Stand up and be counted?
Stand up and be counted?
I would just like to say I have found this thread both enjoyable and informative. I'd better lay me cards on the table - I am an atheist, but I'm receptive to ideas and opinions from the other side of the fence.
Stand up and be counted?
memebias wrote: I would just like to say I have found this thread both enjoyable and informative. I'd better lay me cards on the table - I am an atheist, but I'm receptive to ideas and opinions from the other side of the fence.
Thanks for checking in, mem. I am not trying to convert you; I suspect that Ted is not either, but I'll let him speak for himself.
I can only say that I have always found atheism untenable because by denying the existance of a higher power one leaves open the question of 'what it all means', why the universe is here and why we are here.
At the same time, I admit that none of the answers to this question FROM EITHER SIDE are entirely satisfactory.
Thanks for checking in, mem. I am not trying to convert you; I suspect that Ted is not either, but I'll let him speak for himself.
I can only say that I have always found atheism untenable because by denying the existance of a higher power one leaves open the question of 'what it all means', why the universe is here and why we are here.
At the same time, I admit that none of the answers to this question FROM EITHER SIDE are entirely satisfactory.
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen wrote:
I can only say that I have always found atheism untenable because by denying the existance of a higher power one leaves open the question of 'what it all means', why the universe is here and why we are here.
At the same time, I admit that none of the answers to this question FROM EITHER SIDE are entirely satisfactory.
Thanks for the welcome Bronwen, much appreciated. As to the meaning of life, this presupposes there is one.
I can only say that I have always found atheism untenable because by denying the existance of a higher power one leaves open the question of 'what it all means', why the universe is here and why we are here.
At the same time, I admit that none of the answers to this question FROM EITHER SIDE are entirely satisfactory.
Thanks for the welcome Bronwen, much appreciated. As to the meaning of life, this presupposes there is one.
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: 1. Re my comment on Ratzinger--from a newspaper article but can't remember which one. Sorry about that. Old Timers I guess.
2. I do think that perhaps we will disagree on the "Church". My understanding is that the church is not a building nor a groups of bishops etc but all Christians for the the body of Christ which is all the faithful.
3. In the very early church bishops were nothing more them administrators in individual churches.
4a. Why did a lot of folks not complain to the authorities? Bresslen answers that. First of all it was the Church so you complain to the diocese (they got coverup) You hope your church will do the right thing. Secondly when they did the Priest denied the allegations.
4b. It was not an easy task taking on the church when the likes of Law helped the pedophiles disappear.
5. I must take issue with one thing, the difference between "politics" and "Doctrine". I don't believe that one can divorce doctrine, politics and personal responsitility. For me that is a cop out. Christinity is a way of life. Dogma and doctrine are purely manmade rules. Chrisitianity as a way of life means that your whole life, your whole being is committed to following in the steps of the master, one Yeshua of Nazareth.
6. It seems to me that can produce the most beautiful doctrine etc. in the world but if you are a pedophile then your doctrine is tainted.
7. In fact if the church supports you it too is committing an error.
8. I do not believe for one moment that the church is without error, any church. Nor do I accept that the pope is infallible in any thing including doctrine.
9. My belief is that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and He has given us the Holy Spirit to guide that church.
10. We should look at the term catholic=universal. There are many churches that consider themselves "Catholic" just not of the Roman flavor
11. I should add that I personally know several priests who believe the church is in error and has been for hundreds of years. They live in the hope that some day it will change
12. Bronwen, one of the hallmarks of my life and career has been truthfulness. I can live no other way.1. Well, I have lived in Germany for six years, though at the opposite end of the country from Ratzinger. I'm currently on sabbatical in the US but will return to Germany in April. There is no such scandal in Germany; I have no doubt that similar cases have occurred there from time to time, but I have never seen evidence, nor have there been reports of any cover-up such as occurred in the US, therefore it's hard to imagine under what circumstances Ratzinger would have made any such statement. I can't deny it, of course, I'd just like to know the context.
Speaking more generally, though, if such an incident occurs, and the victim and/or his/her family agree to let the Church handle it internally, I don't have a problem with that so long as the offender is not placed in a postion where further offences might take place (e.g. he could be sent to a monastery). In this regard it is well to remember that under the USA's system of justice, the alleged offender is presumed to be innocent until convicted beyond reasonable doubt, and under no circumstances is he required to admit guilt or testify against himself. So in such cases, where the external evidence is weak, handling it internally might be the better choice. If the victim agreed to this, but was unhappy at the outcome, there would be nothing to prevent the victim from filing civil charges anyway.
2. Absolutely correct. Our only dispute here is who constitutes the 'faithful'. 'Faithful' to Christ and His earhly successors or faithful to the so-called 'reformers' and their errors?
3. The key words here are 'very early', and in that context you are correct. That would have been while some of the apostles and other of Jesus' contemporaries were still living. But that a more formal hierarchy developed in the second century AD is well documented.
