Alternatives to the Alpha Course
Trevor Jenkins
Alpha. They found it "over their heads"; neither had ever been in a church
building until their first Alpha session. The course material assumes a
working knowledge of the Bible --- at least that one knows a few stories
from it. Rather than persevere with something they do not understand
these people have chosen to drop out of the course. :-(
I wonder if there are less "intellectual" courses that these people could
be invited to. How is the "Y" course in this respect? Or "Christianity
Explored"? I'll suggest to the friend who brought these people that J
John's "10" series might be more appropriate --- at least they've heard of
the 10 Commandments.
A lack of Bible knowledge seemed to be a common problem on this particualr
Alpha course as one of the other guests was a Muslim. He'd never read the
Bible either --- but then how many outside of the church do. Actually how
many inside the church read their Bibles? Better not go any further with
that one here I suppose.
Regards, Trevor
<>< Re: deemed!
Vexen
news:slrnbg5vdh.vtj...@suneidesis.com...
<snip>
> A lack of Bible knowledge seemed to be a common problem on this
particualr
> Alpha course as one of the other guests was a Muslim. He'd never
read the
> Bible either --- but then how many outside of the church do.
Actually how
> many inside the church read their Bibles? Better not go any further
with
> that one here I suppose.
A Christian priest was once browsing my book collection... they *had*
read most of Anton LaVey, including The Satanic Bible, but had never
read The Quran... nor had they actually browsed it! They didn't know
how it's books were organized, or the similar problems they've had
with the canonization process... I don't think that most people from
traditional monotheistic religions read such things... and your
average atheists or normal person (opposed to a religious person :P )
probably read none at all. How on Earth, from all the religious
literature available from all the different religions, would they even
pick a text to begin with? They don't know where to start... there are
next to zero "Dummies guide to religion" type books to make the topic
of religion accessible.
> Regards, Trevor
>
> <>< Re: deemed!
--
Vexen Crabtree
http://vexen.livejournal.com
Debbie
Jenkins) wrote:
You could take a look at the Journey Course:
http://www.buildingsoflondon.co.uk/journey/
--
Debbie
Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.
Simon Robinson
> next to zero "Dummies guide to religion" type books to make the topic
> of religion accessible.
Funny you should mention that :-)
http://search.dummies.com/s97is.vts?Action=Search&Collection=CDA3_DUMMIES&Re
sultTemplate=results.cda3d.hts&ResultCount=200&QueryText=religion
Simon
------------------------------------------------
Simon Robinson
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
------------------------------------------------
John Hetherington
news:slrnbg5vdh.vtj...@suneidesis.com...
I wonder if another reason drop out of Alpha courses is that the basis on
which it approaches the Bible and handles faith ideas is so distant from the
world view of many ordinary people. The Alpha course presents a very
particular perspective on Christianity - but mainstream faith also includes
a long tradition of careful biblical study, progressive adaption to growing
human knowledge and insight, and a deep concern for the practical practice
of justice in the world of today. It probably needs its own equivalent of
Alpha - but there are lots of great books and study guides that encourage
free discussion and exploration of a faith that is open to the world as we
know it. A new Network is emerging around the world to better explain this
mainstream approach to Christianity, and in Britain the Progressive
Christianity Network Britain has recently launched to bring together and
support those who want to understand Christianity in a more open and
contemporary way.
To illustrate this, I'm quoting below from a recent edition of the
newsletter by the retired US Bishop John Spong - who spoke at a conference
in Kendal in Cumbria which I chaired which included the launch of the
Progressive Christianity Network Britain. To get a free taster subscription
of John Spong's regular Newsletters visit:
http://secure.agoramedia.com/index_spong.asp?promo=19149B6F-3BD5-460B-96DD-EDF540D21D14
John Spong says:
"First at St. James' Church, Piccadilly, in the heart of London, then at the
United Reformed Church in Kendal, in the center of England's beautiful Lake
District, I keynoted in June the launch of something called "The Progressive
Christianity Network - Britain." Altogether, between 350 and 400 people
joined in these two launches.
What were these people seeking? Why had they come together? In a variety of
different ways, they were saying that their Christian faith was suffocating
in the atmosphere of an increasing fundamentalism emanating from Evangelical
Protestantism and conservative Roman Catholicism. They had become tired of
having their faith publicly interpreted as favoring issues dedicated to the
repression of equality for women and freedom and justice for homosexual
persons. They had grown weary of listening to the Bible being quoted as the
final authority on a variety of complex modern moral issues. They are aware
that this sacred text has been inappropriately used in this manner for
centuries. The Bible opposed democracy and supported the divine right of
kings. The Bible was quoted to bless the institution of slavery and later to
support segregation and apartheid. The Bible was used to oppose Galileo and
the development of modern science. The people who formed this network find
it hard to believe that a 21st century Christian can still attribute final
answers to a book that reached its written form between the years 1000
B.C.E. and 135 C.E.
These people live in a world shaped by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Einstein
and Hawking. They are no longer capable of pretending that God is a
supernatural parent figure who lives somewhere above the sky, intervening
periodically to accomplish the divine will. They have embraced the evolution
in thought led by Isaac Newton but spreading from him into the world of
astro-physics on one end and sub-atomic reality on the other, precluding
most of the ideas of miracle and magic in which religion so often traffics.
These people have embraced the revolution in thought begun by
Charles Darwin. They can make no sense of the traditional Christian myth
that postulates a perfect creation from which human life has fallen,
necessitating a divine rescue that was somehow accomplished on the cross of
Calvary. That mythological framework has quite frankly died for them. They
have come to see human life not as fallen from some perfection but as
emerging through a vast evolutionary process.
Of course, the easy response to this crisis in faith would be to dismiss
Christianity as a hopelessly dated, somewhat antiquated religious system
from yesterday's world, which is destined soon to take its place alongside
the Gods of the Olympus in the museums of religious antiquity. These people,
however, are unwilling to do that. God is too real for them to limit their
God experience to the supernatural tribal definitions of yesterday. The life
of Jesus has conveyed the reality of this God too deeply for them simply to
ignore it. The Church has in the past fed them as a community of people on a
pilgrimage. They do not want to end this spiritual journey. They are seeking
a worship experience that will enable them to walk past the crude religious
literalism of yesterday and yet not beyond the mystery of God."
