User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 148

  1. #121
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    5w4 sx/so


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    In fairness, many of the mainline Protestant churches do pay homage to the Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine of Hippo. I think it's more a certain strain of Evangelicals who take Sola scriptura rather literally.
    Depending on the evangelical denomination, there can be kind of a assumed historical framework that goes:

    Old Testament -> Jesus -> Church founded -> Church becomes corrupted ... (1500 years) ... my denomination founded which re-establishes the True Church.

    as though a huge swath of religious history can be dismissed since it represents the fallen church led astray. That perspective certainly seemed to be the underlying assumption in the church in which I was raised. It can lead to a certain kind of ahistorical perspective.

    I'm sure that perspective isn't typical of all evangelicals, though.
    Last edited by Seymour; 07-29-2010 at 02:20 PM.

  2. #122


    Within some of the non-denominational churches I've noticed that.

  3. #123
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Smile My Imaginary Friends

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    So is this the thread to argue about imaginary friends?
    My first imaginary friend was Didi. He lived in the mirror of my mother's wardrobe and bore a striking resemblance to myself.

    And my second imaginary friend was Paddy O'Flaherty, my dear teddy bear.

    And having two imaginary friends, I didn't stop there. Next I befriended Mole, Ratty, Toad and Mr Badger.

    And once having started, I now have imaginary friends all over the place.

    All it takes is the suspension of disbelief.

    And the suspension of disbelief have given me everything from poetry, drama, art and the movies.

    And suspension has even given me the Mass where magic happens in front of my very nose, where transubstantiation happens in front of the whole congregation. And all we need to do is suspend our disbelief.

    Without the suspension of disbelief we would be profoundly impoverished and barely human.

    My imaginary friends are with me every day and I couldn't do without them.

    And they couldn't do without me.

  4. #124
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    468 sx/sp
    EII None


    Reminds me a little of a conversation I had with a best friend who was a former Carmelite nun, who called me Invincibly Ignorant. I'm beginning to understand the concept.

  5. #125
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008


    We are talking about the sinlessness of Christ in this thread, right?
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

  6. #126


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    The Catholic. I'm still not entirely sure how 'sin' or moral actions and their consequences play a roll in Catholicism. For instance, do you need direct forgiveness from God for your actions? Do you compensate for your sins with good deeds like charity? It's almost like, to Protestants, you are only free to do evil. Meanwhile, both good and bad deeds are incorporated into the notion of free will for Catholics. It also seems as if Catholics use a mixture of scripture, tradition, and reason to derive their concept of sin, while Protestants are more affirmative about the Bible and it's view on sin, particularly the NT, which was exceptional because Jesus was teaching forgiveness in a time of ridicule and rigid traditional roles. He ate with all the wrong people. Talked with prostitutes washed people's feet, etc. I know it doesn't sound like much but at the time it was a major reformation.

    The fact that some Protestants really only consider the Bible as the only canonical text gives them appearance of disregarding the events that took place after the 1st Century, the formation of the Catholic/Orthodox Churches in Rome, etc. Also gives them the appearance of not knowing... well, much else, not unlike myself.
    The RCC church created most of the conceptions of sin and protestant conceptions of sin and salvation are pretty much reactions in one shape or another.

    The original Christian conception of sin was so severe that it led scriptural scholars to consider the old testament a work of optimism and the new testament a work of pessimism, a fallen condition, a wicked evil world, a redeemer killed and everyone can look forward to uncertain judgement from a wrathful God.

    That's until the Irish come into it, they created an optimistic turn with ideas about sin, the codification of sins into mortal, venial, deadly and a whole system of redeeming yourself through prayer, acts, confession and of course the dispised system of seemingly "buying" salvation through tithing the church and having masses said for you.

    This is pretty much the point at which the Irish abbeys on the coastline pulled the world out of Dark Ages but its also the point at which a lot of protestants believe the whole thing went awry and their efforts at reform where apparently to return the church to an earlier stage, in his conflict with Erasmus Luther saw himself as a dogmatist trying to return the Church to orthodoxy.

    An incredible, frankly amazing, irony considering that most, if not all, protestants I've encountered tend to believe that the reformation was a revolutionary modernisation and harbringer in a positive sense of civil and religious liberty, toleration, industrialism, capitalism, political revolution, democracy and modernism (I kid you not and its been backed up with BBC historical documentaries and books on the protestant revolution, which are very anglo-American).

    At that juncture the RCC church held that a combination of faith and works would save you from eternal damnation, Luther bawlked at this suggesting that what could you do for God since he as the creater can have nothing from you which he didnt create or will in the first place. Personally I hold with Jung's idea, which owes something to German RC beliefs, that we each have a "spark" of God in us, so as it says in the scripture whatever we do to each other we do do God themself.

