anything and nothing.
quote:I think there is a difference between:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:If you are able to believe something is true, and yet not believe its opposite is false, then you have jettisoned the excluded middle and with it reason itself, and can consequently prove anything and nothing.
Originally posted by blackbeard:
One of the difficulties of dogma, it seems to me, is when it goes from "this is what we consider, after much thought, to be right", through "this is the official teaching" through "This is the truth, and if you don't agree, you are WRONG!" ....
quote:I put it to you that the Religious Right believe they are embracing the teachings of Christ and that is why they are holier than thou. You and I might think that, for example, Jesus never said don't have sex standing up because it might lead to dancing is not one of the Gospel sayings; but their belief that he would have said it if it hadn't been obvious doesn't depend on any dogma. In fact, it seems to me that the point of believing that Jesus is my saviour is surely to cancel out any holier than thou attitude. (There but for the grace of God go I is supposed to express the opposite attitude.)
Originally posted by KHANDS:
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.
quote:You've moved the goalposts by adding in "we don't have to listen to you." It becomes an entirely different argument, and nothing to do with what I said.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think there is a difference between:
a) 'this is what we consider, after much thought, to be right, and therefore if you don't agree we're logically committed to thinking you are wrong unless you can show us otherwise,' and;
b) 'this is right and therefore if you don't agree we don't have to listen to you because you are WRONG'.
quote:No one has said that, though it's been a very frequent accusation. It's enough to clarify our position without rebutting completely imaginary objections.
Having a body of doctrine is one thing. Saying that those who don't 100% subscribe to it will rot in hell seems to me a sizable step beyond.
quote:Not it isn't. It's grade A, smug, condescending, bollocksy bull flop. The ability to view reality coherently and objectively is adulthood, not childishness.
On seeing the thread title "why dogma ?" my initial answer was "because children go through a stage when they need to be given a definitive framework". That as they mature towards adulthood they will first rebel against and then reach some sort of accommodation with...
Not setting out to upset anyone - it's a genuine psychological insight.
quote:Liturgy is NOT primarily about aesthetics. It's certainly not about what we the participants feel or get out of it. It is worship with our senses.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
to:
The Silent Acolyte:what empty performance?What could possibly be a greater indication of divine presence than a positive aesthetic experience.
Bostonman: My inclination is to accept Jesus as an insightful humanitarian but suggest his 'god-hood' be attributed to those who put the gospels together. There simply is too much precedence for virgin births, resurrections, etc. in earlier traditions to not see this as a political move to solidify the early church.
quote:The mythic parallels argument has been largely discredited because anyone who actually studied the specifics of the Jesus story will realize that the so-called parallels don't make sense. The death and rising motif in mythic stories has to do more with etiological explanations of the changing of the seasons or harvest times. Neither of these are remotely present in the death and resurrection story of Jesus. In the case of the Virgin Birth, most pagan birth narratives usually involve a sexual encounter between a deity and a human woman. But the story of the virgin conception of Jesus does not depict it as a sexual encounter.
Bostonman: My inclination is to accept Jesus as an insightful humanitarian but suggest his 'god-hood' be attributed to those who put the gospels together. There simply is too much precedence for virgin births, resurrections, etc. in earlier traditions to not see this as a political move to solidify the early church.
quote:There has been some discussion on this. While it has, to an extent, explained what you were trying to say, I still can't see what relevance it has to what I said. Maybe it's relevant to something you think I had said, though I can't imagine what.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:If you are able to believe something is true, and yet not believe its opposite is false, then you have jettisoned the excluded middle and with it reason itself, and can consequently prove anything and nothing.
Originally posted by blackbeard:
One of the difficulties of dogma, it seems to me, is when it goes from "this is what we consider, after much thought, to be right", through "this is the official teaching" through "This is the truth, and if you don't agree, you are WRONG!" ....
quote:The upshot being that asserting anything is true necessarily implies that every contrary proposition is false, and that the people who believe those propositions are wrong.
Originally posted by blackbeard:
quote:There has been some discussion on this. While it has, to an extent, explained what you were trying to say, I still can't see what relevance it has to what I said. Maybe it's relevant to something you think I had said, though I can't imagine what.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:If you are able to believe something is true, and yet not believe its opposite is false, then you have jettisoned the excluded middle and with it reason itself, and can consequently prove anything and nothing.
Originally posted by blackbeard:
One of the difficulties of dogma, it seems to me, is when it goes from "this is what we consider, after much thought, to be right", through "this is the official teaching" through "This is the truth, and if you don't agree, you are WRONG!" ....
Can you enlighten us?
quote:You said the value of liturgy was in the aesthetics. I said
Originally posted by KHANDS:
The Silent Acolyte:what empty performance?What could possibly be a greater indication of divine presence than a positive aesthetic experience.
quote:Of course aesthetics follow the divine presence.
In its nature, liturgy is a bridge from the cosmos to the divine.
Music, art, architecture, solace, and beauty are merely consequences of the mystical interchange—intercourse, commerce, communication—between the created and the uncreated.
quote:I believe one of your fellows is adrift on a sea of surreality. Not quite gibberish, not quite Coreyistic, but not infrequently unmoored from plain speech.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Welcome to my world...
Originally posted by Boogie:
I have read this five times and still can't understand what you are saying.
quote:I'm sure Christian apologists find the parallels discreditable but sound biblical scholarship yields significant commonalities between various early religious beliefs and those associated with the Christ.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:The mythic parallels argument has been largely discredited because anyone who actually studied the specifics of the Jesus story will realize that the so-called parallels don't make sense. The death and rising motif in mythic stories has to do more with etiological explanations of the changing of the seasons or harvest times. Neither of these are remotely present in the death and resurrection story of Jesus. In the case of the Virgin Birth, most pagan birth narratives usually involve a sexual encounter between a deity and a human woman. But the story of the virgin conception of Jesus does not depict it as a sexual encounter.
quote:I think it's what blackbeard means when he implies a distinction between not being right i.e. being wrong, and being WRONG. WRONG and wrong are not the same.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You've moved the goalposts by adding in "we don't have to listen to you." It becomes an entirely different argument, and nothing to do with what I said.
quote:Phew! I think I must have trodden on the dogma's tale.
Originally posted by IngoB : I'm rarely accused of not loving God sufficiently with my mind
quote:And, among Vulcans, you would have a point. Among humans, not so much...
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I wasn't discussing points (a) or (b) at all, merely pointing out that #1 and #3 are logically indistinguishable.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Excellent. Yes, as far as I can see, this kind of parallelomania has been discredited by scholars, but hangs on on the internet, esp. amongst atheists. They never give any sources for this stuff - rather like the Mithras or Horus-type junk - because there aren't any, except for Dan Brown-type websites, which screech about thousands of dying and rising gods, but usually don't examine just one of them in detail, as then the parallels start to crumble.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:The mythic parallels argument has been largely discredited because anyone who actually studied the specifics of the Jesus story will realize that the so-called parallels don't make sense. The death and rising motif in mythic stories has to do more with etiological explanations of the changing of the seasons or harvest times. Neither of these are remotely present in the death and resurrection story of Jesus. In the case of the Virgin Birth, most pagan birth narratives usually involve a sexual encounter between a deity and a human woman. But the story of the virgin conception of Jesus does not depict it as a sexual encounter.
