Thread: Aaargghhh!!! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028052
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Shipmate: Whilst there's a case to answer for the connection between Established State churches and religions and religious violence, the situation isn't as clear cut as some people make it out to be ...
Steve Langton: Oh yes it is. Ian Paisley advocated religious violence and this derives from the notion of a Christian nation. Therefore any state-sanctioned church or religious system is culpable.
Shipmate: I can see what you're getting at but things aren't quite so simple ... for instance, I know of a Catholics for Peace Group and an Anglicans for Peace and Social Justice initiative and ...
Steve Langton: That's not good enough. Remember the Crusades.
Shipmate: But the Crusades happened in medieval times. No-one's advocating them any more. In fact, various Popes have since apologised for them ...
Steve Langton: That's not good enough. They are all compromised and Constantinian. What about the Anglican persecution of non-conformists in 17th century England ...
Shipmate: Yes, but that was 300 years ago. The CofE currently stands for religious pluralism and diversity ...
Steve Langton: No they don't. That's not good enough. They are all Constantinian. Only the Anabaptists are uncompromised.
Shipmate: What about Munster?
Steve Langton: What about Munster? That doesn't count. It was an abberation. Anabaptists are squeaky clean. The sun shines out of our arses. We don't even need to wipe them after we've had a shit.
Shipmate: Ok, so it was an abberation. No-one is suggesting that Munster was the norm. We all accept that the Anabaptists have a good track record when it comes to promoting peace. But I know of a Catholic group which promotes ...
Steve Langton: Not good enough. What about the Crusades ...
Shipmate: But Pope So and So and Pope Such and Such and Cardinal Thingummyjig have all spoken about the need for peace and reconcilation, for the just use of the world's resources, for ...
Steve Langton: What about the Inquisition?
Shipmate: No-one here is condoning the Inquisition ...
Steve Langton: Not good enough. You're compromised. You are Constantinian. Only the Anabaptists aren't Constantinian. Only the Anabaptists aren't compromised. An Anglican vicar once stepped on someone's toe outside Woolworths in 1952. Since that time his parish church has been irreperably compromised.
Shipmate: Do you know what, Steve?
Steve Langton: What?
Shipmate: I never used to believe in religious violence. I thought it was incompatible with the NT, I thought that Erastian, Constantinian Christianity was all wrong - but now you've convinced me otherwise. Now I believe that religious violence is not only admissible but absolutely necessary. So necessary in fact that I'm about to hand you over to the Spanish Inquisition who will bind and torture you for 3 days to elicit a confession, then hand you over to the Russian Orthodox Patriarch, Kyrill, who will bury you up to your neck in sand and recite an Akathist calling for the total destruction of the Tartar hordes at you for hours at a stretch ...
Once he's finished I will then deliver you over to the ultimate form of extreme religious violence known to humanity ...
I will make you sit on the local Anglican PCC or else force you to attend Blogg Road Baptist's Church Meeting until you recant ...
Steve Langton: No, no, please ... have mercy ... anything ... anything but that!
Shipmate: Mwa ha ha ha ha ... you know how to get out of that don't you, Steve? Repeat after me ... Constantine ... Constantine ... Constantine ...
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
What about the cake option?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Now you're talking ...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Oh my. Is someone wrong on the internet?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Gonna have to stay up ALL night.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Dons Hostly furry hat
Gameliel has been, er, called away on urgent business for a couple of weeks, so that leaves this thread a little light on combatants.
If anyone else is willing to step up to the plate to defend Erastianism-lite, as practiced by God's own church (the CofE, naturally), then your moment in the limelight has arrived.
Otherwise, it'll remain a monument to hubris. Look upon his works, oh shipmates, and despair.
Stows hostly furry hat
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh my. Is someone wrong on the internet?
No, someone is being a rank asshole on the internet. Responding to rank assholes is what Hell is for. But you knew that.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
It's a shame Gamy had to keep ranting in Purg and cop suspension, because I think he has a point which should have been thrashed out here.
Well, two actually. No matter how many times Steve is told in that thread that the separation of church and state is actually a modern idea, he persists with the anachronism that it is present in the NT itself. The extent to which the separation is the logical conclusion of a Biblical ideal - which I find quite dubious, but is certainly worth discussing - doesn't seem to be nuanced enough in Steve's thinking.
But the bigger and more hell worthy problem is the constant refrain that Anabaptism is actually proper Christianity as JC intended, and the other forms are inferior. That is getting pretty old really fast.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I particularly appreciate the underlying assumption that the anabaptists have no apparent link whatsoever with Christianity in all its other forms and that it is totally disconnected and unassociated with Christian history that happens to be a little bit inconvenient. Maybe I have it all wrong though, maybe they really did spontaneously appear in some isolated cabbage patch in unicorn land.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As with EE it is obvious with Steve he's 'different'. His disposition, his wiring, his innocent genetic determinism cannot ever express itself any other way. He can't be reasoned out of what he wasn't reasoned in to. None of us can be. Reason is applied, at best, post-hoc to what we have to believe.
We're all the same, but some of us are just less able or one or another to play the rhetorical game at defending the indefensible, the un-transferable.
Gamaliel is helpless in the way his saintly patience is tried and found wanting.
Bet-a-buck types ALWAYS win the game of patience ... if you play with them. Play your own game. And bless them.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But the bigger and more hell worthy problem is the constant refrain that Anabaptism is actually proper Christianity as JC intended, and the other forms are inferior. That is getting pretty old really fast.
Plenty of others say the same about their particular denomination.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Plenty of others say the same about their particular denomination.
Whilst others can see what is wrong with their own denomination from the inside, and yet despite her faults is still a conduit through which God's grace flows.
It all depends if you go walking around in a blindfold or not.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Dark Knight ;
quote:
No matter how many times Steve is told in that thread that the separation of church and state is actually a modern idea, he persists with the anachronism that it is present in the NT itself.
OK, if we're being pedantic, calling it 'separation of church and state' and writing it into state constitutions is modern. But the idea that Jesus founded a kingdom 'not of this world' of believers in Jesus as "God's holy nation" - citizens of the kingdom of heaven living on earth as peaceable resident aliens - that idea does indeed go right back to the NT. This intent to create such an international or transnational people of God is subverted by the attempt to run "Christian" states of any kind.
by Fletcher Christian;
quote:
I particularly appreciate the underlying assumption that the anabaptists have no apparent link whatsoever with Christianity in all its other forms and that it is totally disconnected and unassociated with Christian history that happens to be a little bit inconvenient. Maybe I have it all wrong though, maybe they really did spontaneously appear in some isolated cabbage patch in unicorn land.
Try that the other way round, perhaps; Anabaptists are linked by Scripture to the roots of the faith, other groups have dissociated themselves from those roots in various degrees by going against Scripture.
Or try "Wouldn't you yourself want to be dissociated from people whose (extremely un-NT) attitude is 'You disagree with us so we're going to get our state to persecute you!'?"
And in turn a lot of Anabaptist 'dissociation' has to do with having been forced to live a marginal and persecuted life; and it's hard to see how that's their fault when most (though not all) of the successors of the persecutors have basically ended up admitting the persecution of anybody to have been wrong.
As for 'inconvenient history', isn't it rather the point that Anabaptists saw the inconvenience and disclaimed it way ahead of anyone else; in effect, it's your 'inconvenient history', not ours.
Of course Anabaptists are not totally disconnected from other Christians - indeed modern Anabaptists are in my experience far less insular than most in other denominations.
by Martin 60;
quote:
He (Steve Langton) can't be reasoned out of what he wasn't reasoned in to.
If I were a 'cradle Anabaptist' there might be some justification in that suggestion. But if it were literally true that I can't be reasoned out of things I'd still be an Anglican. And I reasoned myself out of Anglicanism by seeing the problems caused by the whole 'Christian country' idea, AND the wider 'religious state' idea, and going back to the Bible for a better answer.
I still don't fully understand Gamaliel's position. He says that he too objects to the state-church business - so why is he so determined to go head-to-head with me on everything? I can only think it's because with his current involvement in Anglicanism he has in real terms put himself in a monumentally inconsistent, even incoherent, position and trying to defend that has got to be well stressful...?
by Dark Knight;
quote:
But the bigger and more hell worthy problem is the constant refrain that Anabaptism is actually proper Christianity as JC intended, and the other forms are inferior. That is getting pretty old really fast.
In modern western plural states every Christian is an Anabaptist; some are unwilling to accept that. We don't regard all other forms of Christianity as inferior; we simply regard those who want to the 'Christian country' thing as plain wrong - and given the consequences of that thing in the past, surely we have a point?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I still don't fully understand Gamaliel's position. He says that he too objects to the state-church business - so why is he so determined to go head-to-head with me on everything? I can only think it's because with his current involvement in Anglicanism he has in real terms put himself in a monumentally inconsistent, even incoherent, position and trying to defend that has got to be well stressful...?
No, it's because you act like an asshole.
quote:
In modern western plural states every Christian is an Anabaptist; some are unwilling to accept that.
Oh puhleeze. I certainly don't approve of dissociating ourselves from the Christian past (for one thing I applaud the ecumenical councils and fully admit that the concept of the Trinity arises from them -- credit where credit is due -- and they were all called by emperors, the first one being the evil, malignant Constantine). And I don't approve of jettisoning 2000 years of Christian worship for an ahistorical, made-up "reconstruction" of some "New Testament" ideal. Nor do I believe that the New Testament was written to teach us how to do church.
No, I am not an Anabaptist, thank God. I believe God works through history, not in spite of it.
quote:
We don't regard all other forms of Christianity as inferior; we simply regard those who want to the 'Christian country' thing as plain wrong
If that's all you are about, why are you so rude to people like me and Gamaliel who are from churches that are now or were at one time associated with states, as if it were our decision for them to be so associated, and why do you poo-pooh our claims to not be really keen on Christian violence?
And then why do you insist that Christian states are somehow the source, or major source, of Christian violence, when it has been pointed out multiple times that non-established Christians are just as capable of producing violence, and you have neither refuted nor really acknowledge this point?
Why do you act like such a jerk about all these things? And don't blame your autism or my autistic son will come and kick your ass. He and all right-thinking autistics hate it when autistics blame their assholity on their condition. No, if you act like a jerk, it's because you're acting like a jerk, not because you're autistic. Especially in an environment like the ship, where you have an infinite amount of time to refine what you say before you press "Add reply".
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm an Anabaptist?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Steve Langton: quote:
In modern western plural states every Christian is an Anabaptist; some are unwilling to accept that.
That sounds a lot like something Pope John Paul II wrote in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, that all Christians exist under the auspices of Roman Catholicism whether they understand it or not. But obviously you wouldn't admit to that. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
Steve Langton: It seems to me that your idea of church history is naïve, oversimplified, and compares the best of one way with the worst of another (you know, not fair.) It's like saying, "The 1990's were bad." For whom, where, and in what circumstances? quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... the idea that Jesus founded a kingdom 'not of this world' of believers in Jesus as "God's holy nation" - citizens of the kingdom of heaven living on earth as peaceable resident aliens - that idea does indeed go right back to the NT. This intent to create such an international or transnational people of God is subverted by the attempt to run "Christian" states of any kind.
I see your assertion about the New Testament, and raise you The Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Is this not Scriptural warrant? Early Christians, even "Constantinian" Christians, were doing exactly what they thought the Lord wanted. Note that Jesus did not specify governmental or non-governmental means of accomplishing this.
You may think non-governmental methods are the way to go; I happen to agree with you. But I cannot fault Christians of the past for doing what they thought was best, even if I totally disagree with their methods and results. At least give them credit for doing what they thought was right.
quote:
... Anabaptists are linked by Scripture to the roots of the faith, other groups have dissociated themselves from those roots in various degrees by going against Scripture.
No. Please see above.
quote:
Of course Anabaptists are not totally disconnected from other Christians - indeed modern Anabaptists are in my experience far less insular than most in other denominations.
hahahaha NO. "Less insular?" You must be joking. I live in the middle of several Hutterite and Mennonite colonies. I used to live near the Amish-type Mennonite colonies of Waterloo. I am not aware of any other Christian denomination in this part of the world, other than loony cults, who organize themselves into separated communities. I am well aware of the history behind this.
quote:
If I were a 'cradle Anabaptist' there might be some justification in that suggestion. But if it were literally true that I can't be reasoned out of things I'd still be an Anglican. And I reasoned myself out of Anglicanism by seeing the problems caused by the whole 'Christian country' idea, AND the wider 'religious state' idea, and going back to the Bible for a better answer.