    Luther's position was that you can be saved from sin not by confession, acts or anything else for that matter but by a leap of faith alone, you have to hope and pray. I see that as contra much of the Gospel of Mathew, which mentions the final judgement as says something very different, God not singling out believers from non-believers but persons on the basis of works, and the book of James, in which James suggest faith without good works is dead.

    HOWEVER, RCC theologians have issued a consensus document with the Lutherans suggesting that the RCC church is no entirely reconciled to the Lutheran positions on this matter. Infact, so much so that no successive Pope, while they have questioned Vatican 2, has this consensus document and have even suggested, through the priesthood and at least the Jesuits, that individual RCs who dissent on this are committing sins.

    Calvin's position was different, he believed there was an elect, this is grounded in old testament teaching about a choosen people, the mention again of a choosen people in the new testament and some of Augustines apart consideration of who was choosen too. The idea is that before you are born you are either justified or not, saved or not, its all already decided, your name is in the "book of life" or its not. If you are part of the elect it could become evident if you are rewarded with riches, which is ironic because not only did Jesus attack those doctrines when they where Jewish ones but also if you live a puritan lifestyle you'll accumulate wealth, if you live the protestant ethic you'll become rich because it coincides with capitalism.

    There is a scots author Hogg who satirises this perspective in a novel called confessions of a justified sinner, its meant to be about religious fundamentalism in general though, in which a character believes he is saved, there is nothing he can do to reverse this, therefore he murders and commits crimes.

    Now, years ago, life three generations the RCC church in Ireland had a position similar to one which the comic artist Crumb lampooned, that you where born sinful, if you wherent baptised you went to limbo, if you where baptised you where sinless but would commit sins naturally so it was important to have the sacrament of confession as often as possible from as early as possible. It preceeds communion and some older parishioners wouldnt and still dont receive communion without having had confession first. In addition to this, there where a number of baptisms, the baptism of fire (if you are martyred but not baptised by a priest), of water (the regular sort) and another which was to do with works and I believe governed those born and dying without hearing the gospel but living in accordance with natural law (this was used in later years by some people who'd argue that Ghandi et al couldnt possibly be in hell).

  7. #127


    We're supposed to, but alas everybody is just throwing something random in.

  8. #128


    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    Depending on the evangelical denomination, there has be kind of a assumed historical framework that goes:

    Old Testament -> Jesus -> Church founded -> Church becomes corrupted ... (1500 years) ... my denomination founded which re-establishes the True Church.

    as though a huge swath of religious history can be dismissed since it represents the fallen church led astray. That perspective certainly seemed to be the underlying assumption in the church in which I was raised. It can lead to a certain kind of ahistorical perspective.

    I'm sure that perspective isn't typical of all evangelicals, though.
    You know I hate this perspective when it operates in ideology, politics and history too.

    I know quite a bit about the Williamite wars, when we where young my Dad took us on day trips around Derry, Aughrum, Eniskillen and The Boyne, I consider it to be history like the history of the Jacobite Uprising in Scotland culminating in the massacre of the clans at Cullodin Moore.

    However, there's a lot of people who consider the Williamite wars and 1690 to be exclusively protestant history, both unionists/loyalists/protestants led by the Orange Order and kick the pope bands and some nationalists/republicans/RCs.

    The same thing has happened with the history of the reformation and the protestant ascendency in the UK, even the creation of the UK through the act of union, the role of John Knox in the Scottish protestant upheavel and then as tutor of the future unifying Scots monarch who virtually invented Britain. All this is not well known and too divisive for many. Its either "ours" or "their" history and its recalled either to shame your opponent or harden your own resolve.

    I think that similar things happen with the history of the French Revolution, The USSR and other history, like in the US the unionists, the whiskey rebels, the civil war, theodore roosevelts progressive party, edward bellamy and nationalism, Fordism and the modern corporation.

    It really bugs me because I dont think it should be that way, not just because people should understand their perceived or apparent opposition, that generally I dont think ignorance in whatever shape is a good idea but also that they can have a clear view of their own faults or potential faults. Like I maintain that socialists should take seriously The Black Book of Communism, whether they consider it propaganda or not.

  9. #129


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    We're supposed to, but alas everybody is just throwing something random in.
    Its the religious-historical random thread!

  10. #130
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    So are you ridiculing other posters on this thread, or not? Or does my question represent a bifurcation fallacy?
    I stated an opinion. If you find it injurious, then block me. you have the power, little mouse. That your question may represent a fallacy seems on-target for this thread.

Similar Threads

  1. [Other] What would you do if you was in power?
    By Saslou in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 06-13-2009, 03:48 PM
  2. If MBTI was just a radiostation that played...
    By ReadingRainbows in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 03:48 PM
  3. If I was married to a...
    By Angry Ayrab in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-05-2008, 09:40 AM
  4. If BlueWing Was a Book...
    By Totenkindly in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 02:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO