Sure, but as far as I understand it, they were interpreting 'spirit' in a more restrictive sense. I accept that goes some way towards fleshing out your complaint, and I'm not unsympathetic. We've just had Rublev apparently trying to appropriate your meditative experiences within the purlieu of theistic prayer.
So fair do's.
That said, I still don't see those theists who use the term 'spirituality' in a more restrictive sense out to deny you the right to pursue these things in your own terms nor deny that you have a sense of mystery and the numinous.
Thank you. The way I see it, and I admit I am a bit prickly about it, is that theists and atheists (at least the more spiritually inclined or interested variety of atheist) are chasing the same thing under different names. In other words, I don't see the spirituality of a theist as in any way superior to that of a spiritually inclined atheist.
In other words, all beliefs are fundamentally equal because the only measurable value of a belief is its usefulness to the believer.
The nonsense is that by associating rationality, functionality, and consumerism with "perpetual war" Rohr attempts to smear the last 800 years of human progress. Anyone who thinks the superstition-ridden twelfth century was in any possible way better than modern western society is a fool.
Rohr isn't saying that the twelfth century was "better". He, like many historians, identifies 12th-century Italy as the cusp of a momentous shift in European society still recognisable today, and sees contemporary Western Civ as thus marked by many of the same traits and problems that existed then. Rohr then goes on to claim that this is what makes St. Francis relevant now: because of the cultural continuum that exists between St. Francis's day and ours, his foundational critique still applies.
And you know, I'm not performing any hermeneutic wonders here. I'm just reading the text that is on the page.
Colin I don’t particularly go for the idea of monastic living but I think you dismiss going to check out a monastery too quickly. Just because it is Christian does not mean it has no value. If only for architectural and artistic value.
Meditation as you have described it is not the same and cannot be compared. There is value in it.
Err. I've been to quite a few abbeys and the like. I had a job interview at Buckland Abbey and worked at Mottisfont Abbey (albeit that had been a private residence since the Dissolution. I've also visited, to name a few, Glastonbury Abbey, Whitby Abbey, Bayham Abbey (albeit a long time ago) along with Wells, Salisbury, St Davids, Ely, Exeter, Winchester, and Canterbury Cathedrals, and countless numbers of parish churches. I'm no stranger to church architecture.
I had not picked that up from what you had said. Apologies
The nonsense is that by associating rationality, functionality, and consumerism with "perpetual war" Rohr attempts to smear the last 800 years of human progress. Anyone who thinks the superstition-ridden twelfth century was in any possible way better than modern western society is a fool.
Rohr isn't saying that the twelfth century was "better". He, like many historians, identifies 12th-century Italy as the cusp of a momentous shift in European society still recognisable today, and sees contemporary Western Civ as thus marked by many of the same traits and problems that existed then. Rohr then goes on to claim that this is what makes St. Francis relevant now: because of the cultural continuum that exists between St. Francis's day and ours, his foundational critique still applies.
And you know, I'm not performing any hermeneutic wonders here. I'm just reading the text that is on the page.
For me, it all hinges on the phrase "perpetual war". Medieval European history isn't a strong point of mine but I doubt one could look at the period 400 to 1200 AD and conclude there was significantly less war than in the 800 years following 1200 AD. It would be more reasonable to say that using a wide enough scope perpetual war is the usual state of human affairs.
I accept that 12 century Italy was a significant time and that in hindsight it marked great changes but to me Rohr's use of "perpetual war" to describe the 800 years after 1200 implies that he believes those changes were negative when I believe those changes were overwhelmingly positive.
A lot depends upon how you understand the questions of what is prayer and spirituality. And what are humans and who is God? A SD would have discussions with a directee within the framework of the Biblical narrative and their faith tradition.
I've never had a discussion that was quite that broad. Because in the common ground of a particular faith tradition these questions would be taken for granted. It would be more along the lines of Where is God in this situation? Or What would develop my prayer life? Or How might aspects of Benedictine / Ignatian / Franciscan spirituality be helpful to me?
