Protestantism

[Anchorman]

What? Because without continuity, without that link to the same people from whom we have received the scriptures, it is impossible to interpret the scriptures properly.

Nope. That's not what I said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the implication of getting annoyed at a god is that you are not an atheist. Pity Lewis was so logically incoherent about that.

And our conclusion from what you say is 1: Feelings = reason and logic?
You have no feelings and are a being of pure logic? Atheists are in denial of feelings?

[Nearly Sane]

And our conclusion from what you say is 1: Feelings = reason and logic?
You have no feelings and are a being of pure logic? Atheists are in denial of feelings?

'our' ? What odd phrasing! And then more straw than any number of wheatfields. Stop lying.

[jeremyp]

On the contrary. The rest simply are not the Church.

You mean all churches apart from the C of E are not the Church.

You have no justification for the assumption that your church is the right one.

[Robbie]

Ad_o is not a member of the CofE  .

[Shaker]

Give it time.

[Rhiannon]

Sorry but I'm waiting for ad-o's head to explode ay the suggestion he's an Anglican. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

And our conclusion from what you say is 1: Feelings = reason and logic?
You have no feelings and are a being of pure logic? Atheists are in denial of feelings?

Even for you that's a bizarre straw man (fallacy number oooonnnnneeeee!!!!!).

No-one denies "feelings" about anything. What some of us do deny though is that your personal feeling about something take you not one step toward objective truths for anyone else.   

But you knew this already didn't you. After all, you don't find the Muslim's feelings about Allah, the Amazonian tribesman's feelings about the tree spirits, or my feelings about leprechauns to be persuasive for you either.

And your problem here is that feelings are all you have. 

[ippy]

Sorry but I'm waiting for ad-o's head to explode ay the suggestion he's an Anglican. 

Anglican, catholic, orthodox, is any one of them any better or any worse than any of the others.

Other than so many are taken in by these superstitious beliefs, how can they be of any consequence and does it really matter if ad-o's head explodes; if he chooses to take these kinds of belief seriously, well bully for him.

ippy

[Robbie]

Ad-o's head won't explode, he has a thick skin and armour plating around it!
I wish Christian people wouldn't argue amongst themselves about differences instead concentrate on what we have in common in 21st C.
Then extend the courtesy to those of non-Christian faith.
That's my ideal.

[Shaker]

Ad-o's head won't explode, he has a thick skin and armour plating around it!
I wish Christian people wouldn't argue amongst themselves about differences instead concentrate on what we have in common in 21st C.
Then extend the courtesy to those of non-Christian faith.
That's my ideal.

... and that of a great many more besides.

I always find arguments between followers of the one true faith (one of which - there are several - has 30-odd thousand denominations) rather amusing. But that's just me I guess.

[Anchorman]

Ad-o's head won't explode, he has a thick skin and armour plating around it!
I wish Christian people wouldn't argue amongst themselves about differences instead concentrate on what we have in common in 21st C.
Then extend the courtesy to those of non-Christian faith.
That's my ideal.

-
Yep. There ain't no such animal as the perfect church.
How dare Christians of whatever cloth we're cut limit what God in His Holy Spirit does in His church?
We may not agree 100% doctrinally, but we recognise that, whereever the Gospel is preached, the actions of Christ practised in deed as well as word, and love toward everyone, regardless of race or creed, is shown (hard though that is), that's church, or should be.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

Yep. There ain't no such animal as the perfect church.

Yes, though Jainism for example seems to me to be one of the least bad. Maybe should should give it a look?

Either way though, the danger here is that you conflate the effect of various churches with the truthfulness of their claims - i.e., the argumentum ad consequentiam. 

How dare Christians of whatever cloth we're cut limit what God in His Holy Spirit does in His church?

I'm not sure what cloth your faith is cut from, but presumably it too does that doesn't it, or does anything go?

We may not agree 100% doctrinally, but we recognise that, whereever the Gospel is preached, the actions of Christ practised in deed as well as word...

Well, there seem to be lots of references to the (alleged) words of Jesus in the Gospels being pretty unpleasant too - loyalty to your family over loyalty to him being a no-no for example, which seems to me redolent of the David Koresh style of messiah complex but ok... 

...and love toward everyone, regardless of race or creed, is shown (hard though that is), that's church, or should be.

Now here we agree more or less (I'd be less loving than you would towards, say, a child abuser perhaps) but I'm not sure that we need a "holy" text to tell us so do we?   