None so zealous as a convert.
quote:
In modern western plural states every Christian is an Anabaptist; some are unwilling to accept that.
What does this mean? I'm not an Anabaptist. Why would you think I am?
quote:
We don't regard all other forms of Christianity as inferior; we simply regard those who want to the 'Christian country' thing as plain wrong - and given the consequences of that thing in the past, surely we have a point?
Some consequences were good. Some were bad. You think they were only bad. You are wrong.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Whatever works for you Steve. It isn't transferable. I'm Anglican and do not recognize any requirement of a Christian country or religious state. Neither do I see any answer in The Books.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Steve Langton: quote:
In modern western plural states every Christian is an Anabaptist; some are unwilling to accept that.
That sounds a lot like something Pope John Paul II wrote in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, that all Christians exist under the auspices of Roman Catholicism whether they understand it or not. But obviously you wouldn't admit to that.
Looks like Steve must be some sort of crypto-Catholic then.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by me and since quoted by quite a few;
quote:
In modern western plural states every Christian is an Anabaptist; some are unwilling to accept that.
If you live in a modern plural society even the supposedly 'established' church must in practice operate as a voluntary body which people choose to join. Some unfortunately still try to be more and this still causes problems.
I'll come back to some of the other points later when I've had chance to digest them properly.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Hmm, apparently I'm an Anabaptist. And I'm Dutch. I feel this sudden urge to go to Münster and burn something.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Which? How How?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by me and since quoted by quite a few;
quote:
In modern western plural states every Christian is an Anabaptist; some are unwilling to accept that.
If you live in a modern plural society even the supposedly 'established' church must in practice operate as a voluntary body which people choose to join.
And, that's all that's required to be Anabaptist? Just considering church something you voluntarily choose to join rather than being a member of by default simply by being born in a country with a national church?
Hmmm, I could have sworn that there were some other doctrinal issues as well. Something to do with not considering the baptism most of us received as being a true baptism, IIRC. There's something about the name "anabaptist" that certainly suggests that a distinctive view of baptism is part of being anabaptist.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
There are other kinds of Christians that one can become by choice rather than accident of birth and/or nationality. There are also aspects of the Anabaptist groups that are common with other non-Anabaptist groups. Anabaptists groups differ amongst themselves.
What is all the fuss about?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
None of us knows. Except Steve. And he's not telling.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But the bigger and more hell worthy problem is the constant refrain that Anabaptism is actually proper Christianity as JC intended, and the other forms are inferior. That is getting pretty old really fast.
Plenty of others say the same about their particular denomination.
What balaam said.
Did you even read the thread in question, Boogie? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Dark Knight ;
quote:
No matter how many times Steve is told in that thread that the separation of church and state is actually a modern idea, he persists with the anachronism that it is present in the NT itself.
OK, if we're being pedantic, calling it 'separation of church and state' and writing it into state constitutions is modern. But the idea that Jesus founded a kingdom 'not of this world' of believers in Jesus as "God's holy nation" - citizens of the kingdom of heaven living on earth as peaceable resident aliens - that idea does indeed go right back to the NT. This intent to create such an international or transnational people of God is subverted by the attempt to run "Christian" states of any kind.
To paraphrase Bernard Woolley, I am not being pedantic, and I'm sure I should succeed if I tried.
The ancients did not think of nations the way we do - the nation state is a relatively recent concept. Nor did they think of religion the same way. The gospel writers reports of Jesus self understanding as the ruler of a kingdom "not of this world" is not unconnected to the modern separation of church and state (I admitted as much in my post). However, the statement is directed at those expecting a political messiah, and attempting to subvert those who were willing to make him king by force, which would have led to (and in fact, eventually did lead to) a violent reaction from Rome. The NT is written from a very different political perspective and philosophical worldview than is available to us today, and the concepts do not carry across as easily as you seem to think.
quote:
by Dark Knight;
quote:
But the bigger and more hell worthy problem is the constant refrain that Anabaptism is actually proper Christianity as JC intended, and the other forms are inferior. That is getting pretty old really fast.
In modern western plural states every Christian is an Anabaptist; some are unwilling to accept that. We don't regard all other forms of Christianity as inferior; we simply regard those who want to the 'Christian country' thing as plain wrong - and given the consequences of that thing in the past, surely we have a point?
We do find ourselves, arguably, at the end of Christendom, and perhaps in a similar position to the Christians of the early church (sans persecution in most of the West, at least), in that Christianity for the first time is not the dominant religious paradigm. That being said, we have a western world that is emerging from nearly two millienia of that paradigm, and has been shaped by its dominance in ways that cannot be quantified. The west is more diverse now religiously than it has been for awhile. Your historical flattening out of the landscape, together with your insistence that "we're all the same, really" is unhelpful, and inaccurate.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'll come back to some of the other points later when I've had chance to digest them properly.
When you do, would rebut this allegation? quote:
Anabaptists are squeaky clean. The sun shines out of our arses.
It certainly seems to have significant traction.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Steve Langton: What about the Inquisition?
I didn't expect that.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
No one does. Now bring out your dead (horses).
[ 17. November 2014, 08:39: Message edited by: Wesley J ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Dark Knight;
quote:
the concepts do not carry across as easily as you seem to think.
I don't think I said it was easy; but the basic idea does carry across - the faith Jesus started is meant to be voluntary and international and humble in worldly terms, not imposed or specially favoured in local geographic states or ethnic groups.
also by DK;
quote:
Your historical flattening out of the landscape, together with your insistence that "we're all the same, really" is unhelpful, and inaccurate.
The statement that "We're all Anabaptists now" is a 'teaser' - albeit one with quite a serious underlying point....
by Silent Acolyte;
quote:
would you rebut this allegation?
quote:
Anabaptists are squeaky clean. The sun shines out of our arses.
Not my quote, of course. Was it one of Gamaliel's bits of standard blethering repeated ad nauseam no matter how often I do rebut it?
You only have to know real Anabaptists for this to rebut itself; Anabaptists are still human and have faults. It is nevertheless possible, of course, that they are right in the particular belief in question and should be listened to. Sneers like the above are no good part of rational argument and given the death and mayhem that flows from the various versions of the 'religious state' notion, is such trivial baiting really appropriate?
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
There are other kinds of Christians that one can become by choice rather than accident of birth and/or nationality. There are also aspects of the Anabaptist groups that are common with other non-Anabaptist groups. Anabaptists groups differ amongst themselves.
I'm not arguing with that; though it might be worth pointing out that many of the other voluntary groups are remarkably like the traditional Anabaptists in general outline. And of course nowadays one can very much become Anglican voluntarily - the rags of their former totalitarian establishment are still a problem.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
There are other kinds of Christians that one can become by choice rather than accident of birth and/or nationality. There are also aspects of the Anabaptist groups that are common with other non-Anabaptist groups. Anabaptists groups differ amongst themselves.
I'm not arguing with that; though it might be worth pointing out that many of the other voluntary groups are remarkably like the traditional Anabaptists in general outline. And of course nowadays one can very much become Anglican voluntarily - the rags of their former totalitarian establishment are still a problem.
What rags? What problems?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Anabaptists are squeaky clean. The sun shines out of our arses.
It certainly seems to have significant traction.
Squeaky clean arses rarely have much traction IME.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I'm for now responding to Leaf as I think that looks likely to give best chance to get the reasonable and less-heated answer across. My bits are headed up “SL Response:” or “SL quoted by Leaf”; I've also indicated Leaf's bits.
By Leaf;
Steve Langton: It seems to me that your idea of church history is naïve, oversimplified, and compares the best of one way with the worst of another (you know, not fair.) It's like saying, "The 1990's were bad." For whom, where, and in what circumstances?
SL Response;
Actually after some 50 years looking into it I think my idea of church history is pretty comprehensive. I know that sounds a bit immodest but I am a very bookish hyperlexic Aspergic, and I've been reading fluently since age three-and-a-bit and as I say, looking at church history since my early teens. I perhaps made a mistake initially in presenting a simpl-ish view to keep my posts short – even my blog (stevesfreechurchblog) doesn't do things book-length but generally longer than I'd consider appropriate Ship-board.
I have tried from time to time to say and show that my ideas are wider, but some people just don't seem to want to know that.
I don't see the consequences of the 'establishment' as all bad; I do after all believe in divine providence which takes up and overrules human mis-steps. Somehow I've never quite got round to stating the following on Shipboard, but I regard the situation as something like that of Joseph – his brothers selling him into slavery was wrong, yet look how God worked through it nevertheless. Or on a larger chronological scale, consider the time when the Israelites asked for a king like other nations had; this was wrong, because it implicitly rejected God's own kingship over them, and its results were decidedly mixed. Yet again God worked through it in a variety of ways of which the most important was David's descendant Jesus who became king of a new covenant kingdom, and as God incarnate reconciled the Davidic and divine kingships.
I see God working providentially through the 'Constantinian' error (and I'm fed up of pointing out to some people that using that word is just 'shorthand' for what I really really know was a far more complex change). At the same time it is still an error and a challenge to us to decide whether to go with the error or repent of it and go back to the original. The longer the error goes on the more obvious it has become and the more important the repentance. The way things are in the world today (including the 'religious state' aspect of Islam), I feel there may be something of a crisis ahead and that God is losing patience with the continuance of this particular error in all its trouble-making forms.
“Comparing the best of one with the worst of the other”. Hmmm... Bearing in mind that I consider the Munsterites to have been on the Constantinian side (because they tried to set up a Christian state) despite their baptism polity, I think even the worst of Anabaptism is a good deal better than the worst of the 'Christian-country' thing. But in some ways that's not so important as the simple issue that the 'Christian-country' business is disobedient to the NT, whether or not the alternative view has a current embodiment to compare it with in that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... the idea that Jesus founded a kingdom 'not of this world' of believers in Jesus as "God's holy nation" - citizens of the kingdom of heaven living on earth as peaceable resident aliens - that idea does indeed go right back to the NT. This intent to create such an international or transnational people of God is subverted by the attempt to run "Christian" states of any kind.
Leaf;
I see your assertion about the New Testament, and raise you The Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Is this not Scriptural warrant? Early Christians, even "Constantinian" Christians, were doing exactly what they thought the Lord wanted. Note that Jesus did not specify governmental or non-governmental means of accomplishing this.
You may think non-governmental methods are the way to go; I happen to agree with you. But I cannot fault Christians of the past for doing what they thought was best, even if I totally disagree with their methods and results. At least give them credit for doing what they thought was right.
SL Response;
When you can tell me how it is realistically possible to 'baptise a nation'.... (Though I guess from your next bit that you've also worked that out – I presume neither of us is happy with Charlemagne's driving a Germanic tribe into a river at swordpoint). And again, 'teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you' would, as I see it, include obeying all the bits that imply your 'non-governmental methods'.
I'd argue that, added to Jesus' rather unusual way of being the Messiah, the 'kingdom not of this world' comment in its original context does specify non-governmental means. I refer all to the relevant bit on my blog (“But Seriously (2) – in which Pilate's exercised”) for the long version. The NT way of doing things lasted nearly three centuries.
'ta ethnE', it should perhaps be pointed out, is usually translated 'Gentiles' (people in general as distinct from Jews), rather than as 'nations' in the same sense as the Roman Empire or the UK. If you're being fussy an 'ethnos' is a tribe rather than a 'state'. And 'make disciples of' is in the Greek a verbal form 'disciple ye'. The verb in question has a root meaning to do with 'learning', and conveys more of an idea of 'gather pupils from' the nations than forcing them to follow the religion.
But yes, there was confusion on this point in the 4th Century and since, not I suggest from the Bible itself but from the way of thinking of Constantine and Theodosius inter alia, that saw bodies like the Roman Empire as 'bound together' (verb 'religare') by religion and didn't think hard enough about the distinctive Christian paradigm. I assume God's judgement will allow for the sincerity of the error and I don't have a problem with that, but I also know that I shouldn't repeat the error or encourage it in others.
SL quoted by Leaf;
quote:
... Anabaptists are linked by Scripture to the roots of the faith, other groups have dissociated themselves from those roots in various degrees by going against Scripture.