You can disagree with him and his interpretation of one thing, based on your reading of this one tiny text, and not disregard his many decades of writing. The conclusion that all or Rohr’s thought is fundamentally flawed because of your dislike of one passage is hubristic and logically untenable.
TBH, I believe that the works of all theologians are fundamentally flawed because they believe in something which, in my view, does not exist.
A lot depends upon how you understand the questions of what is prayer and spirituality. And what are humans and who is God? A SD would have discussions with a directee within the framework of the Biblical narrative and their faith tradition.
I've never had a discussion that was quite that broad. Because in the common ground of a particular faith tradition these questions would be taken for granted. It would be more along the lines of Where is God in this situation? Or What would develop my prayer life? Or How might aspects of Benedictine / Ignatian / Franciscan spirituality be helpful to me?
My understanding of the breadth of spirituality is pretty much in accordance with the collection of the Library of Avalon where I am a volunteer librarian and at whose desk I am currently sitting. It includes: Astrology; Arthurian legend; fiction (SF, fantasy, historical and mythological); religions (comparative, Paganism, Wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Christianity and many others); occult teachings; magic (or magick) in numerous categories; divination; Tarot; Runes; reincarnation; Qabala (spelling optional); UFOs; ESP; astral projection; channeling; clairvoyance; philosophy; psychology; prophecy; Earth mysteries; environmental issues; sustainable living; [and]alternative technology.
Colin, come on now. Here you are on a website dedicated to discussing something you believe is made up. And here you are being rational and engaging with it moreorless on its own terms.
I put it to you that this is not how you would behave if you thought it was "fundamentally flawed" and therefore not worth anything at all.
Almost any sane person would, when he comes across a group of people with complicated ideas founded on utter bullshit, eventually decide that he has better things to do with his time. If you met someone who insisted that he was made of cheese and you were a talking banana, it might be fun for a while talking as if this were open for discussion, but eventually you would probably run away clutching your ears.
The fact that you are here, engaging in conversation about points of theology, says to everyone that these are things worth discussing and that those theists who believe things that you don't have ideas that are worth listening to and considering.
For me, it all hinges on the phrase "perpetual war". Medieval European history isn't a strong point of mine but I doubt one could look at the period 400 to 1200 AD and conclude there was significantly less war than in the 800 years following 1200 AD.
I'm admittedly out of my depth on this, but here I go anyway.
"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. There were the Crusades, which was church-sponsored, or at least church-promoted, warfare. There was the rise of nationalism (as seen, for example, in the Hundred Years War). There was gunpowder and, I think increased reliance on infantry.
Made up isn't how I would put it. Belief is a fascinating subject and I am quite open that my atheism is itself a belief. Shakespeare's plays are made up and sometimes flawed but no one would say they are of no interest as dramatic works or for the way they have shaped language and culture. For that alone I would be interested in belief and those who believe.
I am also interested in belief and believers because I write fiction and it's useful to talk to those with very different worldviews to inform my writing.
As regards cheese and bananas, there's a chap I've encountered a few times in Glastonbury who believes he is a falcon-god and that Amen-Ra sent him to Glastonbury, so tbh, you're all relatively normal.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
(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.)
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?
(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.
(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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
Comments
Thank you. The way I see it, and I admit I am a bit prickly about it, is that theists and atheists (at least the more spiritually inclined or interested variety of atheist) are chasing the same thing under different names. In other words, I don't see the spirituality of a theist as in any way superior to that of a spiritually inclined atheist.
In other words, all beliefs are fundamentally equal because the only measurable value of a belief is its usefulness to the believer.
Rohr isn't saying that the twelfth century was "better". He, like many historians, identifies 12th-century Italy as the cusp of a momentous shift in European society still recognisable today, and sees contemporary Western Civ as thus marked by many of the same traits and problems that existed then. Rohr then goes on to claim that this is what makes St. Francis relevant now: because of the cultural continuum that exists between St. Francis's day and ours, his foundational critique still applies.