This is just a taster, but if anyone is interested in subscribing to John
Spong's newsletter visit:
http://secure.agoramedia.com/index_spong.asp?promo=19149B6F-3BD5-460B-96DD-EDF540D21D14
OR if you haven't discovered the Progressive Christianity Network - Britain,
visit: www.pcnbritain.org.uk to learn more, and follow the link to "Join Us"
where you can download a membership form. We also have a Forum where you are
welcome to discuss the issues raised in John's letter or any other topic.
There is already a thread running on "What is progressive Christianity".
--
John Hetherington
Homepage: http://www.john.hetherington.btinternet.co.uk/
Photo Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/johngh
[NB All outgoing E mails scanned with Norton Anti-Virus]
Please visit:
Progressive Christianity Network - Britain www.pcnbritain.org.uk
Progressive Christianity Network - Lakes Group Site
http://pcnlakes.webspace.fish.co.uk/
Progressive Christianity Network - International www.tcpc.org
Trevor Jenkins
> "Trevor Jenkins" <Trevor....@suneidesis.com> wrote:
> > Actually how many inside the church read their Bibles? Better not go any
> > further with that one here I suppose.
>
> read such things... and your average atheists or normal person (opposed to
Sadly the latter is so true; there is very little reading of any sort
undertaken nowadays (perhaps with the exception of Page 3). However, one
might expect people to have read the Bible when some 80% of the population
claims to be Christian.
> next to zero "Dummies guide to religion" type books to make the topic
> of religion accessible.
Someone's already pointed to that one. :-)
Regards, Trevor
<>< Re: deemed!
Gareth McCaughan
> To illustrate this, I'm quoting below from a recent edition of the
> newsletter by the retired US Bishop John Spong
...
> These people live in a world shaped by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Einstein
> and Hawking. They are no longer capable of pretending that God is a
> supernatural parent figure who lives somewhere above the sky, intervening
> periodically to accomplish the divine will.
Spong is engaging here in what seems to me a not altogether
honest caricaturing of positions other than his. We do not
have to choose between Spong's post-theistic approach and
belief in a parent figure who lives somewhere above the sky.
Of course it's much easier to dismiss opposing views than
to argue against them.
And, incidentally, if Spong can explain which of Hawking's
discoveries make traditional forms of Christianity any
harder to believe, I'll be very interested. (Best guess:
the "no-boundary" proposal, which in my opinion makes
not a scrap of difference to Christianity.)
> They have embraced the evolution
> in thought led by Isaac Newton but spreading from him into the world of
> astro-physics on one end and sub-atomic reality on the other, precluding
> most of the ideas of miracle and magic in which religion so often traffics.
It would be very interesting if Spong would explain what
in Newton's work, or the subsequent development of astrophysics
and particle physics, "precludes most of the ideas of miracle
and magic in which religion so often traffics". I assume the
purpose of the word "magic" is to give the impression that
miracle and magic are more or less the same thing, without
actually coming out and saying so.
> These people have embraced the revolution in thought begun by
> Charles Darwin. They can make no sense of the traditional Christian myth
> that postulates a perfect creation from which human life has fallen,
> necessitating a divine rescue that was somehow accomplished on the cross of
> Calvary. That mythological framework has quite frankly died for them. They
> have come to see human life not as fallen from some perfection but as
> emerging through a vast evolutionary process.
The need for a "divine rescue" is, I think, pretty much
independent of the question whether there was a historical
"fall" or not.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Steven Carr
SPONG
> > They have embraced the evolution
> > in thought led by Isaac Newton but spreading from him into the world of
> > astro-physics on one end and sub-atomic reality on the other, precluding
> > most of the ideas of miracle and magic in which religion so often traffics.
> It would be very interesting if Spong would explain what
> in Newton's work, or the subsequent development of astrophysics
> and particle physics, "precludes most of the ideas of miracle
> and magic in which religion so often traffics". I assume the
> purpose of the word "magic" is to give the impression that
> miracle and magic are more or less the same thing, without
> actually coming out and saying so.
Perhaps you could explain why miracle and magic are not more or less
the same thing. You may include references to popular views of God's
powers as illustrated in 'Bruce Almighty', in your answer. You may
assume that by 'magic', Spong is not referring to the magic tricks of
, say, Tommy Cooper, but to the view that the laws of the universe may
be changed by willpower.
Icarus
> The need for a "divine rescue" is, I think, pretty much
> independent of the question whether there was a historical
> "fall" or not.
If the source of this idea of a 'fall' is discredited, then doesn't that
mean that the idea of a 'divine rescue' is discredited also? (i.e.
regardless of whether we 'need' it or not, it ain't gonna happen).
Vexen
message news:bdvknl$a7i$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> [Vexen]
> > next to zero "Dummies guide to religion" type books to make the
topic
> > of religion accessible.
>
> Funny you should mention that :-)
>
>
http://search.dummies.com/s97is.vts?Action=Search&Collection=CDA3_DUMMIES&Re
> sultTemplate=results.cda3d.hts&ResultCount=200&QueryText=religion
I mentioned that in particular because I do remember my surprise at
first seing "XReligiousConcept for Dummies" books - I initially
thought all Dummies books were Computing ones.
Vexen
religions
> > read such things... and your average atheists or normal person
(opposed to
> > a religious person :P) probably read none at all.
>
> Sadly the latter is so true; there is very little reading of any
sort
> undertaken nowadays (perhaps with the exception of Page 3). However,
one
> might expect people to have read the Bible when some 80% of the
population
> claims to be Christian.
