UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:The above quotation from the late British MP Tony Benn highlights a problem of belief and belief systems. Can faith be sepated from dogma — does dogma need faith?
“A faith is something one dies for,
a doctrine is something one kills for.
There is world of difference.”
Tony Benn
quote:Neither should be died for or killed for I think. I see that definitions are:
Originally posted by Motylos:
quote:The above quotation from the late British MP Tony Benn highlights a problem of belief and belief systems. Can faith be sepated from dogma — does dogma need faith?
“A faith is something one dies for,
a doctrine is something one kills for.
There is world of difference.”
Tony Benn
quote:Nice soundbite but it wouldn't have been much good in resolving the Arian controversy, for instance.
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Faith does not need dogma.
Dogma can kill faith.
GG
quote:IngoB some of us would find that a very chilling statement.
Originally posted by IngoB:
... and whether one should kill another over it - is open for discussion. ...
quote:I loved "Dogma" but I too was dismayed with the vapid message. Kevin Smith really blew it there. It was so New Age-y! Maybe he was trying to show what a stand-up guy he is so he made Rufus be more liberal but that really sucked. Nice touch making God appear as a man AND a woman, though! I love to think about God being a beautiful woman...ahem! I have to go think pure, pious thoughts now!
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
He made a false distinction so he could bolster a platitude. Color me underwhelmed.
And although I enjoyed Kevin Smith's film, the essential message (It doesn't matter what you believe, just believe in *something*) is banal and stupid. What if you choose to believe in the innate superiority of the German nation?
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Thanks, Paul. My thoughts too. Jesus' words are more value than the formulations of church fathers and theologians.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The problem I've always had with dogma and doctrine is the more you define, the more you require in terms of belief, the more exclusive the religion becomes. This suits people who love to see themselves as a saved remnant from a lost humanity, but it isn't the God I believe in. I'm a minimalist in terms of what should be required doctrine.
Rabbi Hillel, a near contemporary of Jesus was once asked by a potential convert to give him a summary of the Torah while standing on one leg. He said, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary."
Perhaps that's the whole of human religion stripped of it's cultural and practical baggage. Jesus mostly told His followers that their destiny is decided by the way they treat each other. I see believing in Jesus mostly in terms of placing one's trust in what He said. I see faith in Him as faithfulness to the life He told us we must lead. That consistes of loving one another as He has loved us. It's a total orientation of life Godward, in knowledge that His love encopmasses all creation. So I place much more emphasis on devotion than on definitions.
quote:False dichotomy.
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Another, Thanks, PaulTH.
Faith (as discussed in some posts above, derived from doctrine/dogma) is dead, lifeless as a corpse. See James.
quote:Explain.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:False dichotomy.
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Another, Thanks, PaulTH.
Faith (as discussed in some posts above, derived from doctrine/dogma) is dead, lifeless as a corpse. See James.
quote:Evensong, I think you have spotted that the term "dogma" (much like the term "faith") is used by different people to mean different things. For some, the term "dogma" is what the Church, or part of the Church, teaches, usually with the implication "believe this or else ...".
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can't have faith without dogma. What do you have faith in if you have no beliefs? Nothing.
....
quote:No, it isn't. And you should know it because the One whom you claim as your master has provided a rather different summary of the whole of religion. But perhaps remembering the Two Great Commandments is already too dogmatic for you?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Rabbi Hillel, a near contemporary of Jesus was once asked by a potential convert to give him a summary of the Torah while standing on one leg. He said, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary." Perhaps that's the whole of human religion stripped of it's cultural and practical baggage.
quote:Actually it was the Gentile who was supposed to be standing on one leg, and Shammai who reacted in the way you suggest, IngoB.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No, it isn't. And you should know it because the One whom you claim as your master has provided a rather different summary of the whole of religion. But perhaps remembering the Two Great Commandments is already too dogmatic for you?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Rabbi Hillel, a near contemporary of Jesus was once asked by a potential convert to give him a summary of the Torah while standing on one leg. He said, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary." Perhaps that's the whole of human religion stripped of it's cultural and practical baggage.
