pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Oct 21, 2012 12:47:40 GMT
The C of E is a VERY broad church, visitor, ranging from tradition-respecting catholics to modern green protestants. It is Christ's " example" (precisely his "behaviour") and his teaching that is the basis of Christianity, not paying lip service to his mum being a virgin etc. But tell me, why on earth would anyone aged 21, be beguiled into expressing "belief" in the supernatural? miraculous virgin birth is a common theme in religion. i also heard, think melvyn braggs "in our time" or somesuch that the word 'virgin' is a mistranslation of the original text perhaps from either aramaic or hebrew.
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Oct 21, 2012 13:04:45 GMT
The C of E is a VERY broad church, visitor, ranging from tradition-respecting catholics to modern green protestants. It is Christ's " example" (precisely his "behaviour") and his teaching that is the basis of Christianity, not paying lip service to his mum being a virgin etc. More absolute nonsense. If you want to know what Christians believe then ask Christians That you then choose not to believe them says nothing about their belief. www.churchofengland.org/our-faith.aspx
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 21, 2012 13:20:09 GMT
I queried Nick's assertion here: You don't have to believe Jesus was God or the literal Son of God to be a Christian. Jean also thought it was a strange thing for him to say. Presumably Nick and you think it's not strange. It's not strange at all. Many Christian sects have and would demur from both assertions. Much of the schismatic history of the orthodox Christian churches are a doctrinal battle about this intellectually barren issue. To suppose Jesus was a God, or literally a relative of God, is so stupendously stupid and offensively unenlightened, that it's of course unsurprising there have been such conflicts. But if the people arguing so fiercely about the details of the exact nature of Jesus had thought the whole issue stupendously stupid and offensively unenlightened, they wouldn't have bothered to debate it at all. It was because it was so desperately important to them that they had to get the details exactly right. (We have been here before, and I'd really rather not spend time re-running it all again - besides it's time I haven't got at the moment, as I've got a train to catch in a couple of hours.)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 21, 2012 13:33:46 GMT
Instead of concentrating on the incidentals of his miraculous paternity, conception and resurrection why don't you tell us about Christ's teaching, visitor? Or is that all beside the point compared to what you claim is the primacy of the creeds?
What about the all the parables and the New Commandment of the eponymous Christ "that ye love one another"? How can you leave these out of the Christian's values? Or are the Christian's "values" also as irrelevant to Christianity as his "behaviour"?
No wonder people are turned off religion if you are an example of a "believer", visitor. You make Christianity sound as morally hollow as Islam. But I guess that is your purpose given the thread topic.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 21, 2012 13:41:08 GMT
The creed quoted is also concerned almost exclusively with the supernatural elements of Christianity and not the teaching of Christ. It's a creed, which means that if you say it, you believe it. Or else it's equivocation, and you're in trouble. (Quoted in full by visitor in her post, pippop.) The Nicene Creed is said by Catholics as well as Anglicans, and though they don't go in for reciting things much, the mainstream Nonconformist denominations Methodists, Baptists, United Reformed and various Pentecostal sub-sects would accept all of its clauses I think (any lurking Methodists can correct me if necessary.) The Orthopdox famously had trouble with the filioque clause, but they accept the rest of it. That's an awful lot of Christians. It is you who caricature belief in the supernatural as naive and uncritical. It is quite capable of being, on the other hand, thoughtful and informed. Indeed! How curious it is then that, for all your admiration of the C of E's ability to 'move on', you seek to hold it up to ridicule with your talk of ...the C of E's gay would-be ladybishops...
