Purgatory : Why Christians Always Left Me Cold

11213141517

Comments

  • Blahblah wrote: »
    Can't you see the contradiction in what you are saying? If there is no worth in what the theists believe, why are you talking about it?

    There's no contradiction. Belief itself is of interest regardless of what is believed in.
    Having caught up on quite a large number of posts after a computer problem, I was thinking of referring to that same post and sayin that I do not think there is contradiction. It is all interest in aspects of human thought and behaviour and this forum, of which I have been a member for almost as long as I've been a member of IS*,is, well, not quite sure what phrase to use, but 'the best' sounds about right.

    This may be a tangent, in which case it should be ignored!, but I'd like to ask what actual good do the prayers and rituals of monastic life do? They have every right to live that way of course, but from a practical point of view, they can only do so because of the Utilities provided, and the availability of the way western countries are run and presumably they have the funds available to pay their way.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Can't you see the contradiction in what you are saying? If there is no worth in what the theists believe, why are you talking about it?

    There's no contradiction. Belief itself is of interest regardless of what is believed in.
    Having caught up on quite a large number of posts after a computer problem, I was thinking of referring to that same post and sayin that I do not think there is contradiction. It is all interest in aspects of human thought and behaviour and this forum, of which I have been a member for almost as long as I've been a member of IS*,is, well, not quite sure what phrase to use, but 'the best' sounds about right.

    This may be a tangent, in which case it should be ignored!, but I'd like to ask what actual good do the prayers and rituals of monastic life do? They have every right to live that way of course, but from a practical point of view, they can only do so because of the Utilities provided, and the availability of the way western countries are run and presumably they have the funds available to pay their way.

    Eastern countries have monasteries as well so I don’t understand your point about Western countries. Furthermore, monasteries pay their way, so really they can do what they like.

  • Timo Pax wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    "Perputual" may not be the best way of putting it. But I don't think there's much dispute that the 12th–14th Centuries saw significant changes in how warfare was conducted. One of those, if I recall correctly, was the decline of the feudal system as a means of raising armies and the rise of standing, professional armies for the first time since Rome, which in turn led to the ability of armies to fight throughout the year, without regard for peasant armies to return to the fields.

    Yeah, I wonder if maybe 'total' would have been a better adjective than 'perpetual'. It's probably not possible to tally up all the conflicts over one period and say 'there were x from 1000-1100 and y from 1100-1200'. But war started getting wider and deeper and affecting more of the population.
    Nick Tamen wrote:
    There were the Crusades, which was church-sponsored, or at least church-promoted, warfare.

    That's really my favourite Francis episode, I think. The preaching to the birds is lovely, and the stigmata are miraculous ... but to request an audience with the Sultan in order to convert him to Christ; that takes gumption.

    Not if the Sultan were as honourable a man as Saladin. Apart from Jesus, the only people reported to get stigmata, whether from actual crucifixion or pschyosomatically or by divine intervention are Roman Catholics.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Monastic communities have to be practical and self supporting. The one I'm most familiar with at Ampleforth Abbey runs a school and a retreat centre where the monks teach. And a cafe and a shop for tourists and visitors. And they produce their own beer, cider and apple juice to sell. It's the job of the novices to pick the apples in October but retreatants can join in.

    On the value of the monastic life I think the monks would say that they are following a call from a God to seek His will for their lives which is expressed through community living. And they see an important part of their life as being a witness to the world. But also as offering intercessory prayer on behalf of the world.

    Ten Monastic Journeys is a fascinating collection of the personal stories of monks and nuns.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »

    This may be a tangent, in which case it should be ignored!, but I'd like to ask what actual good do the prayers and rituals of monastic life do? They have every right to live that way of course, but from a practical point of view, they can only do so because of the Utilities provided, and the availability of the way western countries are run and presumably they have the funds available to pay their way.

    What harm does it do to you? Practically nothing. You could live the whole of your life in blissful ignorance that they even exist.

    People exist who behave in ways you don't approve of. Fortunately both you and they have the freedom to express their religion, or lack of it.

  • Blahblah wrote: »
    I never read fiction. Because it's all made up.

    Why should that matter?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I never read fiction. Because it's all made up.

    Why should that matter?

    It doesn't, of course. We all learn from made up and imperfect, dodgy and largely crap sources all the time.

    Only a total fool thinks there is nothing useful to learn from fiction on the basis it is all made up.
  • Then why did you say it?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Then why did you say it?

    Irony?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Not if the Sultan were as honourable a man as Saladin.