4a. Well, again, I am uncomfortable with this thread because we are flopping back and forth between Church history and the abuse scandal. I'm very happy to discuss either but it would be more orderly to do so separately.
Breslin is entitled to his opinions and his 'take' on the situation, but I'm not sure that his viewpoint as you characterize it here is well thought out. Going back to no. 1, if the victims or their families didn't like the way the Church handled it, at that point they should have gone to the police. Also, if the priest claimed to be innocent, it's quite possible that he WAS innocent; in fact, of all the charges filed, my understanding is that most of them were ultimately dismissed as being without merit or credibility.
4b. The Church has no immunity from civil laws, except to a limited extent from those involving taxation, and as I noted in a previous post, no one as far as I know has filed any criminal charges against Cardinal Law. Unless that is done, we must regard him, at least from a civil standpoint, as nothing more than having used extremely poor judgment and being a very bad administrator, not in themselves crimes.
5. I agree. At the same time, an organization of a billion members requires some kind of wordly administration. Until God sees fit to send down a choir of angels to perform this function, it will be provided by human beings with human failings and limitations.
6. I'm not sure I get your meaning here. Priests are bound by vows of chastity as well as civil laws. Politicians, for example, also take oaths to serve to the best of their ability. When such promises are broken, no question that the reputation of the entire organization suffers. But such breaches are ultimately the responsibility of the offender and hardly invalidate the entire Church or the entire government.
7. You would be absolutely correct if that happened. But suggesting that the Church actually supported acts of pedophilia or similar abuse is going way too far, unless you can document it, nor has, to my knowledge, any Church official been accused of such a thing. What you seem to be suggesting here would go far beyond bad judgment and administration as we have been discussing. Can you give an example of where you think this might have happened?
8. Well, the Church's doctrine of papal infallibility is very narrow and widely misunderstood by non-Catholics. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Chruch when it makes official pronouncements regarding matters of faith and morals and pertaining to the entire Church. Such pronouncements are quite rare and are usually studied for years by the pope and the other bishops.
9. Uh...I think that's what I just said. How could the Holy Spirit guide it FALLIBLY? The HS's guidance, however, does not extend to every nuance of administration.
10. I think we discussed that previously. You are correct, but that does not include most Protestant denoms. The Anglicans/Episcopalians are notable exceptions.
11. Well, now we have gone full circle because the priest with the 'handouts' that you described earlier obviously belongs to this group. I have, at this point, given no opinion, saying only that I would like to know more. 'In error' in what sense, what sort of changes are they demanding, and by whose authority?
12. I am not questioning that, and I hope you enjoy the course, as Crossan is indeed a great theologian. You are very fortunate to have such an opportunity.
2. I do think that perhaps we will disagree on the "Church". My understanding is that the church is not a building nor a groups of bishops etc but all Christians for the the body of Christ which is all the faithful.
3. In the very early church bishops were nothing more them administrators in individual churches.
4a. Why did a lot of folks not complain to the authorities? Bresslen answers that. First of all it was the Church so you complain to the diocese (they got coverup) You hope your church will do the right thing. Secondly when they did the Priest denied the allegations.
4b. It was not an easy task taking on the church when the likes of Law helped the pedophiles disappear.
5. I must take issue with one thing, the difference between "politics" and "Doctrine". I don't believe that one can divorce doctrine, politics and personal responsitility. For me that is a cop out. Christinity is a way of life. Dogma and doctrine are purely manmade rules. Chrisitianity as a way of life means that your whole life, your whole being is committed to following in the steps of the master, one Yeshua of Nazareth.
6. It seems to me that can produce the most beautiful doctrine etc. in the world but if you are a pedophile then your doctrine is tainted.
7. In fact if the church supports you it too is committing an error.
8. I do not believe for one moment that the church is without error, any church. Nor do I accept that the pope is infallible in any thing including doctrine.
9. My belief is that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and He has given us the Holy Spirit to guide that church.
10. We should look at the term catholic=universal. There are many churches that consider themselves "Catholic" just not of the Roman flavor
11. I should add that I personally know several priests who believe the church is in error and has been for hundreds of years. They live in the hope that some day it will change
12. Bronwen, one of the hallmarks of my life and career has been truthfulness. I can live no other way.1. Well, I have lived in Germany for six years, though at the opposite end of the country from Ratzinger. I'm currently on sabbatical in the US but will return to Germany in April. There is no such scandal in Germany; I have no doubt that similar cases have occurred there from time to time, but I have never seen evidence, nor have there been reports of any cover-up such as occurred in the US, therefore it's hard to imagine under what circumstances Ratzinger would have made any such statement. I can't deny it, of course, I'd just like to know the context.
Speaking more generally, though, if such an incident occurs, and the victim and/or his/her family agree to let the Church handle it internally, I don't have a problem with that so long as the offender is not placed in a postion where further offences might take place (e.g. he could be sent to a monastery). In this regard it is well to remember that under the USA's system of justice, the alleged offender is presumed to be innocent until convicted beyond reasonable doubt, and under no circumstances is he required to admit guilt or testify against himself. So in such cases, where the external evidence is weak, handling it internally might be the better choice. If the victim agreed to this, but was unhappy at the outcome, there would be nothing to prevent the victim from filing civil charges anyway.