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Oct 21, 2012 13:46:42 GMT
Instead of concentrating on the incidentals of his miraculous paternity, conception and resurrection why don't you tell us about Christ's teaching, visitor? Or is that all beside the point compared to what you claim is the primacy of the creeds? I said nothing about primacy of the Nicene Creed. I said that this is what Christians believe, contrary to ncsonde's view that Christians don't believe anything. Are you having some difficulty understanding the English that I used? Lots of people behave in very good, morale, [Christian] ways without being Christian. However, to be a Christian does require belief. What is so difficult to understand with this concept?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 21, 2012 13:48:32 GMT
christian gnostics for example do not adhere to the nicene creed. their style of faith is free, open and creative and urge that since you have a brain you should think for yourself and not adhere to any particular dogma or belief. The gnostics jesus is very different from the mainstream jesus that conventional christianity presents. It may well be that only an accident of history prevented Gnostic Christians from being the 'mainstream'. However it came about , they aren't, and therefore to cite their beliefs as exemplifying those of Christians while ignoring the majority is a little odd. Besides, surely it is not the case that they have no truck with the supernatural?
|
|
Joe K
WH Member
Posts: 608
|
Post by Joe K on Oct 21, 2012 14:04:30 GMT
The C of E is a VERY broad church, visitor, ranging from tradition-respecting catholics to modern green protestants. It is Christ's " example" (precisely his "behaviour") and his teaching that is the basis of Christianity, not paying lip service to his mum being a virgin etc. But tell me, why on earth would anyone aged 21, be beguiled into expressing "belief" in the supernatural? miraculous virgin birth is a common theme in religion. i also heard, think melvyn braggs "in our time" or somesuch that the word 'virgin' is a mistranslation of the original text perhaps from either aramaic or hebrew. "It's a bit late to be backtracking on the Bible re transcription/translation errors" But seriously, and going back to my #48, once again, arguing over the precise meaning of a couple of sentences after they have been translated from another language, belonging to another culture who literally think in a different way, with a view to attacking that culture, seems like a waste of time. Some have the time to waste, it seems...
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 21, 2012 14:09:59 GMT
Nick did not say that that "Christians don't believe anything", visitor. Why do you misrepresent him? He said If what a Christian "believes" consists merely of the sort of creed YOU subscribe to, then it is indeed a shabby "religion". How come you were so beguiled by it? I would say that the 72% of respondents people who put "Christian" down on the census form in 2001 were not thinking of the "creeds", visitor, or the virgin birth, but about Christ's "message" and what a good one it is for people to follow.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 21, 2012 14:11:24 GMT
i also heard, think melvyn braggs "in our time" or somesuch that the word 'virgin' is a mistranslation of the original text perhaps from either aramaic or hebrew. The word used in St Luke's gospel is Παρθένος which means virgin.That it could be extended to mean any young woman has been suggested. There is no Hebrew text of the NT, and though Jesus spoke Aramaic, AFAIK there is no Aramaic text either. (I think we've been here before, too.)
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Oct 21, 2012 14:23:15 GMT
Nick did not say that that "Christians don't believe anything", visitor, he said You're correct, I mis-quoted ncsonde. However, I also showed that he was wrong when he said "You don't have to believe any specific doctrine" [to be a Christian]. That is all I am discussing here. I have said nothing about Christian values. You do understand that beliefs (i.e. articles of faith) are different to behaviours and values don't you? I really don't understand why you keep trying to take the conversation in another direction and cannot admit that ncsonde was wrong when he said what he said. You continually try to personalise the discussion about my specific beliefs, values, behaviours etc. Can you perhaps stick to the point? A direct question - do you accept that (the majority of*) Christians believe a specific doctrine? *Excepting gnostics and similar
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 21, 2012 14:37:41 GMT
Just one last question before I go, marchesa - if the basic requirements for being a Christian are as you say, why aren't you one?
What precisely is it that you reject?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 21, 2012 14:40:42 GMT
No, I don't. And I don't believe the people who filled out the census form made thence distinction you appear to depend upon, either.
And, moreover, you did not, as you claim,
He meant that there are various meanings that people attach to being a Christian in the world today, and most particularly in the UK today. A belief in the supernatural is probably not part of it for most here in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 21, 2012 14:42:28 GMT
What precisely is it that you reject?
The supernatural, of course. It is an insult to my intelligence. And some aspects of organised religion. However, there is nothing AT ALL wrong with the moral teaching of Christ. I did describe myself as a Christian in the last Census.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 21, 2012 14:47:22 GMT
The supernatural, of course. It is an insult to my intelligence. And some aspects of organised religion... But you claim that none of that is essential to calling oneself a Christian. So I repeat: why don't you?
|
|