Oh yeah, and primary sources on this claim about Rabbi Hillel, please? The only thing an eminent Rabbi would have delivered if asked to distill doctrine while standing on one leg is his other leg swinging in an arc to deliver a much deserved kick in the butt. Furthermore, the idea that the very people who wrote the bloody Talmud share your dismissive attitude about "commentary" is just painful. What do you think the "School of Hillel" was actually about? Do you think they were learning algebra there, or something?
quote:
On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.12 When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour:13 that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.'
quote:Very good, Grasshopper.
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can't have faith without dogma. What do you have faith in if you have no beliefs? Nothing.
Faith is trust. What are you trusting in? What do you believe you're trusting in?
If you have faith then you have dogma. Yours just might be different from other peoples if you don't like toeing the line of a particular set of beliefs (dogmas).
quote:OK, that makes a lot more sense. I guess what PaulTH* wrote could mean that, though to me it still sounds more like the Rabbi was standing on one leg in his paraphrase.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Actually it was the Gentile who was supposed to be standing on one leg
quote:Good on Shammai.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
and Shammai who reacted in the way you suggest, IngoB.
quote:And good on Hillel, too, for that crucial last half-sentence which didn't make it into PaulTH*'s paraphrase...
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The story appears to be from Folio 31a of the Tractate Shabbath of the Babylonian Talmud:
quote:
On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.12 When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour:13 that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.'
quote:In so many ways. He actually runs the bank. He is The Lifeguard. He plays goal on The Best Team. He lets the pope and a few other wirms* run things though.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus saves.
quote:In a way I think it would make more sense - and be fairer - for the Gentile to challenge the Rabbi to stand on one leg, as you originally thought. It sounds like the Gentile is clearly expecting the task to be impossible (or at least very hard), so why trust him to be honest about how long he can really stand on one leg? (Not that he's seriously suggesting the trial, but I think the attempt at mockery would have had a better chance if he hadn't obviously combined the element of "Ha! You're so long-winded!" with "And I'm a dick!")
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:OK, that makes a lot more sense. I guess what PaulTH* wrote could mean that, though to me it still sounds more like the Rabbi was standing on one leg in his paraphrase.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Actually it was the Gentile who was supposed to be standing on one leg
quote:These pictures of a stout, 523 mm long royal Egyptian cubit suggest something quite suitable for administering a carefully measured beatdown.
quote:Good on Shammai.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
and Shammai who reacted in the way you suggest, IngoB.
quote:From what? And perhaps more importantly: To what?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus saves.
quote:I see doctrine as wider than just a set of beliefs. The etymology comes from the Latin decere (be fitting) and its causative doctore (to make to appear right / fitting). We get the words 'doctor' and 'decent' from these roots too.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
doctrine: 1. a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group
quote:And who is Jesus?
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:From what? And perhaps more importantly: To what?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus saves.
GG
quote:To complete the set:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:And who is Jesus?
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:From what? And perhaps more importantly: To what?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus saves.
GG
quote:erm - I think you just conflated two verbs there. Decere (to be fitting) and docere (to teach), from which we get "doctor", "doctrine" etc.
I see doctrine as wider than just a set of beliefs. The etymology comes from the Latin decere (be fitting) and its causative doctore (to make to appear right / fitting). We get the words 'doctor' and 'decent' from these roots too.
quote:While I agree that "the fewer things people are willing to kill for, the better", and that "the fewer things people have to die for, the better", surely the proposition that 'the fewer things people are willing to die for, the better" requires some clarification. After all, are not Christians called upon "to take up your cross and follow me"?
"The fewer things people are willing to die or kill for, the better."
quote:According to a well-known explanation of this story in the Kli Yakar (a sixteenth-century commentary by Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz), the would-be proselyte was entirely sincere, despite his apparent willingness to suggest that the Torah could be boiled down to a couple of sentences. The interpretation it suggests is that the Gentile, being elderly, was aware that his time for learning Torah had passed, and therefore wanted to know the fundamental thread that tied its endless complexity together.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In a way I think it would make more sense - and be fairer - for the Gentile to challenge the Rabbi to stand on one leg, as you originally thought. It sounds like the Gentile is clearly expecting the task to be impossible (or at least very hard), so why trust him to be honest about how long he can really stand on one leg? (Not that he's seriously suggesting the trial, but I think the attempt at mockery would have had a better chance if he hadn't obviously combined the element of "Ha! You're so long-winded!" with "And I'm a dick!")
quote:"I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And although I enjoyed Kevin Smith's film, the essential message (It doesn't matter what you believe, just believe in *something*) is banal and stupid. What if you choose to believe in the innate superiority of the German nation?
quote:Interesting! Though if the Gentile is assumed to be sincere and elderly, Shammai's response seems even more excessively hostile.
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
quote:According to a well-known explanation of this story in the Kli Yakar (a sixteenth-century commentary by Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz), the would-be proselyte was entirely sincere, despite his apparent willingness to suggest that the Torah could be boiled down to a couple of sentences. The interpretation it suggests is that the Gentile, being elderly, was aware that his time for learning Torah had passed, and therefore wanted to know the fundamental thread that tied its endless complexity together.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In a way I think it would make more sense - and be fairer - for the Gentile to challenge the Rabbi to stand on one leg, as you originally thought. It sounds like the Gentile is clearly expecting the task to be impossible (or at least very hard), so why trust him to be honest about how long he can really stand on one leg? (Not that he's seriously suggesting the trial, but I think the attempt at mockery would have had a better chance if he hadn't obviously combined the element of "Ha! You're so long-winded!" with "And I'm a dick!")
By the way, in modern Hebrew (and Yiddish), the expression על רגל אחת ("on one foot") is used to mean something like "in a nutshell."
quote:Yeah, they're two different verbs, but from the same root (docere came from decere). From this etymology site:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
goperryrevs wrote:-quote:erm - I think you just conflated two verbs there. Decere (to be fitting) and docere (to teach), from which we get "doctor", "doctrine" etc.
I see doctrine as wider than just a set of beliefs. The etymology comes from the Latin decere (be fitting) and its causative doctore (to make to appear right / fitting). We get the words 'doctor' and 'decent' from these roots too.
I like your second paragraph notwithstanding that!
quote:
This comes from docere `to show, teach;' interestingly, docere originally meant `to make [something] appear right.' It came from decere `to be seemly, fitting.'
...
It is interesting to note that docere/decere came from the Indo-European base *dok-/*dek-, which also gave us Greek dokein `seem, think,' the source of such English words as dogma, orthodox, and paradox.
quote:The vernacular of dogmatic implies inflexibility, hard-headedness and heartedness and is usually associated with being a dick.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
An unpleasant trait in a person is to be dogmatic.
Can one stick by one's dogma and be undogmatic?
quote:Thank you for that interesting and thoughtful, and wise, reply.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I see doctrine as wider than just a set of beliefs. The etymology comes from the Latin decere (be fitting) and its causative doctore (to make to appear right / fitting). We get the words 'doctor' and 'decent' from these roots too.
Doctrine isn't some abstract set of beliefs - it's teachings that fit, that sit right. That's what I find in the teachings of Jesus. They make sense to my soul, even when they're on the surface counter-intuitive. They heal and they challenge. Doctrine and faith are much more closely entwined than we might believe. It's not that doctrine speaks to the head and faith speaks to the heart. Doctrine is only doctrine if it impacts our gut as well as our brain. Like the sermon on the mount does.
quote:It could as easily be viewed as a legacy of Christians condemning heresy, and rather than the division and breaking of the Church, the source of its preservation over the centuries. Perhaps someone else can point me to the great growth and cultural influence those churches wield who have abandoned any attempt at orthodoxy. I'll wait patiently.