Bostonman: My inclination is to accept Jesus as an insightful humanitarian but suggest his 'god-hood' be attributed to those who put the gospels together. There simply is too much precedence for virgin births, resurrections, etc. in earlier traditions to not see this as a political move to solidify the early church.
quote:Thank you, IngoB.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:And, among Vulcans, you would have a point. Among humans, not so much...
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I wasn't discussing points (a) or (b) at all, merely pointing out that #1 and #3 are logically indistinguishable.
...
quote:It isn't Christian apologists who alone find the parallels discreditable. In historical Jesus scholarship which not every scholar is a raging Christian fundamentalist, I don't know any scholar who takes the mythic parallels theory seriously.
I'm sure Christian apologists find the parallels discreditable but sound biblical scholarship yields significant commonalities between various early religious beliefs and those associated with the Christ.
quote:Well, if your faith is that God entered into history, that God became human in Jesus Christ, then history does matter.
But, the point is moot anyway right? These events don't need to be identified as actual physical occurrences since their validity is a matter of faith. Isn't it? [/QB]
quote:Nicely poetic. It leads one to contemplate how the cosmos and infinite intertwine.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I saidquote:
In its nature, liturgy is a bridge from the cosmos to the divine.
quote:I knew you'd say that - it's true because you say so. Go for it!
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see.
quote:Yes, curse me for thinking God's rational creatures, on a board dedicated to rational discussion, should be rational.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:And, among Vulcans, you would have a point. Among humans, not so much...
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I wasn't discussing points (a) or (b) at all, merely pointing out that #1 and #3 are logically indistinguishable.
quote:That's one idea of what we're doing here. Here's another.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, curse me for thinking God's rational creatures, on a board dedicated to rational discussion, should be rational.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
On seeing the thread title "why dogma ?" my initial answer was "because children go through a stage when they need to be given a definitive framework". That as they mature towards adulthood they will first rebel against and then reach some sort of accommodation with...
Not setting out to upset anyone - it's a genuine psychological insight."
quote:I thought that was one of the most pertinent posts on the thread. Kids (and fundamentalists?) need black and white. You can't 'mature' into a more subtle, questioning place without going through a monochrome phase first.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
On seeing the thread title "why dogma ?" my initial answer was "because children go through a stage when they need to be given a definitive framework". That as they mature towards adulthood they will first rebel against and then reach some sort of accommodation with...
Not setting out to upset anyone - it's a genuine psychological insight."
quote:If it's obvious, it will be very easy for you to demonstrate by reference to specific examples. Please do so.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see.
quote:Blackbeard's post that kicked off this tangent was attempting to characterise attitudes that are not perhaps perfectly rational, at least according to some conceptions of what perfect rationality is.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Yes, curse me for thinking God's rational creatures, on a board dedicated to rational discussion, should be rational.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And, among Vulcans, you would have a point. Among humans, not so much...
quote:It isn't pretty "obvious". I pointed that the agricultural elements in pagan myths are completely absent in the Christian narrative. Jesus did not die in the winter and rise in the spring so he is no Adonis.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see. The fact is other than anecdotal evidence there is no way to determine absolutely whether the events we're discussing actually occurred physically. Any'historical' record depends on hearsay so ultimately can only be a matter of faith. I refer again to my signature.
quote:I believe I sense a bit of sarcasm, Quetzalcoatl.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Correction to my above post - not only was Christ very like quetzalcoatl, there seems little doubt also that he was a leading astrologer.
Consider this: he picked twelve disciples, to mirror the signs of the zodiac; his sign was the fish, Pisces; remember the 3 wise men, they were in fact, also astrologers; the star of Bethlehem is the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, obviously; the morning star mentioned in Revelation refers to Venus; notice how Jesus refers to the 'coming age', a well-known astrological reference; and of course, his birth is celebrated at the winter solstice.
This is all so obvious, that all are convinced!
quote:Well to start with virgin birth: there's the Hindu story of Krishna, The Buddha was believed to born of a Virgin, in Egypt we have Horus born of the virgin Isis. Reanimation claims include Osiris (Egypt), Adonis (Greece), Jammus (Mesopotamia) just for starters.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:If it's obvious, it will be very easy for you to demonstrate by reference to specific examples. Please do so.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see.
quote:A proper wiki search will tell you that the earliest record of the pagan solstice celebration is after the earliest record of the birth of Christ. So it would appear that the pagans copied the solstice celebration from the Christians rather than the other way around.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I think your example of the relationship between the date decided on for the birth of Christ and the ancient pagan solstice celebration reinforces my position and weakens yours. a wiki search will take you there.
quote:At the level of individual belief, yes.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But I do get what mousethief was saying. In reality, there's little difference between "This is right" and "This is right, and (not this) is wrong", apart from perhaps a politeness in the way you phrase it. [/QB]
quote:Yes, it is sarcastic, but it also has a point. It's fairly easy to make these assertions, Jesus is like Horus/Mithras, Jesus is an astrologer, but to do the hard work of actually demonstrating it, is something else. This is what scholars of comparative mythology and comparative religions do.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:I believe I sense a bit of sarcasm, Quetzalcoatl.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Correction to my above post - not only was Christ very like quetzalcoatl, there seems little doubt also that he was a leading astrologer.
Consider this: he picked twelve disciples, to mirror the signs of the zodiac; his sign was the fish, Pisces; remember the 3 wise men, they were in fact, also astrologers; the star of Bethlehem is the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, obviously; the morning star mentioned in Revelation refers to Venus; notice how Jesus refers to the 'coming age', a well-known astrological reference; and of course, his birth is celebrated at the winter solstice.
This is all so obvious, that all are convinced!
I think your example of the relationship between the date decided on for the birth of Christ and the ancient pagan solstice celebration reinforces my position and weakens yours. a wiki search will take you there.
quote:True
Originally posted by KHANDS:
There can be no winners or losers in a discussion such as this for the simple reason those of us on either side of the debate will not relinquish our positions; there is no possible proof to be had either way.
but you just never know! One of these days that definitive piece of information might be found one way or the other!quote:Definitely agree.
That being said there certainly is value in exercising one's mental faculties.
quote:Theology and Biblical studies are academic disciplines, so while there are no "winners" or "losers", there are better and worse arguments.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
While I'm finding this exchange great fun and I thank all of you for participating it seems to me important to point out nothing's written in stone, there are no absolutes,imo, and I would once again refer you all to my signature.