Well I think the term "Christian" is retained by entire families who
are not actually believing Christians, but just performing roles
expected of them. I even know a member of the Church of Satan in the
UK who put down "Christian" on their census form because their family
was Christian (the person in question didn't consider "Satanism" to be
a "Religion", and guessed they were "Christian" because their family
were). I know other atheists (2 I have in mind got /confirmed/ !!!)
who also "go along" with Christianity, despite both not believing in
it *and* resenting "having" to do so! (They were under family
pressure).
Erm:
"Why numbers of traditional world religions become exaggerated"
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/numbers.html
<snip book>
--
Vexen
Nick Milton
wrote:
>"Gareth McCaughan" <gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> The need for a "divine rescue" is, I think, pretty much
>> independent of the question whether there was a historical
>> "fall" or not.
>
>If the source of this idea of a 'fall' is discredited, then doesn't that
>mean that the idea of a 'divine rescue' is discredited also?
Why? You can be rescued from something without having fallen into it?
nick
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> It would be very interesting if Spong would explain what
>> in Newton's work, or the subsequent development of astrophysics
>> and particle physics, "precludes most of the ideas of miracle
>> and magic in which religion so often traffics". I assume the
>> purpose of the word "magic" is to give the impression that
>> miracle and magic are more or less the same thing, without
>> actually coming out and saying so.
>
> Perhaps you could explain why miracle and magic are not more or less
> the same thing. You may include references to popular views of God's
> powers as illustrated in 'Bruce Almighty', in your answer. You may
> assume that by 'magic', Spong is not referring to the magic tricks of
> , say, Tommy Cooper, but to the view that the laws of the universe may
> be changed by willpower.
Very kind of you to tell me what I may do.
The main difference between "miracle" and "magic" is
that miracles are done[1] by God when and how he chooses,
whereas magic is done[1] by us when and how we choose.
If astrophysics and particle physics somehow proved
magic impossible, then perhaps the proof would also
prove miracles impossible. I can't imagine how they
could prove either, so it's hard to be sure.
[1] In so far as either is done at all, of course. It is
possible that there are no miracles, and it is possible
that there is no magic.
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> The need for a "divine rescue" is, I think, pretty much
>> independent of the question whether there was a historical
>> "fall" or not.
["Icarus":]
> If the source of this idea of a 'fall' is discredited, then doesn't that
> mean that the idea of a 'divine rescue' is discredited also? (i.e.
> regardless of whether we 'need' it or not, it ain't gonna happen).
I'm not sure what you mean by "if the source of this idea
of a 'fall' is discredited". Perhaps you mean: if the Bible
is shown to be a load of rubbish, then we no longer have
any reason for believing in a "divine rescue". That's
probably true. But Spong doesn't exactly say that the Bible
is a load of rubbish, though he does come close. He says
that we can no longer accept Genesis 3 as history. That
may or may not be true, but if it's true then it doesn't
require us to reject the Bible so totally as to discredit
completely what it says about a "divine rescue".
If you mean something else, or if you weren't defending
Spong's logic but just saying "as we atheists know, the
Bible is a load of rubbish, so he's right about there
being no divine rescue", then feel free to explain.
Hernandez Family
> Steven Carr wrote:
>
> [I said:]
> >> It would be very interesting if Spong would explain what
> >> in Newton's work, or the subsequent development of astrophysics
> >> and particle physics, "precludes most of the ideas of miracle
> >> and magic in which religion so often traffics". I assume the
> >> purpose of the word "magic" is to give the impression that
> >> miracle and magic are more or less the same thing, without
> >> actually coming out and saying so.
> >
> > Perhaps you could explain why miracle and magic are not more or less
> > the same thing. You may include references to popular views of God's
> > powers as illustrated in 'Bruce Almighty', in your answer. You may
> > assume that by 'magic', Spong is not referring to the magic tricks of
> > , say, Tommy Cooper, but to the view that the laws of the universe may
> > be changed by willpower.
>
> Very kind of you to tell me what I may do.
>
> The main difference between "miracle" and "magic" is
> that miracles are done[1] by God when and how he chooses,
> whereas magic is done[1] by us when and how we choose.
>
> If astrophysics and particle physics somehow proved
> magic impossible, then perhaps the proof would also
> prove miracles impossible. I can't imagine how they
> could prove either, so it's hard to be sure.
Oh my goodness, tonight's postings are so thought-or-laughter-provoking!
Excellent point, Gareth--had not thought of it that way, but you are so
"right". And it makes all the difference in the world, doesn't it.
~ Jan
"Only one life will soon be past; only what's done for Christ will last."
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
"Surviving the Loss of a Child: Our Lora Beth"
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/vieja/index2.html
Steven Carr
> Steven Carr wrote:
>
> [I said:]
> >> It would be very interesting if Spong would explain what
> >> in Newton's work, or the subsequent development of astrophysics
> >> and particle physics, "precludes most of the ideas of miracle
> >> and magic in which religion so often traffics". I assume the
> >> purpose of the word "magic" is to give the impression that
> >> miracle and magic are more or less the same thing, without
> >> actually coming out and saying so.
> > Perhaps you could explain why miracle and magic are not more or less
> > the same thing. You may include references to popular views of God's
> > powers as illustrated in 'Bruce Almighty', in your answer. You may
> > assume that by 'magic', Spong is not referring to the magic tricks of
> > , say, Tommy Cooper, but to the view that the laws of the universe may
> > be changed by willpower.
> Very kind of you to tell me what I may do.
Not at all. Think nothing of it.
> The main difference between "miracle" and "magic" is
> that miracles are done[1] by God when and how he chooses,
> whereas magic is done[1] by us when and how we choose.
Well, if you are simply going to define magic as not being what God
does, then your criticism of Spong for conflating the two is true, but
trivial.
There are healings associated with the apostles and Paul in Acts. And
Elijah and Elisha performed things like feeding a crowd, raising
people, making iron float. Are these magical healings and acts? Is
there any magic in the Bible?
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> The main difference between "miracle" and "magic" is
>> that miracles are done[1] by God when and how he chooses,
>> whereas magic is done[1] by us when and how we choose.
