posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
emperor at 02:56pm on 30/05/2004
emperor at 02:56pm on 30/05/2004I have to produce a set of small group notes for Methsoc to use next term. I need 7 sessions' worth, I think. I want to take the Nicene Creed as my basis, so need to chose 7 topics from it to consider. I'm currently thinking in terms of:
- "We believe" Why have a creed at all? Something on the nature of faith.
- "We believe in one God, the Father almighty" A personal God, suffering of God, God within the world ( theodicy), creation.
- "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ" Christology: the divine and human nature of Christ
- "For our sake he was crucified" Doctrines of salvation (I've wibbled about this previously here)
- "We believe in the Holy Spirit" The Holy Spirit: its nature and function
- "Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]" The doctrine of the Trinity (and maybe that troublesome filioque)
- "He will come again in Glory" Eschatology: Hell, Purgatory, Heaven, the end of time.
Obviously, some weeks may need pruning, and possibly others expanding. Have I missed anything key (and if so, what should be replaced by it?)? Should I adjust the order?
Update: You can find the text of the Nicene creed here.
[oh, and I now have a usericon for theological posts]
theological
(no subject)
Just stirring (a little) :)
(no subject)
(no subject)
It was the only other bit that jumps out of the Creed at me :)
(no subject)
(no subject)
-m-
(no subject)
Whassat then?
(And I like the icon :-)
(no subject)
Though it's been a long time (well over a decade!) since I studied such stuff.
(no subject)
The Eastern Church considers that the Father begets the Son, and breathes the Spirit. They consider the individuality of each of the three persons of the Trinity.
The Western Church considers that the Father begets the Son, and that both of these breathe the Spirit. This position really arises from giving the Unity of the Godhead primacy.
(no subject)
(no subject)
*grin* If it hadn't been different then they could have had a big argument about what 'proceeds' means instead ;-)
(no subject)
(no subject)
From a purely teacher's-daughter POV it looks like a competent plan for a series of talks, though my inner vet student is hooting with laughter at the notion of the anatomical diagrams to accompany the talk "The Holy Spirit: its nature and function" :)
(no subject)
It's very easy to keep your religion simple when you're the only one believing in it. However, that doesn't make it much of a challenge - anyone can believe in "things they like". I find this when arguing with
(no subject)
Precisely.
I have a profound dislike and distrust of organised and formalised religions because I despise the effects they have on the human mind. Blind faith is good for no-one, and faith hedged about with theological distractions serves only to focus the best minds among its believers on something other than the real effects the culture their belief system creates and sustains is having on the world. Religions exist as a cultural uniting force, but it's damn stupid to ignore the way they can also influence that united culture to make truly appalling decisions.
I also don't believe for a second that there's any such thing as a "true" religion; they're all invented for the same fundamental psychological reason and as a result it doesn't matter in the slightest which one you choose. Hence, I'll stick with my ineffectual fluffiness, since at least I know that it has no accompanying culture and therefore I also know that nowhere in the world are atrocities being carried out in the name of the gods I worship, justified by a two-thousand-year-old book of advice written for a culture and world vastly different from our own.
if your God is a true property of the universe then he should be comprehendable to the rest of humanity as well
I quite agree. Given that theory, however, I find it very interestng that nobody has ever managed to devise a definition of God that all human beings find comprehensible, and from there I conclude that gods are unlikely to be true properties of the universe - there aren't many humans who can't understand suitably phrased explanations of other "properties of the universe" like conservation of energy or why the sky's blue.
I do, on the other hand, believe that gods can be described as properties of the human mind, and I'm more than happy with my explanation of their function there. I just think that to arrogate to our own minds the property of universality is the most basic human mistake of all; we see things in human terms because we see using human brains, not because the universe is structured in terms we were meant to understand.
(no subject)
Which is somewhere we fundamentally differ, I believe that if God exists (as I believe He does) then there is truth in religion. I also believe that true religion is based on God's self-revelation rather than being human invention.
I quite agree. Given that theory, however, I find it very interestng that nobody has ever managed to devise a definition of God that all human beings find comprehensible, and from there I conclude that gods are unlikely to be true properties of the universe
I agree that God is not a `true property of the universe'. He is the creator of the universe and therefore outside us. He is not something that we can seek to define. We respond to him and cannot control or limit him.