There can be no winners or losers in a discussion such as this for the simple reason those of us on either side of the debate will not relinquish our positions; there is no possible proof to be had either way. That being said there certainly is value in exercising one's mental faculties.
quote:That's actually not a bad page. Talks about the failings of the whole parallelism debate. Reductionism being the strongest one IMO.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Alternatively, you can google 'dying and rising gods',
quote:Since you are reducing the infinite to a mere part of human experience, it doesn't seem to me that you understand Kierkegaard very well.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
What the whole issue of multiple resurrections and virgin births suggests to me is early cosmologies were closely tied to neolithic agri-cultural developments: the annual death and resurrection associated with vegetative life cycles. The concept was ritualized; pantheistic beliefs evolved into goddess worship-the female principle being particularly significant in terms of fertility/moon cycles.
Over millennia this paradigm becomes so ingrained in the human intellect it attaches itself to any and all thought related to things beyond this world and that includes Christianity.
So, as Kierkegaard so aptly suggests: take the leap into faith in the absurdity of infinite truth; there is no other answer to our existential dilemma.
quote:Although you haven't as yet, as far as I can see, demonstrated that there are multiple resurrections and virgin births, have you?
Originally posted by KHANDS:
What the whole issue of multiple resurrections and virgin births suggests to me is early cosmologies were closely tied to neolithic agri-cultural developments: the annual death and resurrection associated with vegetative life cycles. The concept was ritualized; pantheistic beliefs evolved into goddess worship-the female principle being particularly significant in terms of fertility/moon cycles.
Over millennia this paradigm becomes so ingrained in the human intellect it attaches itself to any and all thought related to things beyond this world and that includes Christianity.
So, as Kierkegaard so aptly suggests: take the leap into faith in the absurdity of infinite truth; there is no other answer to our existential dilemma.
quote:Except of course that the example we are looking at here comes from Judaism, which had no such tradition. Indeed it celebrated the cycle of the seasons liturgically but entirely separated from such considerations.
What the whole issue of multiple resurrections and virgin births suggests to me is early cosmologies were closely tied to neolithic agri-cultural developments: the annual death and resurrection associated with vegetative life cycles. The concept was ritualized; pantheistic beliefs evolved into goddess worship-the female principle being particularly significant in terms of fertility/moon cycles.
Over millennia this paradigm becomes so ingrained in the human intellect it attaches itself to any and all thought related to things beyond this world and that includes Christianity.
quote:I don't have an existential dilemma. Everyone was supposed to have one of those in the mid-20th century. We outgrew the need.
So, as Kierkegaard so aptly suggests: take the leap into faith in the absurdity of infinite truth; there is no other answer to our existential dilemma.
quote:If we are going to dismiss the stories about Jesus life because they supposedly appear on other god´s biographies, then why should we focus on Jesus teaching then? Of course the teachings have value in itself, but they aren´t unique either. That are many ancient wise men who teached similar things to Jesus´ moral teachings. Why make any Jesus reference, then? If christians no longer believe in Jesus´ story, then they should cease to be christians instead of focusing on Jesus teachings... Of course they can still love, forgive, do good, help the poor, etc, when they´re no longer christian, but none of those things are specifically christian.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:Well to start with virgin birth: there's the Hindu story of Krishna, The Buddha was believed to born of a Virgin, in Egypt we have Horus born of the virgin Isis. Reanimation claims include Osiris (Egypt), Adonis (Greece), Jammus (Mesopotamia) just for starters.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:If it's obvious, it will be very easy for you to demonstrate by reference to specific examples. Please do so.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see.
quote:Well, that's what Christianity is about isn't it. The bottom line of Christian faith is, imo, overcoming the fear of ultimate demise.
I don't have an existential dilemma. Everyone was supposed to have one of those in the mid-20th century. We outgrew the need.
quote:I don't see why one can't call oneself a Christian and only follow the teachings of Christ without the dogmatic trappings. Sounds like the way to go to me.
If we are going to dismiss the stories about Jesus life because they supposedly appear on other god´s biographies, then why should we focus on Jesus teaching then? Of course the teachings have value in itself, but they aren´t unique either. That are many ancient wise men who teached similar things to Jesus´ moral teachings. Why make any Jesus reference, then? If christians no longer believe in Jesus´ story, then they should cease to be christians instead of focusing on Jesus teachings... Of course they can still love, forgive, do good, help the poor, etc, when they´re no longer christian, but none of those things are specifically christian. [/QB]
quote:Christian faith as the overcoming of the fear of death is mercenary, doing what you are paid to do. Christianity is about the freedom to freely respond to Love.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:Well, that's what Christianity is about isn't it. The bottom line of Christian faith is, imo, overcoming the fear of ultimate demise.
I don't have an existential dilemma. Everyone was supposed to have one of those in the mid-20th century. We outgrew the need.
quote:You started out well, KHANDS. I appreciated your willingness to engage with heartfelt questions. But, with "the Gnostic exclusions" you pretty much lay your cards face up on the table. And, there is not much to see.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
...the Gnostic exclusions...
quote:Knock yourself out. But, until you stop using dogma as a perjorative, you stand in the drafty arena of the Sociology of Religion, and there isn't much possibility of finding Truth.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I don't see why one can't call oneself a Christian and only follow the teachings of Christ without the dogmatic trappings. Sounds like the way to go to me.
quote:If it troubles some people then I imagine they would draw solace from it. It doesn't concern me in that sort of existential way. If I am wrong then I will simply never know about it. What's to worry about?
Well, that's what Christianity is about isn't it. The bottom line of Christian faith is, imo, overcoming the fear of ultimate demise.
quote:But which of Christ´s moral teachings you follow are specifically christian, and not shared with other faiths and secular traditions?
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:I don't see why one can't call oneself a Christian and only follow the teachings of Christ without the dogmatic trappings. Sounds like the way to go to me. [/QB]
If we are going to dismiss the stories about Jesus life because they supposedly appear on other god´s biographies, then why should we focus on Jesus teaching then? Of course the teachings have value in itself, but they aren´t unique either. That are many ancient wise men who teached similar things to Jesus´ moral teachings. Why make any Jesus reference, then? If christians no longer believe in Jesus´ story, then they should cease to be christians instead of focusing on Jesus teachings... Of course they can still love, forgive, do good, help the poor, etc, when they´re no longer christian, but none of those things are specifically christian.
quote:Christian faith as the overcoming of the fear of death is mercenary, doing what you are paid to do. Christianity is about the freedom to freely respond to Love.[/quote]
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:Knock yourself out. But, until you stop using dogma as a perjorative, you stand in the drafty arena of the Sociology of Religion, and there isn't much possibility of finding Truth. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I don't see why one can't call oneself a Christian and only follow the teachings of Christ without the dogmatic trappings. Sounds like the way to go to me.
quote:Oh, Lord.