2. Absolutely correct. Our only dispute here is who constitutes the 'faithful'. 'Faithful' to Christ and His earhly successors or faithful to the so-called 'reformers' and their errors?
3. The key words here are 'very early', and in that context you are correct. That would have been while some of the apostles and other of Jesus' contemporaries were still living. But that a more formal hierarchy developed in the second century AD is well documented.
4a. Well, again, I am uncomfortable with this thread because we are flopping back and forth between Church history and the abuse scandal. I'm very happy to discuss either but it would be more orderly to do so separately.
Breslin is entitled to his opinions and his 'take' on the situation, but I'm not sure that his viewpoint as you characterize it here is well thought out. Going back to no. 1, if the victims or their families didn't like the way the Church handled it, at that point they should have gone to the police. Also, if the priest claimed to be innocent, it's quite possible that he WAS innocent; in fact, of all the charges filed, my understanding is that most of them were ultimately dismissed as being without merit or credibility.
4b. The Church has no immunity from civil laws, except to a limited extent from those involving taxation, and as I noted in a previous post, no one as far as I know has filed any criminal charges against Cardinal Law. Unless that is done, we must regard him, at least from a civil standpoint, as nothing more than having used extremely poor judgment and being a very bad administrator, not in themselves crimes.
5. I agree. At the same time, an organization of a billion members requires some kind of wordly administration. Until God sees fit to send down a choir of angels to perform this function, it will be provided by human beings with human failings and limitations.
6. I'm not sure I get your meaning here. Priests are bound by vows of chastity as well as civil laws. Politicians, for example, also take oaths to serve to the best of their ability. When such promises are broken, no question that the reputation of the entire organization suffers. But such breaches are ultimately the responsibility of the offender and hardly invalidate the entire Church or the entire government.
7. You would be absolutely correct if that happened. But suggesting that the Church actually supported acts of pedophilia or similar abuse is going way too far, unless you can document it, nor has, to my knowledge, any Church official been accused of such a thing. What you seem to be suggesting here would go far beyond bad judgment and administration as we have been discussing. Can you give an example of where you think this might have happened?
8. Well, the Church's doctrine of papal infallibility is very narrow and widely misunderstood by non-Catholics. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Chruch when it makes official pronouncements regarding matters of faith and morals and pertaining to the entire Church. Such pronouncements are quite rare and are usually studied for years by the pope and the other bishops.
9. Uh...I think that's what I just said. How could the Holy Spirit guide it FALLIBLY? The HS's guidance, however, does not extend to every nuance of administration.
10. I think we discussed that previously. You are correct, but that does not include most Protestant denoms. The Anglicans/Episcopalians are notable exceptions.
11. Well, now we have gone full circle because the priest with the 'handouts' that you described earlier obviously belongs to this group. I have, at this point, given no opinion, saying only that I would like to know more. 'In error' in what sense, what sort of changes are they demanding, and by whose authority?
12. I am not questioning that, and I hope you enjoy the course, as Crossan is indeed a great theologian. You are very fortunate to have such an opportunity.
Stand up and be counted?
memebias wrote: I would just like to say I have found this thread both enjoyable and informative. I'd better lay me cards on the table - I am an atheist, but I'm receptive to ideas and opinions from the other side of the fence.
Hi, and welcome to Forumgarden. Whether or not you are a practising Christian, I unreservedly welcome you to this site. Do browse around - there are scores of topics on F.G. and you don't have to get actively involved if you don't want to - like CB radio, you can just sit on the side until you feel confident enough to express an opinion. On the Christian board you will come across the regulars like Ted and others, but we too float around, visiting other boards. I hope you are happy as an atheist - there are certainly many others out there who share your opinion, including members of my own family. I personally haven't been a practising Christian for very long, so I don't get into any heavy discussions even with other Christians. Whatever you are "born" as, all I do ask is to treat your fellow man with friendship and respect - religious tolerance is what it's all about. As our Saviour said: "Love one another, as I have loved you" Peace be with you.
Hi, and welcome to Forumgarden. Whether or not you are a practising Christian, I unreservedly welcome you to this site. Do browse around - there are scores of topics on F.G. and you don't have to get actively involved if you don't want to - like CB radio, you can just sit on the side until you feel confident enough to express an opinion. On the Christian board you will come across the regulars like Ted and others, but we too float around, visiting other boards. I hope you are happy as an atheist - there are certainly many others out there who share your opinion, including members of my own family. I personally haven't been a practising Christian for very long, so I don't get into any heavy discussions even with other Christians. Whatever you are "born" as, all I do ask is to treat your fellow man with friendship and respect - religious tolerance is what it's all about. As our Saviour said: "Love one another, as I have loved you" Peace be with you.
In HIM I place my trust.
