Progressive Christianity

[ad_orientem]

I thought the Reformation was an exercise in a rejection of religious despotism that went against the word of the NT.

No. It was Iconoclasm raising its ugly head again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Reformation, which was essentially an exercise in rationalism, throwing the baby out with the bathwater led to the Enlightenment > Modernism > Atheism.

Not sure about people being atheists because of somebody elses churchmanship or heterodoxy.

[Jack Knave]

No. It was Iconoclasm raising its ugly head again.

Again?

You're going to have to explain to me what the big deal of Icons is. You surely can  understand why they rebelled against such things and the way that they were used etc. in the Catholic church in those days.

[Jack Knave]

Not sure about people being atheists because of somebody elses churchmanship or heterodoxy.

To understand that you have to throw in the growth of science and rationalism etc.

[Nearly Sane]

So nothing causes nothing else. They just randomly jump into existence do they?

No, and lovely strawnan.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To understand that you have to throw in the growth of science and rationalism etc.

I don't understand why science should promote atheism when, as we are about to find I think, the British have not been into science for ages, not many have wanted to be scientists and have merely enjoyed it's consumer products as diverting toys from a true and rounded intellectual life......and that includes diversion from an actual understanding of science.

As far as rationalism and the GBP is concerned.......Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha He He He He He Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho.......

[ad_orientem]

Again?

You're going to have to explain to me what the big deal of Icons is. You surely can  understand why they rebelled against such things and the way that they were used etc. in the Catholic church in those days.

I'm using the term "Iconoclasm" in a much broader sense here but it's essentially the same mentality. The Iconoclasts sought to strip the churches of religious imagery. Protestantism sought to strip the faith to its bare essentials, though quite who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't is another matter, though related of course. It was an application of rationalism which ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not saying that the reformers didn't have any legitimate grievances. At the very least the Pope had become a tyrant. Not only did he claim to have universal jurisdiction over the whole Church but he also claimed to be a secular king. What really happened was everybody ended up being their own pope, their own little tyrant. Indeed, some of the worst acts that happened during the Reformation occurred between rival Protestant sects. They jumped out of the frying pan straight into the fire. All they had to do was look East, but the East had become a mere distant memory in the mind of the West. I think Melanchthon did go and see the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople though, thinking that the Reformer's rejection of the papacy would automatically endear them to the Patriarch, but Melanchthon was promptly told to get on his bike.

[bluehillside Retd.]

lad,

I don't understand why science should promote atheism...

It doesn't. Science is indifferent to religious beliefs. What it does do though is to provide more cogent explanations for many phenomena that previously were explained by "god did it".

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

It was an application of rationalism which ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

What baby?

[ad_orientem]

ad,

What baby?

The faith of the Apostles.

[Anchorman]

No. It was Iconoclasm raising its ugly head again.

-
Not entirely.
It was also a reaction to the corrupt nature of the relations between church and state (especially in my country) Destruction of statuary and junking of relics was an added extra.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

The faith of the Apostles.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that answer. I'm familiar with the term, but rationalism finds more cogent answers than the superstitious ones that precede it. What baby was thrown out by that? 

[ad_orientem]

ad,

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that answer. I'm familiar with the term, but rationalism finds more cogent answers than the superstitious ones that precede it. What baby was thrown out by that?

I've already gone into this. By attempting to strip the faith down to its bare essentials through their contempt of tradition (their rationale being they were ridding the faith of useless accretions) they ended up rejecting much of the faith itself, even things approved by the college of bishops under the Holy Spirit. In reality all they did was act on personal whim.

[floo]

I've already gone into this. By attempting to strip the faith down to its bare essentials through their contempt of tradition (their rationale being they were ridding the faith of useless accretions) they ended up rejecting much of the faith itself, even things approved by the college of bishops under the Holy Spirit. In reality all they did was act on personal whim.

One should utter contempt and rejection of a faith, which has permitted and turned a blind eye to all the evil done in its name over the centuries.

[ad_orientem]

One should utter contempt and rejection of a faith, which has permitted and turned a blind eye to all the evil done in its name over the centuries.

Zzzz! You're such a bore, floo.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

I've already gone into this. By attempting to strip the faith down to its bare essentials through their contempt of tradition (their rationale being they were ridding the faith of useless accretions) they ended up rejecting much of the faith itself, even things approved by the college of bishops under the Holy Spirit. In reality all they did was act on personal whim.

