It's not kind. Or unkind. It's rational. Which means true. I couldn't possibly dismiss that. Not under any circumstances. And not in any prevaricating way in Purgatory.
I have no doubt of it. The apparently scandalous partiality of the whole thing - well who knows. It's outrageous, and perhaps that's an affront to our real faith.
I'm not sure what you mean about partiality; you mean, the fact that one is healed while others are not? That the affront is one of justice?
Yes, sorry (to you and Mousethief) that I wasn't clear. And by 'real faith' I am being snarky about my own, and others, infatuation with the rational. I'm taking the piss out of myself - I believe this someone was healed; at the same time he was (and so far as I know, is) an arse. How dare He?
Martin, your 'I am' precis sounds like a kind of Magisterial (capital on purpose) dogma which at the same time, you are arguing against. Or is it just our human pomposity in expressing it from the front of the church (or the loud bits of the forum) which gets you going? That's an honest question.
(Sorry LC, missed the edit window. Yes, the situation I am thinking of is similar to that which you mention - the undeserving case gets the miracle. All I can think is 'Were you there when I made the world? If you know so much, tell me about it.' (Job 38 v4)
mark. I admire your open, honest response. As you and all here know, my pomposity (and hypocrisy) knows no bounds. And none here are guilty of it. Apart from me. Not you or Lamb Chopped. No one. I don't find you pompous in the slightest. Courageous yes. Especially up against an implacable, uncompromising Roundhead zealot like me.
What gets me going is the impossibility of rationality being the predicate of faith. Even here. Especially here. And it will always be thus. Hulme was more right than even he knew.
I've only got myself to blame: it can't be valid, Martin's saying it.
(This is incidental, but I know someone for whom a verifiable, medical miracle did happen, within a bog-standard UK mainline-denomination context. I have no doubt of it. The apparently scandalous partiality of the whole thing - well who knows. It's outrageous, and perhaps that's an affront to our real faith.)
Yes. We have two miracles within our family, and they happened to the folks you'd think least worthy or appropriate. And people who were far more deserving spent decades in prison camps...
That's the cognitive bias of random survivor guilt in the case of the one. The other I don't recall.
So kind of you to dismiss it. AND us.
I'll not bother telling you the other one, since it will occasion more armchair diagnosis.
Engage or get off the passive aggressive pot. This is Purgatory. You dismiss yourself and me. I dismiss your irrational claim. No diagnosis was made. Just minimal rationalization.
What gets me going is the impossibility of rationality being the predicate of faith. Even here. Especially here. And it will always be thus. Hulme was more right than even he knew.
OK, I've got no philosophy outside web comics so I'll have to leave your Hulme point. But how do you mean about the 'gets you going'. That the apparent orthogonality (that's engineering ) of faith and rationality makes you mad because you can't see why He made it so hard, and you're pulled towards abandoning all but the rational? Or that when someone denies that orthogonality (and perhaps tries a 'God is x because science says y') , it makes you mad (it does me too, FWIW). Or am I making a mess of the embarrassingly (for me) unfamiliar word 'predicate'?
(I really got off on Job - it's ages since I read that. Chap 40 vs 7-14 are really good too.)
I have no doubt of it. The apparently scandalous partiality of the whole thing - well who knows. It's outrageous, and perhaps that's an affront to our real faith.
I'm not sure what you mean about partiality; you mean, the fact that one is healed while others are not? That the affront is one of justice?
Yes, sorry (to you and Mousethief) that I wasn't clear.
I'm confused as to why you are apologizing to me, as I wasn't part of this subtopic. Did you mean Martin54?
@SusanDoris why would you argue for a position you don't hold? Just for fun? Just to test your rhetorical skills? That would be treating us as playthings and not as people. An old shipmate, IngoB, used to do that, and it made a lot of people very angry. Just to stir things up? That's trolling. I'd like to hear why you are doing this.
What gets me going is the impossibility of rationality being the predicate of faith. Even here. Especially here. And it will always be thus. Hulme was more right than even he knew.
