The Kirk are doing it better

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Well maybe you and ad and his ilk should take it out in the car park or something.

I have done so, on many an occasion on here, but I will do it my way, I am not jaded enough to think there is no hope, little steps, if I can make other Christians at least think about the points I make, but we are a very diverse lot, and I am not big headed enough to think I am a 100% right.

Anyways, you're an exemplar I think of a nice guy who's taken the nice bits from a "holy" book and decided that they're the bits "God" really meant;

Well you and Berational may be right, I could be just picking up on all the good bits, for me, but I think what I am doing is trying to find the truth ( yes I could be deluding myself ).

But I think I am a bit more open about what I am trying to find, I hold no allegiance to any Church, I can wander off and find wisdom in any religion, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, hell even Atheism ( steady ) but Christianity is my home, I always return home.

So you can call me deluded, or that my confirmation bias is in overdrive, but I will search for the truth my way, and not because some Church tells me this is how you should think.

Gonnagle.

[Robbie]

Gonnagle - "I will search for the truth my way, and not because some Church tells me this is how you should think".

Hear hear!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

I have done so, on many an occasion on here, but I will do it my way, I am not jaded enough to think there is no hope, little steps, if I can make other Christians at least think about the points I make, but we are a very diverse lot, and I am not big headed enough to think I am a 100% right.

Why do I keep getting the image here of Alan Bates and Oliver Reed wrestling naked in “Women in Love”?

(Incidentally, it’s an interesting position to believe yourself to be 100% right about the statement “God” but less than 100% certain about what this god thinks or wants. If you accept you could be wrong about the latter, what’s the point of believing in the former?)

Well you and Berational may be right, I could be just picking up on all the good bits, for me, but I think what I am doing is trying to find the truth ( yes I could be deluding myself ).

With respect, what I think you’re finding is validation for your truth. Thing is though, so are ad, Spud etc.

But I think I am a bit more open about what I am trying to find, I hold no allegiance to any Church, I can wander off and find wisdom in any religion, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, hell even Atheism ( steady ) but Christianity is my home, I always return home.

Oi! You seem to have omitted bluehillsideism! 

“Home” is informative here – the faith you encountered (or some might say, that got to you) first.

So you can call me deluded…

Heaven forfend! “Honestly mistaken” is as far as I’d dare venture there.

…or that my confirmation bias is in overdrive…

Perhaps. It certainly appears that your “world view” (copyright: Sword of the Irrational) is to be open-hearted and generous, and that the bits of a book you think to be holy that reflect that appeal to you most therefore. The risk I think though is to reverse that process by thinking that the book itself provides your morality rather than just selectively mirrors it.   

…but I will search for the truth my way, and not because some Church tells me this is how you should think.

And I wish you well in the venture.

[Anchorman]

Gonnagle - "I will search for the truth my way, and not because some Church tells me this is how you should think". Hear hear!

- One of the reasons I've stuck with the Kirk through thick and thin overthirty years is that it does not impose belief on anyone. However, those seeking ordination or being 'set apart' as readers are asked, as part of their commitment, to subscribe to the 'formula' - a simple declaration of faith in the central doctrine of the CofS and the governance by presbyterian priinciples (that last bit took a bit of teeth grinding on my part.) Those not seeking ordination don't have to agree with anyjhing they hear from the pulpit....though if they were committed to Christ, surely they would subscribe to the central doctrine of the denomination of their choice?

[Robbie]

I do understand that Anchorman. You either abide by the basic tenets (as far as you can), or get out. That's one of the reasons why I (& it seems Gonnagle too),cannot commit myself to a church though I like a lot about many churches.

I'm sure you find all that difficult at times but it is the same in lots of 'callings'. The rules cannot be bent for individuals.

Things may change in the CofS in the future.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Perhaps. It certainly appears that your “world view” (copyright: Sword of the Irrational) is to be open-hearted and generous, and that the bits of a book you think to be holy that reflect that appeal to you most therefore. The risk I think though is to reverse that process by thinking that the book itself provides your morality rather than just selectively mirrors it.   

My World view, I struggle with that term, but I suppose my world view is somewhere between Karen Armstrong and Christianity, the first gives me a broader context to examine the second, Karen is no fan of Christianity but  her credentials when it comes to theology and its history are second to none.

It was that good lady who gave me a starting point to examine the Gospels, The first and second greatest Commandments, although she did not attribute this to Our Lord but some Rabbi who was asked to recite the whole of the Torah standing on one foot, his answer was, Love thy Neighbour, the rest is just add on.