Nice idea but absolutes are imaginary.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Oh, Lord.
Nice idea but absolutes are imaginary.
quote:Only if you've been raised in a church with bad theology.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
the freedom to freely respond to love transcends Christian engagement. Seeking a favorable after-life or avoiding extinction is at the bottom of most religious pursuits, imo.
quote:Are you absolutely sure about that?
Originally posted by KHANDS:
Truth with a capital T? Nice idea but absolutes are imaginary.
quote:You've basically just revealed that you either haven't read any remotely rigorous book on the construction of the NT canon, or else you didn't take it in. There are a couple of fairly minor books that hang around the edge of the canon, but if you think that the NT's meaning be substantially changed by including other books that ever had a hope in hell of making it in there, you're in Dan Brown land.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:Please explain.
quote:You started out well, KHANDS. I appreciated your willingness to engage with heartfelt questions. But, with "the Gnostic exclusions" you pretty much lay your cards face up on the table. And, there is not much to see.
...the Gnostic exclusions...
quote:Extra-biblical texts exist, there's no doubt about that. But to bring the NT canon into question they would have to be 1: widely accepted in the early Church period and 2: about as old as the canonical texts. None of the known extra-biblical texts, at least not the ones that differ significantly from the canonical texts, fulfill those criteria. Certainly the Nag Hamadi library doesn't. The Dan Brown version of the Church shouting down dissent and crushing its works from the NT is simply false.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I think some of you are over-reacting. There's legitimate reason to question the make-up of the NT.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html
quote:You mean the teachings of Christ in the Gospel of John where Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58)
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:I don't see why one can't call oneself a Christian and only follow the teachings of Christ without the dogmatic trappings. Sounds like the way to go to me. [/QB]
If we are going to dismiss the stories about Jesus life because they supposedly appear on other god´s biographies, then why should we focus on Jesus teaching then? Of course the teachings have value in itself, but they aren´t unique either. That are many ancient wise men who teached similar things to Jesus´ moral teachings. Why make any Jesus reference, then? If christians no longer believe in Jesus´ story, then they should cease to be christians instead of focusing on Jesus teachings... Of course they can still love, forgive, do good, help the poor, etc, when they´re no longer christian, but none of those things are specifically christian.
quote:It's pretty much the same thing. PASS.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
zach 82, mousethief:
ok. I should have said I don't believe absolutes exist. Rather all truths are relative to time, place and thought.
quote:Thanks for playing, Anglican Brat; but, Ya got only one out of three here (I yam what I yam!). Without giving an inch to KHANDS, your first is the only hit.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
You mean the teachings of Christ in the Gospel of John where Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58)
Or the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics, where he claimed to forgive sins without reference to the Temple, an implicit claim to divinity.
Or, how about where Jesus accepted Peter's confession that He is the Christ, the anointed one of God?
quote:are two possible references to help you fix these errors.
Larry W. Hurtado. How on Earth did Jesus Become a God: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotions to Jesus. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
Frank J. Matera. New Testament Christology. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999).
quote:Ya gotta up your game KHANDS; people are losing interest.
without any actual verbs of his own, KHANDS quotes:
...a link to some shit from Elaine Pagels which he really doesn't understand...
quote:I'd have thought it was about loving your neighbour and living in the kingdom of justice and peace.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
The bottom line of Christian faith is, imo, overcoming the fear of ultimate demise.
quote:Please, Lord, no.
Yawn. Think Dan Brown.
quote:Is there any passage in the Bible which mentions such delegating?
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte
The ability to to forgive sins could have been delegated.
quote:Ya gotta up your game KHANDS; people are losing interest. [/QB][/QUOTE]
without any actual verbs of his own, KHANDS quotes:
...a link to some shit from Elaine Pagels which he really doesn't understand...
quote:Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me....” (Mt 28:18)
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Is there any passage in the Bible which mentions such delegating?
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte
The ability to to forgive sins could have been delegated.
quote:Very roughly speaking, the deities of pre-Christian pagan religions were mythical, as were their deeds, and nobody really believed otherwise, at least, not in the more educated classes. On the other hand, the great innovation of Chrisitianity was their claim that their god really did all those things - was born of a virgin, incarnated as a man, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. The only problem was that there was no firm evidence that their claims were true, so they said that it all had to be believed out of 'faith', and 'faith' was deemed to be something worth having.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Coming back to the OP, I guess to follow the teachings without the dogma would be sorta like saying I should remember what my mother taught me and not who she is. Christological Dogma is a meditation on who Jesus is. A Christian who rejects dogma as part of the faith is a person who claims to love Christ but is uninterested in who he is.
quote:I don´t think that is a description of the majority of real life christians, therefore, it can´t be a description of what the "broad churchmen" thinks. That is only a description of a small fraction of all christians. Even in mainline denominations, the average church goer believes in all the traditional claims about Jesus. The clergy might not, but they will make sure that their parishioners don´t notice it in their sermons. The whole "metaphorical or symbolical" meaning is just mental acrobatics to avoid the feeling of guilty when they talk about stuff they don´t actually believe. I´m yet to hear a preacher telling his parishioners that Jesus body decomposed on the thomb, or that Mary had sex before Jesus was conceived.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
The broad churchman, on the other hand, doubts to a greater or lesser extent the literal truth of some or all of these propositions, and feels that they represent, in a symbolic or metaphorical form, the deeper, inexpressible mysteries of the faith, those same universal truths which are shared with the other great religious traditions, though clothed in different stories, symbols, and deities.
quote:Theology doesn't divorce fact and meaning, which is the real reason why religion is counter to Enlightenment thinking.
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:I don´t think that is a description of the majority of real life christians, therefore, it can´t be a description of what the "broad churchmen" thinks. That is only a description of a small fraction of all christians. Even in mainline denominations, the average church goer believes in all the traditional claims about Jesus. The clergy might not, but they will make sure that their parishioners don´t notice it in their sermons. The whole "metaphorical or symbolical" meaning is just mental acrobatics to avoid the feeling of guilty when they talk about stuff they don´t actually believe. I´m yet to hear a preacher telling his parishioners that Jesus body decomposed on the thomb, or that Mary had sex before Jesus was conceived.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
The broad churchman, on the other hand, doubts to a greater or lesser extent the literal truth of some or all of these propositions, and feels that they represent, in a symbolic or metaphorical form, the deeper, inexpressible mysteries of the faith, those same universal truths which are shared with the other great religious traditions, though clothed in different stories, symbols, and deities.