Leaf;
No. Please see above.
SL Response;
I've mostly (though still only partially) answered that above as well. But there is a bigger issue here that keeps coming up on the Ship, to do with interpretation of Scripture and the place of concepts like 'Apostolic Succession' and 'capital-T Tradition' – I'm going on a bit already, let's leave that aside for a bit.
SL quoted by Leaf
quote:
Of course Anabaptists are not totally disconnected from other Christians - indeed modern Anabaptists are in my experience far less insular than most in other denominations.
Leaf;
hahahaha NO. "Less insular?" You must be joking. I live in the middle of several Hutterite and Mennonite colonies. I used to live near the Amish-type Mennonite colonies of Waterloo. I am not aware of any other Christian denomination in this part of the world, other than loony cults, who organize themselves into separated communities. I am well aware of the history behind this.
SL Response;
I'm also aware of the history and of what amounts to yet another of the bad results of Constantinianism in causing Anabaptists to retreat into that kind of restricted community.
And I'd point out that I have made clear in the past my thorough awareness of the problems of traditional Anabaptism; again some people seem to find it amusing to keep going on and on as if I hadn't and as if I were totally starry-eyed and rose-tinted spectacles about Anabaptists even when they know I'm not. This has not been conducive to sensible discussion....
But I was talking of “modern Anabaptists … in my experience”, which is a very lively movement indeed, both in the UK and the (mostly Canadian) Mennonites I know or know of. As far as I can see, the rather shut off and indeed insular Amish etc. are no longer the majority of Anabaptists, let alone of groups which are effectively Anabaptist but separately derived. In the UK even the Hutterites are not all that insular.
'Separated communities' – do you regard monasteries as 'loony cults'? And it might be pointed out that the 'Constantinian' paradigm involves turning whole nations into 'separated communities' – it is one of my criticisms of Ulster's Constantinian Protestants that despite criticising RC monasticism they effectively tried to turn Ulster into a six-county-wide Protestant monastery....
Actually modern Anabaptists are increasingly pointing out in self-criticism that albeit unintentionally their communities had become mirrors of the 'Christendom' they had rejected.
SL quoted by Leaf;
quote:
If I were a 'cradle Anabaptist' there might be some justification in that suggestion. But if it were literally true that I can't be reasoned out of things I'd still be an Anglican. And I reasoned myself out of Anglicanism by seeing the problems caused by the whole 'Christian country' idea, AND the wider 'religious state' idea, and going back to the Bible for a better answer.
Leaf;
None so zealous as a convert.
SL Response;
I knew someone would say that! On the one hand there's some truth in it; but also my analysis of the issues grew out of the UK crisis of the 'Troubles' in Ulster and back pre-9/11 the deaths there seemed so extreme as to need a pretty zealous response.
My point in this comment was simply that Martin was phrasing things as if I had been a lifelong Anabaptist who couldn't be reasoned out of it, whereas the reality was that I had been something else and did in fact change – and could change again, but only in response to better arguments, not stuff like Gamaliel's rant at the beginning of this thread and similar elsewhere.
SL quoted by Leaf;
quote:
In modern western plural states every Christian is an Anabaptist; some are unwilling to accept that.
Leaf;
What does this mean? I'm not an Anabaptist. Why would you think I am?
SL Response;
As I've since pointed out in the thread, this is a bit of an argumentative 'teaser' – albeit with quite a serious point to make....
SL quoted by Leaf;
quote:
We don't regard all other forms of Christianity as inferior; we simply regard those who want to the 'Christian country' thing as plain wrong - and given the consequences of that thing in the past, surely we have a point?
Some consequences were good. Some were bad. You think they were only bad. You are wrong.
SL Response;
No, as outlined above (and repeatedly pointed out but ignored in previous threads), I don't think the consequences were only bad. But I still think the bad inherent in this wrong choice – 'bad' which goes quite a way beyond the obvious death and mayhem - outweighs a good mostly owed to divine overruling. And it isn't just an internal issue for Christianity, though again that's too big a question for right now. And again, the disobedience to the NT is quite important to the assessment of how bad it is.
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
that's too big a question for right now.
It's bigger than both of us.
I believe I can give up my nightly sleeping pill if I read through this thread after I'm in beddy-bye.
P.S.: It boggles the mind to think that this verbiage will be permanently filed in The Cloud, taking up needed space for things like Grandma's Sweet Pickle Recipe.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AnabaptistBlowhard:
My bits are headed up “SL Response:” or “SL quoted by Leaf”; I've also indicated Leaf's bits.
Here ya go. Have at it.
And before you write me a fifteen-page screed on how formatting is a tool of oppression by those in power to be used against those who have neither the time nor inclination to figure it out so you're going to exercise your nonconformist Christian freedom to stick it to the man, I remind you that quite a few others, including those who enjoy a good round of S'ing it to the M, have somehow figured it out.
quote:
Originally posted by AbBh:
...even my blog (stevesfreechurchblog) doesn't do things book-length but generally longer than I'd consider appropriate Ship-board...
Good God. It gets worse.
From the natterings of the long-winded that make our eyes bleed, good Lord deliver us
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
that's too big a question for right now.
It's bigger than both of us.
I believe I can give up my nightly sleeping pill if I read through this thread after I'm in beddy-bye.
P.S.: It boggles the mind to think that this verbiage will be permanently filed in The Cloud, taking up needed space for things like Grandma's Sweet Pickle Recipe.
Granny's pickles will be saved for posterity, have no fear.
Steve. Threatening us with your blog, and pretending that we've got off lightly because you've only posted 2000 words in a single post, is frankly not on. The only reason my scroll wheel didn't spontaneously combust is because it's my hostly duty to read every single word you write. For everyone else, I believe the expression is tl;dr.
In other words, you can't refute your accusers' arguments by boring them to death. You don't have to respond to everything they say. Pick the most appropriate and pressing aggrevation - your assertion that Anabaptists are God's own people, and anything that Anabaptists do wrong is the fault of those filthy Erastians - and stick with it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
My complaint is that he promised to talk about Leaf's bits and then failed to do so.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Ariston, I generally do use the UBB facility, even when for reasons of practicality I've written the screed offline and posted it subsequently. On this occasion I basically wouldn't have had time for that till quite a bit later and it did look as if some were getting a bit impatient for my next offering, already delayed because I tried really hard to get it mostly right....
I will have a further go at UBB practice if and when all and sundry stop going on and on at me.
We're only here because Gamaliel preferred not to accept my shorter versions and preferred to respond with irrelevant rants like the OP at the start of this thread; complaints should be addressed to him, please, when he returns.
I'm actually making a quite simple point and have made it very briefly quite a few times - the long-windedness is mostly about trying to get people back to the point when they've gone every which way to avoid and waffle (long-windedly) round rather than answer my points.
Can't have it both ways, guys; if I give you the simple you rant on about me oversimplifying, and supposedly not knowing the-things-I-do-know-but-left-out-to-keep-it-brief-for-you, and flattening everything out and the like. If I do the detail you accuse me of being long-winded - and ignore what I say anyway!! Try actually discussing my points in future and we'll all be able to keep it short.
I understand the atheists on the Ship who want to attack my view by claiming that Christianity was always a persecuting violent totalitarian religion - my view clearly doesn't suit their propaganda stance.
I do not understand why so much of the flak comes from people who keep insisting that they also believe in separation of church and state and whose attacks on my views are therefore pretty incoherent (not to mention only helping the aforementioned atheists)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
My complaint is that he promised to talk about Leaf's bits and then failed to do so.
I think that's for Leaf to decide, isn't it?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
My complaint is that he promised to talk about Leaf's bits and then failed to do so.
I think that's for Leaf to decide, isn't it?
It was a joke. Wasn't referering to bits of Leaf's posts.
[ 17. November 2014, 16:15: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
SL,
Even this simple reply of yours isn't simple.
Here is the simple case.
Steve Langton: Anabaptist theology is the purest, most accurate to Jesus' teaching. With it, there can be no religious violence. Anabaptism is so much true christianity, that one cannot be a Christian without being Anabaptist.
Everyone else*: Not true, here is why......**
Perhaps a little. Too tightly condenced, but you get the picture.
Arguments get lost in the dross, regardless of their initial purity.
*athesist, theists and non-theists
**various replies to the different bits.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Not just Munster, but the KKK and (less violent but still offensive) forms of racism in the American Deep South tells me that the Anabaptist descendants aren't as squeaky clean as you'd like to think...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I will have a further go at UBB practice if and when all and sundry stop going on and on at me.
Er, no. Using UBB code correctly to quote is a basic, entry-level courtesy to both other shipmates and the Hosts, who have no alternative but to decrypt your now-dense script.
No one is forcing you to respond (or at such length). If you need the time to format your post correctly, then the Hellions will just have to wait.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
OK Doc Tor; I'm now waiting for Leaf's reply to me anyway, so we'll see what that comes up with.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
OK Doc Tor; I'm now waiting for Leaf's reply to me anyway, so we'll see what that comes up with.
While you're waiting, there are a plentitude of options for you to occupy yourself.
First, and already mentioned, is that you could practice your UBB. Because I doubt anybody will bother engaging with anything buried in that dog's vomit of a post. So, you could practice your coding for clarity, then when nobody appears to address whateverthefuck you think you said you could try again. Except, you know, less badly.
Second, and probably less obvious to you, is that you could try to develop a handy trick we like to call "not being a fuckstard". It involves some tricky negotiation in terms of NOT saying the stupidest thing possible in the most annoying way imaginable. Perhaps start off slowly by just being stupid in a non-annoying way.
Thirdly, have you considered a vow of internet silence? Potentially very spiritually fulfilling. For us.
In short, I hate you, and hope you die by porcupine stampede.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In other words, you can't refute your accusers' arguments by boring them to death. You don't have to respond to everything they say.
I know he doesn't do that because I have posted two long posts he has not responded to at all, other than to promise to respond to one of them. I believe I shall continue to respire.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you live in a modern plural society even the supposedly 'established' church must in practice operate as a voluntary body which people choose to join.
Well what do you know. This makes you an anabaptist. Not a very useful term, is it, if it just means "of or relating to a church operating as a voluntary body which people choose to join." I could have sworn it meant more than that. Silly me.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You must feel like Wellington after Waterloo Steve.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You must feel like Wellington after Waterloo Steve.
Do you maen that he wouldn't have won but for a Prussian who thought he was a pregnant elephant?
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
At least Steve Langton's posts are very plain.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by ;
quote:
Even this simple reply of yours isn't simple.
Here is the simple case.
Steve Langton: Anabaptist theology is the purest, most accurate to Jesus' teaching. With it, there can be no religious violence. Anabaptism is so much true christianity, that one cannot be a Christian without being Anabaptist.
Everyone else*: Not true, here is why......**
No. Here is the simple case. I care about all the deaths, mayhem and other problems which result from those religions which believe in various forms of the religious state idea. My attention was initially drawn to this by the events in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s when I was at Uni.
I concluded back then that
1) the problem lay in that idea of the religious state, and
2) contrary to the opinions of those involved in NI and in other such situations involving the Christian religion, the NT did not in fact teach that idea; therefore there was a significant chance that working out and making known what the NT actually says would help with that problem.
Because I care I've tried to do that. I also discovered that this was not just my own idea but was shared by the various 'Anabaptist' groups. I tend therefore to self-identify as 'Anabaptist' and I'm part of the Anabaptist Network in the UK, though far from'starry-eyed and rose-tinted spectacles' about the faults of Anabaptists.
In NI the deaths are now in the thousands and it is clear that as most of the 'Protestants' still think in 'Christian country' terms the present peace is fragile. Meanwhile the problems around 'Islamic State' and other extremist Islamic groups have erupted, where the idea of a religious state is clearly a major component of atrocious and lethal conduct. Again, I care about that and about the people involved.
The abuse I've been subjected to on the Ship over this may seem very clever and superior to those slinging it; it does nothing to help the situations I care about, and more importantly the people involved and suffering in those situations.
Is that simple enough for you?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In NI the deaths are now in the thousands and it is clear that as most of the 'Protestants' still think in 'Christian country' terms the present peace is fragile. Meanwhile the problems around 'Islamic State' and other extremist Islamic groups have erupted, where the idea of a religious state is clearly a major component of atrocious and lethal conduct. Again, I care about that and about the people involved.