(no subject)
I believe that the human mind is an astoundingly flexible and creative thing, and that it will go to remarkable lengths to preserve its own fragile perception of reality; I don't disagree for a second that (most) humans need gods, I just don't believe that means they truly exist oustide human perception.
One of the things that convinces me of this is that I had a religious experience myself at the age of about thirteen or fourteen; being a scientific child, I waited to see what happened, and found that after half an hour or so it wore off and life was essentially the same as it had always been. It really wasn't enough to convince me that everything I understood about the universe and had learnt how to deduce about it from first-hand observation was wrong, particularly not coupled with another experience a few years later which made it clear to me that the only time I feel a need for religion is when I'm scared the universe doesn't care whether the average human lives or dies - my brain finds that hard to cope with despite the fact that history and reality tell me it's true, because I'm a creature designed to understand the world in terms of relationships between beings like myself.
No, what I have faith in is the fact that I can't possibly know everything, so I can't possibly assume that there isn't a scientific explanation for religious experiences and the human need for deity; and over the course of my life I've come up with one that explains my responses to my own satisfaction. You have obviously chosen to go along with the dictates of your software, which I grant you is the natural thing to do and probably keeps you rather saner by strictly cultural definitions than I am; I'm very unusual in my ability to cope with high levels of ostracism and cognitive dissonance and to reject social and cultural norms in favour of trusting my own instincts, and you wouldn't believe how much that upsets the normals :)
The other interesting point is that with an attitude like mine the existence or otherwise of God becomes more or less irrelevant. If he does exist then he's always existed, and my life has got the way it is anyway; if he doesn't, then he never has, and my life is just my life and I direct it. As I understand modern Christianity it sees god as a non-human entity which loves all humans and is not subject to human vices such as pettiness, intolerance or spite and which also merely observes rather than taking direct part. So essentially it really doesn't matter whether I choose to believe in this entity or not since it will (a) love me anyway and (b) never have any direct and observable effect on my life other than whatever sense of satisfaction or otherwise the knowledge of my relationship with it creates within my own mind. Given this and the fact that choosing at my stage of development to believe in magic rather than science would create considerable rifts in my worldview which would be likely to do unpleasant things to the integrity of my personality, it seems more sensible not to burden myself with the additional workload of trying to come up with a plausible explanation for having faith in its existence. (I should point out that I consider the effect of becoming a member of a supportive community of like-minded people, which can and does have many beneficial effects for all humans whatever the uniting force is, to be very separate from that of "a relationship with god").
Lastly, of course, if god isn't infinitely loving and forgiving and does reject people who aren't nice to him rather than some other deity (in the traditional "well you'll go to hell then, won't you" model), then that pretty much makes him just as bad as I am, and I don't see any reason why I need to saddle myself with yet another demanding, prejudiced entity to which I need to explain myself - I've got plenty enough of those in my immediate circle of friends..
(no subject)
Of course, in my case, there are a few Minor Technical Difficulties with this, but the principle holds.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Why is your perception of reality more reliable than mine (or indeed that of thousands of faithful believers through history)? This argument says nothing about whether God does exist outside our perception.
You have obviously chosen to go along with the dictates of your software, which I grant you is the natural thing to do and probably keeps you rather saner by strictly cultural definitions than I am; I'm very unusual in my ability to cope with high levels of ostracism and cognitive dissonance and to reject social and cultural norms in favour of trusting my own instincts, and you wouldn't believe how much that upsets the normals :)
I'm trying to read that in a way that is not verging on patronising and arrogant, but I'm having trouble. I'm not quite sure what culture you're living in, but in the one at the school of my youth being a pratising Christian (especially as already being an odd ball loner who preferred reading to pop music) was not culturally sane. These days in this country, rejecting religion as fuzzy and not really really is probably closer to the cultural norm than being a committed member of a faith community. Having said that Chrisitianity is not about sticking to cultural norms (although it has been used to uphold the status quo at times in teh history of Western civilization). You seem to have assumed a fair amount about me without knowing me (and whilst we might have met at a Foundation or Rivendell party or soemthing I'm not sure who you are) and are implying that you are better than me.