Therefore, making it look as if conservative chirsitans who believe in traditional christian dogmas are a small sect behind the broader Church is not a very realistic description of today´s Christianity.
quote:What exactly do you do with theological beliefs you don't believe, but think are meaningful? And what exactly does "meaningful" mean in this context? Makes you feel good?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For the liberal, a theological belief does not have to be factually correct in order for it to convey a theological meaning.
quote:Well, the stereotypical example is the Resurrection is about life overcoming death, love overcoming hatred. Some liberals might say that the notion that life overcomes death is true even if Jesus wasn't physically reanimated.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What exactly do you do with theological beliefs you don't believe, but think are meaningful? And what exactly does "meaningful" mean in this context? Makes you feel good?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For the liberal, a theological belief does not have to be factually correct in order for it to convey a theological meaning.
If you mean they point to a "deeper truth" -- then do you believe the deeper truth?
Can you give me an example of a theological belief that a liberal knows is wrong, but finds meaningful? I don't mean a historical belief, but a theological belief. And what does it mean, and why is it important.
quote:Dunno about your experience, but I've got no patience for folk flinging around links to web sites without any of their own comment or synthesis. Or, even indicating how the linked material adds to the discussion. I think I'm not alone in this.
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I think some of you are over-reacting. There's legitimate reason to question the make-up of the NT.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html
quote:I suppose I am some sort of liberal, but I wouldn't say that I know something is wrong. Say, with the virgin birth, I don't know if it really happened factually. However, I don't feel distressed by not knowing really. And I see it as very valuable, and one of its meanings is that God emerges out of nothing, not man-made, or as they say, like the virgin rainforest.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What exactly do you do with theological beliefs you don't believe, but think are meaningful? And what exactly does "meaningful" mean in this context? Makes you feel good?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For the liberal, a theological belief does not have to be factually correct in order for it to convey a theological meaning.
If you mean they point to a "deeper truth" -- then do you believe the deeper truth?
Can you give me an example of a theological belief that a liberal knows is wrong, but finds meaningful? I don't mean a historical belief, but a theological belief. And what does it mean, and why is it important.
quote:I thought that was a Reformation development.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For the conservative, a theological belief has to have some true factual basis in order for it to have deeper theological meaning.
quote:Indeed one of the ancient tug-of-wars (tugs-of-war?) in church theology was between the Antiochian school, who were keen on the historicity thing, and the Alexandrian school, who were fine with taking the OT allegorically. Thus the latter is hardly something new.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I thought that was a Reformation development.
Before that, Augustine's fourfold method of hermeneutics was the norm. Literalism was only one of those.
quote:Pre-critical hermenuetics went beyond the literal, but never denied the literal meaning. You certainly would have faced charges of heresy if you argued that Jesus wasn't virgin born in the patristic and medieval periods even if allegory was the rage in the Christian academy.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I thought that was a Reformation development.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For the conservative, a theological belief has to have some true factual basis in order for it to have deeper theological meaning.
Before that, Augustine's fourfold method of hermeneutics was the norm. Literalism was only one of those.
quote:And definitions of historicity changed as well IMO.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It was only with the advent of higher criticism that people began to question seriously the historicity of much of the Bible.
quote:I believe Augustine's hermeneutic was that if the literal meaning contradicted the Rule of Faith or other scriptures, it was automatically relegated to a non - literal meaning.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Pre-critical hermenuetics went beyond the literal, but never denied the literal meaning.
quote:I agree with you that in the end, all this tussle over whether we take things literally or allegorically, misses the point of how we find meaning in both Scripture and Tradition. I suppose if someone asks me if I considered Scripture the Word of God, I would say something like this:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:And definitions of historicity changed as well IMO.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It was only with the advent of higher criticism that people began to question seriously the historicity of much of the Bible.
My trouble with all this stuff is this.
The conservative and liberal still end up at the same place regardless of belief in historicity and the miraculous etc.
Accept all the miraculous stuff in the creed? Fine. Still doesn't tell you what it means tho.
Don't accept the creed literally or historically but accept it in other ways? Fine. Still have to ask what it means tho.
So either way, one still has to interpret what it means and how it makes a difference today.
So it strikes me as rather a moot point in many ways.
quote:Thank you
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I agree with you that in the end, all this tussle over whether we take things literally or allegorically, misses the point of how we find meaning in both Scripture and Tradition. I suppose if someone asks me if I considered Scripture the Word of God, I would say something like this:
"Well, I'm still reading it so I'm ascribing some sort of authority to it."
Whether that pleases the fundamentalist, I don't know.
quote:I don´t think so. You really think there´s no difference between believing Jesus actually existed and ressurrected, and merely believe that it was a nice story and we all can learn something from it? That would put faith in Jesus on the same level as the apreciation of ancient mithology or children stories. I can read Harry Potter and learn a lot of things from it. We can get meaning from books, movies, songs, etc. The whole point of God´s incarnation is that He became part of our history. If God´s incarnation is mere fiction, then Christinity is nothing but a solar religion like mithraism or any other cult of solar gods.
Originally posted by Evensong:
The conservative and liberal still end up at the same place regardless of belief in historicity and the miraculous etc.
quote:Not so.
Originally posted by gorpo:
The whole point of God´s incarnation is that He became part of our history.
quote:What makes you think other religion's myths are not based on history like ours is?
Originally posted by gorpo:
If God´s incarnation is mere fiction, then Christinity is nothing but a solar religion like mithraism or any other cult of solar gods.
quote:I wonder if you can give one example of where God has bneen active that cannot be explained by a natural and/or human cause?
Originally posted by Evensong:
God has been active in history both before and after the incarnation if the bible has any say on the matter.
quote:Once again, you are asking a question that proves you are the living under the illusion of a false dichotomy. Do you know what that is SusanDoris? Pleas look it up, it'll save you a lot of wasted breath on this bulletin board.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder if you can give one example of where God has bneen active that cannot be explained by a natural and/or human cause?
quote:1. This is like people who ask for evidence of the historical Jesus and start by excluding the New Testament. It's quite a bit less objective to start by excluding huge numbers of documents than vice versa.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I wonder if you can give one example of where God has bneen active that cannot be explained by a natural and/or human cause?
Originally posted by Evensong:
God has been active in history both before and after the incarnation if the bible has any say on the matter.
Why should the Bible have anything to say on the matter? It was thought of and written by real, ordinary people who believed that it was on God's ideas, and of course it has been re-interpreted continuously since then..
Funnily enough, I have been toying with the idea of starting a topic, 'What does God do?' but hadnt got round to it yet!
quote:One view, proposed by those who advocate a panentheistic understanding of God is that the Incarnation wasn't so much about God entering in from the "outside" since panentheists believe that God is radically immanent within the created order, without being identified with it (which is what pantheism means), but the Incarnation was a signal, a sacramental sign to the underlying closeness that God experiences with creation at all times.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Not so.
Originally posted by gorpo:
[qb] The whole point of God´s incarnation is that He became part of our history.
God has been active in history both before and after the incarnation if the bible has any say on the matter.
The incarnation means the fullest revelation of God earth to date.
What does that tell us about the nature of God?