OK, I've got no philosophy outside web comics so I'll have to leave your Hulme point. But how do you mean about the 'gets you going'. That the apparent orthogonality (that's engineering ) of faith and rationality makes you mad because you can't see why He made it so hard, and you're pulled towards abandoning all but the rational? Or that when someone denies that orthogonality (and perhaps tries a 'God is x because science says y') , it makes you mad (it does me too, FWIW). Or am I making a mess of the embarrassingly (for me) unfamiliar word 'predicate'?
(I really got off on Job - it's ages since I read that. Chap 40 vs 7-14 are really good too.)
He didn't make it hard. He made it rational. As He must. And again, sorry, you just aren't guilty, I'm afraid, of being either irrationally orthogonal (metaphoric that)… no 'ang on a minute, you are. But everyone but me is. All the nicer, younger, better, smarter. And aren't I the one denying orthogonality saying 'God is x because science says y'? I am responsible for all mess here. Please leave me that shred of dignity.
God is rational because science. Therefore He does not intervene in any detectable way. All grains of wheat in the blizzard of chaff are random: Good shit happens too. It's in His provision of existence that exists as if He didn't provide it. Lamb Chopped's husband's 'miracle' of survival is perfectly rationally a random grain of wheat. I'm glad for them that it's an unquestionable real miracle until beyond their last breaths. I used to have them. Your medical healing is too. A grain. No suspension of the laws of physics - that are completely independent of God - necessary. A grain in the blizzard. The best I ever heard was of an alcoholic landlord friend of a friend who one day kneeling down to replenish a drinks cabinet prayed for the only time in his life and challenged the God he didn't believe in to stop Him drinking. He's been dry ever since. Allegedly. And never prayed again or got religion. Allegedly. I believe everything and nothing everybody tells me, but that rings true enough. The mind is awesome. In God's provision.
Hulme said that reason is and should be the slave of the passions. Nothing said on this thread, or anywhere else ever, including my demand that rationality come before faith, does anything but prove him passionately right.
(This is incidental, but I know someone for whom a verifiable, medical miracle did happen, within a bog-standard UK mainline-denomination context. I have no doubt of it. The apparently scandalous partiality of the whole thing - well who knows. It's outrageous, and perhaps that's an affront to our real faith.)
Yes. We have two miracles within our family, and they happened to the folks you'd think least worthy or appropriate. And people who were far more deserving spent decades in prison camps...
That's the cognitive bias of random survivor guilt in the case of the one. The other I don't recall.
So kind of you to dismiss it. AND us.
I'll not bother telling you the other one, since it will occasion more armchair diagnosis.
Engage or get off the passive aggressive pot. This is Purgatory. You dismiss yourself and me. I dismiss your irrational claim. No diagnosis was made. Just minimal rationalization.
No. I was a damn fool to respond to you at all. I'll not be making that mistake again unless it's in Hell. And you can take your damnable rudeness to Hell, where it belongs--both the outright contradiction without explanation/discussion/or anything but bare assertion, AND your naming of me as "passive aggressive" and my claim as "irrational." Take it to fucking Hell. It doesn't belong here.
@SusanDoris why would you argue for a position you don't hold? Just for fun? Just to test your rhetorical skills? That would be treating us as playthings and not as people. An old shipmate, IngoB, used to do that, and it made a lot of people very angry. Just to stir things up? That's trolling. I'd like to hear why you are doing this.
I have no ulterior motives; I am very restricted in the activities I cantake part in; the discovery of forums on the internet gave me an interest which waxes and wanes but never stops; the religious beliefs aspects of life have always interested me and really this is the place where the most interesting discussions are, as far as I know, available to read and take part in; since I am grateful for a place to discuss points of view on the basis that posters are here on anequal basis, the last thing I would do is to to deliberately try to annoy; I hope that answers your question.
I've come to the conclusion that cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the whole thing. Learning to accept and acknowledge that is part of the process.