As I understand modern Christianity it sees god as a non-human entity which loves all humans and is not subject to human vices such as pettiness, intolerance or spite and which also merely observes rather than taking direct part.
That sounds like Deism (which was common in the 18th century) rather than Christianity (modern or otherwise). I believe in a God who is involved in his Creation not a mere observor. The effects I see, admittedly from within my worldview to which the Nicene Creed (or at least the things to which it testifies) is central, are far wider than just a warm, fuzzy feeling. The story of the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord, Jesus Christ, is so amazing that if it is true, what can I do but respond in wonder, love and praise. I am a sinful human being but God loves me and wants to sort my sinfulness out. Maybe sinful isn't a word that resonates with you, but our being 'demanding, prejudiced entities' is very much a result of our sinfulness. I'm irritable and arrogant and all sorts of other things and I can't change myself, but God through his grace gives me power to change (but he asks my co-operation in this process -- and it's not quick).
Lastly, of course, if god isn't infinitely loving and forgiving and does reject people who aren't nice to him rather than some other deity (in the traditional "well you'll go to hell then, won't you" model), then that pretty much makes him just as bad as I am,
Aah, something on which we agree.
The issue of hell is a complex one, but I believe there comes a point at which we say to God, I prefer my way to yours, and damn ourselves to hell. He is working to redeem his creation (which we've messed up, often by thinking 'I/we know best') but does not coerce us.
(no subject)
I'm not implying anything; what I'm stating is that my worldview suits me better than yours would given the way we've each grown up. Tautological really, given that mine is the one I've personally evolved to suit my needs and yours is the one you've personally evolved for your needs; that was my whole point. I've no particular interest in demolishing Christianity as a credible religion, though I find it easy enough to pick holes and an entertaining subject to discuss for people's reactions; I just prefer to accept that in the modern world religion can only conceivably be a choice, and amusing to encounter Christians given that there are so many aspects of Christianity (God created the world, is all-powerful, &c) that pressure nonbelievers to assume the Christian way of thinking, in spite of the particular Christian's protestations of being assumption-free. Religions are memes, you see, they care about their own survival as a culture, and the best way to ensure that is by giving each individual host a little fillip for being a carrier and something else to strive for in order to keep them distracted from the wider implications of belief. Being a creature of the wider view myself, I see religion as something that causes more wars, inter-community strife, personal anguish and general pain in the world than even America's insatiable oil lust, and the only miracle I can believe in is the fact that so many people carry on believing in spite of that. Religions are like a kind of symbiotic virus that propagates because it has limited abilities to improve the health of the individual host, but can also wipe out entire populations when two different strains of it meet in the surrounding environment. I refuse to catch religion in the same way that I'd want to be immunised against that virus, because I believe it's more responsible to the human race in general not to spread it.
Yes, I am a card-carrying cynic, does it show? :-)
[next comment - I'm rambling]
(no subject)
The story of the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord, Jesus Christ, is so amazing that if it is true, what can I do but respond in wonder, love and praise. I am a sinful human being but God loves me and wants to sort my sinfulness out. Maybe sinful isn't a word that resonates with you, but our being 'demanding, prejudiced entities' is very much a result of our sinfulness. I'm irritable and arrogant and all sorts of other things and I can't change myself, but God through his grace gives me power to change (but he asks my co-operation in this process -- and it's not quick).
The story or the Passion etc. is so amazing that I find it extremely hard to believe it's factually true, given what I know of human nature. I know that people like to use stories, and stories gradually become bent to suit their purpose - look at gossip, which is designed to shock and scandalise and therefore tends to become steadily more lurid and outrageously speculative as it gets passed round. Don't get me wrong, as a fable the Jesus story certainly has merit, but if you look at the way myth and legend function in society it makes far more sense to see it as just one more jigsaw-puzzle piece of a particular culture, something that has been taken from probably perfectly sensible historic roots and gradually subverted more and more until it's become a fictionalised account, if you will; a teaching aid, basically, moulded into the shape that best stimulates the human ability to learn. Legends, fables and heroic stories have similar forms all over the world whether or not they're about Christian figures; there's got to be a reason for that, and there's certainly no reason to consider ourselves as Westerners any different from the rest of humanity, on the fundamental level.