A number of things.......which is where the "meaning" issue comes in.
quote:Yes, I did know what it meant, but I looked it up to make sure. However, my choice sometimes is to choose two options only in order to focus on one point rather than too many.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Once again, you are asking a question that proves you are the living under the illusion of a false dichotomy. Do you know what that is SusanDoris? Pleas look it up, it'll save you a lot of wasted breath on this bulletin board.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder if you can give one example of where God has bneen active that cannot be explained by a natural and/or human cause?
quote:Not to me it wasn't!!
In other words, that's an invalid question SusanDoris.
quote:Those are assertions, are they not?
God works by and in nature and humankind. God is not separate from nature and humankind.
quote:You are being a jerk, Evensong. Do you know what that is? Please look it up. It will save you from being planked for violating Ship rules.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Once again, you are asking a question that proves you are the living under the illusion of a false dichotomy. Do you know what that is SusanDoris? Pleas look it up, it'll save you a lot of wasted breath on this bulletin board.
quote:Seems as valid as a thing with validity to me, too.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Not to me it wasn't!!
Originally posted by Evensong:
In other words, that's an invalid question SusanDoris.
quote:Because incarnation to me is a bigger miracle then the virgin birth or the physical ressurrection, and it´s obviously not logical or scientifically acceptable... I don´t know why someone would believe in the "more", but not in the "less".
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Gorpo - why would you imagine that not literally believing in the virgin birth and/or a physical resuscitation style resurrection means that one does not believe that the Incarnation was a real event?
quote:What makes you think other religion's myths are not based on history like ours is?
Originally posted by Evensong:
[/qb]
quote:Yes. Fair enough. My apologies.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:You are being a jerk, Evensong. Do you know what that is? Please look it up. It will save you from being planked for violating Ship rules.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Once again, you are asking a question that proves you are the living under the illusion of a false dichotomy. Do you know what that is SusanDoris? Pleas look it up, it'll save you a lot of wasted breath on this bulletin board.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
quote:Not to mention believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly benevolent God. I would think all bets would be off if one believes that, but to my amazement I know a great many people for whom that is not the case. Omnipotent, but incapable of making a baby without sex!
Because incarnation to me is a bigger miracle then the virgin birth or the physical ressurrection, and it´s obviously not logical or scientifically acceptable... I don´t know why someone would believe in the "more", but not in the "less".
quote:Let us continue this conversation in Hell.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Yes, I did know what it meant, but I looked it up to make sure. However, my choice sometimes is to choose two options only in order to focus on one point rather than too many.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Once again, you are asking a question that proves you are the living under the illusion of a false dichotomy. Do you know what that is SusanDoris? Pleas look it up, it'll save you a lot of wasted breath on this bulletin board.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder if you can give one example of where God has bneen active that cannot be explained by a natural and/or human cause?
quote:Not to me it wasn't!!
In other words, that's an invalid question SusanDoris.
quote:Those are assertions, are they not?
God works by and in nature and humankind. God is not separate from nature and humankind.
quote:Well . . . just the one time.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Omnipotent, but incapable of making a baby without sex!
quote:On faith.
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:What makes you think other religion's myths are not based on history like ours is?
Originally posted by Evensong:
On what basis do you discern that? [/QB]
quote:Christianity, and its ancestor Judaism, are essentially exclusive. It is one chosen people, not many. It is one Messiah, not many. A limited amount of Divine favour for other people and religions is compatible with that. But if other religions indeed had serious historical support for their claims to be the true religion, then necessarily Christianity (and Judaism) is false. This is not building a house on sand, this is simply dealing with the facts of the matter. Faith is about something concrete, it is not some abstract and vague sentiment that strings us along.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But that's not faith in God, that's faith in exclusivity. If it somehow came to light that other religion's historical claims were true (as we believe ours to be), your faith would crumble. Bit dangerous don't you think? Building a house on sand?
quote:I don't know what this makes me, but I have yet to see any convincing evidence that any of Christianity's historical claims are true (except, perhaps, Jesus's execution by the Romans), including her claim to uniqueness. There is, to my mind, sufficient evidence of various sorts that there is at least some truth in its spiritual claims, especially those elements which are shared with other belief systems and religions, or perhaps that there is truth in some sort of universal religion or spiritual system which is imperfectly expressed through a religion such as Christianity. Or at the very least, that it is worth taking such a system as a working hypothesis against the time when one is able to validate the facts for oneself.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...Now, if Christianity turns out to be false, and it can turn out to be false based on evidence gathered in this world, then I would not for example become an atheist. I know by insuperable philosophical argument that a God much like the Christian God exists. Quite possibly I would even retain some beliefs that I have received from Christianity, for example the concept that immaterial spiritual entities ("angels and demons") exist. But if sufficient evidence is presented for the falsehood of Christianity, then I would turn from it as true religion faster than you can say "hasta la vista"...
quote:That is to ignore the teachings of the prophets, that all the ethnoi/nations would come.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Christianity, and its ancestor Judaism, are essentially exclusive.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But that's not faith in God, that's faith in exclusivity. If it somehow came to light that other religion's historical claims were true (as we believe ours to be), your faith would crumble. Bit dangerous don't you think? Building a house on sand?
quote:But that's not faith in God, that's faith in exclusivity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:On faith.
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:What makes you think other religion's myths are not based on history like ours is?
Originally posted by Evensong:
On what basis do you discern that?
[/QB]
quote:I hear that there is considerable historical agreement on a bit more than that, e.g., that it is rather clear that Jesus' tomb was indeed found empty. But it doesn't matter to me, personally. My own faith in Christ is not based on history, really. My point was simply that if there was historical proof for other religions, then that would be a serious problem for Christianity (and Judaism).
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I don't know what this makes me, but I have yet to see any convincing evidence that any of Christianity's historical claims are true (except, perhaps, Jesus's execution by the Romans), including her claim to uniqueness.
quote:I consider this to be insufficient. But it is not so easy to explain why. It has to do with what religion is like, essentially, which makes such reductionism impossible. We cannot say for example that this piece of Picasso is also found in Monet, and Rembrandt, and therefore is "true art" whereas what they do not share isn't. It doesn't work that way. Not that one cannot isolate say the use of colour as important to painting. But in isolation this means nothing. Likewise, there is no sense in seeking some kind of "lowest common denominator" of religion, as far as being religious is concerned. There may be academic interest in that, but it cannot move you. For religion to work, it has to grasp you. Whole.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
There is, to my mind, sufficient evidence of various sorts that there is at least some truth in its spiritual claims, especially those elements which are shared with other belief systems and religions, or perhaps that there is truth in some sort of universal religion or spiritual system which is imperfectly expressed through a religion such as Christianity. Or at the very least, that it is worth taking such a system as a working hypothesis against the time when one is able to validate the facts for oneself.
quote:Religion has to go beyond you. How can it do that, if you are the ultimate judge of its truths? You can judge where you place your bet. But if you don't risk, you cannot win.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
What I don't see is why it has to be an either/or proposition - either one accepts Christianity (presumably in your case the Roman Catholic Catechism) in its entirety, or one rejects it in its entirety, and runs screaming from the building - why not a middle course, where one recognizes that there is truth in it, even if it is not of itself, The Truth?
quote:I can imagine a third century Christian (Tertullian?) claiming that if there were historical proof for pagan philosophy, then that would be a serious problem for Christianity. Saints of the church have shown otherwise by incorporating Aristotle and Plato into Christian theology.