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen:-6
I failed to answer your question re Geza Vermes. He is recognized as the world's leading expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls and a Biblical scholar.
Cardinal Law did in fact send out pedophiles to other churches where they were in contact with more children. He also did not inform the authorities concerning his knowledge. This is a breach of the law. Then he is moved to Rome and continues to exercise his authority.
Priests who complain. By what authority. By their own beliefs and observations: Relationships with other churches--intercommunion which personally I don't think exists. There is only one Lord, one baptism and one faith. So there is only one communion. Paul is quite clear in Galations 23ff., the position of women in the church, the stand on homosexuality in light of modern science, theology that should have gone out with the dodo bird.
With all due respect to you I once had a dispute with a theologian. After listening to him I told him rather bluntly that I had heard two hours of churchianity and absolutely nothing of Chrisitianity. His comment, somewhat related was that "Mother church must avoid scandal at any cost". (Father Mallow) He got talking about the Anglican church and simply had no idea about what he was talking. That rather explained it all--power and control.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I failed to answer your question re Geza Vermes. He is recognized as the world's leading expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls and a Biblical scholar.
Cardinal Law did in fact send out pedophiles to other churches where they were in contact with more children. He also did not inform the authorities concerning his knowledge. This is a breach of the law. Then he is moved to Rome and continues to exercise his authority.
Priests who complain. By what authority. By their own beliefs and observations: Relationships with other churches--intercommunion which personally I don't think exists. There is only one Lord, one baptism and one faith. So there is only one communion. Paul is quite clear in Galations 23ff., the position of women in the church, the stand on homosexuality in light of modern science, theology that should have gone out with the dodo bird.
With all due respect to you I once had a dispute with a theologian. After listening to him I told him rather bluntly that I had heard two hours of churchianity and absolutely nothing of Chrisitianity. His comment, somewhat related was that "Mother church must avoid scandal at any cost". (Father Mallow) He got talking about the Anglican church and simply had no idea about what he was talking. That rather explained it all--power and control.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
memebias:-6
Welcome. I like Bronwen am not rying to convert anyone. I present ideas for discussion and debate that is all.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Welcome. I like Bronwen am not rying to convert anyone. I present ideas for discussion and debate that is all.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
six:-6
Yes I have seen that on another forum somewhere. It is interesting but I have my doubts that any court is going to come up with a difinitive answer to the qestion.
Generally the world's religious scholars have no doubts about the existence of one Yeshua of Nazareth. kSo it is not a question in academic circles.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Yes I have seen that on another forum somewhere. It is interesting but I have my doubts that any court is going to come up with a difinitive answer to the qestion.
Generally the world's religious scholars have no doubts about the existence of one Yeshua of Nazareth. kSo it is not a question in academic circles.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: 1. I failed to answer your question re Geza Vermes. He is recognized as the world's leading expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls and a Biblical scholar.
2a. Cardinal Law did in fact send out pedophiles to other churches where they were in contact with more children.
2b. He also did not inform the authorities concerning his knowledge. This is a breach of the law.
2c. Then he is moved to Rome and continues to exercise his authority.
3. Priests who complain. By what authority. By their own beliefs and observations: Relationships with other churches--intercommunion which personally I don't think exists. There is only one Lord, one baptism and one faith. So there is only one communion. Paul is quite clear in Galations 23ff., the position of women in the church, the stand on homosexuality in light of modern science, theology that should have gone out with the dodo bird.
4. With all due respect to you I once had a dispute with a theologian. After listening to him I told him rather bluntly that I had heard two hours of churchianity and absolutely nothing of Chrisitianity. His comment, somewhat related was that "Mother church must avoid scandal at any cost". (Father Mallow) He got talking about the Anglican church and simply had no idea about what he was talking. That rather explained it all--power and control.1. Thank you. I do not question Mr. Vermes' scholarship, but not having the book you cite at my disposal, I can't comment further except to say that the entire NT documents Christ's foundation of his community of believers and its early days. I'm not sure what part of that he's disputing.
2a. The problem with most discussions on this subject is they quickly seem to become circular, not going anywhere and therefore pointless. No one, as far as I know, clergy or laity, has attempted to defend Cardinal Law's errors of judgment. Neither has anyone, as far as I know, claimed or even implied that he in any direct way condoned or participated in the actual abuse.
You seemed to imply, in a previous post, that he simply re-assigned the alleged offenders without any intervening counseling, isolation, or other action appropriate to the serious nature of the accusations. I said that I didn't think that was true. I still don't think so. I think it's obvious, however, that whatever action he did take was insufficient. That is the crux of the entire scandal.
Also, it's not nearly as simple as you imply. We don't know the full story of what occurred after such accusations were made. Did the accused priest admit or deny the charges? That would make a big difference with regard to the cardinal's handling of the matter.
2b. No one, as far as I know, has formally charged that the cardinal broke any law. What is your theory that he did? You seem to be implying (and I don't want to misrepresent your position here, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that when such an accusation was made, the cardinal had an obligation to go to the police. I don't agree - that responsibility would belong to the victim and his/her family. That so many alleged victims refused to do so is highly significant.