    Yes, and the aftermath shows that the Sultan had considerable magnanimity. Though I suspect in part because he admired St. Francis's gumption.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Apart from Jesus, the only people reported to get stigmata, whether from actual crucifixion or pschyosomatically or by divine intervention are Roman Catholics.

    I think I've read accounts of particularly devout Muslims receiving stigmata mimicking the battle wounds of Muhammed. But I'm not sure what your point is here?



  • Haha, and I've actually just realised it's not true. Back when I was a godless unbeliever (and back even before I was a Buddhist) I got a horrible sort of dermatitis on the soles of my feet and palms of my hands, really red and scaly and nasty.

    When the doctor asked what the trouble was, I waggishly said 'stigmata '. She was tremendously unamused ....
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Then why did you say it?

    Irony?

    Failed.
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Blahblah wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »

    This may be a tangent, in which case it should be ignored!, but I'd like to ask what actual good do the prayers and rituals of monastic life do? They have every right to live that way of course, but from a practical point of view, they can only do so because of the Utilities provided, and the availability of the way western countries are run and presumably they have the funds available to pay their way.

    What harm does it do to you? Practically nothing. You could live the whole of your life in blissful ignorance that they even exist.
    You are making an incorrect assumption here. I have never said nor, I think, indicated that I believe they do harm to me personally, or people in general.
    People exist who behave in ways you don't approve of.
    Another incorrect assumption. You do not know what people or actions I disapprove of.
    Fortunately both you and they have the freedom to express their religion, or lack of it.

    Removed duplicate quote. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • Oh dear - it seems I must have clicked 'quote' twice. BroJames - may I ask you please to remove extra one?
  • Is irony in the eye of the beholder? I understood BlahBlah's bon mot about fiction as an ironic comment.

    It might not be a particularly funny attempt, but the ironic intention seemed clear to me.

    Perhaps it's a cultural thing?

    Not that, I hasten to add, I'm saying that particular cultures are 'better' than others ...

    On the Richard Rohr thing, I can see where Colin is coming from. It does look as if he's saying that everything has been shit since 1200. I only didn't interpret it that way as I've read a bit more Rohr and was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    But all that's by the by ...
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Another incorrect assumption. You do not know what people or actions I disapprove of.

    I feel we’ve been here before, not long ago. You argue tirelessly and at length against something that seems trivial or incidental. When queried why you’re pursuing it, you claim not to be invested at all in the point you’re arguing. Then you continue to argue the point. It’s most curious and, to my mind unnecessary. All it does is drag the thread down into the dust. This may be where you feel it belongs. But I do wish you’d either make your points with more conviction, or not at all.

  • Timo Pax wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Not if the Sultan were as honourable a man as Saladin.

    Yes, and the aftermath shows that the Sultan had considerable magnanimity. Though I suspect in part because he admired St. Francis's gumption.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Apart from Jesus, the only people reported to get stigmata, whether from actual crucifixion or pschyosomatically or by divine intervention are Roman Catholics.

    I think I've read accounts of particularly devout Muslims receiving stigmata mimicking the battle wounds of Muhammed. But I'm not sure what your point is here?
    Miracles don't happen. Transcription errors do... Muhammad's stigmata are new to me, thanks. I like Francis' radical humanist style of his time.

  • Timo Pax wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Another incorrect assumption. You do not know what people or actions I disapprove of.

    I feel we’ve been here before, not long ago. You argue tirelessly and at length against something that seems trivial or incidental. When queried why you’re pursuing it, you claim not to be invested at all in the point you’re arguing. Then you continue to argue the point. It’s most curious and, to my mind unnecessary. All it does is drag the thread down into the dust. This may be where you feel it belongs. But I do wish you’d either make your points with more conviction, or not at all.
    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?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    just because I argue for or against something does not indicate approval or disapproval.
    I do not know what you think 'approve' and 'disapprove' mean but I do not think they mean whatever you think they mean.

  • Is irony in the eye of the beholder? I understood BlahBlah's bon mot about fiction as an ironic comment.

    It might not be a particularly funny attempt, but the ironic intention seemed clear to me.

    Perhaps it's a cultural thing?

    Not that, I hasten to add, I'm saying that particular cultures are 'better' than others ...

    On the Richard Rohr thing, I can see where Colin is coming from. It does look as if he's saying that everything has been shit since 1200. I only didn't interpret it that way as I've read a bit more Rohr and was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    But all that's by the by ...