As for the notion of sinfulness and of God asking your co-operation in changing your "sinful" behaviour; why does this require God? Why not just use willpower and a sound knowledge of the standard of behaviour you want to be adhering to? Why can't you love yourself, and want to sort yourself out? How do you tell the difference between God helping you change the bits of your behaviour you don't like and you doing it yourself? I'd say the only thing God provides is the standard you choose (or don't, if you're brought up Christian) to believe you ought to be living up to, which means God actually does more or less the same thing as Buddha, the military or the apartheid system. The internal changes happen, according to you, in the same slow and painstaking way even when God does provide some form of assistance; so how do you know it's god doing it and not you? Are all humans, including me, really incapable of positive action and self-development independently of god? Surely that contradicts the notion of free will, not to mention the fact that I'm quite aware I've achieved a phenomenal amount of positive change in myself without once asking god for help?
(no subject)
Whereas I am convinced it is factually true. It's historicity is too important in the early tellings of it and I doubt it would have had the impact if it was not true. It would have been too easy to disprove. The manuscript witness to it is also powerful evidence. It might not sound much but in comparison to the sort of stuff I work with it's amazing!
As for the notion of sinfulness and of God asking your co-operation in changing your "sinful" behaviour; why does this require God? Why not just use willpower and a sound knowledge of the standard of behaviour you want to be adhering to? Why can't you love yourself, and want to sort yourself out? How do you tell the difference between God helping you change the bits of your behaviour you don't like and you doing it yourself? I'd say the only thing God provides is the standard you choose (or don't, if you're brought up Christian) to believe you ought to be living up to, which means God actually does more or less the same thing as Buddha, the military or the apartheid system. The internal changes happen, according to you, in the same slow and painstaking way even when God does provide some form of assistance; so how do you know it's god doing it and not you? Are all humans, including me, really incapable of positive action and self-development independently of god? Surely that contradicts the notion of free will, not to mention the fact that I'm quite aware I've achieved a phenomenal amount of positive change in myself without once asking god for help?
In many ways that is an impossible position to answer because it provides an internally consist view in itself (as I believe my position does). My instinctive response comes from Scripture and Tradition; many others before me have taught that it is not possible, but I'm aware that won't wash with you. My second response is the fact that Communism failed (and became immensely corrupt) and that Capitalism works. I think the big flaw with communism was its idealism - with better education etc, people would be better people and share more fairly. It didn't work on a grand scale because of our greed. Equally Captilism works because it plays on that Greed. Also, I am capable of deceiving myself lots, I make excuses why X is ok for me when it isn't for others.
I don't think saying we need help does detract from our free will (although there are Christians who don't reckon we are free) because we can choose to accept the help or not. We are constrained to some extent by our creaturliness, in the same way that dogs are only free to be dogs. That doesn't stop us being free within those constraints.
(no subject)
I'm not entirely sure I've followed this sentence because the grammar's wonky because there's no main verb in the second of the co-ordinated clauses (i.e. after the and). However, I do not know Christians who claim that we are assumption-free, indeed personally I'd argue that this is not epistomologically possible. We all have assumptions at the base of our worldviews. These are unprovable from within the system but would cause it all to fall apart (who is it that argues that this is inevitable?). But I believe that reality exists outside my view of it. Thus some worldviews are closer to that reality than others which to me makes it deeper than just being a matter of personal choice.
Religions are memes, you see, they care about their own survival as a culture, and the best way to ensure that is by giving each individual host a little fillip for being a carrier and something else to strive for in order to keep them distracted from the wider implications of belief.
I'm not at all convinced by the concept of memes in this sense I'm afraid. I'm not sure what sense it is possible to say that 'memes care about their own survival' when they do not have independent identity to care.
Being a creature of the wider view myself, I see religion as something that causes more wars, inter-community strife, personal anguish and general pain in the world than even America's insatiable oil lust, and the only miracle I can believe in is the fact that so many people carry on believing in spite of that.
Yes, religion has been implicated in war and strife, but the record of unbelief is not entirely unblemished either. Stalinism was atheistic and look at that's record! I've just been reading a book called 'The knowledge of Angels' by Jill Paton-Walsh and an important strand of that is about the inquisition and I was left thinking `how did people reconcile this approach to heretics with our Lord's teaching?'. It is not the religions themselves which cause wars but our fallibility. It is too our discredit that the Church has not lived up to the Gospel she preaches at all times throughout history. Our Lord was vehement in his criticism of the Pharisees and yet Phariseeism has been (and still is) rife within Christianity.