The abuse I've been subjected to on the Ship over this may seem very clever and superior to those slinging it; it does nothing to help the situations I care about, and more importantly the people involved and suffering in those situations.
Is that simple enough for you?
You may care about things Steve, but apart from wearing your heart on your sleeve, what do you actually do to make the world a better place? What does finger-pointing at institutional churches and institutions in general, achieve however accurate it may be?
btw, someone will surely give you another poke in the eye for not using UBB. Do stop digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
btw, someone will surely give you another poke in the eye for not using UBB. Do stop digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Damn right. That was... poor quoting, and I really can't be arsed to fix it.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
Sorry all. Kid sick, I'm sick, not playing right now.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I care about all the deaths, mayhem and other problems which result from those religions which believe in various forms of the religious state idea. My attention was initially drawn to this by the events in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s when I was at Uni.
In the 1960s there had not been an established church in Ireland for about a hundred years.
I lived in Belfast at the time when the conflict broke out anew, and I observed what was going on. There were two communities in conflict; they identified themselves by religion, but the talk I heard gave me the impression that for most people it was not 'my religion' but 'my community'. I don't think anyone thought in terms of the 'religious state'.
Moo
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
My experience of Northern Ireland (we lived there from 1988 to 2003) was that for the most part the religious leaders got on very well. There were joint initiatives between the Church of Ireland (Anglican) and Roman Catholic cathedrals in both Belfast and Londonderry (the latter being the Two Cathedrals Festival, instigated by the cathedrals' respective organists at the time); and we were the first choir from a non-Roman church to sing a service in St. Peter's (RC) Cathedral in Belfast when we did our Candlemas service there (in about 1998 IIRC).
By that stage, it seemed to me, the conflict had long gone past the religious: it was purely political.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Steve Langton,
SOF is a website containing a section in which people discuss and debate. We are not policy makers, beyond our various voting rights. AFAIK. Many of us care about the wrong we see. This place is full of discussions about that.
If the world universally became Anabaptist, we'd still find reasons to fight, steal and abuse. Wars would still occur.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's bizarre to link the Troubles in N. Ireland simply to religion. The partition of Ireland was also about nationhood; thus Catholic Irish have generally been all-Ireland patriots, whereas Protestants in the North have generally been British patriots, who wanted nothing to do with a united Ireland. If they were all atheists, they would still have fought each other over that.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Moo;
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
First of all, Leaf, sorry to hear you and your kid are sick; you have my best wishes and prayers.
by Moo;
quote:
In the 1960s there had not been an established church in Ireland for about a hundred years.
I lived in Belfast at the time when the conflict broke out anew, and I observed what was going on. There were two communities in conflict; they identified themselves by religion, but the talk I heard gave me the impression that for most people it was not 'my religion' but 'my community'. I don't think anyone thought in terms of the 'religious state'.
I am well aware that Ireland did not have a formally 'established' church when the Troubles broke out. But nevertheless the two parties very much identified as religious, and the Loyalists and leaders like Paisley clearly expressed themselves in such terms as "This is a 'Prawtistant country'.
The issue is wider than just formal establishment of one particular church. It is also, as I've repeatedly pointed out, a great deal wider than just Christianity, and affects the way Christianity presents itself in the wider world.
And I DO recognise and always have that there is more to the NI situation than the 'religious state' thing. But again 'nevertheless' the religious angle, especially in the minds of a community that identifies itself religiously, does make those problems unusually intractable - as in, eg., with 'God on our side' it is a lot harder to concede anything.
by lilBuddha;
quote:
If the world universally became Anabaptist, we'd still find reasons to fight, steal and abuse. Wars would still occur.
The world universally becoming 'Anabaptist' is unfortunately unlikely. But all the Christians accepting the NT teaching on how to relate Church and State would make a considerable difference to the world's problems and also would challenge the world with a different and better form of Christianity.
by Quetzalcoatl;
quote:
It's bizarre to link the Troubles in N. Ireland simply to religion.
And I don't - just that the religious involvement doesn't help either the disputes or the religion, as pointed out above. Yes, I was a bit sloppy above in not specifying that it was the religious aspect of Ulster in which the 'Christian country' concept was a problem. And even if I might - as some of you also seem to - regard many of those involved as rather nominal Christians, that 'religious aspect' is considerable. I'm also thinking of wider aspects like eg., I don't just demonise Ian Paisley, I believe he was a basically good Christian misguided by that awful surrounding culture; think if he had not been committed to the dodgy 'Protestant country' view.....
by lilBuddha;
quote:
We are not policy makers, beyond our various voting rights. AFAIK.
No, but surely our discussions can help a bit - if only by what we then do in our churches and other spheres of influence.
I'm just a bit annoyed that I have said all the above frequently in various threads and I'm still having to say it over and over again even to people who were at least around when I said it previously. Essentially we are doing this in 'Hell' because Gamaliel has been repeatedly told all these things and just doesn't listen.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Fuckstard. Is that new?
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But all the Christians accepting the NT teaching on how to relate Church and State would make a considerable difference to the world's problems
1. What is the NT teaching on how to relate church and state? You've referred to this many times and I still don't know whatyou're talking about. Specifically, where in the NT (and prefereably, where in the gospels) does it talk at all about the relationship between church and state? A quotation, please. And not just something that you, because of your presuppositions (and yes, I know we all have them -- that's not intended to be a pejorative), have read into something less than clear.
2. In many, many countries -- my own, for example -- it has been decades, over a century, since either the state or the church indulged in the kind of thinking you seem to oppose. Nothing has changed as a result. Why, then, should I accept your assertions which, at least on the face of it, are contradicted by the facts?
John
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Thanks John Holding for braving Hell with a good serious question.
You ask for 'a quotation'; as a single quotation I would refer to Jesus' words in John 18; 36 about his kingdom being 'not of this world'. Not just the one line, but take account of the context in which Jesus is on trial before Pilate on a charge, in effect, of seeking to establish a 'Christian country' in the most direct way possible. His response there results in Pilate finding him innocent and seeking to release him. I at least can't think of any way Pilate could have done that if Jesus had proposed any of the kinds of Christian country we have seen since Constantine. There are plenty of other relevant texts.
If your country doesn't have this problem, be thankful. You still have, I note from recent news, a problem with Muslims who are generally trying to set up a religious state and who are unlikely to listen to any merely secular argument on that issue. A Christian argument coming from the Muslim prophet Isa as they call him at least presents them with more of a challenge.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Fuckstard. Is that new?
Dubious sexual practice involving a pudding condiment.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Albertus
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
We aim to please
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
Frankly, I'm fucken discustard.
The old ones really aren't always the best.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You ask for 'a quotation'; as a single quotation I would refer to Jesus' words in John 18; 36 about his kingdom being 'not of this world'. Not just the one line, but take account of the context in which Jesus is on trial before Pilate on a charge, in effect, of seeking to establish a 'Christian country' in the most direct way possible. His response there results in Pilate finding him innocent and seeking to release him. I at least can't think of any way Pilate could have done that if Jesus had proposed any of the kinds of Christian country we have seen since Constantine. There are plenty of other relevant texts.
I recall we've gone over this before, on a more relevant space than Hell. We can try again (probably Kerygmania), but here I'll just say that there are alternative, equally valid, interpretations to put on that passage. The most obvious being that Jesus is saying that the judgement from Pilate (or, the Sanhedrin) isn't important to Him, he stands before another King who will judge Him and that's the one that counts. Nothing to do with government or Jesus establishing a kingdom (in this world or elsewhere). Jesus isn't establishing Himself as a king, He's stating His credentials as a citizen of another Kingdom and hence not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him.
The whole point of inflicting Kerygmanial discussion on the Hellhosts (sorry guys)? That what you see as an obvious interpretation is not necessarily obvious to anyone else.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
If your country doesn't have this problem, be thankful. You still have, I note from recent news, a problem with Muslims who are generally trying to set up a religious state and who are unlikely to listen to any merely secular argument on that issue. A Christian argument coming from the Muslim prophet Isa as they call him at least presents them with more of a challenge.
Last time I looked Muslims in general and Islamists in particular looked to the Quran for an account of the prophets, not the Christian Gospels whether or not they are interpreted by Anabaptists. The idea that they are going to knock the whole Islamic State business on the head because you patiently explain to them that the New Testament mandates a post-enlightenment separation of church and state strikes me as being a bit on the implausible side.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.
Steve has his victory. Exhausting the patience and kindness of Gamaliel now on shore leave. Steve's victory is therefore defeat for Steve too. By winning, he loses. Not the loss of having driven a good man over the edge, I doubt that touches him at all. How could it?
But the loss of endless battle, endlessly being right AND happy, not ever realising the opportunity cost.
But look! Gamaliel gave Steve a lifeline. Here! The futility goes on and on and on, drawing us in.
I bet a dime.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I am well aware that Ireland did not have a formally 'established' church when the Troubles broke out. But nevertheless the two parties very much identified as religious, and the Loyalists and leaders like Paisley clearly expressed themselves in such terms as "This is a 'Prawtistant country'.
{snip}
And I DO recognise and always have that there is more to the NI situation than the 'religious state' thing. But again 'nevertheless' the religious angle, especially in the minds of a community that identifies itself religiously, does make those problems unusually intractable - as in, eg., with 'God on our side' it is a lot harder to concede anything.
I never heard either Catholic or Protestant say that God was on their side. (The only people I ever heard of who said that was the Germans in World War 1. Others may have said it, but I'm pretty sure no one in Ireland did.) When Paisley said that NI was a Protestant country, he was saying that it belonged to his group, not the other group. Moreover, most Protestants had a low opinion of Paisley.
I am going to tell you a true story which throws light on the nature of the attitudes that Protestants and Catholics had towards each other. I had a friend who belonged to one of the most prominent Catholic families in Northern Ireland. She told me of a Protestant family who had been friends with her family for many years. The Protestant family had a son who not only joined the Catholic church, but became a Jesuit priest. The response of the Catholic family was to feel tremendous sympathy for their Protestant friends whose son had deserted them.
If the Catholic-Protestant friction had really been about religion, the Catholic family would have rejoiced that this young man had seen the light. Their response of sympathy shows that they were caring human beings, but it was not based on religious convictions.
As I said in my earlier post, in Northern Ireland, it's not about 'my religion'; it's about 'my community'.
I lived among these people for two and a half years, and I saw and heard a lot.
Moo
[ 18. November 2014, 22:09: Message edited by: Moo ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Not as dubious as with Coleman's product.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Reluctant as I am to agree with Steve Langton (whom I believe to be a good man, but mistaken and insensitive) I think there was quite a lot of rhetoric throughout the Stormont period about Ulster being a Protestant state for a Protestant people, wasn't there? Didn't the seemingly rather unpleasant Lord Craigavon, first PM of Northern Ireland, use to talk in these terms?
Not that I agree with any of the conclusions that Steve draws from this, mind.
[ 18. November 2014, 22:32: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not as dubious as with Coleman's product.
That would surely burn too much. Or do you know otherwise?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Yes, they spoke of a Protestant state for a Protestant people. What I'm saying is that in this context Protestant was not a statement about theology or church practice. It was the name of the group that was opposed to the Catholics.
Moo
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Jesus isn't establishing Himself as a king, He's stating His credentials as a citizen of another Kingdom and hence not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him.
Except of course that only a few verses later he does explicitly say "You say correctly that I am a king". After that, Pilate really had to be convinced that this meant a different kind of kingship to the kind that he, as Roman Governor, was meant to squash. And since he went out to Jesus' Jewish accusers and said "I find him not guilty at all", I think it fair comment he was convinced.
by Moo;
quote:
Yes, they spoke of a Protestant state for a Protestant people. What I'm saying is that in this context Protestant was not a statement about theology or church practice. It was the name of the group that was opposed to the Catholics.
I'm not actually arguing there; but why was 'the name of the group that was opposed to the Catholics' a religious name? And opposition to 'the Catholics' was not just about nationalism but also that the Catholics were widely seen as having a religious state agenda of their own - as indeed before Vatican II they basically did, even if it got back-pedalled a bit in areas like Britain. I'm not denying there were all kinds of complexities in the situation. But indisputably there was a religious aspect and it did make things more intractable. And it is one of the problems of the 'Christian country' idea that it does make that kind of political identification all too easy.