I attended the Orthodox pilgrimage to Holywell (Trefynnon) in North Wales yesterday and - as happens whenever I climb the candle - I get vertigo. Yet I enjoy the view.
Do I really believe the fella who told me that his spinal injury had been instantly and completely healed when he bathed in the Holy Well a few years ago? That his missing toenails had completely reappeared and grown back by the time he'd climbed out of the pool?
Does it matter?
Do I believe the story about St Winifride's beheading at the hands of Caradog ap Alauc, incensed that she would not yield to his advances as she was intending to become a nun? That St Beuno heard the commotion as he prepared to celebrate the Eucharist and left his cell, gathered up the headless corpse and the maiden's head, breathed into her nostrils and miraculously reattached it to her neck? That she got better and only had a thin white line to show where her head had been severed? That a spring of sweet water sprang out of the ground at the spot and that innumerable cures have been wrought there ever since, as attested by abandoned crutches and walking sticks in the small on-site museum?
No, I can't say I do. It's pious legend.
Consequently, when one of the priests made an impassioned plea that we continue to recognise the importance of the shrine as the only continuously used pilgrimage site from pre-Reformation days, I found myself wanting to applaud with one hand (one hand clapping?) and wanting to type up an application to join the local Humanist Society with the other ...
All I can do is say, 'Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief ...'
I’m working on it...
Though extempore evangelical prayers....ouch!
The retrieval of St Beuno’s sermon from the raging depths by a passing seagull- now that’s truly a miracle!
@SusanDoris why would you argue for a position you don't hold? Just for fun? Just to test your rhetorical skills? That would be treating us as playthings and not as people. An old shipmate, IngoB, used to do that, and it made a lot of people very angry. Just to stir things up? That's trolling. I'd like to hear why you are doing this.
I have no ulterior motives; I am very restricted in the activities I cantake part in; the discovery of forums on the internet gave me an interest which waxes and wanes but never stops; the religious beliefs aspects of life have always interested me and really this is the place where the most interesting discussions are, as far as I know, available to read and take part in; since I am grateful for a place to discuss points of view on the basis that posters are here on anequal basis, the last thing I would do is to to deliberately try to annoy; I hope that answers your question.
No, it does not. I asked you, why would you argue for a position you do not hold? You did not answer that question.
I guess it's easy for me to not fall in love with science and the 'rational', since they once paid the mortgage around here. The science world moves by the vanity of its chief proponents just like anything else human, unless one seeks out (who, me? ) lowly test-and-measurement roles where the concrete beam either cracks, or it doesn't. But the priest laid on hands, prayed, and for that time only - only, and he does it week in, week out, faithfully and liturgically and with no big show - the man didn't die, and as far as we no, still hasn't. And my loved ones did, and do, and so do those we know and love here.
The gospel yesterday reminds us that if we had faith as big as a mustard seed we could plant mulberry trees - no, mulberry trees could plant themselves, in the sea. Tune here, words here.
(If you were thinking this evangelical approach was a little...anachronistic...well hey!)
@SusanDoris why would you argue for a position you don't hold? Just for fun? Just to test your rhetorical skills? That would be treating us as playthings and not as people.
Playmates, not playthings.
And I suspect your "believe in" is too binary. There are positions in between being convinced of the truth or falsity of a position.
Some of us are prone to "perhapsing around". Perceiving some truth in an idea and wondering how far they can push it before it's unsustainable. Playing devil's advocate for the sake of understanding the issue better from the resulting discussion.
I don't read SusanDoris as expressing that kind of playfulness with ideas. She comes across to me as someone who knows what she believes and doesn't see how it could be false, but is open to possibility and doesn't want to be dogmatic. But I could be wrong.
@SusanDoris why would you argue for a position you don't hold? Just for fun? Just to test your rhetorical skills? That would be treating us as playthings and not as people.
Playmates, not playthings.
And I suspect your "believe in" is too binary. There are positions in between being convinced of the truth or falsity of a position.