>
> Well, if you are simply going to define magic as not being what God
> does, then your criticism of Spong for conflating the two is true, but
> trivial.
I think it's less trivial than it sounds, for two reasons.
1 The connotations as well as the denotations of the words
are relevant here. Spong isn't engaging in rational
argument (you'll notice that he says nothing whatever
of *how* the various scientific advances he mentions
are supposed to lead people to abandon forms of religion
he dislikes) but in emotional manipulation, and the
associations of "magic", at least for Christians, are
quite different from those of "miracle". I think Spong
is hoping that by putting the two together he will
make some of the bad repute of "magic" spread over
to "miracle" for his readers.
2 The difference in denotation is relevant too. It makes
more sense to say "science has shown us that human beings
cannot do such-and-such" than to say "science has shown
us that God cannot do such-and-such". Strictly, neither
is very close to being true, but the first is certainly
nearer than the second.
> There are healings associated with the apostles and Paul in Acts. And
> Elijah and Elisha performed things like feeding a crowd, raising
> people, making iron float. Are these magical healings and acts? Is
> there any magic in the Bible?
Associated with, yes. But presented as being in each case the
work of God. The story of Naaman is there precisely to make it
clear that there's a difference.
Simon Robinson
> 2 The difference in denotation is relevant too. It makes
> more sense to say "science has shown us that human beings
> cannot do such-and-such" than to say "science has shown
> us that God cannot do such-and-such". Strictly, neither
> is very close to being true, but the first is certainly
> nearer than the second.
It does however seem plausible to me to suggest that science has
shown that God generally doesn't choose to do such-and-such.
Where 'such-and-such' = anything that breaks the laws of physics.
That's more like the statement on which I would tend to base my
own strong sceptisism whenever I hear of so-called miracles.
From the point of view of observing what actually goes on in
the physical world, I'm not sure there's any difference between
'God cannot do X' and 'God doesn't choose to do X',
although viewed in a theological/spiritual light there's obviously
a great difference.
Icarus
> ["Icarus":]
> > If the source of this idea of a 'fall' is discredited, then doesn't
that
> > mean that the idea of a 'divine rescue' is discredited also? (i.e.
> > regardless of whether we 'need' it or not, it ain't gonna happen).
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "if the source of this idea
> of a 'fall' is discredited". Perhaps you mean: if the Bible
> is shown to be a load of rubbish, then we no longer have
> any reason for believing in a "divine rescue". That's
> probably true.
Well yes, that's more or less what I meant. If it's claimed to be the word
of a god, and if it's shown to be wrong in places, then it doesn't seem
unreasonable to suppose that it's not actually the word of a god but the
product of people's imaginations instead.
> But Spong doesn't exactly say that the Bible
> is a load of rubbish, though he does come close. He says
> that we can no longer accept Genesis 3 as history. That
> may or may not be true, but if it's true then it doesn't
> require us to reject the Bible so totally as to discredit
> completely what it says about a "divine rescue".
I don't really know anything about Spong, but... If a god wanted to tell us
stuff, couldn't we reasonably expect him to tell us stuff that was
factually correct? Or, to look at it in a different way, under what
circumstances could you imagine a genuine communication from a god to be
factually incorrect in some places but correct in other places? Why
wouldn't he ensure that it was correct all the way through?
Steven Carr
> Steven Carr wrote:
GARETH
> >> The main difference between "miracle" and "magic" is
> >> that miracles are done[1] by God when and how he chooses,
> >> whereas magic is done[1] by us when and how we choose.
CARR
> > Well, if you are simply going to define magic as not being what God
> > does, then your criticism of Spong for conflating the two is true, but
> > trivial.
GARETH
> I think it's less trivial than it sounds, for two reasons.
> 1 The connotations as well as the denotations of the words
> are relevant here. Spong isn't engaging in rational
> argument (you'll notice that he says nothing whatever
> of *how* the various scientific advances he mentions
> are supposed to lead people to abandon forms of religion
> he dislikes) but in emotional manipulation, and the
> associations of "magic", at least for Christians, are
> quite different from those of "miracle".
Just because one word is not theologically correct does not mean that
Spong is wrong to say that miracle and magic are not the same.
Sellafield was renamed from Windscale because of the associations with
the name.
Doesn't mean that they are two different things.
> I think Spong
> is hoping that by putting the two together he will
> make some of the bad repute of "magic" spread over
> to "miracle" for his readers.
Which is why you are denying that the two are basically the same
thing.
> 2 The difference in denotation is relevant too. It makes
> more sense to say "science has shown us that human beings
> cannot do such-and-such" than to say "science has shown
> us that God cannot do such-and-such". Strictly, neither
> is very close to being true, but the first is certainly
> nearer than the second.
Still does not prove that changing the course of the laws of universe
by sheer willpower is not an equally good definition of magic and
miracle.
CARR
> > There are healings associated with the apostles and Paul in Acts. And
> > Elijah and Elisha performed things like feeding a crowd, raising
> > people, making iron float. Are these magical healings and acts? Is
> > there any magic in the Bible?
GARETH
> Associated with, yes. But presented as being in each case the
> work of God. The story of Naaman is there precisely to make it
> clear that there's a difference.
So Elijah and Elisha had no powers to work miracles?
Gareth McCaughan
> [Gareth McCaughan]
> > 2 The difference in denotation is relevant too. It makes
> > more sense to say "science has shown us that human beings
> > cannot do such-and-such" than to say "science has shown
> > us that God cannot do such-and-such". Strictly, neither
> > is very close to being true, but the first is certainly
> > nearer than the second.
>
> It does however seem plausible to me to suggest that science has
> shown that God generally doesn't choose to do such-and-such.
> Where 'such-and-such' = anything that breaks the laws of physics.
> That's more like the statement on which I would tend to base my
> own strong sceptisism whenever I hear of so-called miracles.
> From the point of view of observing what actually goes on in
> the physical world, I'm not sure there's any difference between
> 'God cannot do X' and 'God doesn't choose to do X',
> although viewed in a theological/spiritual light there's obviously
> a great difference.
