CO CO Constantine

13468913

Comments

  • Okay, so just to clear this particular strand up: you're objecting to the state church, the chief example of which we're most familiar is the Church of England, and then complaining that you're having to talk about the relationship between the er, Church of England and the UK.

    No, actually, we've gone past the point of waiting. We've entered the realm of dreading.
  • Not a chance. You're off your head.
  • I am objecting to a massive misguided strand of Christian belief going back to the Roman Empire in the 4th century CE. The Church of England is quite a small part of the whole problem. The mention of the Religious Right in the thread title was intended to point up the wider aspects.
  • We're not all focused on the CofE - and even most Anglicans can see things from outside their "box".
  • I'm not that focussed only on the CofE myself; indeed for me the issue was raised by the Paisleyites, who are decidedly NOT the CofE but still very much in the 'Christian state' tradition. Or as I once heard Ian Paisley declaiming, "This is a Prawtistant country!" It has unfortunately happened that the main participants in the other thread have been Anglicans and that has limited the discussion a bit.

    And I think one of the ways Anglicans don't see far enough 'outside their "box"' is that they fail to realise that even their current attenuated position is still a problem. They don't for instance seem to get what it might look like to groups like IS and Al Qaeda that here in the UK our constitution has a head of state who is simultaneously the formal 'C-in-C' of our armies AND the earthly 'Supreme Governor' of our national religion....
  • Hot cashews and Mousethief Coolers are now available.
  • I can think of one word that describes your blog, Steve Langton. Don't tempt me to use it.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Anglicans as the militant end of Christianity.

    Ridiculous.

    Edit: I mean, seriously. Have you seen the Church of England recently? It is many things, many of them stupid - but the one thing it isn't is a militant group heading towards being like IS.
  • In fairness, Steve Langton isn't suggesting that the CofE is a 'militant group heading towards being like IS.'

    What he is saying is that as Christians we can't expect Islamists to abandon close state-religion links and Caliphates if we persist in holding onto things that might, from the outside, look very similar ie. a monarch as head of a Church etc.

    To be fair, I think he does have a point on that, however the amount of weight he puts upon it is, I think, out of all proportion. Plus, even if the CofE disestablished itself tomorrow I don't think it'd make a blind-bit of difference to how it or Christianity in general is perceived by radical Islamists.

    I'd also agree that Steve's focus is wider than the CofE. However, he keeps mentioning the usual two or three suspects - Ian Paisley, Mary Whitehouse, the Big C and Theodosius. Oh, yes, and the Pope and the Spanish Inquisition get the occasional mention.

    It's still a very narrow focus.
  • In fairness, Steve Langton isn't suggesting that the CofE is a 'militant group heading towards being like IS.' ... Plus, even if the CofE disestablished itself tomorrow I don't think it'd make a blind-bit of difference to how it or Christianity in general is perceived by radical Islamists.
    Not helped though by politicians (who may have no belief themselves) publicly asserting that Britain is "a Christian country".

  • If IS's rhetoric is anything to go by, it's the Crusades that are the touch-stone, proving only that they hold grudges for even longer than Steve does.
  • Sure. I don't think anyone is disputing that. There is, however, a very self-righteous strain running through this whole debate. That doesn't let those politicians off the hook, of course.

    But to visit Steve's blog is to immerse oneself in a simplistic, black-and-white world where he sets himself up as judge and jury as to what constitutes kosher biblical belief.

    A bit like me with my comments on Prog Rock really ...
  • I thought you were shutting up for Holy Week. That didn't last long.
  • A more serious point though ...

    Countries aren't Christian, people are. But what do you call a country that has essentially been 'Christianised' for 1500 years or so?

    You might not like the 'Christian country' language but we can't avoid having a broadly Judeo-Christian patrimony. How we deal with that is the issue. Yes, it will attract right-wing nationalist nut-cases. Equally, it will provoke others to hive off into their own holy huddles and conventicles to avoid 'contamination' ...

    There has to be a better way than the Scylla of Erastianism on the one hand and the Charybdis of narrow-minded sectarian conclaves on the other ...
  • I'll shut up now in a minute, mr cheesy.

    As someone who now lives in South Wales you'll understand what that means. But yes, I'll get me coat.
  • I think you just write anything that flickers across your mind at any given moment.

    So it sounds good to imagine not posting for a week -so you write that. But then immediately forget you'd said that and write another long post.

    And shut up with this South Walian excuse; you don't live here now, you've already painfully explained your internal inconsistency (albeit in a way that makes zero sense) and now it just mirror's the Steve "I'm an Aspie" excuse.

    Just leave already. If you're not going to, don't say it. Pretty simple to understand.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I'll shut up now in a minute ...

    No you won’t :tongue:

  • by Gamma Gamaliel;
    But to visit Steve's blog is to immerse oneself in a simplistic, black-and-white world where he sets himself up as judge and jury as to what constitutes kosher biblical belief.

    NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Don't you get it yet? I am NOT 'setting myself up as judge and jury as to what constitutes kosher biblical belief'. That I am doing so is your slanderous misrepresentation. I don't believe in me or anyone else doing that kind of thing.