Some of us are prone to "perhapsing around". Perceiving some truth in an idea and wondering how far they can push it before it's unsustainable. Playing devil's advocate for the sake of understanding the issue better from the resulting discussion.
I don't read SusanDoris as expressing that kind of playfulness with ideas. She comes across to me as someone who knows what she believes and doesn't see how it could be false, but is open to possibility and doesn't want to be dogmatic. But I could be wrong.
@SusanDoris why would you argue for a position you don't hold? Just for fun? Just to test your rhetorical skills? That would be treating us as playthings and not as people. An old shipmate, IngoB, used to do that, and it made a lot of people very angry. Just to stir things up? That's trolling. I'd like to hear why you are doing this.
I have no ulterior motives; I am very restricted in the activities I cantake part in; the discovery of forums on the internet gave me an interest which waxes and wanes but never stops; the religious beliefs aspects of life have always interested me and really this is the place where the most interesting discussions are, as far as I know, available to read and take part in; since I am grateful for a place to discuss points of view on the basis that posters are here on anequal basis, the last thing I would do is to to deliberately try to annoy; I hope that answers your question.
No, it does not. I asked you, why would you argue for a position you do not hold? You did not answer that question.
An example of where you think I have argued for a position I do not hold would help, otherwise I cannot see when I have done this.
@SusanDoris why would you argue for a position you don't hold? Just for fun? Just to test your rhetorical skills? That would be treating us as playthings and not as people.
Playmates, not playthings.
Quod scripsi, scripsi. I know what I mean. You do not.
(This is incidental, but I know someone for whom a verifiable, medical miracle did happen, within a bog-standard UK mainline-denomination context. I have no doubt of it. The apparently scandalous partiality of the whole thing - well who knows. It's outrageous, and perhaps that's an affront to our real faith.)
Yes. We have two miracles within our family, and they happened to the folks you'd think least worthy or appropriate. And people who were far more deserving spent decades in prison camps...
That's the cognitive bias of random survivor guilt in the case of the one. The other I don't recall.
So kind of you to dismiss it. AND us.
I'll not bother telling you the other one, since it will occasion more armchair diagnosis.
Engage or get off the passive aggressive pot. This is Purgatory. You dismiss yourself and me. I dismiss your irrational claim. No diagnosis was made. Just minimal rationalization.
No. I was a damn fool to respond to you at all. I'll not be making that mistake again unless it's in Hell. And you can take your damnable rudeness to Hell, where it belongs--both the outright contradiction without explanation/discussion/or anything but bare assertion, AND your naming of me as "passive aggressive" and my claim as "irrational." Take it to fucking Hell. It doesn't belong here.
The assertion stands. As does your projected and not damnable brittle rudeness. And your mere assertion of a miracle where none is warranted. And you are a courageous fool if you are a fool at all. I see no contradiction at all. Where do you? If you want to discuss why your publically proclaimed miracle is real when no such miraculous explanation is necessary for a random, statistically insignificant life story, do it here. What's to discuss in Hell? Justify your claim and the vast majority edifice that goes with it. Please. Address the actual content, the meat, not the form. Please. Have that courage. Please. If you can only do that in Hell, OK. But that's all I will pursue.
I asked you, why would you argue for a position you do not hold? You did not answer that question.
An example of where you think I have argued for a position I do not hold would help, otherwise I cannot see when I have done this.
You said you did. I was trusting you to be telling the truth.
I'm sorry, but I cannot go back to try to find exacgtly what I said when, so this is where this exchange of posts will have to end, unless you choose to find it yourself.
I read your point of view with interest. My point remains, though, that I join in the discussions because it is an interesting thing to do, and just because I argue for or against something does not indicate approval or disapproval. I think there is an enormous difference between presenting a point of view, however strongly, in a discussion and whether one approves or disapproves of the attitude etc being discussed.
Can you think of anything I have written which directly indicates approval or disapproval?