And you know, I'm not performing any hermeneutic wonders here. I'm just reading the text that is on the page.
I had not picked that up from what you had said. Apologies
For me, it all hinges on the phrase "perpetual war". Medieval European history isn't a strong point of mine but I doubt one could look at the period 400 to 1200 AD and conclude there was significantly less war than in the 800 years following 1200 AD. It would be more reasonable to say that using a wide enough scope perpetual war is the usual state of human affairs.
I accept that 12 century Italy was a significant time and that in hindsight it marked great changes but to me Rohr's use of "perpetual war" to describe the 800 years after 1200 implies that he believes those changes were negative when I believe those changes were overwhelmingly positive.
Accepted
I've never had a discussion that was quite that broad. Because in the common ground of a particular faith tradition these questions would be taken for granted. It would be more along the lines of Where is God in this situation? Or What would develop my prayer life? Or How might aspects of Benedictine / Ignatian / Franciscan spirituality be helpful to me?
TBH, I believe that the works of all theologians are fundamentally flawed because they believe in something which, in my view, does not exist.
Every text is 'made up' and all contain a variable degree of truth.
My understanding of the breadth of spirituality is pretty much in accordance with the collection of the Library of Avalon where I am a volunteer librarian and at whose desk I am currently sitting. It includes: Astrology; Arthurian legend; fiction (SF, fantasy, historical and mythological); religions (comparative, Paganism, Wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Christianity and many others); occult teachings; magic (or magick) in numerous categories; divination; Tarot; Runes; reincarnation; Qabala (spelling optional); UFOs; ESP; astral projection; channeling; clairvoyance; philosophy; psychology; prophecy; Earth mysteries; environmental issues; sustainable living; [and]alternative technology.
I put it to you that this is not how you would behave if you thought it was "fundamentally flawed" and therefore not worth anything at all.
Almost any sane person would, when he comes across a group of people with complicated ideas founded on utter bullshit, eventually decide that he has better things to do with his time. If you met someone who insisted that he was made of cheese and you were a talking banana, it might be fun for a while talking as if this were open for discussion, but eventually you would probably run away clutching your ears.
The fact that you are here, engaging in conversation about points of theology, says to everyone that these are things worth discussing and that those theists who believe things that you don't have ideas that are worth listening to and considering.
"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. There were the Crusades, which was church-sponsored, or at least church-promoted, warfare. There was the rise of nationalism (as seen, for example, in the Hundred Years War). There was gunpowder and, I think increased reliance on infantry.
Made up isn't how I would put it. Belief is a fascinating subject and I am quite open that my atheism is itself a belief. Shakespeare's plays are made up and sometimes flawed but no one would say they are of no interest as dramatic works or for the way they have shaped language and culture. For that alone I would be interested in belief and those who believe.
I am also interested in belief and believers because I write fiction and it's useful to talk to those with very different worldviews to inform my writing.
As regards cheese and bananas, there's a chap I've encountered a few times in Glastonbury who believes he is a falcon-god and that Amen-Ra sent him to Glastonbury, so tbh, you're all relatively normal.
There's no contradiction. Belief itself is of interest regardless of what is believed in.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Irony?
Yes, and the aftermath shows that the Sultan had considerable magnanimity. Though I suspect in part because he admired St. Francis's gumption.
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?
When the doctor asked what the trouble was, I waggishly said 'stigmata '. She was tremendously unamused ....
Failed.
Removed duplicate quote. BroJames Purgatory Host
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 ...
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.
Can you think of anything I have written which directly indicates approval or disapproval?
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.
(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.)
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?
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?
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.
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...
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?
ETA Did you mean me? Apology If not.
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.
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.
That's the cognitive bias of random survivor guilt in the case of the one. The other I don't recall.