    Thank you. I agree that with more context i might have understood his point better. I do approve of Rohr's stance on LGBT&Q issues.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Miracles don't happen. Transcription errors do...

    (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.)
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    There are two reasons to argue on the interwebs for something you don't approve of. One of them is trolling. The other one doesn't exist.
  • 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?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Miracles don't happen. Transcription errors do...

    (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.)

    Mark. If it happened, God had nothing to do with it. People remit. Heal. God does not suspend the laws of physics. Not since 'He' walked The Earth. The blind do not see. Except by brain implants. Who knows? I do. You don't? So if it's verifiable, verify it. But there's nothing I can say is there? Just shit on your thread comment.

    We gotta get real Mark. But of course we can't. Even here.

    Divine healing is so denied by God, like YEC, that it doesn't break the surface of the statistics. But like YEC, it's true anyway. Despite there being nothing but material, statistical, recorded, repeated, scientific, rational, legal, forensic evidence to the contrary. What kind of God denies His intervention? Why would He do that?

    We shackle ourselves, faith, evangelism with... magic.

    Particularity of sub-statistical divine intervention is as valid as the particularity of the Word, the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, incarnating only once, completely, after eternity on our grain of sand out of infinite.

    What kind of faith requires me to be believe such... nonsense?

  • But, hmmm ... isn’t the fact that it’s sub-statistical a necessary condition for it being labelled miraculous?

    As in, e.g., the appearance of stigmata. I’m not sure the idea of Francis’s stigmata being a miracle, and being an RNA transcription error, are really antithetical.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Miracles don't happen. Transcription errors do...

    (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...
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    What kind of God denies His intervention? Why would He do that?
    ...

    Particularity of sub-statistical divine intervention is as valid as the particularity of the Word, the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, incarnating only once, completely, after eternity on our grain of sand out of infinite.

    Good questions. Aren’t the first two really Job’s?

    As for eternity and sand ... well, you’re almost quoting Blake, there. And when the world’s in a grain of sand and eternity’s in an hour, maybe one side effect’s that the stats don’t crunch quite as you’d expect?

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    .
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    mousethief wrote: »
    There are two reasons to argue on the interwebs for something you don't approve of. One of them is trolling. The other one doesn't exist.
    Why do you assume that just because I argue for or against something, that automatically indicates approval or disapproval?
    ETA Did you mean me? Apology If not.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    That’s interesting @SusanDoris. I only join discussions when I have a point of view to express. If I don’t have a point of view, or I find myself on the fence, I just watch the discussion or ask questions.

    I am very much on the fence and unsure of my point of view on veganism. I genuinely don’t know what I think about it - an unusual position of me. When I watch some discussions about it, I find one big problem - totally entrenched views on either side.

    I find your views on faith totally entrenched but I’m confused because you seem to be trying to appear neutral at the same time.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    That’s interesting @SusanDoris. I only join discussions when I have a point of view to express. If I don’t have a point of view, or I find myself on the fence, I just watch the discussion or ask questions.

    I am very much on the fence and unsure of my point of view on veganism. I genuinely don’t know what I think about it - an unusual position of me. When I watch some discussions about it, I find one big problem - totally entrenched views on either side.

    I find your views on faith totally entrenched but I’m confused because you seem to be trying to appear neutral at the same time.
    Well, I'm certainly not neutral! But that doesn't mean I am not always interested in what members of this forum say, especially on this Purgatory board.
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    There are two reasons to argue on the interwebs for something you don't approve of. One of them is trolling. The other one doesn't exist.
    Why do you assume that just because I argue for or against something, that automatically indicates approval or disapproval?
    ETA Did you mean me? Apology If not.

    Since this thread began with a discussion of various reasons for disapproval of the Christian faith in the context of a change of heart, I think this technical point is not entirely tangential and is worth clearing up.

    The dictionary definition of “disapprove” is to have or express an unfavourable opinion.

    @SusanDoris it is verifiable (in the text of your posts) that you have expressed an unfavourable opinion of some things, for example:
    - Religious faith
    - Spiritual direction
    - Monastic life
    And although I have not conducted any content analysis, skimming would suggest that many of your comments, on topics like the present discussion, include the expression of an unfavourable opinion of things like these.

    Perhaps if you do not actually have an unfavourable opinion on - for example - faith when you comment on it, you might indicate that you are taking a “devil’s advocate” position in order to advance the quality of argument? Otherwise on plain reading you are, by definition, usually indicating disapproval.

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Miracles don't happen. Transcription errors do...