I read your point of view with interest. My point remains, though, that I join in the discussions because it is an interesting thing to do, and just because I argue for or against something does not indicate approval or disapproval. I think there is an enormous difference between presenting a point of view, however strongly, in a discussion and whether one approves or disapproves of the attitude etc being discussed.
Can you think of anything I have written which directly indicates approval or disapproval?
Thank you for looking for and finding the quote. Why do you think that it indicates that I will argue for a position I do not hold? The paragraph you quote is a general comment, it is not about a particular subject.
And I certainly do not recall ever having argued for something I do not believe or a position I do not hold!
I'm sure I've argued for things I don't believe. I mean sometimes it is easier to write down what I don't believe in order to organise in my mind the things I do.
To me the problem is when someone makes it sound like something is really important (@SusanDoris said something and claimed that she'd continue arguing for it until she died) and then when I asked more about it claimed that she was unbothered. I concluded it was a rhetorical flourish.
But, you know, if people really are unbothered and generally sanguine about specific things, maybe you could at least write in a disinterested way and measured way about it.
Because if you sound like something is of critical importance, it isn't really surprising when people believe you.
It's not about denying that one enjoys contributing to a discussion in general, it is about the enthusiasm and importance one naturally takes from your words. Which is confusing when you later say that you are not really very interested anyway.
@SusanDoris my suggestion is this - If you find a discussion really interesting but you don’t particularly hold a position on it then ask questions. It keeps you in the loop without having to argue a point you don’t want to.
I guess it's easy for me to not fall in love with science and the 'rational', since they once paid the mortgage around here. The science world moves by the vanity of its chief proponents just like anything else human, unless one seeks out (who, me? ) lowly test-and-measurement roles where the concrete beam either cracks, or it doesn't. But the priest laid on hands, prayed, and for that time only - only, and he does it week in, week out, faithfully and liturgically and with no big show - the man didn't die, and as far as we no, still hasn't. And my loved ones did, and do, and so do those we know and love here.
The gospel yesterday reminds us that if we had faith as big as a mustard seed we could plant mulberry trees - no, mulberry trees could plant themselves, in the sea. Tune here, words here.
(If you were thinking this evangelical approach was a little...anachronistic...well hey!)
@mark_in_manchester, 99.9..9% yes. Fully creedal of course. Happy with theist ritual, hymns and other people's formal prayers. And would never gainsay informal ones. I give my own complementary take where appropriate. The 0.0..1% theist in me is with regard to the incarnation. And is more than enough. Well it would be if the rational conversation about it could be had.
The fact that a priest rightly laid on hands and prayed and a guy happened to survive is to be rejoiced over, God be praised, but they can have nothing to do with one another causally. If the priest hadn't been there, in all probability the outcome would have been the same but for the psychosomatic power of hope.
I see no mulberry trees taking themselves off to the sea side, let alone mountains. Not even metaphorically. Except by time and chance. God in His provision be praised.
Martin, the scandal of the healing I have been hinting at is too much for me to spell out here in public. It insults those here, and those who people here knew, and know, for whom no such healing was, or so far as we know is, forthcoming. I'm PM you for what it's worth, just so I don't feel like I've left you half in the dark. I don't understand the why, and for whom, and all that; not for one moment. But - it happened, and I must be among those who can't let it go when someone is wrong on the internet.
I read your point of view with interest. My point remains, though, that I join in the discussions because it is an interesting thing to do, and just because I argue for or against something does not indicate approval or disapproval. I think there is an enormous difference between presenting a point of view, however strongly, in a discussion and whether one approves or disapproves of the attitude etc being discussed.
Can you think of anything I have written which directly indicates approval or disapproval?
Thank you for looking for and finding the quote. Why do you think that it indicates that I will argue for a position I do not hold? The paragraph you quote is a general comment, it is not about a particular subject.
And I certainly do not recall ever having argued for something I do not believe or a position I do not hold!
You state you are arguing for things you neither approve nor disapprove of. I have to assume if you don't approve or disapprove of a position, you wouldn't hold that position. Otherwise why hold it?