2c. Well, Ted, we covered that before also. He no longer has any authority, except over one small parish, halfway around the world from his home.
3. You are all over the place here. Parish priests take vows of obedience to their bishops, not vows of silence. They can complain about whatever they please, and any bishop worth his salt will welcome their input. If their complaints involve the basic doctrines of the Church, they should probably withdraw from the active priesthood, or never have become priests in the first place, because those are not going to change.
4. Since I didn't hear the actual conversation I don't feel qualified to comment. As we mentioned before, the Church IS Christ, so there is really no difference between Christianity and what you call 'Churchianity' unless you're referring to the purely mundane, things like keeping the heating plant running and printing the Sunday bulletin. Priests are spiritual advisors and also administrators, but their primary purpose is to serve the needs of the faithful, and that applies to the hierarchy as well. It is a life of service, not of 'power and control'. Any young man in search of the latter should gravitate toward the business world, not the clergy.
2a. Cardinal Law did in fact send out pedophiles to other churches where they were in contact with more children.
2b. He also did not inform the authorities concerning his knowledge. This is a breach of the law.
2c. Then he is moved to Rome and continues to exercise his authority.
3. Priests who complain. By what authority. By their own beliefs and observations: Relationships with other churches--intercommunion which personally I don't think exists. There is only one Lord, one baptism and one faith. So there is only one communion. Paul is quite clear in Galations 23ff., the position of women in the church, the stand on homosexuality in light of modern science, theology that should have gone out with the dodo bird.
4. With all due respect to you I once had a dispute with a theologian. After listening to him I told him rather bluntly that I had heard two hours of churchianity and absolutely nothing of Chrisitianity. His comment, somewhat related was that "Mother church must avoid scandal at any cost". (Father Mallow) He got talking about the Anglican church and simply had no idea about what he was talking. That rather explained it all--power and control.1. Thank you. I do not question Mr. Vermes' scholarship, but not having the book you cite at my disposal, I can't comment further except to say that the entire NT documents Christ's foundation of his community of believers and its early days. I'm not sure what part of that he's disputing.
2a. The problem with most discussions on this subject is they quickly seem to become circular, not going anywhere and therefore pointless. No one, as far as I know, clergy or laity, has attempted to defend Cardinal Law's errors of judgment. Neither has anyone, as far as I know, claimed or even implied that he in any direct way condoned or participated in the actual abuse.
You seemed to imply, in a previous post, that he simply re-assigned the alleged offenders without any intervening counseling, isolation, or other action appropriate to the serious nature of the accusations. I said that I didn't think that was true. I still don't think so. I think it's obvious, however, that whatever action he did take was insufficient. That is the crux of the entire scandal.
Also, it's not nearly as simple as you imply. We don't know the full story of what occurred after such accusations were made. Did the accused priest admit or deny the charges? That would make a big difference with regard to the cardinal's handling of the matter.
2b. No one, as far as I know, has formally charged that the cardinal broke any law. What is your theory that he did? You seem to be implying (and I don't want to misrepresent your position here, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that when such an accusation was made, the cardinal had an obligation to go to the police. I don't agree - that responsibility would belong to the victim and his/her family. That so many alleged victims refused to do so is highly significant.
2c. Well, Ted, we covered that before also. He no longer has any authority, except over one small parish, halfway around the world from his home.
3. You are all over the place here. Parish priests take vows of obedience to their bishops, not vows of silence. They can complain about whatever they please, and any bishop worth his salt will welcome their input. If their complaints involve the basic doctrines of the Church, they should probably withdraw from the active priesthood, or never have become priests in the first place, because those are not going to change.
4. Since I didn't hear the actual conversation I don't feel qualified to comment. As we mentioned before, the Church IS Christ, so there is really no difference between Christianity and what you call 'Churchianity' unless you're referring to the purely mundane, things like keeping the heating plant running and printing the Sunday bulletin. Priests are spiritual advisors and also administrators, but their primary purpose is to serve the needs of the faithful, and that applies to the hierarchy as well. It is a life of service, not of 'power and control'. Any young man in search of the latter should gravitate toward the business world, not the clergy.
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen:-6
I think that we still disagree over the nature of the church.. The church is the body of all Christian people. The head of the church as I see it is Jeus as the Christ himself. I do not believe that the church, being a human institution is without error and perfect.
Being a Christian is, in my opinion, and supported by scholarship is living in a developing, transforming relationship with the Risen Lord. I need no church or priest of Bishop to come between us. It is my relation with God.
That being said I support my church because I believe there is comfort and protection in numbers. In the Anglicaln church the Archbishop of Canturbery is the titular head of the church beyond that he has no legal authority. Authority reides with the local bishops. There is no central dogma or doctrine that must be followed although generally most Anglicans tend to follow each other. Thoughwe have some differences of opinion in the ordination of women and the position of homosexual orientation..
Anglicans are free to follow their conscience as that is the last and ultimate choice in their relationship with God.