I don't think I ever heard the 'God on our side' thing from NI people either - as a bit of a folk music fan I actually identify that more with the Americans and Vietnam. But 'Never! Never! Never!' and 'No Surrender' express essentially that spirit and attitude, as does for example Ian Paisley's commentary on Romans, quoting for instance "We must obey God rather than men" in a decidedly 'Constantinian' context.
And yes I do know Paisley wasn't uniformly approved by the Protestants; I know all these different details and I still think the basic point I'm making is valid. To me, Christianity should not be or have been involved on either side of Ulster, not even nominally, and that it ever was is a major tragedy and a serious misrepresentation of the faith.
As I also say, This is an issue far wider than Ulster, and I wouldn't want to get too bogged down in just that one thing. And Callan, I'm realistic - there certainly isn't going to be any instant change in groups like Islamic State just if we finally start getting the NT teaching right; but change is even less likely while far too many Christian groups are saying pretty much the same kind of thing about their religion that IS says about Islam. And remember that while we know the Anglican establishment is increasingly unimportant on a day to day level, my experience is that even in England Muslims may not easily get that because Islam doesn't have much of a pluralist state theology. Muslims abroad are even less likely to see the subtleties.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Look at me! I'm invisible!
Langton, you're a coward.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Steve--
A couple thoughts:
--I grew up fundamentalist, and am well familiar with much of your point of view. I wouldn't want to live with an official religion, either.
--I think the root of the situations you describe is an Us vs. Them problem. (Or communities, as Moo put it.) That can play out via religion, sports team, nationalities, races/ethnicities, gender, etc.
--Some days I get so sick of religion that I hum John Lennon's "Imagine".
--The way you post and argue your points gets in the way of people hearing anything you have to say. Saying the same thing as often as you can, over and over and at length, is more apt to drive everyone away than convert them to your truth. If you cut your posts down by half or even 2/3, and take a break once in a while, you'll probably help yourself.
FWIW.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Some days I get so sick of religion that I hum John Lennon's "Imagine".
There has got to be a better anthem for atheism. Hell, I might even be persuaded to write one. "Imagine" is melodically horrid. Its four notes are so-o-o-o wearying.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Fuckstard. Is that new?
Not new, but not used much lately. The old breed of Denizens have thinned considerably.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thanks John Holding for braving Hell with a good serious question.
You ask for 'a quotation'; as a single quotation I would refer to Jesus' words in John 18; 36 about his kingdom being 'not of this world'. Not just the one line, but take account of the context in which Jesus is on trial before Pilate on a charge, in effect, of seeking to establish a 'Christian country' in the most direct way possible. His response there results in Pilate finding him innocent and seeking to release him. I at least can't think of any way Pilate could have done that if Jesus had proposed any of the kinds of Christian country we have seen since Constantine. There are plenty of other relevant texts.
If your country doesn't have this problem, be thankful. You still have, I note from recent news, a problem with Muslims who are generally trying to set up a religious state and who are unlikely to listen to any merely secular argument on that issue. A Christian argument coming from the Muslim prophet Isa as they call him at least presents them with more of a challenge.
To deal with the latter matter first, no, Canada doesn't have that problem so far as I know. I don't know where you got that from. I know that in the UK there are areas in some cities that seem sometimes to function that way, but nothing like that is happening here. The one attempt by members of a Jewish community to act in this way was strictly rebuffed.
And in any case, you are making general statements of universal application. If they don't apply in Canada, then they don't have general application and you need to phrse your opinion more carefully.
I'll just say with respect to your answer on the first point that your interpretation seems to me to be highly ideosyncratic, going well beyond normal understanding and highly depending on those presuppositions I asked you to avoid.
John
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Jesus isn't establishing Himself as a king, He's stating His credentials as a citizen of another Kingdom and hence not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him.
Except of course that only a few verses later he does explicitly say "You say correctly that I am a king".
The question was about where in the Bible (specifically, the NT and preferably the gospels) you see the respective roles of Church and State discussed.
It surprises me (as someone with a fair dose of Anabaptist sympathies and a copy of The Reformers and their Stepchildren on my shelves) that you, as a self-proclaimed Anabaptist, appear, by answering as you have, to equate the Kingdom with the Church. Care to enlighten us on that?
I'm a firm believer in church-state separation, and gave up a correspondence course on church history with London Bible College when the only thing they could say about my mention of anabaptists was "Munster", but to imagine that the anabaptist approach is free of problems is cloud cuckoo land.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
People do that when they're wrong and can't admit it you know mousethief.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Fuckstard. Is that new?
Not new, but not used much lately. The old breed of Denizens have thinned considerably.
I didn't try to winnow the crop, honest.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
It surprises me (as someone with a fair dose of Anabaptist sympathies and a copy of The Reformers and their Stepchildren on my shelves) that you, as a self-proclaimed Anabaptist, appear, by answering as you have, to equate the Kingdom with the Church. Care to enlighten us on that?
I'm a firm believer in church-state separation, and gave up a correspondence course on church history with London Bible College when the only thing they could say about my mention of anabaptists was "Munster", but to imagine that the anabaptist approach is free of problems is cloud cuckoo land.
First off, I do not think that “ the anabaptist approach is free of problems” - and I keep saying I don't. I'd rather have the Anabaptist problems than some of those which arise in the contrary view. Apparently the only way I can avoid this accusation is I have to mention all the Anabaptist problems every time I post – and you'd all soon get well fed up of that. Others get away with not mentioning all their group's problems every time and don't get comments like yours here Eutychus; I keep rebutting this one and people just go on and on repeating it. Anyway it is not as such the 'Anabaptist' approach, it is biblical and it would be there even if at a particular time there were no Anabaptists around.
Equating the kingdom with the church? Certainly not entirely; I am well aware that Jesus is KING OF THE UNIVERSE whether or not people currently believe that. But again, in context the trial before Pilate is very much about 'church-and-state' even if back then that precise terminology wasn't in use. Pilate's concern is clearly whether this 'King of the Jews' threatens armed revolt like other Messianic claimants of the time; Jesus' response is that, no, he isn't that kind of king. His concern is not to set up a standard earthly kingdom (like, eg., Israel or Rome) but to gather, as he says in the next bit, the people who listen to the truth he brings. Those people, the ones who voluntarily recognise Jesus as King, are the Church. So in present age terms, yes, the kingdom is pretty much co-terminous with the Church.
I'd point out that John Holding did ask for 'a text' and I picked one text; the NT view is clearly much wider than one text and includes all the way from John's reference to new birth 'not by the will of man' to epistolary references to the Church as God's holy nation in succession to Israel and to Christians as 'resident aliens' (not the usual rendering but the literal meaning of the word).
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry John Holding; no it wasn't Canada I had in mind.
quote:
...general statements of universal application...
The general statement about the nature of the Church and its relationship to the world, ands about the wider issue of religious states in general is of universal application; I'm not really commenting about how it has worked out in every place - but certainly commenting on where things have clearly gone wrong, which is an awful lot of the world.
quote:
I'll just say with respect to your answer on the first point that your interpretation seems to me to be highly idiosyncratic, going well beyond normal understanding and highly depending on those presuppositions I asked you to avoid.
Rather it is that for many centuries 'normal understanding' has depended on 'Constantinian' presuppositions which make the passage little more than a bit of airy-fairy philosophical banter between Jesus and Pilate. Jesus was on trial for his life on a political charge and this exchange clearly influenced Pilate's conclusion - the 'normal understanding' doesn't really reflect that.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
Sorry to see Gamaliel go.
I think the state is the primary problem, sometimes exacerbated by religion.
I also think that the only ideal political units are the parish and the planet, an ideal from which we are somewhat distant.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Anabaptists are squeaky clean. The sun shines out of our arses.
It certainly seems to have significant traction.
Squeaky clean arses rarely have much traction IME.
On the contrary, the squeak is the sound of traction.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
Moo
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
Letusspray- Blessed Alligator, rend the heavens, come down with your minions to the Hell Barn where reside the unused rusty farm implements, seize them with power and might and . . . well, you know the rest. Please hurry. Oh-Men
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Hostly furry hat on
PB4S - The Blessed Alligator looked dimly on any attempts at Junior Hosting, and there is a glimmer of such in your post. Until such time as one or more of the antagonists on this thread breaks one of 10Cs, they are free to bore each other witless with their tu quoque, ad hoc, quid pro quo or any other form of Latinised rhetoric.
There are plenty of rusty tools on the Collective Farm for all, including you.
Hostly furry hat off
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
Moo
Be fair Moo, there are lots of prolific posters on this board of whom this could be asked (including me), not just Steve.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
Moo
Be fair Moo, there are lots of prolific posters on this board of whom this could be asked (including me), not just Steve.
I suspect that for some of us, the appearence of Jesus alongside his mother and both fathers still wouldn't manage it.
Tubbs
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
Raising my head from a snotty pile of Kleenex to post:
Steve Langton. You seem frustrated that people are always calling you on your idealized view of Anabaptist Christianity. It is because you conflate, unfairly and unreasonably, these ideas:
(1) Anabaptist = NT Christianity
(2) Anabaptist = voluntary discipleship
Neither of these are true. So stop doing this.
I was going to post quotes and links but that's enough for me for one day.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
Moo
I haven't followed this discussion very closely, but I suppose the most compelling answer would be pragmatic. Few practising Christians would be prepared for a world where institutional Christianity, particularly in its (official or otherwise) state-sponsored form, was comprehensively destroyed. Any sudden change in structures would create confusion and deep anxiety, because religious communities generally change slowly.
Moreover, considering the entrenched state of secularisation in the Western world, many Christians would fear that a sudden process of de-institutionalisation would only weaken Christianity further, at least in the short term. There must be at least some Anabaptists who would fear this too.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry John Holding; no it wasn't Canada I had in mind.
quote:
...general statements of universal application...
The general statement about the nature of the Church and its relationship to the world, ands about the wider issue of religious states in general is of universal application; I'm not really commenting about how it has worked out in every place - but certainly commenting on where things have clearly gone wrong, which is an awful lot of the world.
quote:
I'll just say with respect to your answer on the first point that your interpretation seems to me to be highly idiosyncratic, going well beyond normal understanding and highly depending on those presuppositions I asked you to avoid.
Rather it is that for many centuries 'normal understanding' has depended on 'Constantinian' presuppositions which make the passage little more than a bit of airy-fairy philosophical banter between Jesus and Pilate. Jesus was on trial for his life on a political charge and this exchange clearly influenced Pilate's conclusion - the 'normal understanding' doesn't really reflect that.
As I said, presuppositions and special pleading. Sorry -- that just doesn't wash as a point of view worth consideration.
John
ETA -- if you couldn't figure out where I live from the line at the bottom of the page that says "Canada" when you talked about what was happening in "your" country, referring to me, then I'm not sure what you are reading and understanding in this discussion. What country did you think I come from?
[ 19. November 2014, 20:04: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
John Holding;
No I had of course realised you lived in Canada; I had misremembered the incident I was thinking of. Again, I'm sorry for my mistake.
quote:
As I said, presuppositions and special pleading. Sorry -- that just doesn't wash as a point of view worth consideration
What presuppositions? What special pleading? I deduce from the obvious circumstances that Jesus was on trial for his life and what he said wasn't philosophical banter but actually had an effect on the situation - and that is 'presuppositions and special pleading'????? The point is precisely that back in the late 1960s when I worked this out I didn't have a batch of wonderful 'presuppositions' to inflict on the text. I just read it in its context and realised that the kind of view of it that I'd been used to was wrong.
What presuppositions were you bringing to come up with, well, what alternative view anyway? On whatever your view is, how on earth or anywhere else did Pilate end up declaring Jesus 'not guilty' even after he expressly said he was a king?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I can just tell, reading this thread in a few days time is going to take all the happiness and joy out of my holiday and turn me back into the snarling, twisted son of a bitch that you are familiar with as a Hellhost.
Lookin' forward to it, y'all.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Leaf - glad you seem a little better. Please take your time and give me a proper response in due course.
quote:
Steve Langton. You seem frustrated that people are always calling you on your idealized view of Anabaptist Christianity. It is because you conflate, unfairly and unreasonably, these ideas:
(1) Anabaptist = NT Christianity
(2) Anabaptist = voluntary discipleship
Neither of these are true. So stop doing this.