Several problems there:

First, rationalism didn't "attempt to strip faith down to its bare essentials" at all. Insofar as it considered faith at all it examined the arguments for its claims of fact and found the wanting, and for the most part it was concerned rather with finding out how things actually worked.

Second, any "contempt" was for bad arguments for faith. That faith in general suffered from that was a consequence.

Third, you seem to think that "things approved by the college of bishops" should be immune from enquiry and challenge. What if they were wrong?

Fourth, you've a assumed a "Holy Spirit" - essentially the fallacy of reification.

Fifth, why would you think enquiry and reason that led to discoveries like electricity and functional medicines were a matter of "personal whim" rather than an honest and remarkably successful attempt better to understand the world?   

[ad_orientem]

ad,

Several problems there:

First, rationalism didn't "attempt to strip faith down to its bare essentials" at all. Insofar as it considered faith at all it examined the arguments for its claims of fact and found the wanting, and for the most part it was concerned rather with finding out how things actually worked.

Second, any "contempt" was for bad arguments for faith. That faith in general suffered from that was a consequence.

Third, you seem to think that "things approved by the college of bishops" should be immune from enquiry and challenge. What if they were wrong?

Fourth, you've a assumed a "Holy Spirit" - essentially the fallacy of reification.

Fifth, why would you think enquiry and reason that led to discoveries like electricity and functional medicines were a matter of "personal whim" rather than an honest and remarkably successful attempt better to understand the world?

You seem to be somewhat confused and assuming that rationalism can only be applied in one way, that is, by questioning the very basis of faith rather than a method by which one may also decipher the faith. Both are acts of rationalism, even if one takes faith as granted and the other doesn't. With regards to the Reformers their rationalism was that if something is not directly found in the scriptures then it is not necessary for salvation. That is a rationalism.

[floo]

Zzzz! You're such a bore, floo.

So are you dear, as your church has clearly brainwashed you into using thought processes, which are far from rational.

[Enki]

No, and lovely strawnan.

I'll have you know that my nan was never made out of straw.

[Nearly Sane]

I'll have you know that my nan was never made out of straw.

gets stuck in your teeth when eaten with the tikka masala

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

You seem to be somewhat confused and assuming that rationalism can only be applied in one way, that is, by questioning the very basis of faith rather than a method by which one may also decipher the faith.

Nope.

First, axiomatically rationalism can only be applied in one way – rationally! Either the argument is rationally sound or it isn’t.

Second, you have this odd notion that rationalism concerns itself with faith. It doesn’t. When someone of faith thinks he has a rational argument to validate or demonstrate his faith (ie, he wants to play in rationalism's turf which, as NS tells us, is an odd notion to start with given that rationalism is itself a naturalistic concept, but anyways…) then the tools of rationalism can be brought to bear. So far as I’m aware all such arguments so far have failed, but you never know.

Third, I don’t know what your choice of faith happens to be (though I know it’s not RC) but I was struck by a catholic cleric I saw interviewed before a papal visit a while back in which he positively abjured rationalism – he rejected it as too limited in scope given his apparently superior epistemology of “faith”.

Fourth, how would you propose to use rationalism to “decipher the faith” given that it’s, you know, faith? If that was amenable to rational enquiry, wouldn’t it be logic or science or something?   

Both are acts of rationalism, even if one takes faith as granted and the other doesn't.

No, neither are. Trying to apply rationalism to matters of faith is like trying to design a building using Morris dancing. They have nothing to say to each other.

With regards to the Reformers their rationalism was that if something is not directly found in the scriptures then it is not necessary for salvation. That is a rationalism.

No it isn’t because it ignores the problems with the underlying premise. As leprechauns are by common repute musical, is it rational to think they’d take well to piano lessons?

[ad_orientem]

Gordon Bennett! Another person who doesn't understand what rationalism is as opposed to reason or being rational. They're all related to some degree, of course, but there are subtle differences.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Gordon Bennett! Another person who doesn't understand what rationalism is as opposed to reason or being rational. They're all related to some degree, of course, but there are subtle differences.

How do you think this helps you? If you want to talk about "capital R" Rationalism, then say so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

lad,

It doesn't. Science is indifferent to religious beliefs. What it does do though is to provide more cogent explanations for many phenomena that previously were explained by "god did it".

Bad

Science doesn't do God.
Also not all religion is failed science and let's not forget that even with the most cogent scientific explanation, God could still have done it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Bad

Science doesn't do God.
Also not all religion is failed science and let's not forget that even with the most cogent scientific explanation, God could still have done it.

Anything "could have" done something. Are you attempting a negative proof fallacy here? It's been a while.