Our Eucharist is held at an open table for all baptized Christians will soon change to all whose conscience so dictates because that is how our Lord lived his life and the Wedding Feast parable is an example of a Eucharistic mean. All who will may come. I believe that anything less then a completey open table is not the Lords table but the table of the particular denomination.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think that we still disagree over the nature of the church.. The church is the body of all Christian people. The head of the church as I see it is Jeus as the Christ himself. I do not believe that the church, being a human institution is without error and perfect.
Being a Christian is, in my opinion, and supported by scholarship is living in a developing, transforming relationship with the Risen Lord. I need no church or priest of Bishop to come between us. It is my relation with God.
That being said I support my church because I believe there is comfort and protection in numbers. In the Anglicaln church the Archbishop of Canturbery is the titular head of the church beyond that he has no legal authority. Authority reides with the local bishops. There is no central dogma or doctrine that must be followed although generally most Anglicans tend to follow each other. Thoughwe have some differences of opinion in the ordination of women and the position of homosexual orientation..
Anglicans are free to follow their conscience as that is the last and ultimate choice in their relationship with God.
Our Eucharist is held at an open table for all baptized Christians will soon change to all whose conscience so dictates because that is how our Lord lived his life and the Wedding Feast parable is an example of a Eucharistic mean. All who will may come. I believe that anything less then a completey open table is not the Lords table but the table of the particular denomination.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: 1. I think that we still disagree over the nature of the church.. The church is the body of all Christian people.
2. The head of the church as I see it is Jesus as the Christ himself.
3. I do not believe that the church, being a human institution is without error and perfect.
4. Being a Christian is, in my opinion, and supported by scholarship is living in a developing, transforming relationship with the Risen Lord. I need no church or priest of Bishop to come between us. It is my relation with God.1. We don't disagree over that at all, except perhaps in matters of semantics.
2. I know of no Christian who disputes that.
3. Well, it is a divine institution (as you said in 2) with a human administration, and the administrative part is indeed imperfect.
4. This is obviously the focus of our disagreement. If you view your clergy or hierarchy as interfering with your relationship with God, then you are probably in the wrong church. I don't question that there are many non-churchgoers who regard themselves as Christians and try to follow Christ's teachings and lead their lives in the Lord's service. God bless them! But they ignore the entire history of Christianity, which is communal. The benefits of this community, or communality, are many, but the most important is the Eucharist, which Christ Himself assures us is absolutely necessary to salvation, as necessary as Baptism:John 6:53 “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. 6:54 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 6:56 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him. 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me. 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then later died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.â€ÂThis is why valid orders and valid sacraments are so important.
2. The head of the church as I see it is Jesus as the Christ himself.
3. I do not believe that the church, being a human institution is without error and perfect.
4. Being a Christian is, in my opinion, and supported by scholarship is living in a developing, transforming relationship with the Risen Lord. I need no church or priest of Bishop to come between us. It is my relation with God.1. We don't disagree over that at all, except perhaps in matters of semantics.
2. I know of no Christian who disputes that.
3. Well, it is a divine institution (as you said in 2) with a human administration, and the administrative part is indeed imperfect.
4. This is obviously the focus of our disagreement. If you view your clergy or hierarchy as interfering with your relationship with God, then you are probably in the wrong church. I don't question that there are many non-churchgoers who regard themselves as Christians and try to follow Christ's teachings and lead their lives in the Lord's service. God bless them! But they ignore the entire history of Christianity, which is communal. The benefits of this community, or communality, are many, but the most important is the Eucharist, which Christ Himself assures us is absolutely necessary to salvation, as necessary as Baptism:John 6:53 “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. 6:54 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 6:56 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him. 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me. 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then later died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.â€ÂThis is why valid orders and valid sacraments are so important.
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen:-6
I don't think that we disagree at all on community. That is vitally important in the Christian faith.
As far as the hierarchy and the sacraments go I am indeed in the correct church for me. The Anglican church recognizes that there are different interpretations of scripture but as long as the central tenets remain intact things are fine.
Any of the words in the Gospel of John attributed to Jesus are exactly the words that John attrituted to jesus. Words that John has put into the mouth of our Lord. This of course does not negate the sacraments.
You are correct I did say that the church was a Divine institution but I was referring to the people rather then the institution. Within the Anglican church we have three recognized authorities: the Bible, Church tradition and the power of reason. Our hierarchy can and does at times make errors and have to make corrections.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't think that we disagree at all on community. That is vitally important in the Christian faith.
As far as the hierarchy and the sacraments go I am indeed in the correct church for me. The Anglican church recognizes that there are different interpretations of scripture but as long as the central tenets remain intact things are fine.
Any of the words in the Gospel of John attributed to Jesus are exactly the words that John attrituted to jesus. Words that John has put into the mouth of our Lord. This of course does not negate the sacraments.