I hope you aren't expecting me to disagree.
Ian Collier
hastily scribbled some words to post to uk.religion.christian:
>I mentioned that in particular because I do remember my surprise at
>first seing "XReligiousConcept for Dummies" books - I initially
>thought all Dummies books were Computing ones.
Not at all.
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-100030.html
--
---- Ian Collier : i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk : WWW page below
------ http://users.comlab.ox.ac.uk/ian.collier/imc.shtml
Al
The pub,
Cinema,
Good tv on Tuesdays - Nevermind the Buzzocks etc
Football on SkyTV
Mark Goodge
>Good tv on Tuesdays - Nevermind the Buzzocks etc
What's a Buzzock? Anything like a Wazzock?
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"Don't hold on to your past"
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>>>> The main difference between "miracle" and "magic" is
>>>> that miracles are done[1] by God when and how he chooses,
>>>> whereas magic is done[1] by us when and how we choose.
[Steven:]
>>> Well, if you are simply going to define magic as not being what God
>>> does, then your criticism of Spong for conflating the two is true, but
>>> trivial.
[me:]
>> I think it's less trivial than it sounds, for two reasons.
>>
>> 1 The connotations as well as the denotations of the words
>> are relevant here. Spong isn't engaging in rational
>> argument (you'll notice that he says nothing whatever
>> of *how* the various scientific advances he mentions
>> are supposed to lead people to abandon forms of religion
>> he dislikes) but in emotional manipulation, and the
>> associations of "magic", at least for Christians, are
>> quite different from those of "miracle".
>
> Just because one word is not theologically correct does not mean that
> Spong is wrong to say that miracle and magic are not the same.
That's right; it doesn't.
>> I think Spong
>> is hoping that by putting the two together he will
>> make some of the bad repute of "magic" spread over
>> to "miracle" for his readers.
>
> Which is why you are denying that the two are basically the same
> thing.
Which is one reason why I am objecting to his use of
the term "magic". Whether the two are "basically the
same" is a matter of definition; if, for instance, you
define "magic" as any event inexplicable in principle
by science without assuming excessively low-probability
happenings, then doubtless "miracle" is a special case
of "magic".
Miracle and magic are largely indistinguishable in their
effects. But they are also largely indistinguishable in
their effects from "sufficiently advanced technology";
I don't think it would be helpful to conflate that with
either of the other two. I wouldn't say that any two of
those three things are "basically the same thing" despite
the similarity in their effects.
(The above paragraph assumes for the sake of argument
that miracle, magic and sufficiently-advanced-technology
all exist. It is of course possible that some or all of
them don't, and I am not here making any claims about
whether they do.)
>> 2 The difference in denotation is relevant too. It makes
>> more sense to say "science has shown us that human beings
>> cannot do such-and-such" than to say "science has shown
>> us that God cannot do such-and-such". Strictly, neither
>> is very close to being true, but the first is certainly
>> nearer than the second.
>
> Still does not prove that changing the course of the laws of universe
> by sheer willpower is not an equally good definition of magic and
> miracle.
Just as making things happen that we can't explain is an
equally good definition of magic, miracle, and very advanced
technology. The fact that there is a definition that applies
equally well to two things doesn't make them the same.
>>> There are healings associated with the apostles and Paul in Acts. And
>>> Elijah and Elisha performed things like feeding a crowd, raising
>>> people, making iron float. Are these magical healings and acts? Is
>>> there any magic in the Bible?
>>
>> Associated with, yes. But presented as being in each case the
>> work of God. The story of Naaman is there precisely to make it
>> clear that there's a difference.
>
> So Elijah and Elisha had no powers to work miracles?
God did the miracles.
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "if the source of this idea
>> of a 'fall' is discredited". Perhaps you mean: if the Bible
>> is shown to be a load of rubbish, then we no longer have
>> any reason for believing in a "divine rescue". That's
>> probably true.
>
> Well yes, that's more or less what I meant. If it's claimed to be the word
> of a god, and if it's shown to be wrong in places, then it doesn't seem
> unreasonable to suppose that it's not actually the word of a god but the
> product of people's imaginations instead.
Not all Christians believe that the Bible was written
by God. I suspect that most Christians do not believe
that the Bible was written by God.
>> But Spong doesn't exactly say that the Bible
>> is a load of rubbish, though he does come close. He says
>> that we can no longer accept Genesis 3 as history. That
>> may or may not be true, but if it's true then it doesn't
>> require us to reject the Bible so totally as to discredit
>> completely what it says about a "divine rescue".
>
> I don't really know anything about Spong, but... If a god wanted to tell us
> stuff, couldn't we reasonably expect him to tell us stuff that was
> factually correct? Or, to look at it in a different way, under what
> circumstances could you imagine a genuine communication from a god to be
> factually incorrect in some places but correct in other places? Why
> wouldn't he ensure that it was correct all the way through?
It's difficult to predict how a god would behave; by
hypothesis, gods are much cleverer than I am and know
much more than I do and have minds very different from
mine. However, I offer the following two considerations:
1 The world is conspicuously short of perfect things.
It seems reasonable to conclude that *if* there is
a god in charge, then that god is not primarily
concerned with giving us perfect stuff to work with.
2 I can think of possible reasons why a god seeking
to communicate with us would use unreliable channels.
For instance, giving us demonstrably perfect information
about all the things s/he/it might want to tell us
about might interfere with some sort of freedom that
matters. Some things might be fundamentally impossible
to give perfectly accurate information about without
messing up our freedom. (If you know that a god says
you'll do something, there must be at least some
temptation to do something different just to prove
them wrong.) The god's reason for communicating with
us might be something other than telling us everything.
(If you're teaching someone, you will not tell them
all the answers because it's best for them to figure
them out themselves.) Giving us information through
unreliable channels might be a way to tell us things
without giving too much away.
I don't claim that any of these reasons is obviously
good enough, of course. But it's not impossible to
see how there might be reasons for such behaviour.