I think it fair comment that most Anabaptists think they are doing NT Christianity; whether that assessment is right is open to debate of course.
Anabaptist certainly can't be reduced to 'voluntary discipleship' alone - but I know Anabaptists of my acquaintance consider it a key idea and it is pretty much inherent in the practice of 'believer baptism'. Again, I don't oversimplify and I'm well aware of the faults of Anabaptism.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
Moo
Be fair Moo, there are lots of prolific posters on this board of whom this could be asked (including me), not just Steve.
Yes, but most of them eventually recognize that they are getting nowhere.
Moo
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Moo;
quote:
Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
What positions are you suggesting I need to reconsider? Seriously, because for example I'm not going to reconsider my 'position' that 'Anabaptists are squeaky clean and the sun shines out of their arses' because that's not my position in the first place. Nor are many of the other positions attributed to me from Gamaliel's OP onwards.
Once we've got a sensible answer on that, well obviously I'll reconsider if you or anyone else can come up with a reasonable argument to the contrary.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Moo;
quote:
Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
What positions are you suggesting I need to reconsider? Seriously, because for example I'm not going to reconsider my 'position' that 'Anabaptists are squeaky clean and the sun shines out of their arses' because that's not my position in the first place. Nor are many of the other positions attributed to me from Gamaliel's OP onwards.
Once we've got a sensible answer on that, well obviously I'll reconsider if you or anyone else can come up with a reasonable argument to the contrary.
It is clear to me that you are unfamiliar with the history of Ireland. The division between Catholics and Protestants was imposed by the English government during the seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Most of the Catholics were of Irish descent, and most of the Protestants were of English or Scottish descent, but there were many exceptions to this rule. The two groups were consistently played off against each other; each was told that they had to make concessions to the English or the other group would be given special advantages. This prevented the people living in Ireland from uniting to protest various things that the English government did. The bitterness that each group felt was unfortunately aimed at the other group rather than the English government. Note that this competition never had a religious basis, except that it was so designated by the English.
As I said before, my two years of living in Belfast convinced me that no one is fighting about religion. I heard many Catholics and Protestants specifically say that it was not about religion. I never heard anyone say anything to indicate that they did think it was about religion. It was about politics, economics, and discrimination.
It was never about religion.
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye, nobody fought about being a blessing, a blessing to the other. Nobody killed over visiting the sick and imprisoned. Nobody bombed to love their enemy. Nobody murdered to be kind, gentle, patient, honest, generous beyond the bounds of kin and tribe.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
Moo
I haven't followed this discussion very closely, but I suppose the most compelling answer would be pragmatic. Few practising Christians would be prepared for a world where institutional Christianity, particularly in its (official or otherwise) state-sponsored form, was comprehensively destroyed. Any sudden change in structures would create confusion and deep anxiety, because religious communities generally change slowly.
Moreover, considering the entrenched state of secularisation in the Western world, many Christians would fear that a sudden process of de-institutionalisation would only weaken Christianity further, at least in the short term. There must be at least some Anabaptists who would fear this too.
This demonstrates quite a shallow understanding of the history of secularisation, which is far more based on (as opposed to being a departure from) Western Christianity. This is a thesis well attested by Michael Gillespie and Charles Taylor.
A world without institutional religion is actually impossible to imagine, and would not look anything like the modern world as we see it.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Moo;
quote:
It was never about religion.
I've always recognised that it was never just about religion. But what happened from the late 1960s clearly had a religious element, starting with consciously Catholic civil rights marches etc., patterned on the US black civil rights movement, and a rather vocally Protestant response. That emphatically religious aspect led me to formulate the view that Christianity according to the NT is meant to have no part in such issues except perhaps as an independent peacemaking influence.
To say 'It was never about religion' looks to me like very naive oversimplification.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The Troubles were about politics. They were about communities that were each unhappy about the current state of affairs - communities on both sides of the divide. The old antagonism between Protestants and Catholics was a convenient banner that some members of both sides took up to further their political aims. The joke about someone from NI meeting a muslim and asking if they're a Protestant and Catholic muslim works because "Protestant" and "Catholic" were simply labels to identify which community you were in.
And, of course, if the Church had never got embroiled in the business of running nation states those labels would still have worked, and the Troubles would have progressed just as before.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
......starting with consciously Catholic civil rights marches.....
Civil rights movements, demo's and marches were attended by both Protestants and Catholics - hence why both Protestant and Catholic ended up as civil casualties and civilian dead at events that went awry (Bloody Sunday being the famous example). It suited the IRA and Sinn Fein to paint this in terms of a persecution of only Catholic nationalists, but that is the narrative of myth to suit a campaign. The civil rights issues were to do with the equality of the vote, perceived and actual discrimination in the workplace and the utterly abysmal state of social housing. These things collectively effected large numbers of people right across the board. There were other issues too, like corruption in the police force, the constant presence of an army that pointed guns continually at civilians when they were out shopping or heading to church or school or scratching their ass and the general general oppressiveness of living in what was increasingly becoming a land of disruption.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
First, I'm broadly aware of most of these complexities and even such oddities as, so I've been told, the state of Euro-politics in 1688 meant that the Pope was actually supporting 'King Billy' at the Boyne. What matters, and is the really really really important point I'm making, is that Christianity operating as per the NT wouldn't have been on either side or available to either side to exploit in the first place.
Second, I'm now suffering from sciatica and sadly it hurts most precisely when sat at the computer; so until that improves, bye for now.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
Moo
I haven't followed this discussion very closely, but I suppose the most compelling answer would be pragmatic. Few practising Christians would be prepared for a world where institutional Christianity, particularly in its (official or otherwise) state-sponsored form, was comprehensively destroyed. Any sudden change in structures would create confusion and deep anxiety, because religious communities generally change slowly.
Moreover, considering the entrenched state of secularisation in the Western world, many Christians would fear that a sudden process of de-institutionalisation would only weaken Christianity further, at least in the short term. There must be at least some Anabaptists who would fear this too.
This demonstrates quite a shallow understanding of the history of secularisation, which is far more based on (as opposed to being a departure from) Western Christianity. This is a thesis well attested by Michael Gillespie and Charles Taylor.
A world without institutional religion is actually impossible to imagine, and would not look anything like the modern world as we see it.
I wouldn't disagree with the latter part of your paragraph. Consequently, I reject the accusation that my understanding of secularisation is shallow.
It's certainly possible for secularisation to be based historically on institutional Western Christianity yet also be in tension with it today. In modern Britain it's pretty obvious that both things are true.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's certainly possible for secularisation to be based historically on institutional Western Christianity yet also be in tension with it today. In modern Britain it's pretty obvious that both things are true.
Agreed - in some ways secularisation is a bastard child of the Reformation.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sciatica abated a bit; a brief comment (which, BTW, took many times longer than normal to write - the sciatica hasn't totally gone).
Nitpicking about NI is unhelpful. Reality is that it's pretty much as silly to say religion has nothing to do with it as to say religion has everything to do with it. Contrary to what seems to have become the popular view Shipboard, I'm not saying it's all about religion; it's just that occasionally I forget to endlessly repeat that I'm well aware of other issues like the original Anglo-Norman colonialism and so on.
Nevertheless, on the religious aspect which definitely does exist, the problem is in the kind of thing I'd sum up as 'Constantinian' or the 'Christian country' idea. That is also true of most problems involving 'Christianity and violence', and similar ideas about religion and state are found in other religions and have similar bad effects.
And in dealing with 'Constantinianism' it isn't adequate to just have a vague secular liberal idea of 'separation of church and state' for rationalist reasons; in the first place it's a bit abstract and bloodless, and in the second place it won't convince the religious who see God as requiring and demanding that they set up the 'Constantinian' variety of kingdom of God on earth, and will see the secular plural state as reeking of compromise.
What is needed – in Christianity – is not the merely practical compromise of abstract 'separation of Church and State', it is the positive vision of God's Kingdom from the NT. In that vision, whatever state on earth we live in, Christians – worldwide! - are God's holy nation of the spiritually reborn. Because we are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, we don't need an earthly kingdom of the conventional kind, and no earthly monarch can stand in Jesus' place as a 'Christian' king. And God's instructions to us are not to set up a local ethnic or geographic kingdom, or a global empire like some other religions aim at, but simply to live as peaceable resident aliens and call people out of the world into that divine kingdom, the people who recognise Jesus as King and live in his way.
I'm proposing, sciatica permitting, to take the discussion of John 18 to Kerygmania. I'm guessing that the Keryg hosts would want anyone who follows that discussion to their board to leave the 'Hellish' aspects of the discussion back here.....
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton
I'm not saying it's all about religion; it's just that occasionally I forget to endlessly repeat that I'm well aware of other issues like the original Anglo-Norman colonialism and so on.
Exactly what does your awareness consist of? What do you know about the specifics of the history? For instance, do you know about the Old English, who were Catholic, and their relationship with the Irish Catholics? You seem to think that having an established church caused the split into two groups. However, the Presbyterians were no more a part of the established church than the Catholics, but they aligned themselves with the established church.
Moo
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Moo;
quote:
Exactly what does your awareness consist of? What do you know about the specifics of the history? For instance, do you know about the Old English, who were Catholic, and their relationship with the Irish Catholics? You seem to think that having an established church caused the split into two groups. However, the Presbyterians were no more a part of the established church than the Catholics, but they aligned themselves with the established church.
Moo, the important bit here is not the word 'established', which has only ever applied to a few narrow national churches anyway. As I keep saying it's about the wider concept of having or trying to have a 'Christian country' instead of the 'kingdom not of this world' that Jesus brought in. Pretty much everybody involved in the religious aspect of Ulster has been on the wrong side of that line in one way or another.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Moo;
quote:
Exactly what does your awareness consist of? What do you know about the specifics of the history? For instance, do you know about the Old English, who were Catholic, and their relationship with the Irish Catholics? You seem to think that having an established church caused the split into two groups. However, the Presbyterians were no more a part of the established church than the Catholics, but they aligned themselves with the established church.
Moo, the important bit here is not the word 'established', which has only ever applied to a few narrow national churches anyway.
You must be the only person on this thread who has suggested that the Church of England is or was a narrow national church. Assertion is not proof.
quote:
As I keep saying it's about the wider concept of having or trying to have a 'Christian country' instead of the 'kingdom not of this world' that Jesus brought in.
You keep saying it, but that doesn't make it right or true. See above re assertions.
quote:
Pretty much everybody involved in the religious aspect of Ulster has been on the wrong side of that line in one way or another.
And as has been stated by Moo and many others, the religious aspect to Ulster or Ireland's 'troubles' since the days of Wolfe Tone have been trivial.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Again and again and again ... it's got NOTHING to do with Constantine. He's an effect of the cause of the global and first myth of redemptive violence that Jesus Himself more than struggled with.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
You must be the only person on this thread who has suggested that the Church of England is or was a narrow national church. Assertion is not proof.
One of the problems of this whole debate is that there isn't a lot of agreed or unambiguous terminology. While I sometimes use 'established' as a synonym for the 'Christian country' business in general, others have pointed out that it has a stricter and narrower meaning to do with formal 'establishment' in a particular state.
In that sense, the CofE is a 'narrow national church', going back to the Tudors. The appearance of being more than that is because it was the narrow national church of what eventually became a considerable empire.
by SS;
quote:
You keep saying it, but that doesn't make it right or true. See above re assertions.
I keep arguing the 'it' in question with biblical evidence; if you disagree, join the argument about what the texts mean, instead of fudging the issue with claims that I'm only 'asserting', or like some, just mindlessly attributing to me views I don't actually hold, eg., the notion recently floated by some that I believe 'the Anabaptists are squeaky clean and the sun shines out of their arses'.
If my gradually abating sciatica allows me to start it, join the Keryg thread on the interpretation of John 18, and actually argue instead of just making dismissive remarks.
by SS:
quote:
And as has been stated by Moo and many others, the religious aspect to Ulster or Ireland's 'troubles' since the days of Wolfe Tone have been trivial.
Which is why one of the leading bodies in recent rioting has been the ' Protestant Coalition'.... I'm not saying it's all religion myself. I am saying that it might be considerably different if all the Christians were taking the biblical view and were therefore not involved in the politics except perhaps as neutral peacemakers. Why does everybody seem so anxious to deny that?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If my gradually abating sciatica allows me to start it, join the Keryg thread on the interpretation of John 18, and actually argue instead of just making dismissive remarks.