    (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.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Timo Pax wrote: »
    But, hmmm ... isn’t the fact that it’s sub-statistical a necessary condition for it being labelled miraculous?

    As in, e.g., the appearance of stigmata. I’m not sure the idea of Francis’s stigmata being a miracle, and being an RNA transcription error, are really antithetical.

    The transcription error was mine in my typo of psychosomatic. There is no comparison with the life of Christ and the impact of the Holy Ghost in and around that, downwind for a generation, being the ultimate and only statistical anomaly, and our mundane experience of the Spirit.

    Reality now and for 99% of the time, all of human history, since Jesus' death does not include anything that can be rationally faithfully labelled miraculous. And the 1% was at the start. Nothing has happened since. Nothing ever happens under the auspices of the NHS. It always happens in rural Angola. The claim. Twice Westerners have made witness statements to me. I was appalled. The sense of loss I felt at the utter inadequacy of their accounts was acute. So disappointing. I wanted the claims to be true. Still do, irrationally. Another, deeply devout, pious, conservative, evangelical missionary doctor to Chad, at a dinner in her honour, was courageously honest to me personally. That moved me. She made no claims at all in describing her work terribly amusingly. With full eye contact she said to me, "Hopeless isn't it?". That's faith.

    It's long past time to put away childish things. But we can't. Rational faith is an outlier and always will be. Lonely are the brave. Faith is stagnant, corrupted by cognitive bias: delusion.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Far be it from me to interrupt the ongoing existential crisis Martin54. But even the laments are an expression of faith. And that's how I read yours.
  • Of course they are Rublev. And interrupt away. We are in Purgatory. For real.
  • MiffyMiffy Shipmate
    Back in my tertiary Franciscan days I was interested to learn that Francis may have been suffering from leprosy, hence the ‘stigmata.’ He wasn’t a healthy chappie, so no doubt there could have been any number of other physical symptoms of disease contributing to his state, but which may have been interpreted by his companions as indicators of God’s grace.

    Funnily enough, hearing this speculative information satisfied the rationalist in me, yet didn’t detract from my overall regard for the Saint.

    Though bouts of cognitive dissonance will always be part of my journey.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    @Martin54

    There is a Jewish Passover prayer which remembers the interventions that God made for the Israelites known as Dayenu: 'It would have been enough.'

    If He had brought us out of Egypt, it would have been enough.

    If He had divided the Sea for us, it would have been enough.

    If He had given us Shabbat, it would have been enough.

    If He had led us to Mount Sinai, it would have been enough.

    If He had given us the Torah, it would have been enough.

    A Christian NT version would include the incarnation, crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost.

    Perhaps for you the incarnation is enough.
  • Cameron wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    There are two reasons to argue on the interwebs for something you don't approve of. One of them is trolling. The other one doesn't exist.
    Why do you assume that just because I argue for or against something, that automatically indicates approval or disapproval?
    ETA Did you mean me? Apology If not.

    Since this thread began with a discussion of various reasons for disapproval of the Christian faith in the context of a change of heart, I think this technical point is not entirely tangential and is worth clearing up.

    The dictionary definition of “disapprove” is to have or express an unfavourable opinion.
    I will go back and look in a minute to see whether the word disapproval appeared in the OP.
    Hmmmm, I've been out for a walk and spent the time thinking about this. I had not realised that the definitions were so closely entwined. As far as I'm concerned, there is quite a difference. Yes, I have an opinion about religious beliefs, but whether I like dislikeapprove, disapprove, value or not value them or any part of them is totaly irrelevant. Life happens; people behave in a million different ways; none of that needs any opinion of mine. The older I have become, the more I realise that we can all hope to do the best we can and try not to do too much damage on the way. I wonder if there is another dictionary where I would find a definition more compatible with what I think!
    @SusanDoris it is verifiable (in the text of your posts) that you have expressed an unfavourable opinion of some things,
    I think that here it would appear to be unfavourable in the eyes or opinions of those who follow the faiths and religions, but possibly not in the opinion of other atheists.
    for example:
    - Religious faith
    - Spiritual direction
    - Monastic life
    - I definitely do not approve or disapprove of those. They are facts of life and those who take part have an absolute right so to do. I have opinions about them of course, but it is in the mind of others if they interpret my opinions as being particularly unfavourable. More importantly, it is having a place to write those opinions.
    And although I have not conducted any content analysis, skimming would suggest that many of your comments, on topics like the present discussion, include the expression of an unfavourable opinion of things like these.
    I repeat - I have opinions, but accept that the subjects of those opinions are part of life.
    Perhaps if you do not actually have an unfavourable opinion on - for example - faith when you comment on it, you might indicate that you are taking a “devil’s advocate” position in order to advance the quality of argument? Otherwise on plain reading you are, by definition, usually indicating disapproval.
    As far as the faith topic is concerned, I place it firmly on middle ground - not necessarily neutral, but being the middle part of an informal debate, without an opening motion or vote at the end. That is how I have always found SofF discussions so interesting.