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point was simply that if there was historical proof for other religions, then that would be a serious problem for Christianity (and Judaism).
quote:Because there is an essential difference between philosophy and religion.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't see why other religions cannot be incorporated on the same basis.
quote:Rather, it is historically self-evident and utterly crucial.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In this context, the distinction between philosophy and religion is entirely arbitrary.
quote:The idea that Plato regarded the Form of the Good as a matter of disinterested intellectual enquiry and no more has been an article of faith with a certain kind of English philosopher in the line of Russell. That doesn't make it true. Plato's works are fundamentally treatises on how the soul ascends to its proper beatification on the basis of love. The only reason for excluding them from the title 'religion' is if one takes 'religion' to require public collective ritual.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Rather, it is historically self-evident and utterly crucial.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In this context, the distinction between philosophy and religion is entirely arbitrary.
Setting aside questions of mere inculturation (i.e., accidental rather than essential adaptations to a prevailing culture which in part will have been shaped by previous religion), Graeco-Roman religion was incompatible with Christianity. Graeco-Roman philosopy not.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Graeco-Roman philosophy was not a natural fit for Graeco-Roman polytheism either.
quote:Let me summarise: you make two points that I take issue with: a) the distinction between philosophy and religion is self-evident and critical; b) Christianity can learn from philosophy but not (except incidentally) from religion.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Dafyd, you have simply ignored my argument (hint: all the stuff you have snipped) and instead you now go on about side issues of no further interest. Can Plato's philosophy be turned into a kind of religion? Yes, as the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus et al. shows. Was Graeco-Roman philosophy compatible with Graeco-Roman polytheism? Only in a strained way, as already discussed by St Augustine in the City of God. Is it possible to misunderstand Thomist virtue ethic as setting religion apart from faith? Yes, as you demonstrate.
quote:Again, you assume a distinction between wisdom and religious sentiment in Graeco-Roman philosophy that just cannot be justified from the writings of the philosophers themselves.
1) Whatever wisdom (not religious sentiment) Graeco-Roman philosophy was able to elicit was naturally compatible with the true religion Christianity. Whereas the majority of supernatural teachings of Graeco-Roman religions obviously was not.
quote:I'll just remark here that you're talking about 'philosophy' as if Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Russell were all engaged in the same activity in the same spirit to the same end.
Philosophy is fundamentally compatible, while some practical aspects may have to be rejected.
quote:Clearly history is contingent. However, it is not entirely random, but has many regular patterns. Clearly some patterns in history are self-evident (do not require sophisticated discernment and argument), such as "people go to war over conflicting interests". Whether you believe - reasonably - that a distinction between religion and philosophy has been self-evident in history, or not, the contingent nature of history is hence no counter-argument at all. Furthermore, nothing follows from a) concerning b), other than the ease with which one can discern whether something can contribute to Christianity or not. If it were true that it is terribly difficult to distinguish between philosophy and religion, then it simply would be difficult to say to what degree Christianity can learn from one such entity. However, the central argument would remain untouched: all philosophical wisdom is compatible with Christianity, since true, no deviating religious doctrine is compatible with Christianity, since false.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let me summarise: you make two points that I take issue with: a) the distinction between philosophy and religion is self-evident and critical; b) Christianity can learn from philosophy but not (except incidentally) from religion.
Now a) is just flat out wrong. (Saying anything is historically self-evident should always send up danger signals.) The distinction is historically contingent. And therefore b) is null.
quote:I have read all of Plato (though admittedly it has been a while...), and I consider your opinion false. Laws, Republic and Timaeus do tell us something about the religious beliefs that Plato held (or at least about those that he thinks should be held), but precisely in the philosophical mode, not in a religious one. One could argue whether that is philosophy of religion or (philosophical) theology, but even theology does not establish religion, it analyses it. And the attempt to beatify one's soul by contemplation of the good perhaps distinguishes practical philosophy from academic one ("academic" in the modern sense). But that is hardly sufficient to establish religion.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Far from it being possible to turn Plato into a kind of religion, I was claiming that Plato's philosophy is already a kind of religion. This I take it is obvious to anyone reading the Symposium, or the Philebus, or even the Republic. To restate: the aim of Plato's philosophy is to achieve beatification of the soul by contemplation of the Good.
quote:It does nothing of that sort. All that may show is that if one builds up a quasi-religion out of philosophy, then it is easy for others to strip back unwanted religious aspects and use the philosophy. One could probably make the case that it is particularly easy to source from such philosophical quasi-religion. Because considerable intellectual work is usually required to make philosophy speak clearly to religious concerns (as in Aquinas bending Aristotle into Christian shape). So if one finds a philosophy "pre-bent", then that is rather convenient. It requires though that the religious doctrine targeted is "close enough" to the religious doctrine the adopters hold true. In this regard Plotinus is a bit of a special case for Christians, really. It is hard to imagine a more convenient mix of mystical vagueness and doctrinal similarity to source from. But be that as it may, Plotinus in the end is still a philosopher, not the founder of a religion. It is his mysticism that gets him so close. (Just like Dogen Zenji is in the end a religious man, not a philosopher, but approaching the same boundary from the other side.)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Further, Plotinus was the form in which Platonism reached the majority of the Church Fathers. So Platonism was absorbed by the Church Fathers largely in the form you consider 'a kind of religion'; this falsifies your assertion b).
quote:What is there to explain? Aquinas indeed considers religion as a duty to God, and hence as a kind of distributive justice (giving everybody his due), when talking about virtues and vices. But obviously this presupposes a belief in God. An atheist may have a duty towards God in the eyes of a theist (and God), but one cannot expect him to carry out this duty since in consequence of his error he does not believe that there is one. What Aquinas answers there is actually a quite modern question: is it OK to be "spiritual but not religious"? The answer is no, that is unjust. However, it does not follow in the slightest that Aquinas divorces religion from faith, and turns it into a mere question of duty. For example, he considers explicit faith in Christ to be necessary for salvation. The merely "just" exercise of Muslim religion would for Aquinas certainly not be sufficient.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You think my point that Thomas cuts the boundary between religion and philosophy somewhere other than where we would (and that therefore the boundary is not self-evident) is based upon a misunderstanding. The bare assertion that I've misunderstood educates nobody. You need to explain.