It's clearly allowing you to post walls of text in Hell, so I don't see why it should be preventing you from starting a thread in Keryg.
Complaining that people aren't posting on a putative thread you haven't even started yet is a bit rich.
Put up or shut up.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
You must be the only person on this thread who has suggested that the Church of England is or was a narrow national church. Assertion is not proof.
One of the problems of this whole debate is that there isn't a lot of agreed or unambiguous terminology. While I sometimes use 'established' as a synonym for the 'Christian country' business in general, others have pointed out that it has a stricter and narrower meaning to do with formal 'establishment' in a particular state.
Can anyone spot Steve Langton on here?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
You must be the only person on this thread who has suggested that the Church of England is or was a narrow national church. Assertion is not proof.
One of the problems of this whole debate is that there isn't a lot of agreed or unambiguous terminology. While I sometimes use 'established' as a synonym for the 'Christian country' business in general, others have pointed out that it has a stricter and narrower meaning to do with formal 'establishment' in a particular state.
Indeed you do change the meaning. Sometimes from post to post, just occasionally within a post. Arguing with you is like nailing jelly to the ceiling!
quote:
In that sense, the CofE is a 'narrow national church', going back to the Tudors. The appearance of being more than that is because it was the narrow national church of what eventually became a considerable empire.
In the sense that you choose right now, that is so. In response to another post, possibly not.
quote:
quote:
You keep saying it, but that doesn't make it right or true. See above re assertions.
I keep arguing the 'it' in question with biblical evidence; if you disagree, join the argument about what the texts mean, instead of fudging the issue with claims that I'm only 'asserting', or like some, just mindlessly attributing to me views I don't actually hold, eg., the notion recently floated by some that I believe 'the Anabaptists are squeaky clean and the sun shines out of their arses'.
Biblical evidence doesn't trump other evidence simply by being biblical. If it is misquoted or misinterpreted it is of no worth at all.
I haven't suggested that 'Anabaptists are squeaky clean' so don't lump me in with that idea.
quote:
If my gradually abating sciatica allows me to start it, join the Keryg thread on the interpretation of John 18, and actually argue instead of just making dismissive remarks.
This is Hell, the home of dismissive remarks. You're not so bad at them yourself
quote:
by SS:
quote:
And as has been stated by Moo and many others, the religious aspect to Ulster or Ireland's 'troubles' since the days of Wolfe Tone have been trivial.
Which is why one of the leading bodies in recent rioting has been the ' Protestant Coalition'.... I'm not saying it's all religion myself. I am saying that it might be considerably different if all the Christians were taking the biblical view and were therefore not involved in the politics except perhaps as neutral peacemakers. Why does everybody seem so anxious to deny that?
What is this 'Protestant Coalition'?
Have you ever considered that others, besides your precious Anabaptists, may hold the biblical view?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
Arguing with you is like nailing jelly to the ceiling!
I often feel that about various people arguing against me (not necessarily yourself). My positive argument is pretty consistent - dealing with the trivial details which people think will derail that argument can be confusing all round.
by SS:
quote:
In the sense that you choose right now, that is so
In the sense chosen by people who have objected to me using the term 'establishment' more broadly, though often the differences are technical and trivial rather than truly important. A church 'established' in one nation is absolutely a 'narrow national church' compared to the international body Jesus intended according to the NT.
by SS;
quote:
Biblical evidence doesn't trump other evidence simply by being biblical. If it is misquoted or misinterpreted it is of no worth at all.
Biblical evidence should trump other evidence for Christians. Whether I'm misquoting or misinterpreting is a matter for argument and discussion, not mere assertion.
by SS;
quote:
I haven't suggested that 'Anabaptists are squeaky clean' so don't lump me in with that idea.
I didn't say you did - just quoted it as another way people avoid my actual arguments by misrepresenting them.
by SS;
quote:
What is this 'Protestant Coalition'?
A dodgy right wing political group also connected with the mainland 'Britain First'. Has been significantly involved in the so-called 'flag protests' and the disputed Ardoyne march business, and make trouble over here more aimed at Muslims. Not major - but not all that trivial either....
by SS:
quote:
Have you ever considered that others, besides your precious Anabaptists, may hold the biblical view?
That's an ambiguous question. In one sense of the ambiguity there are quite a lot of groups beside the traditional Anabaptists, and the linked UK 'Anabaptist Network', which hold the same view. I intend nothing exclusive by using the term Anabaptist; and it is of course the biblical view.
In the other sense of the ambiguity - that might imply others hold the biblical view and the Anabaptists don't - well again, matter for discussion. So far the opposition haven't produced much, though.....
by Eutychus;
quote:
It's clearly allowing you to post walls of text in Hell, so I don't see why it should be preventing you from starting a thread in Keryg.
Complaining that people aren't posting on a putative thread you haven't even started yet is a bit rich.
Wait till you see the length of the starting post that I'm currently composing...! More seriously most of my last few posts have had to be done offline rather than direct into the 'post a reply' box, and they have taken ages because until today I've only been able to sit at the computer for a few minutes at a time before it has just hurt too much.
I'm not complaining that people aren't posting; just inviting them to post when I do sort it out.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Albertus - thanks for a laugh at last! But seriously, from my perspective it's more that the assorted 'Constantinians' are constantly changing the goalposts themselves, which makes my targetting rather difficult.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
What is this 'Protestant Coalition'?
A dodgy right wing political group also connected with the mainland 'Britain First'. Has been significantly involved in the so-called 'flag protests' and the disputed Ardoyne march business, and make trouble over here more aimed at Muslims. Not major - but not all that trivial either....
It was but one of the outcomes of the 'Flag Protests' of 2013, which had little to do with established churches, or unestablished ones for that matter. In any event it has all but disintegrated.
You keep peddling this notion that all the trouble in the world is caused by major, institutionalised and established churches, but that is, as a much lamented shipmate would have said, bollocks.
Now go away and write your probably unintelligible thesis. Feel free to nail it on any door, anywhere.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
I haven't suggested that 'Anabaptists are squeaky clean' so don't lump me in with that idea.
I didn't say you did - just quoted it as another way people avoid my actual arguments by misrepresenting them.
You seem to lump together everyone who disagrees with you. In fact, what you are dealing with is separate people with separate arguments and ways of arguing. I suspect you would resent it if your arguments were lumped together with other people's. The person who made the 'squeaky clean' remark is currently on shore leave and cannot reply to anything you say.
Moo
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Moo;
quote:
The person who made the 'squeaky clean' remark is currently on shore leave and cannot reply to anything you say.
Point taken; but the original remark has been repeated by other Shipmates and I feel it appropriate to respond to them even with the originator absent.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
What matters, and is the really really really important point I'm making, is that Christianity operating as per the NT wouldn't have been on either side or available to either side to exploit in the first place.
Right....so people who play hand in hand with evil won't misuse and abuse NT Christianity for their own means? Forgive me, but this is truly the stuff of la-la land. It is delusional at best.
The thing is I get some of what you are saying. There are many politicians in Northern Ireland who were always keen to use religion for their own ends and to ensure a vote. I will never forget the 'out of the mouths of babes' incident at a 'Summer Madness' event*. Geoffrey Donaldson was in a tent and answering questions - apparently about his faith, but all we heard was the usual patter of 'for God and Ulster' crap. A child - yes, a child - asked him this question; 'Mr Donaldson, you have talked a lot about the United Kingdom, but what I really want to know is which is more important to you: the United Kingdom or the Kingdom of God?'. Poor Geoffrey didn't understand that question and was unable to answer - a result which surprised nobody in the audience by the way.
Now the important question for us here would be, did the language and political twisting of matters of faith occur at the hands of Geoffrey take place because the church's played that game too? I'm sure some of them did; in fact I know some of them did. It tended to be the little Gospel Hall type affairs and the hard-line clergy of mainstream churches that wanted to get back to real, NT Christianity. Now if the churches had preached a 'real NT Christianity' would it have meant that the unscrupulous and the downright evil would never have been able to twist Christianity into a political animal for state use? I very much doubt it. There was a lot of evil - and I'm not afraid to call it that - in Northern Ireland that masqueraded as 'Christianity', people who employed whatever they could (and I do mean anything) to advance their sole reason for existence; to take away from others what they themselves already had and enjoyed and who made it their primary aim that once it was taken it would never be given back. Despite peace (or more accurately the removal of guns for the most part), the modus operandi is still there.
How do you defeat such an evil that is tireless and relentless in its quest to break and destroy everything? I honestly don't know, but I do know that there are many Christians who have never given up praying, never given up trying to untangle the truth from the sticky web of deceit and many who have demonstrated incredible courage and resilience. All these people work for God's kingdom - none of them in a state church, because there aren't any in Northern Ireland. Do some of them want to be? No. Do some of them seek a Christian state? No - they seek a voice to be heard within a state, just like everyone else. You seem to be utterly intent on arguing your point from a position of crass ignorance, which isn't a great place to start. I would love you to meet all those people who have so faithfully displayed Christianity in a way I could only ever hope to in dreams, who forgave the killers who butchered their children, who picked themselves up and got on with it after their church, community or house was bombed to bits or burnt and who sat Sunday after Sunday in a pew never giving up hope and praying for the souls of the sickeningly evil; and I would love you to turn to them and say, 'If you had only been truly NT in your faith it would all have been different'. Are you starting to see the problem?
*Summer Madness is a kind of Greenbelt thing for Northern Ireland. Tends to be heavily charismatic in flavour, but has nothing at all to do with the summer madness around the 12th July.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
if all the Christians were taking the biblical view and were therefore not involved in the politics except perhaps as neutral peacemakers.
Though, of course, the Biblical view would demand that as Christians we get involved in politics. It's impossible to love our neighbour as ourselves without getting into the dirty business of politics, to fight for justice for the powerless, to defend the defenceless, to protect the innocent. Being peacemakers is to be political. We have no choice about that if we're serious about following Christ.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
Arguing with you is like nailing jelly to the ceiling!
I often feel that about various people arguing against me (not necessarily yourself). My positive argument is pretty consistent - dealing with the trivial details which people think will derail that argument can be confusing all round.
Where "trivial detail" means "something that disproves my thesis." Yes, it's always best to ignore those little piddly disproofs. One might lose the argument otherwise.
quote:
Wait till you see the length of the starting post that I'm currently composing...!
V: Lord, from interminable, soporific opening posts, protect and preserve us.
R: Lord, hear our prayer.
quote:
Albertus - thanks for a laugh at last! But seriously, from my perspective it's more that the assorted 'Constantinians' are constantly changing the goalposts themselves, which makes my targetting rather difficult.
There aren't any "Constantinians" here. None. Get the fuck over it.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
Moo
I haven't followed this discussion very closely, but I suppose the most compelling answer would be pragmatic. Few practising Christians would be prepared for a world where institutional Christianity, particularly in its (official or otherwise) state-sponsored form, was comprehensively destroyed. Any sudden change in structures would create confusion and deep anxiety, because religious communities generally change slowly.
Moreover, considering the entrenched state of secularisation in the Western world, many Christians would fear that a sudden process of de-institutionalisation would only weaken Christianity further, at least in the short term. There must be at least some Anabaptists who would fear this too.
This demonstrates quite a shallow understanding of the history of secularisation, which is far more based on (as opposed to being a departure from) Western Christianity. This is a thesis well attested by Michael Gillespie and Charles Taylor.
A world without institutional religion is actually impossible to imagine, and would not look anything like the modern world as we see it.
I wouldn't disagree with the latter part of your paragraph. Consequently, I reject the accusation that my understanding of secularisation is shallow.
It's certainly possible for secularisation to be based historically on institutional Western Christianity yet also be in tension with it today. In modern Britain it's pretty obvious that both things are true.
That is not the point, and is quite a different point from the one you initially made, which is why I've quoted the whole post above.
Your post at the very least strongly implies that only Christians would would struggle if institutional religion disappeared. The fact is, the secular Western world as we know it rests on theological foundations, so everybody would be impacted by the demise of institutional religion, for good and bad, and probably a lot of both. That is why your understanding of secularisation is, in my opinion, shallow.