[jeremyp]

Ad_o is not a member of the CofE  .

I know. But he has never given any reason why his specific church is the One True Church so I picked a different one to make the point.

[ad_orientem]

I know. But he has never given any reason why his specific church is the One True Church so I picked a different one to make the point.

I have plenty of times.

[floo]

I have plenty of times.

But none that are credible.

[Robbie]

I have plenty of times.

You haven't really explained in any way that gives detail & you explain with no feeling. There is so much beauty in Orthodoxy which I feel you have not conveyed Ad_o, could be because of your own 'no-nonsense' personality but there are sites to which you could link.

[floo]

You haven't really explained in any way that gives detail & you explain with no feeling. There is so much beauty in Orthodoxy which I feel you have not conveyed Ad_o, could be because of your own 'no-nonsense' personality but there are sites to which you could link.

Beauty? I can think of a lot of things to describe it, but beauty isn't one of them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

I have plenty of times.

I hesitate to say, "no you haven't" in case you have done that and I didn't see it, but I have no idea what those reasons might be.

You've referenced things like the continuity of the narratives, though that would tell you nothing about the accuracy or otherwise of the original stories, and nor would it distinguish your faith from faiths with stories just as continuous - indeed sometimes more ancient than the one you prefer. What then makes your faith either "true" or qualitatively more true than other faiths? 

[Rhiannon]

You haven't really explained in any way that gives detail & you explain with no feeling. There is so much beauty in Orthodoxy which I feel you have not conveyed Ad_o, could be because of your own 'no-nonsense' personality but there are sites to which you could link.

Like its attitude to women. Or gay people. Or Jewish people. Or not.

Unless of course they are just ad-o's personal prejudices dressed up as Orthodoxy.

Still, the iconography is nice. And the music.

[ippy]

-
Yep. There ain't no such animal as the perfect church.
How dare Christians of whatever cloth we're cut limit what God in His Holy Spirit does in His church?
We may not agree 100% doctrinally, but we recognise that, whereever the Gospel is preached, the actions of Christ practised in deed as well as word, and love toward everyone, regardless of race or creed, is shown (hard though that is), that's church, or should be.

Yep. There ain't no such animal as the perfect church.

Such as trying to further belief in stuff for which there's supporting evidence, no, until they find some viable evidence, they're inclined to look a little less than perfect, especially in the magical, mystical and superstition based parts thereof. 

ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

However you seem to not have answered my reservations of the word dystheism in the context of Lewis or the implications of Lewis showing that one can be an atheist and feel a grudge against God for not being there......

All Lewis showed (in a sentence of grammatical nonsense one would not expect from an Oxford professor) is that he was hopelessly confused about his position. He was emotionally honest in stating that he was 'angry', but to state that he was 'angry with God for not existing' shows a boneheadedness that I would have thought was obvious to anyone reading the sentence (and there are plenty more examples of boneheadness in "Surprised by Joy".)

It's quite simple. Had he said "I was angry because I realised that God did not exist", that would have been a meaningful statement. But to be angry with something you've decided does not exist shows a contempt for reason (and the English language) of no common order.

[Dicky Underpants]

... and that of a great many more besides.

I always find arguments between followers of the one true faith (one of which - there are several - has 30-odd thousand denominations) rather amusing. But that's just me I guess.

No, not just you. We may not agree on vegetarianism, but I can assure you, I share your sentiments on this

[Dicky Underpants]

Beauty? I can think of a lot of things to describe it, but beauty isn't one of them.

I'm trying to be objective here. Until recently, you didn't seem to know the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Have you intensively researched Orthodoxy's whole cultural legacy? I'm totally at one with Rhiannon's reservations about its misogyny, antisemitism and homophobia. But she also mentioned its iconography and music. I suppose the music would never mean much to you, since you've admitted to being tone-deaf. But the artistic legacy does something to counterbalance the nastiness of some of Orthodoxy's other manifestations.

I say this, knowing that no amount of 'culture' can totally wipe out the horrors perpetrated by certain regimes. It is well known that some Nazi concentration camp guards went home to listen to Mozart after a hard day policing the gas-chambers.
Over-the-top comparison? Have the Orthodox Church ever revoked their designation of Jews as "Christ-killers"?

[ad_orientem]

They're still refered to as the "muderers of God" in our Good Friday liturgy.