You are correct I did say that the church was a Divine institution but I was referring to the people rather then the institution. Within the Anglican church we have three recognized authorities: the Bible, Church tradition and the power of reason. Our hierarchy can and does at times make errors and have to make corrections.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: Any of the words in the Gospel of John attributed to Jesus are exactly the words that John attrituted to jesus. Words that John has put into the mouth of our Lord. But, carrying that position to its logical conclusion, you are more or less negating the entire NT. Possibly the entire Bible.
Aren't you?
Why single out John?
Aren't you?
Why single out John?
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen:-6
Actually it neither denigrates nor makes the Bible into nothing. The Bible becomes for Christians the Word of God because God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible. The Bible is indeed a very important book for Christians. However, we must learn to accept it for what it is. It is not the literal, inerrant, dectated word of God. It is man's experiences of the Divine.
I just used John as an example. Let me put it this way 85% of the words in the Bible attibuted to Jesus are nothing more then the words of the eveangelist put into the mouth of Jesus. This does not mean that they do not present profound truths. The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, theology, philosophy, a little bit of history scattered throughout and no science.
However something does not have to be historically true to present profound truths. That is precisely what the Bible does. A good dealof it is misrashic which is a style of writing of the Ancient Hebrews and has an entirely different meaning today.
Indeed the Bible is one of th eauthorities of the church but one must apply reason and the Guidance of the Holy Spirit to its interpretation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Actually it neither denigrates nor makes the Bible into nothing. The Bible becomes for Christians the Word of God because God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible. The Bible is indeed a very important book for Christians. However, we must learn to accept it for what it is. It is not the literal, inerrant, dectated word of God. It is man's experiences of the Divine.
I just used John as an example. Let me put it this way 85% of the words in the Bible attibuted to Jesus are nothing more then the words of the eveangelist put into the mouth of Jesus. This does not mean that they do not present profound truths. The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, theology, philosophy, a little bit of history scattered throughout and no science.
However something does not have to be historically true to present profound truths. That is precisely what the Bible does. A good dealof it is misrashic which is a style of writing of the Ancient Hebrews and has an entirely different meaning today.
Indeed the Bible is one of th eauthorities of the church but one must apply reason and the Guidance of the Holy Spirit to its interpretation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
michelleevans
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:53 am
Stand up and be counted?
I agree with you one hundred percent. Now that said Can anyone explain to me what the Divinci Code is about. (I did not know how to spell the name).
My brother who is a christian said that it was something about the missing books that are not in the Bible and that Jesus was supposed to have been married and had kids.
Please explain to me.
My brother who is a christian said that it was something about the missing books that are not in the Bible and that Jesus was supposed to have been married and had kids.
Please explain to me.
Stand up and be counted?
michelleevans:-6
The Da Vinci Code is a novel that incorporates a lot of myths, about Christians etc., that developed over the centuries. It suggests for one thing that Jesus did marry Mary Magdelene and had children. That is pure speculation at this time as there is no recognized confirming evidence. I think it safe to say that theological and Biblical scholars do not see the myths and legends with any degree of validity.
However, some folks like to play with such games and get great enjoyment out of them.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Da Vinci Code is a novel that incorporates a lot of myths, about Christians etc., that developed over the centuries. It suggests for one thing that Jesus did marry Mary Magdelene and had children. That is pure speculation at this time as there is no recognized confirming evidence. I think it safe to say that theological and Biblical scholars do not see the myths and legends with any degree of validity.
However, some folks like to play with such games and get great enjoyment out of them.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: The Da Vinci Code is a novel that incorporates a lot of myths, about Christians etc., that developed over the centuries. It suggests for one thing that Jesus did marry Mary Magdelene and had children. That is pure speculation at this time as there is no recognized confirming evidence. I think it safe to say that theological and Biblical scholars do not see the myths and legends with any degree of validity.
However, some folks like to play with such games and get great enjoyment out of them.Ted, I have a book at home called Jesus the Man by Barbara Thiering (Doubleday (UK), 1992) that I think predates The DaVinci Code and contains many of the same assertions. The author's main premise seems to be that nearly everything in the NT means something else. She has both Bartolomew the Apostle and Barnabas being the same person as Mark the Evangelist, Matthias being Jesus' brother Joseph or Joses, and dozens of other identity switches. She also has Jesus marrying MM, having several children and living to a ripe old age. Of course, there is not the least support for any of this, we are just supposed to take her word for it.
The difference is that Ms. Thiering presents her assertions as fact and Mr. Brown, to my knowledge, has never maintained that his are anything but fiction. That's why it seems so foolish to me that various churches and church leaderss are so bent out of shape over his book and the forthcoming film.
It's called entertainment, folks. It's just a story. Like Star Wars.
However, some folks like to play with such games and get great enjoyment out of them.Ted, I have a book at home called Jesus the Man by Barbara Thiering (Doubleday (UK), 1992) that I think predates The DaVinci Code and contains many of the same assertions. The author's main premise seems to be that nearly everything in the NT means something else. She has both Bartolomew the Apostle and Barnabas being the same person as Mark the Evangelist, Matthias being Jesus' brother Joseph or Joses, and dozens of other identity switches. She also has Jesus marrying MM, having several children and living to a ripe old age. Of course, there is not the least support for any of this, we are just supposed to take her word for it.