Originally posted by Motylos:
The plumb line of doctrine seems to hang over words such as ‘orthodox’, ‘catholic’, and other such descriptions used from the time of the church councils to define who was ‘in’ and who was ‘out’ in terms of belonging to the imperial (Roman) Church. You might well have been ‘in’ on the opening day but be ‘‘out’ a day or so later. I think this was an imperial agenda which harmed the Church, because it defined faith by a set of temporal (chronologically) tenets fixed in a philosophical mindset of the contemporary culture. It meant a legacy that has lasted of Christians condemning Christians. This pursuit of orthodoxy and catholicity has divided and broken the Church century after century and is a far distance spiritually and emotionally from most people’s Christian faith.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:It could as easily be viewed as a legacy of Christians condemning heresy, and rather than the division and breaking of the Church, the source of its preservation over the centuries. Perhaps someone else can point me to the great growth and cultural influence those churches wield who have abandoned any attempt at orthodoxy. I'll wait patiently.
Originally posted by Motylos:
The plumb line of doctrine seems to hang over words such as ‘orthodox’, ‘catholic’, and other such descriptions used from the time of the church councils to define who was ‘in’ and who was ‘out’ in terms of belonging to the imperial (Roman) Church. You might well have been ‘in’ on the opening day but be ‘‘out’ a day or so later. I think this was an imperial agenda which harmed the Church, because it defined faith by a set of temporal (chronologically) tenets fixed in a philosophical mindset of the contemporary culture. It meant a legacy that has lasted of Christians condemning Christians. This pursuit of orthodoxy and catholicity has divided and broken the Church century after century and is a far distance spiritually and emotionally from most people’s Christian faith.
If orthodoxy is a far distance spiritually and emotionally from most people's Christian faith, then 1) it's a good thing for them that there is grace and 2) they might expend some effort in catching up.
It's not as though the concept of heresy was invented at Nicaea, and the Arian controversy was by no means the first to have disturbed the Church. Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?
quote:Can you provide some sort of support for this assertion? I challenge it.
‘Heresy’ began as concept of difference rather than of fault — so I would want to tease out the meaning of truth by means of dialogue rather than bold statement.
quote:
Bauer argued that the early Christian church did not consist of a single orthodoxy from which emerged a variety of competing heretical minorities. Instead, early Christianity, as far back as we can trace our sources, could be found in a number of divergent forms, none of which represented the clear and powerful majority of believers against all others. In some regions of ancient Christendom, what later came to be labelled ‘heresy’ was in fact the earliest and principal form of Christianity. … … … To this extent, ‘orthodoxy’, in the sense of a unified group advocating an apostolic doctrine accepted by the majority of Christians everywhere, simply did not exist in the second and third centuries. … Beliefs that later came to be accepted as orthodox or heretical were competing interpretations of Christianity, and the groups that held them scattered throughout the Empire.
Bart D. Ehrman, (2003: 173), Lost Christianities
quote:Truth is indeed important, however the question for me is to what extent is orthodox Christian doctrine actually true - I'll allow the sort of orthodox Christianity you believe in isn't a complete pack of lies, but I suspect that the doctrines which became officially accepted did so because they were best placed to support the church as an institution, rather than because they were true in an absolute sense. For example, it is advantageous to an institution if a member has to sign up to what the institution believes, and it is also I suspect advantageous if there is some degree of separation between the official dogma and actual truth - for one thing, it takes away any thought of independent verification, outside the authority of the church, and for another, it provides a nice little obedience test to test the 'faith' of the members - and a nice method of psychological manipulation.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not as though the concept of heresy was invented at Nicaea, and the Arian controversy was by no means the first to have disturbed the Church. Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?