There is a world of music out there. If your experience is like mine, you will start to hear God in songs where you never heard God before. Just stay clear of Christian Heavy Metal. It is not pretty.
I would agree that self-consciously Christian metal bands tend to be bad. I would add though that the (arguably) first metal band Black Sabbath had some consciously Christian songs that don't suck, e.g. "After Forever" on Master of Reality, and plenty of other songs with a sense of Christian eschatology and justice (e.g. "War Pigs," "Electric Funeral").
Many years ago someone I worked with, who was of the Southern Convention Baptist stripe, told me "I can't believe you're a Christian. I can't believe you are a Baptist."
I said "This is what I love about Baptists. They don't get to say who is or who isn't. I'm just not YOUR idea of a Baptist and that's OK. I don't belong to your Convention. We don't have to agree on the subject."
If people who think like me don't claim Christianity then people like my co-worker get to define the term.
To people who are turned off by Christianity I would say "Yes, I find the same things to be irrational, hypocritical, strange and off-putting." But I would also add that BEING a Christian and DOING Christianity is one of the most difficult challenges one can set oneself. I don't fault anyone for trying and failing.
In my version of reality it's a journey of many incarnations that begins with a single step.
Many years ago someone I worked with, who was of the Southern Convention Baptist stripe, told me "I can't believe you're a Christian. I can't believe you are a Baptist."
I said "This is what I love about Baptists. They don't get to say who is or who isn't. I'm just not YOUR idea of a Baptist and that's OK. I don't belong to your Convention. We don't have to agree on the subject."
If people who think like me don't claim Christianity then people like my co-worker get to define the term.
To people who are turned off by Christianity I would say "Yes, I find the same things to be irrational, hypocritical, strange and off-putting." But I would also add that BEING a Christian and DOING Christianity is one of the most difficult challenges one can set oneself. I don't fault anyone for trying and failing.
In my version of reality it's a journey of many incarnations that begins with a single step.
AFF
Of course the same could be said of life outside Christianity. It is not all hearts and roses. There are lots of things that put you off.
Of course the same could be said of life outside Christianity. It is not all hearts and roses. There are lots of things that put you off.
The OP made a list of things that are off-putting about people who call themselves Christians.
I share the same objections in general.
It wasn't until I actually joined a congregation that I was able to look beneath the surface to join in fellowship with the sincerity of effort that it takes to walk the walk under the crushing burden of cultural and ritual traditions, norms and general expectations of conformity.
To my way of thinking the OP has issues with how it's done, as do I.
But I don't take issue with anybody who tries to experience reality in this manner. The wonderful thing about it, I found, is that none of that stuff really matters in the end. IMO the Christ-in-Us dwells at the center of all experience, perfect immutable and incorruptible and waiting for us to return Home in our hearts. We humans are the true prodigals, and that story has a happy happy ending.
IMO the Christ-in-Us dwells at the center of all experience, perfect immutable and incorruptible and waiting for us to return Home in our hearts. We humans are the true prodigals, and that story has a happy happy ending.
IMO the Christ-in-Us dwells at the center of all experience, perfect immutable and incorruptible and waiting for us to return Home in our hearts. We humans are the true prodigals, and that story has a happy happy ending.
Comments
It'll have to be.
Yes, sorry (to you and Mousethief) that I wasn't clear. And by 'real faith' I am being snarky about my own, and others, infatuation with the rational. I'm taking the piss out of myself - I believe this someone was healed; at the same time he was (and so far as I know, is) an arse. How dare He?
Martin, your 'I am' precis sounds like a kind of Magisterial (capital on purpose) dogma which at the same time, you are arguing against. Or is it just our human pomposity in expressing it from the front of the church (or the loud bits of the forum) which gets you going? That's an honest question.
What gets me going is the impossibility of rationality being the predicate of faith. Even here. Especially here. And it will always be thus. Hulme was more right than even he knew.