The difference is that Ms. Thiering presents her assertions as fact and Mr. Brown, to my knowledge, has never maintained that his are anything but fiction. That's why it seems so foolish to me that various churches and church leaderss are so bent out of shape over his book and the forthcoming film.
It's called entertainment, folks. It's just a story. Like Star Wars.
Stand up and be counted?
Bronwen wrote: It's called entertainment, folks. It's just a story. Like Star Wars.Too much like Star Wars for its own good, I thought. If Dan Brown had thought to incorporate a midichlorion count as well, he could have been sued twice.
(Any more and I'd need to post a spoiler warning)
(Any more and I'd need to post a spoiler warning)
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Stand up and be counted?
Ted wrote: Accountable:-6
Paul said that faith without works is dead. Talking the talk is cheap if it is not followed by walking the walk that flows from the talk.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Sorry, Ted, you're WRONG again. It is in the Epistle of JAMES where that idea is, not something by Paul.
d:-5
Paul said that faith without works is dead. Talking the talk is cheap if it is not followed by walking the walk that flows from the talk.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Sorry, Ted, you're WRONG again. It is in the Epistle of JAMES where that idea is, not something by Paul.
d:-5
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Stand up and be counted?
downag wrote: Sorry, Ted, you're WRONG again. It is in the Epistle of JAMES where that idea is, not something by Paul.
d:-5Holy crap! There's not enough recent fodder for you to feed your hate on?? You have to reach all the way back to January?!?
Give it a rest, Nag.
d:-5Holy crap! There's not enough recent fodder for you to feed your hate on?? You have to reach all the way back to January?!?
Give it a rest, Nag.
Stand up and be counted?
downag wrote: Sorry, Ted, you're WRONG again. It is in the Epistle of JAMES where that idea is, not something by Paul.down, you are correct and you are incorrect. The quote is from James, but the idea is from Paul (Romans 2 - I have added only the emphasis):2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2:2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 2:3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 2:4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed! 2:6 He will reward each one according to his works: 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, 2:8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness. 2:9 There will be affliction and distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek, 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Greek. 2:11 For there is no partiality with God. 2:12 For all who have sinned apart from the law24 will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be declared righteous. James was just a bit more succinct.
ALL of the New Testament writers affirm salvation through WORKS, as does Christ Himself. Nor do I know of any OT passage that supports the idea of eternal life through faith ALONE. There's certainly no question that faith is extremely important to the extent that it influences works. When Paul mentions 'salvation by faith' he is referring to Habakkuk 2:4, which discusses FAITHfulness to God, moral integrity, not mere belief. You could look it up.
ALL of the New Testament writers affirm salvation through WORKS, as does Christ Himself. Nor do I know of any OT passage that supports the idea of eternal life through faith ALONE. There's certainly no question that faith is extremely important to the extent that it influences works. When Paul mentions 'salvation by faith' he is referring to Habakkuk 2:4, which discusses FAITHfulness to God, moral integrity, not mere belief. You could look it up.
Stand up and be counted?
Sorry, I didn't realise the age of the post. I was looking for new items to ponder and in the search, that thread came up. WHOOPS!
Ted and I have an understanding.
d:-5
P.S.
I don't hate anybody, just the things they do and say. It's my right!
It's no sin to hate THINGS! The THINGS are ours to "judge"!
d:-5 :-5
Ted and I have an understanding.
d:-5
P.S.
I don't hate anybody, just the things they do and say. It's my right!
It's no sin to hate THINGS! The THINGS are ours to "judge"!
d:-5 :-5
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Stand up and be counted?
downag wrote: Sorry, I didn't realise the age of the post. I was looking for new items to ponder and in the search, that thread came up. WHOOPS!
Ted and I have an understanding.
d:-5
P.S.
I don't hate anybody, just the things they do and say. It's my right!
It's no sin to hate THINGS! The THINGS are ours to "judge"!
d:-5 :-5We have rights to a lot of freedoms; freedom has no bearing on what is obsessive or overkill.
Similarly, I mentioned nothing about sin. Just because something is not sinful does not make it desirable.
Is your goal simply to deride Ted, or are you interested in persuading whomever reads the thread to see and agree with your version of Truth? I ask because if it is the latter, I think you've lost focus.
Ted and I have an understanding.
d:-5
P.S.
I don't hate anybody, just the things they do and say. It's my right!
It's no sin to hate THINGS! The THINGS are ours to "judge"!
d:-5 :-5We have rights to a lot of freedoms; freedom has no bearing on what is obsessive or overkill.
Similarly, I mentioned nothing about sin. Just because something is not sinful does not make it desirable.
Is your goal simply to deride Ted, or are you interested in persuading whomever reads the thread to see and agree with your version of Truth? I ask because if it is the latter, I think you've lost focus.