So that is where I start when examining the Gospels or any other part of the Holy Bible, or anyone else's Holy book, if I read the Gospels and it does not marry with the second Greatest Commandment I chuck it out, why? because Our Lord tells me to.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jim,

- One of the reasons I've stuck with the Kirk through thick and thin overthirty years is that it does not impose belief on anyone. However, those seeking ordination or being 'set apart' as readers are asked, as part of their commitment, to subscribe to the 'formula' - a simple declaration of faith in the central doctrine of the CofS and the governance by presbyterian priinciples (that last bit took a bit of teeth grinding on my part.) Those not seeking ordination don't have to agree with anyjhing they hear from the pulpit....though if they were committed to Christ, surely they would subscribe to the central doctrine of the denomination of their choice?

One of the main reasons I don't go about beating my fellow Christians over the head ( well maybe the Fundamentals ) is that I see the great work the Churches do, without them this country would be in a right state, the CoE, CoS, Salvation army, Barnado's are out on the streets helping the less fortunate, without them our health service would go belly up, of course the Church does not shout this from the roof tops and its detractors kind of gloss over this very noble work.

So more power to you Jim and to your Church but you have a long road ahead to fully encompass all of Gods children.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

My World view, I struggle with that term…

So would anyone daft enough to think it’s a reliable guide to objective truths, but in the sense of “how I feel about things” it’s OK I think.

…but I suppose my world view is somewhere between Karen Armstrong and Christianity, the first gives me a broader context to examine the second, Karen is no fan of Christianity but  her credentials when it comes to theology and its history are second to none.

I’ll take your word for that. I have to say though that when I’ve heard her on t’wireless I’ve felt the need to throw something hard when she’s made unsustainable jumps in reasoning.

It was that good lady who gave me a starting point to examine the Gospels, The first and second greatest Commandments, although she did not attribute this to Our Lord but some Rabbi who was asked to recite the whole of the Torah standing on one foot, his answer was, Love thy Neighbour, the rest is just add on.

Sounds like the Golden Rule to me, which is fine. Reciprocal altruism is an evolutionarily advantageous strategy, so it’s hardly a surprise that our and other species practice it.

So that is where I start when examining the Gospels or any other part of the Holy Bible, or anyone else's Holy book, if I read the Gospels and it does not marry with the second Greatest Commandment I chuck it out, why?

Dunno.

… because Our Lord tells me to.

NOOOOO! You do yourself a disservice here. You’re bringing your character to the table here – you’re “God” for this purpose. You don’t need to be told that at all, and that you’ve found something in a book that corroborates what you think anyway is nice but unnecessary.   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

I’ll take your word for that. I have to say though that when I’ve heard her on t’wireless I’ve felt the need to throw something hard when she’s made unsustainable jumps in reasoning.

Fair enough, but when the UN or world dignitaries seek her out to ask her advice on all things theological, then I would think that is evidence she knows a thing or two, add to that the big guns of atheism, the more vocal, the celebs, Vlads pal being one in question refuse to debate with her, you could say they can't be bothered, but the evidence points to the effect, Karen would run rings round them.

I would go further and ask any atheist to at least try one of her books, two small ones come to mind, A Short History of Myth and In The Beginning, A New Interpretation of Genesis, your good self could devour both in a afternoon, no preaching involved in any of those books, just reason backed up by fact.

NOOOOO! You do yourself a disservice here. You’re bringing your character to the table here – you’re “God” for this purpose. You don’t need to be told that at all, and that you’ve found something in a book that corroborates what you think anyway is nice but unnecessary.   

I am a Christian, it's how I work, something else you don't know, two things sustain me in life, my faith and my sense of humour, both very precious.

Gonnagle.

[ad_orientem]

For me the Church is necessary. It's ark without which we all drown in the flood.

[floo]

For me the Church is necessary. It's ark without which we all drown in the flood.

What does that mean?

[ad_orientem]

What does that mean?

That the Church with its sacraments is necessary for salvation.

[floo]

That the Church with its sacraments is necessary for salvation.

How silly!

[ad_orientem]

How silly!

Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Fair enough, but when the UN or world dignitaries seek her out to ask her advice on all things theological, then I would think that is evidence she knows a thing or two, add to that the big guns of atheism, the more vocal, the celebs, Vlads pal being one in question refuse to debate with her, you could say they can't be bothered, but the evidence points to the effect, Karen would run rings round them.

Depends what the debate would be about I guess. If it's "who knows more facts about the Bible" or some such, you could well be right – though as an aside I have to say that often it's the "new" atheists who seem to know more of the content of the holy books than the theists they debate. On the other hand, if they wanted to go to the premises on which religious beliefs rest then on the basis of what I've heard her say I'm not so sure she'd have much to bring to the table.

I would go further and ask any atheist to at least try one of her books, two small ones come to mind, A Short History of Myth and In The Beginning, A New Interpretation of Genesis, your good self could devour both in a afternoon, no preaching involved in any of those books, just reason backed up by fact.

Well perhaps I should. Is there perhaps something online she's written that would precis the basic arguments do you know?

I am a Christian, it's how I work, something else you don't know, two things sustain me in life, my faith and my sense of humour, both very precious.