Kevin Donnelly
Jenkins <Trevor....@suneidesis.com> writes
>A couple of acquaintances came to the first couple of sessions of our
>Alpha. They found it "over their heads"; neither had ever been in a church
>building until their first Alpha session. The course material assumes a
>working knowledge of the Bible --- at least that one knows a few stories
>from it. Rather than persevere with something they do not understand
>these people have chosen to drop out of the course. :-(
>
>I wonder if there are less "intellectual" courses that these people could
>be invited to. How is the "Y" course in this respect? Or "Christianity
>Explored"? I'll suggest to the friend who brought these people that J
>John's "10" series might be more appropriate --- at least they've heard of
>the 10 Commandments.
>
>A lack of Bible knowledge seemed to be a common problem on this particualr
>Alpha course as one of the other guests was a Muslim. He'd never read the
>many inside the church read their Bibles? Better not go any further with
>that one here I suppose.
>
>
><>< Re: deemed!
It's a question well worth asking. Ukrc readers know that my generation
was brought up on a diet of Biblical references and allusions that seems
in a different world, where preachers did not have to spell things out.
Or even journalists. Guardian newspaper sportswriter Eric Todd
once referred to one football club in difficulties with the exclamation
Ichabod. How many young ukrc lurkers know that one without looking it
up?
Or this headline from the front page of the Independent two days
ago, 3rd July "Reaping the whirlwind". Anyone know that one without
looking it up? I knew it was OT but had to look it up. Stand with your
face to the wall, Kevin.....
OTOH this year's GCSE entries include students, intelligent
writers, who think that before 1945 there were no telephones or
photographs....
I think I'll take a hot-water bottle and go to bed. Anyone know
that one?
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Simon Robinson
> I hope you aren't expecting me to disagree.
Well I guess if you _really_ want to agree with me I might
let you :-)
Tony Gillam
news:$Vma6qCcupB$Ew...@kevdon.demon.co.uk
> I think I'll take a hot-water bottle and go to bed. Anyone
> know that one?
>
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Steven Carr
<skip>
CARR
> >>> There are healings associated with the apostles and Paul in Acts. And
> >>> Elijah and Elisha performed things like feeding a crowd, raising
> >>> people, making iron float. Are these magical healings and acts? Is
> >>> there any magic in the Bible?
GARETH
> >> Associated with, yes. But presented as being in each case the
> >> work of God. The story of Naaman is there precisely to make it
> >> clear that there's a difference.
CARR
> > So Elijah and Elisha had no powers to work miracles?
GARETH
> God did the miracles.
Following on your definition of miracles as what God does and magic as
what others do, are the tricks done by Satan (showing Jesus all the
kingdoms) magic?
Is there magic in the Bible?
Kevin Donnelly
<nickspamt...@hotmail.com> writes
One concern historically common to world religions is the presence of
evil, however evil may be understood. The Fall of Man is one
explanation for the presence of evil and both Judaism and Christianity
deal with this, a process of explanation that is ongoing now.
Enlightenment rationalist thinking, such as the ideas of Comte
and his successors seemed to ignore the question of evil. They thought
that religion would eventually be replaced by objective science, even
that science might become the new religion. Well we know what Aldous
Huxley and HG Wells finally thought of that, for if anything put paid to
the idea that science could save humanity, it was Auschwitz and
Hiroshima. And no, I am not anti-science, for I owe my life to medical
science, but whenever men they have become gods, there's trouble.
Not long back I think Lawrence Jupp responded to a post of mine
about unforeseen consequences to well-intended actions. I don't think I
replied to that, but the Abortion Law Reform act of 1967 seems a good
example. ALR was finally approved to facilitate the extreme example of
a sick woman whose life could only be saved if she had an abortion, an
argument often used to denigrate the RC church. Another argument was to
remove the dangerous back-street abortionist from business. Even so one
prominent BMA officer declared himself totally opposed to "baby
riddance".
The conditions of ALR were strict, the approval of two doctors
being one condition, I think. The age of the foetus was also
restricted, I think. However these conditions were gradually
ameliorated, and abortion on demand, opposed vigorously by David Steel
and his supporters, is almost de facto, the ultimate form of
contraception. UK figures now show that abortions since 1967 are well
into the second million.
What was never envisaged, as I recall the debate, was the shock
experienced by nurses, especially RC ones, at the method of disposal of
the unwanted foetuses. Now however a use had been found for some of
them. Rather than being dumped or incinerated, bits of them can be used
for medical research, or for ever more bold experiments in medical
technology. From the womb to the freezer, supermarket style. This also
is a long way from thoughts of the ALR proponents in 1967, although
critics of the time saw it coming, insisting that abortion was evil, and
that what been a criminal offence, could not suddenly be turned into a
public "good".
Had ALR been in force when my mother was expecting me, her fifth
child, I'd never have made it. Some guys in white coats would no doubt
have advised her that with four children already, and two recent
miscarriages, she might want to consider the options....... One of my
relatives incidentally, experienced two miscarriages, and wept copiously
each time.
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Gareth McCaughan
>>> So Elijah and Elisha had no powers to work miracles?
>>
>> God did the miracles.
>
> Following on your definition of miracles as what God does and magic as
> what others do, are the tricks done by Satan (showing Jesus all the
> kingdoms) magic?
You're right: that doesn't fit either half of my dichotomy
too well. I'm not sure whether I'd class it as miracle or
as magic. This is all wrangling over definitions, anyway.
Sometimes that matters, as when someone chooses their words
to discredit something without actually arguing against it.
Sometimes it doesn't. :-)
> Is there magic in the Bible?
I think the Egyptian magicians' attempts to duplicate
the miracles performed "by" Moses would count.
Hernandez Family
> "Icarus" wrote:
>
> [I said:]
> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "if the source of this idea
> >> of a 'fall' is discredited". Perhaps you mean: if the Bible
> >> is shown to be a load of rubbish, then we no longer have
> >> any reason for believing in a "divine rescue". That's
> >> probably true.