quote:I think I'd call it the social Darwinism hypothesis.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That would be the highly cynical view, of course.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:I think this is an anachronism. You had bishops arguing against bishops and other heavyweights and different schools against each other during the early controversies.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:Truth is indeed important, however the question for me is to what extent is orthodox Christian doctrine actually true - I'll allow the sort of orthodox Christianity you believe in isn't a complete pack of lies, but I suspect that the doctrines which became officially accepted did so because they were best placed to support the church as an institution, rather than because they were true in an absolute sense.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not as though the concept of heresy was invented at Nicaea, and the Arian controversy was by no means the first to have disturbed the Church. Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?
quote:That's not a bad thought to have but, for example, Arianism was adopted by many of the Gothic Kingdoms, after the fall or Rome, and I'm not aware of any evidence that the institutional heft of the church was much stronger or weaker in those realms. Leaving the Holy Ghost out of the equation for a moment, it's possible to imagine a scenario whereby the Flavians kept the dynastic infighting to a minimum and eventually succeeded in having Arianism adopted as the official faith of the Empire. Most of the stock accusations levelled at orthodox clericalism would probably have been levelled at Arian clericalism, instead.
I suspect that the doctrines which became officially accepted did so because they were best placed to support the church as an institution,
quote:More for you to be underwhelmed by, Fr. Weber.
[/QThe struggle between pro- and anti-Chal- cedonian elements continued to be fought out at many levels in the East. Various attempts were made to re-unite the Church. There were meetings with anti-Chalcedonians in Constantinople in 532 (the “Conversations with Syriac Orthodoxy”), Justinian’s efforts in the next decade to have the “Three Chapters” condemned and then the Second (Fifth Ecumenical) Council of Constantinople in 553 (which recognised the hypostatic union of Christ as two natures, one divine and one human, united in one person with neither confusion nor division) by which Justinian hoped to reunite Chalcedonians and Monophysites in the East, but which really only gave rise to yet another group, the so-called “neo-Chalcedonians” (which emphasised the synthesis of natures in Christ). Increasingly the matter became more and more confused as various parties denied or shared communion with others and competing bishops were ordained. Justin ii and the empress Sophia also attempted to bridge the theological differences unsuccessfully at Callinicium. Heraclius twice promoted a compromise: firstly advocating Sergius’ doctrine of Mono- energetism 153 discussed first at the Synod of Garin in 622. Although this. proposal initially seemed to gain wide acceptance, it was officially denounced by staunchly Chalcedonian Sophronius after he became Patriarch of Jeru- salem in 634. He saw this compromise as a threat to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and as promoting Dyothelitism–the doctrine of the two wills of Christ. Sergius and Heraclius too abandoned Monoenergetism. In 638, they released a slightly amended formula, called the Ἔκθεσις. In this revision, the question of the energy of Christ was not relevant; instead, it promoted the belief that while Christ possessed two natures, he had only a single will, the teaching of Monotheletism. The “Doctrine of the Single Will” as proscribed in the Ecthesis was sent as an edict to all four eastern metropolitan sees and when Sergius died in December 638, it looked as if Heraclius might actually achieve his goal of ecclesiastical unity. However, in the same year Pope Honorius I, who had seemed to support the new formulation, also died. His successor Pope Severinus condemned the Ecthesis outright (and was thus denied his seat until 640). His successor Pope John IV also rejected the doc- trine completely, leading to a major schism between the eastern and western halves of the Catholic Church at the moment Heraclius was dying. Subsequently, Heraclius’ grandson Constans II, who rejected the doctrine of Monotheletism was determined to end the dispute with the West. Conse- quently, he ordered that all discussion about the Monothelite doctrine was to cease and that all theological positions were to reflect the status quo ante of Chalcedon, issuing his Tύπος in 648 to this effect. Ignored in the West, the Ecthesis was condemned by the Lateran Council of 649. This infuriated em- peror Constans who ordered the abduction and trials of Pope Martin I and Maximus the Confessor. In 668 Constans died, and Monothelitism was con- demned once and for all at the Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council, 680–681) in favour of Dyothelitism.