    I'm simply sharing what I find in the Bible and by the best research I can do elsewhere for others to hopefully benefit, hopefully see in a new light texts which are sometimes taken for granted or ignored, and for my views to be challenged and discussed.

    And yes, the blog is largely on one topic; it was after all purposely set up to discuss that one topic - what did you expect???



  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    But you've shown yourself uniquely unable to take challenge or discussion. It's like water off a duck's back.
  • The only analogy I can think of is a sporting one.

    Steve is like a rugby league bore who won't stop talking about how superior the game is to rugby union - how the laws of the latter are ridiculous and how everyone the whole of the rugby world would be so much better if they gave up playing the 15-a-side game, repented for turfing out the Northern Union and so on.

    The whole of his thinking is so focussed on the rightness of rugby league that he judges absolutely everything else by that standard - gridiron football is obviously bad because it is a travesty to keep changing on-field players. Basketball and ice-hockey are obviously warped versions of the true game.

    And the really ironic thing is that he doesn't even have a particularly strong understanding of rugby league's rules and culture because he lives on an island where nobody plays it and only gets his ideas from books and YouTube videos.
  • Actually it would be the superiority of UK Stock Car racing over GP and so on. And I wouldn't be having anywhere near so serious a discussion about any sport because on the whole sport doesn't have the massively baleful effects that established churches have had and continue to have.

    And I am not contrasting the CofE to the Mennonites about whom I am still learning (which seems to be part of what you're implying). I am contrasting the CofE to the teachings of the New Testament which in theory the CofE itself says is the Word of God. What I have found in said NT does fit pretty well with the ideas of the UK Anabaptist Network with which I have in the last few years become associated; and I early realised that groups like the Mennonites were in essentially similar territory.
  • No you are contrasting a version of Anglicanism which only exists in your head with a theology of the NT which nobody else accepts.

    And only you could criticise my choice of analogy by saying it is obviously closer to some other sport.
  • I'll shut up now in a minute....
    Talk about perfect sigs.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    No you are contrasting a version of Anglicanism which only exists in your head with a theology of the NT which nobody else accepts.

    And only you could criticise my choice of analogy by saying it is obviously closer to some other sport.

    Just thought you might be surprised/amused at my actual choice of sport....

    As far as I can tell there is currently no coherent 'version of Anglicanism' even among Anglicans these days - except for the English version seeming still to be desperate to hang on to what's left of the old establishment while contradictorily trying to claim it doesn't practically matter anyway. My guess as to what if anything Anglicans believe is probably as good as anyone else's.

  • So if there is no coherence, what are you criticising?
  • That an institution which doesn't seem to know what it believes is nevertheless foisting itself on the country where I live as that country's national religion...?
  • Foisting itself.

    Ye gods man, you need to get a more worthwhile hobby. Have you tried jigsaw puzzles?
  • That an institution which doesn't seem to know what it believes is nevertheless foisting itself on the country where I live as that country's national religion...?

    The major strength and virtue of theChurch of England is that it *doesn’t* have a narrow doctrinal basis, although it does have principles. That it doesn’t live up to them is more, possibly all, to do with the people in the church, clergy and laity, than the institution
  • This is a debate site. Your listening function has been disabled. Reason doesn't seem to re-engage it. What does? If nothing does, stick to blogging.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    That an institution which doesn't seem to know what it believes is nevertheless foisting itself on the country where I live as that country's national religion...?

    The major strength and virtue of theChurch of England is that it *doesn’t* have a narrow doctrinal basis, although it does have principles. That it doesn’t live up to them is more, possibly all, to do with the people in the church, clergy and laity, than the institution

    I'm not even sure we are now in a situation where the default position in England is that everyone is Anglican. I think an increasingly shrinking number of people describe themselves in this way.

    And this is a quandary for the church: it takes on a fair amount of responsibility for activities in the wider community even whilst it experiences distrust, dislike and ambivalence from a large proportion of the population much of the time.

    The best that can be said is that the Anglican structure in England hasn't sufficiently annoyed the mass of non-adherrants to cause a movement to tear it down.
  • agingjbagingjb Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    When the press choose to misquote a bishop, it is, even now, usually a CofE bishop.
  • They might find it rather difficult to get hold of a Baptist, United Reformed, Methodist or Wee Free bishop! But your point is well-made.
  • HelenEvaHelenEva Shipmate
    agingjb wrote: »
    When the press choose to misquote a bishop, it is, even now, usually a CofE bishop.

    That sounds like a good working definition of a "national church". :smiley:
  • CallanCallan Shipmate
    Originally posted by Gamma Gamaliel:
    What he is saying is that as Christians we can't expect Islamists to abandon close state-religion links and Caliphates if we persist in holding onto things that might, from the outside, look very similar ie. a monarch as head of a Church etc.

    To be fair, I think he does have a point on that, however the amount of weight he puts upon it is, I think, out of all proportion. Plus, even if the CofE disestablished itself tomorrow I don't think it'd make a blind-bit of difference to how it or Christianity in general is perceived by radical Islamists.