> >
> > Well yes, that's more or less what I meant. If it's claimed to be the
word
> > of a god, and if it's shown to be wrong in places, then it doesn't seem
> > unreasonable to suppose that it's not actually the word of a god but the
> > product of people's imaginations instead.
>
> Not all Christians believe that the Bible was written
> by God. I suspect that most Christians do not believe
> that the Bible was written by God.
Then you are talking about most Christians in the UK, not the US! Or maybe
I'm just naive? I hope not ;o) (Just a semantic correction: for what it's
worth, those like-minded to myself believe the Bible was communicated by God
through men, perfect in its transmittal, near-perfect in its transcription,
and only minimally imperfect in its translations where a team of scholars
did the work--all imperfections being unimportant to the overall message.)
~ Jan
"Remember, it is sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it." James
4:17
Hernandez Family
My goodness, most US citizens don't even recognize Noah and the ark!! Isn't
that just pathetic? (but then...I'm not a "young" ukrc lurker... *sigh*)
Never ceases to amaze me that so many in my country can rattle off the names
of every quarterback in the football league (and their teams), or the names
of musical groups (and their top hits), but they can't see one reason for
learning even the basic Sunday School stories. We have a TV show called
Jeopardy, which has categories of questions that challenge the gray-matter
of 3 contestants... and every time they include a "Bible" related column,
the questions are so childish my own girls could answer them as youngsters
(while they couldn't answer even a fraction of the regular questions).
Gareth McCaughan
["Icarus", one of our friendly local atheists:]
>>> Well yes, that's more or less what I meant. If it's claimed to be
>>> the word of a god, and if it's shown to be wrong in places, then
>>> it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that it's not actually the
>>> word of a god but the product of people's imaginations instead.
[me:]
>> Not all Christians believe that the Bible was written
>> by God. I suspect that most Christians do not believe
>> that the Bible was written by God.
[Jan:]
> Then you are talking about most Christians in the UK, not the US! Or maybe
> I'm just naive? I hope not ;o) (Just a semantic correction: for what it's
> worth, those like-minded to myself believe the Bible was communicated by God
> through men, perfect in its transmittal, near-perfect in its transcription,
> and only minimally imperfect in its translations where a team of scholars
> did the work--all imperfections being unimportant to the overall message.)
I confess that I haven't actually done the surveys and
statistical analyses that would be necessary to check
the claims I made :-). But the position you describe is
not quite the same as saying that "the Bible was written
by God", and in particular I think it avoids the problem
"Icarus" poses. Suppose it were shown that the Bible, as
we possess it, had a serious mistake in it somewhere;
then you would have the option of concluding that a
transcription error had occurred at that point, rather
than that the whole thing is rubbish.
Be that as it may, I think the sort of position you
espouse *is* less common in the UK than in the US.
I suspect (without a shred of evidence) that it's
a minority position even in the US; I'm quite sure
(though still without much evidence) that it's a
minority position in the UK. It might be a minority
position even among evangelicals: one can believe
that "all scripture is inspired by God" but understand
"inspiration" as being something very different from
dictation.
One thing I don't understand: why do you say "Just a
semantic correction"? What are you correcting?
Hernandez Family
"The Bible was written by God" -- we (here in the States who hold to the
inerrancy of Scripture) would technically say "The Bible was communicated by
God, transcribed by mere mortals" ;o)
Also without any evidence, I am quite certain the majority of US
evangelicals and pentecostals ("majority" being defined as > 50%) would say
that the Bible was inerrant as "given" (communicated) by God, and would also
say that even allowing for transcription and/or translation errors, it is
still "inerrant in message".
You have me curious now, of course, so I'm going to head off the search
engines and see if there are any recent studies conducted by reputable
groups.............. ;o)
~ Jan
"Only one life will soon be past; only what's done for Christ will last."
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
Trevor Jenkins
> "The Bible was written by God" -- we (here in the States who hold to the
> inerrancy of Scripture) would technically say "The Bible was communicated by
> God, transcribed by mere mortals" ;o)
So how does "transcribed by mere mortals" differed from the Islamic
doctrine that the Qua'ran was dictated by Allah? Or that Jospeh Smith
"found" some gold tablets and translated them for the Book of Mormon?
Regards, Trevor
<>< Re: deemed!
Hernandez Family
news:slrnbgic3q.p7u...@suneidesis.com...
Interesting question, Trevor. Different in that Joseph Smith's gold tablets
were given to and translated by one man. In an earlier post I noted that
only translations brought about as a result of a team of well-respected
scholars are deemed "inerrant", which immediately negates the book of
Mormon. Additionally, one of the unique things about the Bible is that it
is a collection of writings, transcribed by many different men over many
years--not a "revelation" received by one man alone. To my knowledge, this
is not the case of either the Qua'ran or the book of Mormon.
--
~ Jan
"Remember, it is sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it." James
4:17
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
Ken Down
<jan...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> Then you are talking about most Christians in the UK, not the US!
I doubt if the poster is correct. Even the most liberal among us believe
that God had some input into the Scriptures.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Paul Roberts
[snip]
> Then you are talking about most Christians in the UK, not the US! Or
> maybe I'm just naive? I hope not ;o) (Just a semantic correction: for
what it's
> worth, those like-minded to myself believe the Bible was communicated
> by God through men, perfect in its transmittal, near-perfect in its
> transcription, and only minimally imperfect in its translations where
> a team of scholars did the work--all imperfections being unimportant
> to the overall message.)
Jan, why do you believe this?
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address
Tournifreak
> A couple of acquaintances came to the first couple of sessions of our
> Alpha. They found it "over their heads"; neither had ever been in a church
> building until their first Alpha session. The course material assumes a
> working knowledge of the Bible --- at least that one knows a few stories
> from it. Rather than persevere with something they do not understand
> these people have chosen to drop out of the course. :-(
>
> I wonder if there are less "intellectual" courses that these people could
> be invited to. How is the "Y" course in this respect? Or "Christianity
Hi, I'm a 'lurker' who dips in now and again...
