defending your views

[Jane_the_Bane]

On the C of E website, Rowan Williams describes Christ as, "Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God", a watered down presentation of His divinity, for example.

That does indeed sound so unorthodox that even I, as an outsider, find it almost hilariously PC.
I suppose Mr. Williams could defend this phrase by pointing out that even the most orthodox interpretation regards the Christ as fully man as well as fully God, and that his statement is just a different way of expressing that dogmatic teaching.

Still, I agree with you on this particular issue: if somebody wants to pursue a very different take on Christianity, they ought to be free to do so - but then they should not pretend that what they are doing still reflects traditional Christianity, and should become a distinct group.

 

[crimsonleaf]

That does indeed sound so unorthodox that even I, as an outsider, find it almost hilariously PC.
I suppose Mr. Williams could defend this phrase by pointing out that even the most orthodox interpretation regards the Christ as fully man as well as fully God, and that his statement is just a different way of expressing that dogmatic teaching.

Still, I agree with you on this particular issue: if somebody wants to pursue a very different take on Christianity, they ought to be free to do so - but then they should not pretend that what they are doing still reflects traditional Christianity, and should become a distinct group.

That was the nub of my post, so thank you.

Agreement with you is always a delight. We should do it more often...

 

[KCfromNC]

That does indeed sound so unorthodox that even I, as an outsider, find it almost hilariously PC.
I suppose Mr. Williams could defend this phrase by pointing out that even the most orthodox interpretation regards the Christ as fully man as well as fully God, and that his statement is just a different way of expressing that dogmatic teaching.

Still, I agree with you on this particular issue: if somebody wants to pursue a very different take on Christianity, they ought to be free to do so - but then they should not pretend that what they are doing still reflects traditional Christianity, and should become a distinct group.

But in his defense, perusing a very different take on Christianity while still claiming to be orthodox is "traditional Christianity" as it has been practiced for 2000+ years. From its earliest days the church has had to reconcile traditional belief (e.g. the immanent return of Jesus within a generation of his death, what to do with people who renounced the faith due to persecution, etc.) with reality of the world around them. If they didn't, they'd have gone extinct long ago. So by evolving to follow the culture around them, these believers are following on of the central tenets of the religion - adapt to keep and gain followers.

 

[crimsonleaf]

But in his defense, perusing a very different take on Christianity while still claiming to be orthodox is "traditional Christianity" as it has been practiced for 2000+ years. From its earliest days the church has had to reconcile traditional belief (e.g. the immanent return of Jesus within a generation of his death, what to do with people who renounced the faith due to persecution, etc.) with reality of the world around them. If they didn't, they'd have gone extinct long ago. So by evolving to follow the culture around them, these believers are following on of the central tenets of the religion - adapt to keep and gain followers.

There's a difference between revisiting a verse and re-examining it in the light of obvious evidence (Christ's non-appearance) and changing central beliefs in order to fawn to society's demands in general.

 

[Gadarene]

There's a difference between revisiting a verse and re-examining it in the light of obvious evidence (Christ's non-appearance) and changing central beliefs in order to fawn to society's demands in general.

What about evidence like there's no reason at all to deny women the role of bishops and no evidence that they would do the job any less adequately than men?

Don't talk about evidence when it's selectively applied.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

There's a difference between revisiting a verse and re-examining it in the light of obvious evidence (Christ's non-appearance) and changing central beliefs in order to fawn to society's demands in general.

Indeed? Soooo.... not a big fan of the abolition of slavery, gender equality, not forcing people to stay married to an abusive spouse, and a bunch of other stuff the "traditional" church believed in, but has moved away from as society has changed?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Indeed? Soooo.... not a big fan of the abolition of slavery, gender equality, not forcing people to stay married to an abusive spouse, and a bunch of other stuff the "traditional" church believed in, but has moved away from as society has changed?

I've never been aware that slavery, abusive husbands or "a bunch of other stuff" has been dogma or doctrine of the church at any time. I've addressed gender inequality in another post. You should read it, then come back with some more accurate charges.

Edit* Hang on, you're a Catholic. Your church (Catholics would argue) has undergone the least number of changes of all churches. You should be supporting my charge, not arguing against it.