[ 21. November 2014, 14:26: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Wait till you see the length of the starting post that I'm currently composing...! More seriously most of my last few posts have had to be done offline rather than direct into the 'post a reply' box, and they have taken ages because until today I've only been able to sit at the computer for a few minutes at a time before it has just hurt too much.
I'm not complaining that people aren't posting; just inviting them to post when I do sort it out.
I don't care where you are composing them. You are clearly capable of writing and posting.
If you want interaction, then post an appropriate length of text in an appropriate place.
If you keep on trying to instruct people how, when and where to post, and produce unintelligibly long walls of text, expect any readers not to believe you are making a serious attempt to engage in dialogue - and face the consequences.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
You keep peddling this notion that all the trouble in the world is caused by major, institutionalised and established churches, but that is, as a much lamented shipmate would have said, bollocks.
"All the trouble in the world"? No, the trouble is caused by, well for a quick summing-up, SIN. But the various churches which have swapped the biblical version of the Kingdom for a worldly version have certainly not reduced the trouble nor have they represented Jesus well in the world. I'm 'peddling' the notion that doing what we're actually told to do in God's name might be better than doing what we think God must want even though HE said otherwise in the Scriptures.
Eutychus; my comment on the length of post I was composing on John 18 was somewhat tongue in cheek. Though to do justice to the issues it won't exactly be a short one. The 'Normal interpretation' isn't as straightforward as it thinks it is.
Fletcher Christian; So much of what you say expresses exactly my point. I know there are no state churches in Northern Ireland; but as in the USA there are people who want some form of a 'Christian country' and/or very much don't want somebody else's version of the idea. That factor still exists there and needs to be countered by the positive NT alternative.
I'm not very sympathetic right here because I'm dealing with people who seem determined to misrepresent my point and are putting me to a lot of trouble denying things they say I believe but which I don't. That kind of treatment is really problematic for an aspergic even without the further annoyance of sciatica - which fortunately has just about gone away now.
I am leaving this thread now to work on the John 18 thing - early next week I expect....
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
/tangent
Pleased your sciatica's fading out. Nothing like a bit of displacement therapy!
tangent/
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Fletcher Christian; So much of what you say expresses exactly my point. I know there are no state churches in Northern Ireland; but as in the USA there are people who want some form of a 'Christian country' and/or very much don't want somebody else's version of the idea. That factor still exists there and needs to be countered by the positive NT alternative.
You now know there aren't any state churches in Northern Ireland but you didm;t seem to realise that a few posts back (or possibly pages). I'm sure you could also find one or two in Northern Ireland who would want a state church and a 'Christian State/Country' but believe it or not, one or two people do not constitute a majority in Northern Ireland, mainly because the population is bigger than three. I know this might be a mind-blowing concept, but one or two nutters from one community does not mean the entire community is the same, which is exactly the reason why I still have an awful lot of time for Mennonites and some other anabaptists despite having engaged with you on this thread to the point of death by ignorance, obfuscation and bloody mindedness.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I still want to hear the explanation for the Anabaptist sun shining out of your ass hole. Or, vice versa.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by The Silent Acolyte;
quote:
I still want to hear the explanation for the Anabaptist sun shining out of your ass hole. Or, vice versa.
Don't ask me for the explanation! Ask the person who thought it was funny to accuse me of believing such a thing, and who apparently thinks such stupidity better than serious discussion of issues....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by The Silent Acolyte;
quote:
I still want to hear the explanation for the Anabaptist sun shining out of your ass hole. Or, vice versa.
Don't ask me for the explanation! Ask the person who thought it was funny to accuse me of believing such a thing, and who apparently thinks such stupidity better than serious discussion of issues....
Since that's not going to happen for a bit, your answer is less than helpful. It seems Gamaliel wasn't alone in finding you answers in Purg so excruciating that we've made it to Page 3 in Hell.
Is a tiny pinch of self-reflection as to why you're here in the Nether Regions too much to ask?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Since there are several threads in Dead Horses where you proceeded identically and all.......
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I would think somebody with Asperger's would know by your age that they aren't the best judge of how people, especially they themselves, come across in social situations such as the Ship of Fools.
Given that, a little humility when numerous people say, "You are coming across like X" would be a very wise thing.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Doc, I mean really, how come I can see it from the wee-wee end and but you can't? You're just too damn smart to realise the fact that there is NO WAY EVER. I knew a NASA rocket scientist, for real. He thought that that entitled him to opine beyond that tiny savant bailiwick. I have a brother-out-law and if you want to know ANYTHING about pop music, or who played which Dalek in Dr. Who, he's your man. That's it. Sigh. We ALL got blind spots. I mean gaping opportunity-cost voids that we can't see. Through which our hard-wired dispositions drive invisible trucks. Self awareness is a rohypnolled hitch hiker at best.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[qb] quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
[qb] Steve Langton, is there anything that could make you reconsider your position on any of the topics mentioned here? If so, what?
Moo
I haven't followed this discussion very closely, but I suppose the most compelling answer would be pragmatic. Few practising Christians would be prepared for a world where institutional Christianity, particularly in its (official or otherwise) state-sponsored form, was comprehensively destroyed. Any sudden change in structures would create confusion and deep anxiety, because religious communities generally change slowly.
Moreover, considering the entrenched state of secularisation in the Western world, many Christians would fear that a sudden process of de-institutionalisation would only weaken Christianity further, at least in the short term. There must be at least some Anabaptists who would fear this too.
This demonstrates quite a shallow understanding of the history of secularisation, which is far more based on (as opposed to being a departure from) Western Christianity. This is a thesis well attested by Michael Gillespie and Charles Taylor.
A world without institutional religion is actually impossible to imagine, and would not look anything like the modern world as we see it.
I wouldn't disagree with the latter part of your paragraph. Consequently, I reject the accusation that my understanding of secularisation is shallow.
It's certainly possible for secularisation to be based historically on institutional Western Christianity yet also be in tension with it today. In modern Britain it's pretty obvious that both things are true.
That is not the point, and is quite a different point from the one you initially made, which is why I've quoted the whole post above.
Your post at the very least strongly implies that only Christians would would struggle if institutional religion disappeared. The fact is, the secular Western world as we know it rests on theological foundations, so everybody would be impacted by the demise of institutional religion, for good and bad, and probably a lot of both. That is why your understanding of secularisation is, in my opinion, shallow.
I think you've read more into my original post than was actually there.
My post focused on Christianity because that's the issue on this thread. No doubt, British Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism and Judaism would respond each in their own very interesting way to the de-institutionalisation of British Christianity. In the districts bordering where I live Islam is already the dominant religion, and it would be fruitful to compare the workings of a highly visible mosque-based Islam and a declining church-based Christianity, to see which is the most 'institutional', and so on. But that discussion would require another thread!
Moreover, in no way was I claiming that atheists and non-religious people would be unaffected by the de-institutionalisation of Christianity. There are plenty of atheists online who argue in favour of the disestablishment of the CofE, or of tax benefits being withdrawn from religious groups. By contrast, other atheists fear that that disestablishment would lead to a kind of Americanised free-for-all that would only encourage fundamentalism. There are yet others who see themselves as 'cultural Christians' who appreciate the good work that Christian institutions do, and wouldn't like it to be jeopardised. These people would all feel affected in some way by any widespread process of de-institutionalisation!
FWIW, though, my sense is that in the British case institutional Christianity is already in jeopardy, regardless of whether or not we approve culturally or theologically of 'Christendom', or whatever we'd choose to call it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Martin, comrade. It's called Hope. It's where I live.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Have considered further response here, can't see the point, have moved on. Self-reflection - yes, more than a pinch; others should also try it...
Have just posted a Kerygmania thread; the OP looks long but that's because I've summarised how the topic started here in Hell to save people having to come here to find out about it. Had it started in Kerygmania it would of course have been a collection of normal shorter posts by various people.
Will NOT be back here....
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Thank God.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Oh yes you will. In fact, you never left.
[ 24. November 2014, 21:38: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
You mean to say, just as I finally catch up with the thread, it's all over?
I feel cheated. I admit it's a little bit like being cheated out of the prospect of a dental drill, but still.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye, the dread, mind robbing reality is just deferred, making its whine into the brain ever closer.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Will NOT be back here....
You were never really here, at least in the sense of giving people a fair hearing.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I feel cheated.
You could always catch up with the proof-texting clusterfuck which has now been moved from Kerygmania to Purgatory.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Perhaps a circus thread could be started as to where that thread will pop up next? I'm thinking Mystery Worshipper.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Perhaps a circus thread could be started as to where that thread will pop up next? I'm thinking Mystery Worshipper.
Eventually the Hosts will all get sick of it and close it down to be followed by a 'Why did you close it?' thread in The Styx. The only board I don't expect to see it on is Heaven, unless we do awards again and there's one for 'Most Tedious Thread'.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, it's always welcome down here... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
No. No it's not. Each time I started my morning rounds, a little bit more of me died when I saw that this thread still lived. The thread title became more and more appropriate as time went on.
Another reason why I love the Ship: there are people here who make me look non-tedious by comparison.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Another reason why I love the Ship: there are people here who make me look non-tedious by comparison.
Odd. I can't think of any.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Then look in the mirror.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
And, can I add that perhaps it's evidence of how tedious people are that no-one thought to post such an obvious response for 5h. Come on people, Mousethief gives you a free pass for an easy insult in Hell and you let him off?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh, I thought about it. But unlike you I didn't feel it was worth boosting my post count for.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I read Ariston's post and started compiling a list of Shipmates who make me look non-tedious.
Adds Alan's name to list...
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
I have decided to bless you all with one more of my posts.
Bask, peons, bask.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton over on his new same-old-shit Purg thread:
I'm sorry if I slightly misjudged the tone and you took it far too seriously. OK? Get over it.
Two things. One, you can't apologize for something somebody else does, especially something you don't approve of. "I'm sorry you took me wrong" isn't an apology, it's a slap in the face. It's a deliberate attempt to shirk off responsibility. It's a shameful misuse of the word "sorry."
Two, You can't be abusive in an apology and have any hope of being accepted as sincere. Ending your so-called apology with with "get over it" proves you have absolutely no intent to apologize, and your words of ostensible apology are an empty lie.
In short, you're being an asshole. Still. And yet you CLAIM that you want to debate the points on their merits. Yet you ignore people who have points that might possibly disprove your points (such as Ad Orientem), and you insult people who actually do disprove something you've said (as shown here) and pretend you never meant it anyway.
You show yourself, again and again, to have no honour at all. None. Zilch.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
They're baaack.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That dates you!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Or he's been watching too much TV
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I'm seriously pissed off with Steve Langton's chopping and changing, picking and choosing, while making the same dull noise in response to a variety of questions.
He retains the fantasy that pre-Constantinian Christianity was some wonderland of a Christian nation and that only until then was that the case. AFAIK Celtic Christianity was independent for at least 250 years after that (ie, until after Augustine had met the bishops at Aust) and I am sure that has never been regarded as a Christian nation. In any event, Christianity was so diverse and geographically spread out that whatever they had in common, they could never be regarded as a nation. A 'diverse community' perhaps, but no more than that.
The man's deceived himself. He doesn't know it, and he's not going to examine himself, probably because he's afraid of uncovering that very fact.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I guess we're all up for a bit of Te Deum
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Steve's fantasy Christianity includes a period when Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians couldn't manage to sit down and eat dinner together. It was followed by the arc of anti-Semitism including the creation of the story that Jews were Christ Killers.
No doubt they were responding to the actions of their time, including Jewish antipathy toward them and a desire not to be savaged by the Romans, but it's nothing to emulate.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
No lie. The book of Acts and some of the Epistles read like a lost Real Housewives script in places- the whining, the bickering, the ego wars...
[ 30. November 2014, 19:18: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
He can't Johnny. Can not. It's not his fault. Fear has NOTHING to do with it. The wind changed long ago and his face is set.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
No lie. The book of Acts and some of the Epistles read like a lost Real Housewives script in places- the whining, the bickering, the ego wars...
These show that Barnabas and Paul couldn't get on; then again, I don't think Paul got on with anyone.
Maybe he and Steve should get a room. I'm sure the survivor could put us all in our place.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Paul was the Teresa Manzo of the New Testement. Also, he appeared to be a bit gossipy.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I love Paul. Fortunately, I get to love him at a distance...
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
( Sorry, it's Giudice, not Manzo.)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0