    ISIS HQ:

    Mohammed: Look here Abdul, don't you think this business of killing every Shia Muslim we come across is a bit much.
    Abdul: You raise a good point, our hands are soaked in blood and to what end? Truly, we must end this carnage and work towards peace.

    There is a crackling sound as the radio kicks in.

    Announcer: Today in the House of Lord, Archbishop Justin Welby expressed concerns about the activities of payday lenders...

    Mohammed and Abdul: SLAY THE UNBELIEVERS.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this probably isn't how it works.
  • "this probably isn't how it works" could easily apply to most of what Steve thinks makes the world tick.
  • Wouldn't it be marvellous to live in a world of Steve's imagining; where Christian truths are obvious, where other people lay down their deeply-held beliefs in wonder at the simply stated biblical truth; where Christian witness involves stating things forthrightly until other people get the message and where centuries of theological debate can be brushed aside by simply stating that you have aspergers, that you've been thinking things through for decades and that you have a couple of interesting books on your shelf.
  • by mr cheesy;
    a person who self-describes as Anabaptist cites approvingly the Westminster confessions as an authority.

    As I've already explained to Alan Cresswell, not as an authority - just people who seemed to be at least pretty near the truth.

    As I just pointed out to Nick, truth is truth wherever it comes from.
    Leaving aside the obvious point that Steve doesn't understand what is meant by "authority", it's not just the Westminster confessions. He gives authority to anything that is "pretty near the truth", "wherever it comes from". And, his plumbline for identifying the truth is his own concepts. All other authorities are subservient to the supreme authority which is the revelation he alone has received that it's all about Constantine and the subsequent development of a recognition of the role of the Christian faith in secular politics. All other authorities exist to be data mined for useful quotes (without great regard for context) that support his conjecture. But, at least he's consistent in his treatment of all those subservient authorities as existing to serve his agenda, whether those are the Westminster confessions, the words of Popes or the text of the Bible.
  • The idea that the "truth is the truth" is very telling, IMO.

  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    I was also contemplating what we learn from Steve's anti-tradition stance. I hadn't fully appreciated the difficulties of discussing theology with someone who refuses to acknowledge that their thinking comes from a specific framework, who randomly dismisses ideas developed within the tradition he claims to belong to and who inserts other ideas from other places.

    I know we all to some extent assimilate and develop new ideas into our thinking - but without embracing the reality that standing within centuries of tradition actually means something then one is left floundering about with a collection of self-assembled theology with little coherence or common ground with anyone else.

    And I do appreciate how ironic this sounds to the Orthodox.

  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Anglicans as the militant end of Christianity.

    Ridiculous.
    I don't know. Have you seen these elderly ladies who serve tea and cake after the service? They seem all nice and so, but I have a feeling they're up to something™.
  • I think you must mean Up To Something. True; but they are not just to be found in Anglican churches.
  • Mr SmiffMr Smiff Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Anglicans as the militant end of Christianity.

    Ridiculous.
    I don't know. Have you seen these elderly ladies who serve tea and cake after the service? They seem all nice and so, but I have a feeling they're up to something™.
    I think you must mean Up To Something. True; but they are not just to be found in Anglican churches.

    It's not the ones who serve tea (cake? We should be so lucky!) after the service in the church where I'm minister that I'm worried about: it's the ones who work in our 3-days a week cafe. I'm sure they secretly run the church, or at least are planning on doing so.

    And our room bookings secretary: she keeps insisting that I'm the boss on the one hand, then telling me what to do on the other.

    Frankly, they all scare me... :fearful:
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    The idea that the "truth is the truth" is very telling, IMO.
    One of the first things I learnt on the Ship was the popularity of Proof by Assertion. I've got pretty good at recognising it now, mostly because there is so much of it.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    LeRoc wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Anglicans as the militant end of Christianity.

    Ridiculous.
    I don't know. Have you seen these elderly ladies who serve tea and cake after the service? They seem all nice and so, but I have a feeling they're up to something™.
    I'm not sure it's the tea-and-cake brigade we need to be afraid of.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    I'm not sure it's the tea-and-cake brigade we need to be afraid of.
    Very afraid.

  • Now will you please let us get back to the thread topic and if you really must keep on this topic start your own thread where I'll do what I can to help you.



    Ooookay then.

    Steve seems to think he had some kind of ownership of threads and discussion, conveniently playing that card when he is getting pushback on his inconsistencies.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Steve seems to think he had some kind of ownership of threads and discussion
    I love it how he behaves like a Babylonian king who grants the others on the thread audition from time to time.
  • Yes.

    A few of us have tried to have discussions on that thread which do not centre around Steve. We've tried engaging, discussing his various points and so on.

    But it is an increasingly fruitless endeavour.

    It seems like it isn't something which can be discussed without turning into a car-crash where Steve tells everyone else they're wrong because he says so.
  • Also, I think that comes under the banner of 'junior hosting'. Someone will be along shortly, I'm sure, with 'words of advice'.
This discussion has been closed.