 

[crimsonleaf]

What about evidence like there's no reason at all to deny women the role of bishops and no evidence that they would do the job any less adequately than men?

Don't talk about evidence when it's selectively applied.

I haven't passed comment on whether women bishops are a good idea or not. My post was about liberalism. Read it again and rethink.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I've never been aware that slavery, abusive husbands or "a bunch of other stuff" has been dogma or doctrine of the church at any time. I've addressed gender inequality in another post. You should read it, then come back with some more accurate charges.

Read Paul. He is quite pro slavery. And you don't have to look far to find many Christians saying that divorce shouldn't be allowed even in cases of abuse. So yes, these have, in fact, been church held tennets of belief, and, thankfully, we have changed them as society has changed

Edit* Hang on, you're a Catholic. Your church (Catholics would argue) has undergone the least number of changes of all churches. You should be supporting my charge, not arguing against it.

Yes, we have undergone a number of changes, but not to CORE BELIEFS, which I rather thought was the subject at hand.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I haven't passed comment on whether women bishops are a good idea or not. My post was about liberalism. Read it again and rethink.

Link to post please?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Link to post please?

Make an effort, it's in the last couple of pages.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Make an effort, it's in the last couple of pages.

Translation: You don't really want anyone to read it, or you'd provide us a post number at least.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Read Paul. He is quite pro slavery. And you don't have to look far to find many Christians saying that divorce shouldn't be allowed even in cases of abuse. So yes, these have, in fact, been church held tennets of belief, and, thankfully, we have changed them as society has changed

Er, I'm not arguing with you over that. I have been referring to changing core beliefs.

Yes, we have undergone a number of changes, but not to CORE BELIEFS, which I rather thought was the subject at hand.

And I think you've gone full circle. You're making this tough for both of us. Organise your thoughts and try again.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Translation: You don't really want anyone to read it, or you'd provide us a post number at least.

No, I don't pander to bone idle posters who level accusations and ask me to point to a defence when all they have to do is scan a couple of recent posts to discover they are wrong.

And it's hardly hidden in a public forum.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Er, I'm not arguing with you over that. I have been referring to changing core beliefs.


And I think you've gone full circle. You're making this tough for both of us. Organise your thoughts and try again.

OK. Simple. I think the changes the church has made, or is making, or will have to make in the future that you seem to be railing against, are not what I would call "core beliefs".

How' that?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

No, I don't pander to bone idle posters who level accusations and ask me to point to a defence when all they have to do is scan a couple of recent posts to discover they are wrong.

And it's hardly hidden in a public forum.

... and still no post number.

 

[crimsonleaf]

OK. Simple. I think the changes the church has made, or is making, or will have to make in the future that you seem to be railing against, are not what I would call "core beliefs".

How' that?

Better but not perfect. Would you claim the divinity of Christ is a core belief?

I'm not opposed to change, nor have I stated that I am. I'm opposed to the Church weakening its message to accommodate the views of those who find its message difficult to handle,or who are otherwise indifferent to it. On the C of E website, Rowan Williams describes Christ as, "Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God", a watered down presentation of His divinity, for example.

There, I've done some of the work for you.

 

[crimsonleaf]

... and still no post number.

And still bone idleness from you.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Better but not perfect. Would you claim the divinity of Christ is a core belief?

Yes, its all there in the Creed.

I'm not opposed to change, nor have I stated that I am. I'm opposed to the Church weakening its message to accommodate the views of those who find its message difficult to handle,or who are otherwise indifferent to it. On the C of E website, Rowan Williams describes Christ as, "Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God", a watered down presentation of His divinity, for example..

Is it? Or is it an attempt to explain one of our core beliefs to non-Christians? Because that's not a bad description, if you're trying to explain the gist of Christianity to an outsider without bogging down in the paschal mysteries, which are, lets be honest, a little hard to grasp the first time you hear them.

 

[Gadarene]

There, I've done some of the work for you.

So I was thinking of the right quote.

Point is unchanged. You fobbed off a point about what plainly reads as a prophecy of Jesus' returning in his lifetime as being updated based on evidence, so I suggested the same approach re. women seeking to become bishops.