Food for thought for Christians

[Nearly Sane]

I thought religion was bigger in Scitland because of sectarianism.

Depends what you mean by 'bigger'. It was certainly more a subject of contention, I think but that very fact made the idea of a default church impossible. When certain sects will throw you out for attending services in other denominations, every service becomes a declaration of which of the many sides you are on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

The point is that personal experience clearly isn't a reliable guide to objective truth.

Oh but it is silly, just only when it's Trollboy's personal experience. Sadly other people's personal experiences of all sorts of causal supernatural agencies other than his god don't get the same privileged status.

Shame that - I was rather hoping that the Holy Sepulchre Of Colin the Leprechaun would get some bigging up any time now.

Oh well     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree I don't think his opinion on Jesus as a man is different. So what? Not accepting the divinity of Jesus does not make you an atheist.

The point is that personal experience clearly isn't a totally reliable guide to objective truth.

Yes but as a whole it isn't reliably unreliable either.

Still we can either either end the dialogue here or perhaps the way forward is offered to all of us by dear old Socrates.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stephen,

Oh but it is silly, just only when it's Trollboy's personal experience. Sadly other people's personal experiences of all sorts of causal supernatural agencies other than his god don't get the same privileged status.

Shame that - I was rather hoping that the Holy Sepulchre Of Colin the Leprechaun would get some bigging up any time now.

Oh well     

But we do not have Stephen's jewish friend to interlocute Bluehillside.

Stephen has no further data on his experience.

Use your loaf Hillside.

Finally we have a saying where I come from about having run out of things to say which is where you are at present and that goes something like....'' If you can't shit get off the pot''. I think you ought to yield therefore to the Stephen Taylors.

[Khatru]

A fair and decent post.

I'm not sure about your point about Saudi Arabia though since secular humanism was the environmental faith position where I came from.

Thanks

The Saudi Arabia point was me trying to illustrate that you'd likely have been a Muslim if you'd been born in Saudi Arabia.

I take what you say about being born into a secular humanist faith and moving on to something else.

I'd say that makes you the exception as opposed to the rule as the vast majority of people stock with the prevailing belief/unbelief of the culture they are born into.

[Rhiannon]

Depends what you mean by 'bigger'. It was certainly more a subject of contention, I think but that very fact made the idea of a default church impossible. When certain sects will throw you out for attending services in other denominations, every service becomes a declaration of which of the many sides you are on.

In which case I fail to see how Vlad is claiming to have grown up in a secular society.

[ProfessorDavey]

I must jump in here and agree with you on this one, Vlad ... I may never get another chance!

Where I grew up in 1940/50s London, I knew of no one who went to church.  Sunday school was to get the kids out of the way for an hour and 'Christian' was for the form filling.

Strangely, I still use that meaningless (to me) term when asked my religion.

And you weren't christened, nor went to weddings/funerals in churches. At school you didn't have assemblies which were mini christian services with a hymn and christian prayers. The RE syllabus wasn't almost exclusively about christianity. You didn't end up endlessly bored on a Sunday because the pervading culture defined that Sunday was for church so shops, restaurants, cinema, sports, etc etc were closed - even pubs in some places.

I was growing up a couple of decades after you and although I'd agree that the proportion of people who attended church services was relatively low there was a rather all pervading christianity which was deeply embedded in society and in standard upbringing for most children.

[Nearly Sane]

In which case I fail to see how Vlad is claiming to have grown up in a secular society.

He's wrong about secular, as applied to the society, but he could be right about wherever he grew up and the people he encountered. It's not that different from wigginhall's description of growing up and has been echoed by johnjil on this thread. Further, while sectarianism creates an awareness of religion, it tends to be quite a shallow one. You define yourself more as 'not the other' than the thing you are. There are enough people with an almost complete lack of religious and historical knowledge who will shout out random dates such as 1690, or 1916, who have no other apparent religious beliefs other than the other side are bastards.



Having started the thread on new sectarianism, I have ignored it on the basis that it is too depressing when looking at questions of how we deal with false divisions, too many answers are, we must divide from the false divisions to the one true set of divisions.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

There are enough people with a almost complete lack of religious and historical knowledge who will shout out random dates such as 1690, or 1916, who have no other apparent religious beliefs other than the other side are bastards.

The next pint you drink, savour it, because you deserve it, it does my wee Christian heart the power of good to know that there are Nearlysanes in this world.

Gonnagle.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Yes but as a whole it isn't reliably unreliable either.

I agree. All we need now is a way of determining if we have correctly interpreted that experience.


Still we can either either end the dialogue here or perhaps the way forward is offered to all of us by dear old Socrates.
[/quote]

Carry on then.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But we do not have Stephen's jewish friend to interlocute Bluehillside.

Stephen has no further data on his experience.

I could forward any questions on to him if you like.

However, I don't see what the issue is there are loads of people who claim to experience God but don't accept a Divine Jesus. Why is your experience valid but theirs not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I could forward any questions on to him if you like.

However, I don't see what the issue is there are loads of people who claim to experience God but don't accept a Divine Jesus. Why is your experience valid but theirs not?

But I think the next question is how these beliefs are held.

I would be interested to know from your friend how his belief that Jesus is not divine differs from an atheist's view that he is not divine or as you point out anybody who doesn't believe he is divine.

Does he hold it philosophically, or intellectually or out of respect for the faith of his fathers, or was it revealed to him directly by God or one of his agents, which agent and how was the message transmitted if that is the case and indeed received......or indeed any combination or all of these?

If you could pass that onto him that would move us on.

I confess to being a bit surprised that you haven't broached these questions of him.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I confess to being a bit surprised that you haven't broached these questions of him.