Actually I did infer that at least, and inasmuch as these things "sustain" you that's no-one's business but your own. I merely suggest though that you don't need to be "told" by a deity how to behave well. You do that all on your own, as I hope do I.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Why?

Presumably because there's there's no cogent logic to suggest that there is such a thing as "salvation", let alone that any particular faith tradition has access to the right procedures and supplications to get you there. If you want to believe that nonetheless as a matter of personal faith, that's no-one's business but your own. When you assert it as a truth for others though then you fall at the first hurdle of reification.

[ad_orientem]

ad,

Presumably because there's there's no cogent logic to suggest that there is such a thing as "salvation", let alone that any particular faith tradition has access to the right procedures and supplications to get you there. If you want to believe that nonetheless as a matter of personal faith, that's no-one's business but your own. When you assert it as a truth for others though then you fall at the first hurdle of reification.

I suspect that's not what Floo meant at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

I suspect that's not what Floo meant at all.

Well, there's no way for either of us to tell. If you're only interested though in why Floo specifically thinks it silly rather than why others might then I guess you'll have to wait for her to share her thinking.

[floo]

Why?

The idea that Church and sacraments could save anyone from anything!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here’s the thing though. Like some others here you believe in something you call “God”, and you believe that this god’s various doings and rules are inerrantly written in some books. Now some Christians here seem to be pretty certain that these “supreme” rules prohibit equal marriage, or indeed indulging in the love that dare not speak it’s name at all. You though take a contrary position.

From a theological perspective, what then makes you right and them wrong?

Mr B

That's fair and probably deserves more than our usual ''Gunfight at the OK corral'' type exchange.

Straight off though I'm thinking this. Couldn't the same question be asked of someone like yourself, who has a deep understanding and commitment to the term and sentiments of ''equal marriage'', and another atheist who doesn't.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Depends what the debate would be about I guess. If it's "who knows more facts about the Bible" or some such, you could well be right – though as an aside I have to say that often it's the "new" atheists who seem to know more of the content of the holy books than the theists they debate. On the other hand, if they wanted to go to the premises on which religious beliefs rest then on the basis of what I've heard her say I'm not so sure she'd have much to bring to the table.

Bible, Quran, The Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib ( I hope I have them spelt properly ) she studies all religions in depth, all her books are backed up by in depth research.

On the other hand, if they wanted to go to the premises on which religious beliefs rest then on the basis of what I've heard her say I'm not so sure she'd have much to bring to the table.

She will take you on a journey from when man first started showing signs of believing in a afterlife and why, she is not out to convert, just educate.

Well perhaps I should. Is there perhaps something online she's written that would precis the basic arguments do you know?

Well I can help on one of her arguments, The Myth, do you have a favourite book of fiction, but that book must take you out of yourself, must make you think deeply about the human condition, must make you reflect.

Gonnagle.

[Robbie]

I suspect that's not what Floo meant at all.

I suspect the same but you don't seem to have very well thought out intelligent arguments so it's the pot calling the kettle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's fair and probably deserves more than our usual ''Gunfight at the OK corral'' type exchange.

Straight off though I'm thinking this. Couldn't the same question be asked of someone like yourself, who has a deep understanding and commitment to the term and sentiments of ''equal marriage'', and another atheist who doesn't.

First, all that would give you is a tu quoque – it deflects from the question rather than engages with it.

Second though, no: however deep my commitment to equality, I’m quite open at least to the possibility that one day someone may come up with an argument that makes me change my mind about that. By contrast, if I think an omniscient god has had his instructions on the matter accurately recorded in a book, on what basis could I apply mere logic to falsify “Him”?

That’s the point. You and other think that divine, inerrant rules are written in a book yet you come up with opposite positions on the same question. As your rationale (“faith”) is the same though, where do you go from there?

[ad_orientem]

The idea that Church and sacraments could save anyone from anything!

If you believe Christ, at least, then yes. I am the way etc and John 3 and 6 concerning baptism and the eucharist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Bible, Quran, The Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib ( I hope I have them spelt properly ) she studies all religions in depth, all her books are backed up by in depth research.

No doubt, but what you’re describing here is a sort of very good RE teacher. Dawkins, Dennett et al would have no problem with that. Indeed they’re all for teaching about religious beliefs as important socio-cultural phenomena. That though says nothing about whether the claims of any of these books and faiths are actually true

She will take you on a journey from when man first started showing signs of believing in a afterlife and why, she is not out to convert, just educate.

Again, no doubt. And an interesting journey it would be too.

Well I can help on one of her arguments, The Myth, do you have a favourite book of fiction, but that book must take you out of yourself, must make you think deeply about the human condition, must make you reflect.

I can think of several. None of them though make claims of objective facts about the world in the way the religious texts tend to. Why then do you think them to be analogous?