The great Church debate!

Listen to the wife Jonathan. Once a year won't kill you and might well remind you how fortunate you are.

Clay,

You're right - we went and it was an appropriate hour of reflection as you say on how fortunate we are. Not really my type of service - a bit too high church for my liking so I plan to explore the other local church to see how it compares. I think I'm probably a little more modernist in my leanings - not exactly evangelical but in that direction.

Anyway, worth the effort all the same...

Jonathan

I don't need to be lectured by a representative of some of the richest institutions in the world to know how fortunate I am. The Vatican's ostentatious gold is obscene as is the Anglican's ownership of land.

Cheers Bob. Have a beer on me.

Dear Bob, why does the Church Commissioners holding land cause you some problem? I imagine that you equally disapprove of all 'good causes' / 'charities' having investments to support their work?

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
I don't need to be lectured by a representative of some of the richest institutions in the world to know how fortunate I am. The Vatican's ostentatious gold is obscene as is the Anglican's ownership of land.

Being a Catholic Christmas without a solemn mass would be completely impossible for me. This year, I could listen to moving music from Haydn and Bach and the sermon was excellent.

But for many people money is the new and only god. They celebrate x-mas without any Church, that`s it.

Manfred

The probability that a god exists is so infinitely small that it is as accurate as saying that "There is no such thing as god" as makes no difference.

There is no actual evidence that a historical "Jesus" ever existed outside the pages of some primitive texts that were written like fictional stories in the first place.

Example: "Jesus" conversation with "god" in the "Garden of Gethsemane" is recounted word for word. Given that all else present were "some way off" and "asleep", who was there to record it?

So no, I don't go to church.

Happy New Year.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
There is no actual evidence that a historical "Jesus" ever existed outside the pages of some primitive texts that were written like fictional stories in the first place.

You ought to read your Josephus, mate, and a few other non-Judeo-Christian sources.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

You ought to read your Josephus, mate, and a few other non-Judeo-Christian sources.

Josephus: Thin, at best. Statement of supposition presented as fact. Appears to be hearsay with no supporting evidence. More than likely added to later as an attempt by the Xtians at self-justification.

Must Do Better.

I would be interested to know which - if ANY - ancient writers satisfy your forensic C21st method of reading? Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Sallust, Livy, Cicero..?? etc, etc, etc...? Without exception, none will do so.

To read any ancient literature with our 'live reportage journalism' point of view, is to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose and nature of ancient literature. But then again, neither does 'live reportage journalism' satisfy a forensic C21st method of reading. The hermeneutic of time shows up the inadequecy of modern writing, none of which is neutral.

As it happens, the Christian Faith does not rely only on the written witness - which, as a matter of interest, in terms of the normal criteria applied to ancient literature, stacks up well as quality source material, both in the number, consistency, geographic distribution and dating of actual documents. The written witness of Christianity is part of the Tradition - 'that which is handed down'.

However, from a personal point of view, as someone who was a student of Ancient History and Classical Archaeology before ever I was a Christian, I would like to think that I bring to my faith something of the insights and disciplines of that to the reading of Christian texts, both Scripture and Patristics as well as later writings.

What would YOU be willing to be skinned alive for?

One of the things that interests me is why the first Christians - 11 of the 12 apostles for example - who (according to you) 'knew' that they had nothing to gain, no benefit, no material wealth, would be quite so willing to die and die horribly. After all, it's not exactly Che encouraging his comrades 'over the top' in frothy revolution.

I think in putting in the boot and dismissing things out of hand - or indeed saying that literature written 2000 doesn't read like the BBC website - it is important to have the integrity and honesty to acknowledge if one actually starts out with an underlying base assumption that it is automatically wrong, which leads to a prejudicial eisogesis, which is not a respectable academic methodology.

A key problem with post-Enlightenment secular thinking is that it is extremely patronising towards any view but its own - only its view will do. There is the whiff of fundamentalism. As the philosopher John Gray puts it, there is a kind of liberalism that is "a species of fundamentalism, not a remedy for it."

Mate, that was deep
p.s what is your job description ???