    I hope I have answered your points. Pleas say if not.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    <snip>
    Yes, I have an opinion about religious beliefs, but whether I <snip> disapprove, value or not value them or any part of them is totaly irrelevant.

    I made no claims about the relevance or significance of your opinions, just the fact that you have opinions (that point is not in question) and that they showed you disapproved of certain subjects.

    In relation to the term “disapprove”, you have now said:
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    I wonder if there is another dictionary where I would find a definition more compatible with what I think!

    Yet when you started another thread on faith, you began with a dictionary definition. I used the same online dictionary. Shouldn’t we all abide by the same standard?

    Going back to your opinions:
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    I repeat - I have opinions, but accept that the subjects of those opinions are part of life.

    I did not suggest anywhere that you fail to accept that the subjects of your opinions are a part of life. I merely commented on the nature of your opinions, which have been expressed in a way that is unfavourable in relation to e.g. faith, monastic life and spiritual direction. That does not mean that those opinions should not be expressed, which you seem to be concerned about but I did not suggest at all.

    You also state that some would agree and some disagree with you. I think that is true, but it does not make your opinions neutral; probably the reverse, if you think about it. In any case you specifically wrote in an earlier reply to @Boogie that your position is not neutral.

    Despite that, you also say that:
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    ...it is in the mind of others if they interpret my opinions as being particularly unfavourable.

    That implies a deficiency in either the clarity of your writing or my ability to understand it. I find both of those premises difficult to accept. Perhaps I flatter myself in relation to the latter point, but I do not believe so.

    Overall, you now seem to be wishing that words meant different things than their accepted uses, and are contradicting yourself. I don’t really understand why; I was merely seeking to correct a technical error in your language use and you seem to be getting into contortions to try to argue against that.

    Wouldn’t it be easier to simply say “oops” and move on? We all make mistakes.

    Finally, I don’t want to derail the discussion with this trivial point so I will say no more on the matter.




  • Cameron

    thank you - and yes, I agree: Whoops! and move on!!
  • Rublev wrote: »
    @Martin54

    There is a Jewish Passover prayer which remembers the interventions that God made for the Israelites known as Dayenu: 'It would have been enough.'

    If He had brought us out of Egypt, it would have been enough.

    If He had divided the Sea for us, it would have been enough.

    If He had given us Shabbat, it would have been enough.

    If He had led us to Mount Sinai, it would have been enough.

    If He had given us the Torah, it would have been enough.

    A Christian NT version would include the incarnation, crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost.

    Perhaps for you the incarnation is enough.

    Yes but only if it can be considered, admitted rationally, honestly, without absurd, demeaning, magisterial dogma.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Were it not for the incarnation you would probably be a follower of the Tao:

    'The Tao that can be described
    Is not the eternal Tao.

    The name that can be spoken
    Is not the eternal name.'

    Lao Tzu.
  • Now that is very cool indeed. How mature.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    I thought you'd like that. But isn't that why the Lord tells Moses that His name is 'I Am what I Am?'
  • True. I only realised that recently thanks to Eutychus. "I am whatever I am and you can never experience that. I am whatever I say I am and that is an infinitesimal, figurative subset of what I ineffably am".
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    We experience as much as we can of God in the incarnated Christ. And isn't that enough?
  • 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 ...

    Are we perpetuating medieval superstition, defending the faith or living in cloud cuckoo land? I can deal with the paradoxes ... I think.

    Would I die in a ditch over Holy Well? Or Lourdes? Or people praying extemporary evangelical prayers or taking the Bible fairly literally or whatever else?

    There's a line in the Orthodox Liturgy that talks about 'rational worship', by which I suspect they mean that it's not ecstatic or orgiastic worship as in the Temple of Dionysius. Is it 'rational' to believe in miracles and Saints? The Incarnation and Resurrection?

    Or is it supra-rational?

    All I can do is say, 'Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief ...'

  • It'll have to be.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Miracles don't happen. Transcription errors do...

    (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.
Sign In or Register to comment.