(no subject)
I should very much hope that all members of religions/churches also believe in "things they like", as distinct from "things they don't like but have to believe in anyway", since the sensible reason for being a member of a religion/church is because you agree with it, and not because you've shoe-horned yourself into it for whatever reason.
a "religion" without a "church" (ie, a body of people who claim to believe similar things and meet to discuss them) doesn't seem to carry any more weight than "I think that..." However, if you're actually seeking a "true" religion, rather than "nice things you can pretend to believe in" then it should be something you can discuss and debate logically and make other people agree with you on (rather than fobbing people off with "but it's my faith")
Maybe you've just been unlucky in the people you've talked to about beliefs, but you are conflating church members with people who have thought seriously about their beliefs, and non-church members with people who haven't. Please don't. It's perfectly possible to hold a considered, consistent, rational and informed set of beliefs, and to be able to explain, discuss and defend them coherently without even believing in [Gg]od[s], let alone being part of a church. Religion is not a prerequisite for understanding, and whilst it is true that membership of an organised church provides more opportunities for discussion of beliefs, it also provides a set of assumptions which make it not the best place to hold many of the more interesting discussions ('is there a god?' springs to mind).
As the world is very complicated, this has lead to some complicated theological ideas. This is not necessarilly a Bad Thing
Mmmm, theological politics...
(no subject)
I should very much hope that all members of religions/churches also believe in "things they like", as distinct from "things they don't like but have to believe in anyway"
Well, err... I would think that "good" or "true" things were much better things than "things people liked". I mean, in the ideal person, they would only like and want that which was good and true, but... well you might like the idea of a world where you had all the money and power and everything was unfair, but unfair in your favour, but that wouldn't be a good or true thing. Sometimes things you don't like are good for you, or good for people in general. At least having to run your beliefs past other people is a sanity check for "is this just what *I'd* like, or what is generally a good thing?" Also, it is often useful / important to believe in things you don't like. I don't like the fact that people can't fly, but going round believing they can will just lead to some very messy jumps of bridges.
it also provides a set of assumptions which make it not the best place to hold many of the more interesting discussions ('is there a god?' springs to mind).
Hmmm... I've had very interesting discussions about these sort of things with Christians - the very fact people come to have faith in something often means they've thought very deeply about it, and most of the intelligent Christians I know nowadays are more than happy to have their faith challenged and go back to basics for some very controversal discussions.
(no subject)
Um. I've grown to see creeds as things with which to police the boundaries of discourse, less "We believe..." than "If you want to be with us, you'd better believe...". That's doctrine, not faith; authority, not reasoning.
Of course, as an outsider - and if I were an insider, I'd be far too heretical (in the proper sense of hairesis) to be comfortable in a Church-with-Capitals - (as
*chuckle* As a sideline, it feels really odd for me to see the Creed in English, and in modern English at that. Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium...
(no subject)
I didn't want to say that being a minority or having unpopular opinions necessarilly makes you wrong... but if you have opinions you can't persuade anyone of, can't discuss or debate or defend beyond "that's my faith" then there probably is something wrong with them... 2000 years ago someone *persuaded other people* that they were right, and their ideas keep being persuasive to this day. If your ideas can't hold water with any one at all even when they're prepaired to listen to you, then that's a good sign that they might be wrong...
(no subject)
Like
(no subject)
The thing I like about the end (One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic ... baptism ... resurrection ... life) is that it seems to link ecclesiology, sacramentology and eschatology -- a complicated relationship, but it says "What's the point of our being Church" -- which is an important question. Just see much of the rest of this thread. For a lot of people it isn't answered satisfactorily.
Just OOI, your take on hell and purgatory? I tend to incline toward universalism, but of course it's a Mystery and not up to me.
Enjoy the week!
H
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Surely this is about Incarnation ("He came down heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary and was made man")? "We believe in one God, the Father almighty" surely would lead more naturally to a discussion of monotheism and divine omnipotence?