I love JWM's posts!
Thanks for your insight.
Wasn't there a story about the Doubting Thomas who needed his own evidence to believe?
David

Right on Munch, I too wont get into this. Each to their own etc., religion above all else is a place only the unwise get into
But whatever your belief, and no one has a right to tell you yr right or wrong, is yours and yours alone.

Problem with all religions, especially the Christian one, was refined so many years ago, when the general mass of people did not read and revered those that did (the priests) The religious movements - who all claimed to know better than the uneducated masses - were instrumental at that time in designing the religious process (mumbo jumbo) to keep the population in fear of the almighty (and priests) and it seems to me they have not moved on much since.

But the original poster was only asking who went to church on Christmas. Not me, my religion does not require me to join with others and sing songs and talk to something I do not believe in. I am a pagan, I respect all, mother earth & all its occupants - end of.

Just wouldn't want to see what you would say if "you did get into it"

Tails of myths and magic don't do anything for me, although Lord of the Rings was good.

I have no problem with Jesus existing, my problem is who he /others claim he is/was.

I have no problem about going to church, although I seldom do. I prefer Methodist(in which I was raised) as they have better tunes.
If I go it is with my better half, and that is C of E high church, (too many costumes and baubles for me).
I don't do communion although I am confirmed.

There is a nun called Wendy Beckett, who made some TV programmes for the BBC a few years back in which she pretended to be an art critic.

She was quoted recently as saying that "Atheists cannot argue the non-existence of god because they don't have any theology, poor lambs."

A remarkable statement for being patronising and stupid both at the same time.

It is true that, as an atheist arguing the non-existence of god, I don't have any theology. It is also true that as an atheist arguing the non-existence of leprechauns, I also don't have any leprechaunology.

Or Santa-Clausology, or Unicornology, or even any Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden-ology.

Poor me.

As is so often the case, I think that many of you are confusing the existence of Jesus (pretty definite and well documented) with God (almighty being/creator/evrlasting - whatever) for which I not yet seen any proof either way.

You just need to read a few books to be pretty convinced about the existence of jesus

Spooky....

The above post "hung up" in mid-post

Cheers

Don

Thanks for that link Mike.
It does give a rational explanation of the available evidence or lack of.
Can someone post something on the 'pro' side as informative?

quote:

As is so often the case, I think that many of you are confusing the existence of Jesus (pretty definite and well documented)

I think you might want to reappraise that statement Don.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BigH47:
Thanks for that link Mike.
It does give a rational explanation of the available evidence or lack of.
Can someone post something on the 'pro' side as informative?

No.There isn't any.

Surely faith is not about a legalistic debate on 'proof' or about the veracity of various documents-well it does not seem so to me. Mike's website link seems to miss the point.

The issue of Faith appears to me to be about belief, something that requires the evidence only as a part of the picture. Those who believe acquire an unshakeable conviction because what they read, hear and see matches what they feel (and perhaps need) at an emotional and spiritual level. Faith in a deity is all the more unshakeable for the very fact is is about the 'unprovable'.

Surely the mystery is part of the allure, the attachment to something that transcends our mundane and linear existence? Casting various historical documents in a critical light will never destroy the magic for the faithful.

When people have asked me why I do not believe in a God I have always answered simply; "Because I don't believe". This is not to do with how I read bible history; or the Koran/Torah for that matter. It is not because I've not read enough to obtain a scientific proof (or disproof) but because I've not made that intellectual leap.

Bruce

I have an unshakeable faith that the universe is created every second by a giant outer-space monster made of spaghetti. I know this because those touched by it's noodly magical appendages have told me so. I demand that you respect my deeply held belief and not seek to suggest any risibility that may make me a bit unhappy.

Hail, Blessed Pasta!!

quote:

It is not because I've not read enough to obtain a scientific proof (or disproof) but because I've not made that intellectual leap.

Bruce

http://richarddawkins.net/

Get on with it.

quote:

I think you might want to reappraise that statement Don.

I doubt it.

There is a reasonable amount of evidence that shows Jesus existed. There is, IMHO, bugger all evidence that Jesus was God, or the Son of God or whatever. Some people are willing to believe he was, others are not willing to so believe. Either way, IMHO, its called "faith". Ditto our belief, or non-belief in any other form of deity.

Dorkins (yes, he really is a dork!) is little more than a nasty troll, IMHO.

Cheers

Don