I've only got myself to blame: it can't be valid, Martin's saying it.
Engage or get off the passive aggressive pot. This is Purgatory. You dismiss yourself and me. I dismiss your irrational claim. No diagnosis was made. Just minimal rationalization.
OK, I've got no philosophy outside web comics so I'll have to leave your Hulme point. But how do you mean about the 'gets you going'. That the apparent orthogonality (that's engineering
(I really got off on Job - it's ages since I read that. Chap 40 vs 7-14 are really good too.)
I'm confused as to why you are apologizing to me, as I wasn't part of this subtopic. Did you mean Martin54?
(MT, I thought this was for me - it turned up after a post of mine - hence my mention of your name. If it was a x-post, that's fine, my mistake).
He didn't make it hard. He made it rational. As He must. And again, sorry, you just aren't guilty, I'm afraid, of being either irrationally orthogonal (metaphoric that)… no 'ang on a minute, you are. But everyone but me is. All the nicer, younger, better, smarter. And aren't I the one denying orthogonality saying 'God is x because science says y'? I am responsible for all mess here. Please leave me that shred of dignity.
God is rational because science. Therefore He does not intervene in any detectable way. All grains of wheat in the blizzard of chaff are random: Good shit happens too. It's in His provision of existence that exists as if He didn't provide it. Lamb Chopped's husband's 'miracle' of survival is perfectly rationally a random grain of wheat. I'm glad for them that it's an unquestionable real miracle until beyond their last breaths. I used to have them. Your medical healing is too. A grain. No suspension of the laws of physics - that are completely independent of God - necessary. A grain in the blizzard. The best I ever heard was of an alcoholic landlord friend of a friend who one day kneeling down to replenish a drinks cabinet prayed for the only time in his life and challenged the God he didn't believe in to stop Him drinking. He's been dry ever since. Allegedly. And never prayed again or got religion. Allegedly. I believe everything and nothing everybody tells me, but that rings true enough. The mind is awesome. In God's provision.
Hulme said that reason is and should be the slave of the passions. Nothing said on this thread, or anywhere else ever, including my demand that rationality come before faith, does anything but prove him passionately right.
And yeah, Job says it all.
No. I was a damn fool to respond to you at all. I'll not be making that mistake again unless it's in Hell. And you can take your damnable rudeness to Hell, where it belongs--both the outright contradiction without explanation/discussion/or anything but bare assertion, AND your naming of me as "passive aggressive" and my claim as "irrational." Take it to fucking Hell. It doesn't belong here.
I'm sorry; I should have given more context. No, it wasn't you.
I’m working on it...
Though extempore evangelical prayers....ouch!
The retrieval of St Beuno’s sermon from the raging depths by a passing seagull- now that’s truly a miracle!
No, it does not. I asked you, why would you argue for a position you do not hold? You did not answer that question.
I guess it's easy for me to not fall in love with science and the 'rational', since they once paid the mortgage around here. The science world moves by the vanity of its chief proponents just like anything else human, unless one seeks out (who, me?
The gospel yesterday reminds us that if we had faith as big as a mustard seed we could plant mulberry trees - no, mulberry trees could plant themselves, in the sea. Tune here, words here.
(If you were thinking this evangelical approach was a little...anachronistic...well hey!)
Playmates, not playthings.
And I suspect your "believe in" is too binary. There are positions in between being convinced of the truth or falsity of a position.
Some of us are prone to "perhapsing around". Perceiving some truth in an idea and wondering how far they can push it before it's unsustainable. Playing devil's advocate for the sake of understanding the issue better from the resulting discussion.
I don't read SusanDoris as expressing that kind of playfulness with ideas. She comes across to me as someone who knows what she believes and doesn't see how it could be false, but is open to possibility and doesn't want to be dogmatic. But I could be wrong.
Quod scripsi, scripsi. I know what I mean. You do not.
You said you did. I was trusting you to be telling the truth.