Why? It's fairly standard Jewish thought isn't it?

It's all very simple really he believes he is in a personal relationship with God, same as yourself. He thinks it is the Jewish God, so therefore, it would be a bit surprising if he accepted the divinity of Jesus as that would make him a Christian surely?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why? It's fairly standard Jewish thought isn't it?

Ah well that would point to philosophy then coupled with a respectful belief in tradition.
So far then we have experiencing Christ vs intellectual conviction he was just a man.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Ah well that would point to philosophy then coupled with a respectful belief in tradition.
So far then we have experiencing Christ vs intellectual conviction he was just a man.

No we don't. We have someone experiencing a God. This God is incompatible with a Divine Jesus.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Ah well that would point to philosophy then coupled with a respectful belief in tradition.
So far then we have experiencing Christ vs intellectual conviction he was just a man.

Further more for clarity we have people having an experience and attributing that experience to God or Jesus. Let's just be clear on that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No we don't. We have someone experiencing a God. This God is incompatible with a Divine Jesus.

I don't see why until we get down as you call it say STANDARD religious THOUGHT.

I think it best to put this too him since we have a Jewish person's thoughts and experiences being mediated through an atheist here......................... though there is perhaps some mileage in asking you how and if you see any difference between religious experience and standard religious thought.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I don't see why until we get down as you call it say STANDARD religious THOUGHT.

I think it best to put this too him since we have a Jewish person's thoughts and experiences being mediated through an atheist here......................... though there is perhaps some mileage in asking you how and if you see any difference between religious experience and standard religious thought.

What I was suggesting is that I have told you he is Jewish. It is pretty standard to expect someone who is Jewish to deny the divinity of Jesus. If he accepted the divinity of Jesus he wouldn't be Jewish in the religious sense.

You make it sound like this is a suprise to you or that he might be an exception. There are loads of Jewish people who believe they personally experience God.

You have an experience of God. You attribute it to the Christian God. A divine Jesus is a fundamental aspect of Christianity.

He claims an experience of God. He attributes is to God of the Jews. A divine Jesus is anathema to this religion.

This isn't difficult. One of you is wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What I was suggesting is that I have told you he is Jewish. It is pretty standard to expect someone who is Jewish to deny the divinity of Jesus. If he accepted the divinity of Jesus he wouldn't be Jewish in the religious sense.

You make it sound like this is a suprise to you or that he might be an exception. There are loads of Jewish people who believe they personally experience God.

You have an experience of God. You attribute it to the Christian God. A divine Jesus is a fundamental aspect of Christianity.

He claims an experience of God. He attributes is to God of the Jews. A divine Jesus is anathema to this religion.

This isn't difficult. One of you is wrong.

I agree however, where do we go from there? I think there are answers to these questions that we need from him namely:
Does he hold it philosophically, or intellectually or out of respect for the faith of his fathers, or was it revealed to him directly by God or one of his agents, which agent and how was the message transmitted if that is the case and indeed received......or indeed any combination or all of these?

I confess to being a bit surprised that you haven't broached these questions of him and that, for me, gives me doubt as to you wanting resolution or even further debate.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I agree however, where do we go from there? I think there are answers to these questions that we need from him namely:
Does he hold it philosophically, or intellectually or out of respect for the faith of his fathers, or was it revealed to him directly by God or one of his agents, which agent and how was the message transmitted if that is the case and indeed received......or indeed any combination or all of these?

I confess to being a bit surprised that you haven't broached these questions of him and that, for me, gives me doubt as to you wanting resolution or even further debate.

I have just told you. He has an experience of God. For him it is the Jewish God.

I have had many discussion with him over the years. Similar ones to the one we are having. He believes he is in a relationship with God and it is the Jewish one. He can't give me answer to the question of how do you know you are not mistaken either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have just told you. He has an experience of God. For him it is the Jewish God.

I have had many discussion with him over the years. Similar ones to the one we are having. He believes he is in a relationship with God and it is the Jewish one. He can't give me answer to the question of how do you know you are not mistaken either.

OK then I'm going to have have to push an alternative just to chivvy things on.

Your friend has had an experience of God but has intellectually developed in a Jewish philosophical tradition and has hung on to both.

Christian converts come from other philosophical traditions but have an experience of God as or in Christ. Any previous philosophical tradition which says Jesus is just a man is at odds with the experience.

[Gordon]

C'mon Vlad - Stephen's friend is making his claim on the same basis as yours, which results in different views of the divinity of Jesus. Now, and putting aside the risk that you both might be wrong, on what basis should we favour your claim over that of Stephen's friend?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

OK then I'm going to have have to push an alternative just to chivvy things on.

Your friend has had an experience of God but has intellectually developed in a Jewish philosophical tradition and has hung on to both.

Christian converts come from other philosophical traditions but have an experience of God as or in Christ. Any previous philosophical tradition which says Jesus is just a man is at odds with the experience.

So now you have to resort to lying about other peoples views in order to sure up you faith, because you are saying only converts can have a genuine sure fire experience guaranteed to be without error.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

OK then I'm going to have have to push an alternative just to chivvy things on.

The only thing that needs chivvying is you.

How can tell between mutually exclusive claims when they are based on personal experience?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

C'mon Vlad - Stephen's friend is making his claim on the same basis as yours, which results in different views of the divinity of Jesus. Now, and putting aside the risk that you both might be wrong, on what basis should we favour your claim over that of Stephen's friend?

Not going to happen is it. He can't accept that people can have genuine religious experiences that are just as fervently held but are mutually exclusive to his because he would have to admit that personal experience is not a useful method for determining the objective truth of the religious claims.