quote:Guess what, you cannot simply get by on unsubstantiated assertions either. The distinction between philosophy and religion may not have been as clear as it is in modernity, but it was hardly unknown in antiquity. Furthermore, this doesn't really matter anyway, because I'm analysing the historical situation, I'm not describing sentiments as they were historically.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Again, you assume a distinction between wisdom and religious sentiment in Graeco-Roman philosophy that just cannot be justified from the writings of the philosophers themselves.
quote:Again you confuse matters pointlessly. Dawkins' mistake is not to say that both pagans and Christians are/were religious, which is obviously true, but simply in supposing that all objects of religion, all gods, are comparable as entities. One can even viably call Buddhism a religion, so there really is no doubt that Graeco-Roman polytheism was a religion. Which is - astonishingly - why everybody calls it a religion. What would you like to call it?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Likewise, you're assuming that the word 'religion' can be applied in the same sense to Christianity and Graeco-Roman polytheism. That last is false too. (One sign is that the Greeks and Romans had no word for 'religion' in the sense you and I call Christianity a religion.) It's the same mistake that underlies Dawkins' assertion that Christians disbelieve in all gods but one and atheists merely believe in one less God than Christians do.
quote:Apart from the point that I can use whatever concept of philosophy I want (since I am analysing history, not recounting it), the obvious answer to this nonsense is that clearly all these gentleman are similar enough in what they do to be called philosophers (or at least, to have produced philosophical writings). You can go on trying to reinvent language, but it really doesn't help your case at all. It would be wisdom-loving of you to stop this learned sophistry.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'll just remark here that you're talking about 'philosophy' as if Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Russell were all engaged in the same activity in the same spirit to the same end.
(Is Montaigne a philosopher? Certainly to Cicero or Plutarch or Marcus Aurelius he would have appeared to be one. But he gets mentioned merely twice in Russell's History of Western Philosophy.) The concept of what philosophy is, just as the concept of religion, is historically contingent; a fortiori so is the distinction between them.
quote:That last sentence, given the qualifications 'wisdom' and 'deviating', approaches a tautology. Some philosophers have said things that are incompatible with Christianity (and therefore false on the assumption Christianity is true). Likewise, deviating must mean contradicting Christianity. (For instance, Buber's I-Thou theology is not anticipated by any Christian theologian. Nevertheless, it's not a priori contradictory with Christianity.)
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Clearly history is contingent. However, it is not entirely random, but has many regular patterns. Clearly some patterns in history are self-evident (do not require sophisticated discernment and argument), such as "people go to war over conflicting interests". Whether you believe - reasonably - that a distinction between religion and philosophy has been self-evident in history, or not, the contingent nature of history is hence no counter-argument at all. Furthermore, nothing follows from a) concerning b), other than the ease with which one can discern whether something can contribute to Christianity or not. If it were true that it is terribly difficult to distinguish between philosophy and religion, then it simply would be difficult to say to what degree Christianity can learn from one such entity. However, the central argument would remain untouched: all philosophical wisdom is compatible with Christianity, since true, no deviating religious doctrine is compatible with Christianity, since false.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let me summarise: you make two points that I take issue with: a) the distinction between philosophy and religion is self-evident and critical; b) Christianity can learn from philosophy but not (except incidentally) from religion.
Now a) is just flat out wrong. (Saying anything is historically self-evident should always send up danger signals.) The distinction is historically contingent. And therefore b) is null.
quote:Intellectual historians generally find this kind of retrospective classification dubious. Human activity is, unlike the natural world, intentional: that is, human activities are conditioned by the descriptions that those humans use to characterise them. And so attributing classifications alien to the ones used by the agents themselves is a fraught business.
Certainly in retrospect, there is no difficulty here at all. We know that the teachings of Plato are basically philosophical, even if there have been some people who turned this into some kind of religion. We know that Norse mythology is basically religious, even if there are some people who used it for other purposes (literary, perhaps even philosophical).
quote:What is the difference between telling us about religious beliefs in a philosophical mode and in a religious mode?
Laws, Republic and Timaeus do tell us something about the religious beliefs that Plato held (or at least about those that he thinks should be held), but precisely in the philosophical mode, not in a religious one. One could argue whether that is philosophy of religion or (philosophical) theology, but even theology does not establish religion, it analyses it. And the attempt to beatify one's soul by contemplation of the good perhaps distinguishes practical philosophy from academic one ("academic" in the modern sense). But that is hardly sufficient to establish religion.
quote:Indeed, for Aquinas the exercise of a merely natural religion is not salvific. The point is that Aquinas does not arrange these topics according to modern conceptual categories. Aquinas believes that monotheism and the duty of worship of God belong to the natural virtues. To a modern, those fall under religion. But Aquinas also believes that those duties are of no salvific value. (Further, he would argue that pagan idolatry is unconnected to the exercise of the relevant virtues.) And to modern categories religion is largely about seeking salvation. Aquinas' understanding of where the boundaries lie is simply different from ours.
Aquinas indeed considers religion as a duty to God, and hence as a kind of distributive justice (giving everybody his due), when talking about virtues and vices. But obviously this presupposes a belief in God. An atheist may have a duty towards God in the eyes of a theist (and God), but one cannot expect him to carry out this duty since in consequence of his error he does not believe that there is one. What Aquinas answers there is actually a quite modern question: is it OK to be "spiritual but not religious"? The answer is no, that is unjust. However, it does not follow in the slightest that Aquinas divorces religion from faith, and turns it into a mere question of duty. For example, he considers explicit faith in Christ to be necessary for salvation. The merely "just" exercise of Muslim religion would for Aquinas certainly not be sufficient.
quote:I believe the traditional Christian description would be 'idolatry'. I suppose the conceptual resources of modern English are such that we have to resort to contrasts such as 'rationalised' or 'higher' or 'postaxial' etc religion and 'unrationalised' or 'lower' or 'preaxial' etc religion. (All of those qualifications are open to criticism in different ways.)
Dawkins' mistake is not to say that both pagans and Christians are/were religious, which is obviously true, but simply in supposing that all objects of religion, all gods, are comparable as entities. One can even viably call Buddhism a religion, so there really is no doubt that Graeco-Roman polytheism was a religion. Which is - astonishingly - why everybody calls it a religion. What would you like to call it?
quote:What all the gentlemen I cited (apart from Montaigne) have in common is that their writings can be adopted to the modern academic study of philosophy as understood by Russell. But Christians would be ill-advised I think to take Russell's understanding of philosophy or anything else as definitive. The point is that the classification of them all as philosophers is a subjective classification based on the purposes of the modern academy, rather than an objective classification that reveals anything useful about the writers themselves. At best, the resemblance is a family resemblance.
Apart from the point that I can use whatever concept of philosophy I want (since I am analysing history, not recounting it), the obvious answer to this nonsense is that clearly all these gentleman are similar enough in what they do to be called philosophers (or at least, to have produced philosophical writings).