Rober Kerr, ‘Aramaisma in the Qur’an and Their Significance’, pp. 198-199 in Ibn Warraq (2014), Christmas in the Koran
quote:Darwin and social evolution have already been mentioned. I think Ehrman (I have the book) is interested in that wonderful fantasy world of alternate realities. He goes too far, and I suspect this is editors wanted to sell more books, the point being overstated. That variation in Christianities existed and we have an elimination to a narrow set presently is worth considering.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
So Bart Ehrman cites a person named Bauer who believes that the development of what we now call orthodoxy was a historical accident. Color me underwhelmed.
quote:This ‘family feuding’ cost people lives, livelihoods and livings, itsarumdo. It also allowed the total collapse of the church and Christianity across most of the Middle East. Dogma, dogmatism, doctrine created this vacuum. Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. It was also an Imperial Church imposing itself as the safeguard of all truth and understanding about Christianity!
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
That's like a family feuding over a will. The deceased required his room to be painted a specific shade of blue-grey-green with sparkly bits, and on the completion of which the family would receive a billion pounds in gold. Now they just fight over the exact shade of blue and how many sparkly bits per square inch. The room remains largely unpainted.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:If you believe classical logic, then yes. If on the other hand you lve in the real world, then you can acknowledge that some truths are important, some are unimportant, and some are important in some circumstances and not others.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?
quote:The Muslims didn't hurt that outcome either.
Originally posted by Motylos:
This ‘family feuding’ cost people lives, livelihoods and livings, itsarumdo. It also allowed the total collapse of the church and Christianity across most of the Middle East.
quote:Actually classical logic says nothing whatever about the relative importance of truths.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If you believe classical logic, then yes. If on the other hand you lve in the real world, then you can acknowledge that some truths are important, some are unimportant, and some are important in some circumstances and not others.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?
quote:Because they don't triage truth into the same buckets as you?
I lack sympathy for the viewpoint that a vague appeal to platonic Truth is sufficient justification for ramming one's own views down one's neighbours throat. And have heard variants of this viewpoint enough times to be suspicious of those who go on about truth in religious matters.
quote:Which makes me think of locked doors and people in white coats supervising the patients or inmates. Hey, wait, that's not too far away is it? Just re-costume the people and rename the roles. Good one!
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
When I have these conversations I always end up asking what Christianity was before it was institutionalised.
quote:He does it on special occasions, when the Athanasian Creed is being recited. The Father incomprehensible, *bump* the Son incomprehensible, *bump* and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible *bump*.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "Did you hear that? That was the sound of St. Athanasius turning in his grave"!
quote:I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone. The church, however, has the right to define its doctrine. It also has the right (I would even say the responsibility) to suspend communion with those who choose to believe differently.
Originally posted by Russ:
I lack sympathy for the viewpoint that a vague appeal to platonic Truth is sufficient justification for ramming one's own views down one's neighbours throat. And have heard variants of this viewpoint enough times to be suspicious of those who go on about truth in religious matters.
If in your case such suspicion is misplaced, I apologise for misreading what you wrote.
quote:This is denominationally dependent isn't it? RCs are quite rigid about who gets communion. Anglicans around here - well it is generally announced that if you're baptised you may come forward for communion.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone. The church, however, has the right to define its doctrine. It also has the right (I would even say the responsibility) to suspend communion with those who choose to believe differently.
quote:Couldn't agree more! The question, however, is the basis on which it claims that right. When allied to "outside the church there is no salvation" it looks less acceptable.
I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone. The church, however, has the right to define its doctrine. It also has the right (I would even say the responsibility) to suspend communion with those who choose to believe differently.
quote:Put like that, I can't help wondering whether "the church" defining its doctrine necessarily involves those men in positions of power in some sense "forcing" their views on the others ?
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone. The church, however, has the right to define its doctrine.