The assertion stands. As does your projected and not damnable brittle rudeness. And your mere assertion of a miracle where none is warranted. And you are a courageous fool if you are a fool at all. I see no contradiction at all. Where do you? If you want to discuss why your publically proclaimed miracle is real when no such miraculous explanation is necessary for a random, statistically insignificant life story, do it here. What's to discuss in Hell? Justify your claim and the vast majority edifice that goes with it. Please. Address the actual content, the meat, not the form. Please. Have that courage. Please. If you can only do that in Hell, OK. But that's all I will pursue.
Here you go.
And I certainly do not recall ever having argued for something I do not believe or a position I do not hold!
To me the problem is when someone makes it sound like something is really important (@SusanDoris said something and claimed that she'd continue arguing for it until she died) and then when I asked more about it claimed that she was unbothered. I concluded it was a rhetorical flourish.
But, you know, if people really are unbothered and generally sanguine about specific things, maybe you could at least write in a disinterested way and measured way about it.
Because if you sound like something is of critical importance, it isn't really surprising when people believe you.
It's not about denying that one enjoys contributing to a discussion in general, it is about the enthusiasm and importance one naturally takes from your words. Which is confusing when you later say that you are not really very interested anyway.
@SusanDoris my suggestion is this - If you find a discussion really interesting but you don’t particularly hold a position on it then ask questions. It keeps you in the loop without having to argue a point you don’t want to.
@mark_in_manchester, 99.9..9% yes. Fully creedal of course. Happy with theist ritual, hymns and other people's formal prayers. And would never gainsay informal ones. I give my own complementary take where appropriate. The 0.0..1% theist in me is with regard to the incarnation. And is more than enough. Well it would be if the rational conversation about it could be had.
The fact that a priest rightly laid on hands and prayed and a guy happened to survive is to be rejoiced over, God be praised, but they can have nothing to do with one another causally. If the priest hadn't been there, in all probability the outcome would have been the same but for the psychosomatic power of hope.
I see no mulberry trees taking themselves off to the sea side, let alone mountains. Not even metaphorically. Except by time and chance. God in His provision be praised.
You state you are arguing for things you neither approve nor disapprove of. I have to assume if you don't approve or disapprove of a position, you wouldn't hold that position. Otherwise why hold it?
I would agree that self-consciously Christian metal bands tend to be bad. I would add though that the (arguably) first metal band Black Sabbath had some consciously Christian songs that don't suck, e.g. "After Forever" on Master of Reality, and plenty of other songs with a sense of Christian eschatology and justice (e.g. "War Pigs," "Electric Funeral").
I said "This is what I love about Baptists. They don't get to say who is or who isn't. I'm just not YOUR idea of a Baptist and that's OK. I don't belong to your Convention. We don't have to agree on the subject."
If people who think like me don't claim Christianity then people like my co-worker get to define the term.
To people who are turned off by Christianity I would say "Yes, I find the same things to be irrational, hypocritical, strange and off-putting." But I would also add that BEING a Christian and DOING Christianity is one of the most difficult challenges one can set oneself. I don't fault anyone for trying and failing.
In my version of reality it's a journey of many incarnations that begins with a single step.
AFF
Of course the same could be said of life outside Christianity. It is not all hearts and roses. There are lots of things that put you off.
The OP made a list of things that are off-putting about people who call themselves Christians.
I share the same objections in general.
It wasn't until I actually joined a congregation that I was able to look beneath the surface to join in fellowship with the sincerity of effort that it takes to walk the walk under the crushing burden of cultural and ritual traditions, norms and general expectations of conformity.
To my way of thinking the OP has issues with how it's done, as do I.
But I don't take issue with anybody who tries to experience reality in this manner. The wonderful thing about it, I found, is that none of that stuff really matters in the end. IMO the Christ-in-Us dwells at the center of all experience, perfect immutable and incorruptible and waiting for us to return Home in our hearts. We humans are the true prodigals, and that story has a happy happy ending.
AFF
I love you.
Me too!
AFF