I'm not a huge fan of the Alpha Course for many reasons (I've tried it
twice and helped to run one by the way!) One of them is that I find
the Alpha content isn't really what my friends are asking about. For
example, the Alpha course more or less assumes its attendees are
Christians from about week 3 onwards and from then on it's what I
would call a discipleship course. i.e. it covers things like prayer
and guidance and miracles etc... It doesn't spend long enough on the
basics.
I've just run a course called the "Y-Course" which I think is
fantastic. It follows a similar format to Alpha (meal, talk,
discussion) but the course content really helped to answer the
questions of the people I invited along.
The course starts with the question "Is there anyone bigger than us
out there?" - and spends an entire session just on that question. The
next one is "If there was a God, would we be able to find out about
him?" It avoids technical religious terminology and just assumes a lot
less of the participant.
I'd recommend it. Loads of good resources - published by Agape.
There's a starter introductary video/book pack available for about £8
I think.
Regards,
Jon.
Simon Robinson
> I doubt if the poster is correct. Even the most liberal among us believe
> that God had some input into the Scriptures.
What Gareth wrote was:
> Not all Christians believe that the Bible was written
> by God. I suspect that most Christians do not believe
> that the Bible was written by God.
I don't see any contradiction between believing that God
had some input and at the same time
not believing that God wrote the Bible. You may for
example believe that God wrote some bits of it (though
I doubt many people would hold that view). Or you may
believe that the Bible was largely written by highly spiritual
people who were seeking to listen to God, as a result of which
what came out was of considerable spiritual significance (and
you can then argue about the extent to which the people
who wrote it and the translators who translated it allowed what
they wrote down to be clouded by their own prejudices etc.).
That's certainly the position I'd take and I would guess that's
the position Gareth was trying to describe.
Simon
------------------------------------------------
Simon Robinson
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
------------------------------------------------
"Ken Down" <digg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:na.b824ae4c0e....@argonet.co.uk...
Gareth McCaughan
> [Ken Down]
> > I doubt if the poster is correct. Even the most liberal among us believe
> > that God had some input into the Scriptures.
>
> What Gareth wrote was:
> > Not all Christians believe that the Bible was written
> > by God. I suspect that most Christians do not believe
> > that the Bible was written by God.
>
> I don't see any contradiction between believing that God
> had some input and at the same time
> not believing that God wrote the Bible. You may for
> example believe that God wrote some bits of it (though
> I doubt many people would hold that view). Or you may
> believe that the Bible was largely written by highly spiritual
> people who were seeking to listen to God, as a result of which
> what came out was of considerable spiritual significance (and
> you can then argue about the extent to which the people
> who wrote it and the translators who translated it allowed what
> they wrote down to be clouded by their own prejudices etc.).
> That's certainly the position I'd take and I would guess that's
> the position Gareth was trying to describe.
I wasn't trying to describe any single position;
there are lots of positions held by Christians
according to which it is not true that "the Bible
was written by God". And indeed, just about all
of them (probably all, depending on whether the
"Sea of Faith" extremists who believe God is a
purely human construct can in any useful sense
be called Christians) also say that God had some
input into the scriptures. There is no contradiction
here.
Alan Zanker
>I wasn't trying to describe any single position;
>there are lots of positions held by Christians
>according to which it is not true that "the Bible
>was written by God".
>And indeed, just about all
>of them (probably all, depending on whether the
>"Sea of Faith" extremists who believe God is a
>purely human construct can in any useful sense
>be called Christians) also say that God had some
>input into the scriptures. There is no contradiction
>here.
Slight correction: The SoF position is that *religion* is a human
creation.
However, as SoF has no creed its members could have beliefs ranging from
'God is purely a human construct' through 'there may be a God but any
ideas we have about that God are entirely our own' to 'there is a God
who attempts to reveal Godself to us, and human religions are our
muddled, confused and misleading attempts to understand that
revelation.'
The last of these could be understood as claiming that God had some
input into the scriptures to the extent that the human authors may
*just* have managed to understand a bit of what God has tried to reveal.
But whatever the beliefs are they ain't Anglican Mainstream, or even
Affirming (Anglo) Catholicism (:-)
Alan
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
> >And indeed, just about all
> >of them (probably all, depending on whether the
> >"Sea of Faith" extremists who believe God is a
> >purely human construct can in any useful sense
> >be called Christians) also say that God had some
> >input into the scriptures. There is no contradiction
> >here.
>
> Slight correction: The SoF position is that *religion* is a human
> creation.
>
> However, as SoF has no creed its members could have beliefs ranging from
> 'God is purely a human construct' through 'there may be a God but any
> ideas we have about that God are entirely our own' to 'there is a God
> who attempts to reveal Godself to us, and human religions are our
> muddled, confused and misleading attempts to understand that
> revelation.'
And it's those on the first end who would most rightly
be referred to as SoF extremists, yesno? :-)
Seriously: thanks for the clarification.
Gareth McCaughan
[I said, a few articles back:]
>>>> Not all Christians believe that the Bible was written
>>>> by God. I suspect that most Christians do not believe
>>>> that the Bible was written by God.
>>
>> [Jan:]
>>> Then you are talking about most Christians in the UK, not the
>>> US! Or maybe I'm just naive? I hope not ;o) (Just a semantic
>>> correction: for what it's worth, those like-minded to myself
>>> believe the Bible was communicated by God through men, perfect
>>> in its transmittal, near-perfect in its transcription, and only
>>> minimally imperfect in its translations where a team of scholars
>>> did the work--all imperfections being unimportant to the overall
>>> message.)
[me:]
>> One thing I don't understand: why do you say
>> "Just a semantic correction"? What are you correcting?
[Jan:]
> "The Bible was written by God" -- we (here in the States who hold to the
> inerrancy of Scripture) would technically say "The Bible was communicated by
> God, transcribed by mere mortals" ;o)
If that means "God composed all the words and then passed them
on to the mere mortals who wrote them" then that's what I *meant*
by "God wrote the Bible"; I suppose it might need correcting for
those who might otherwise imagine that the Bible was written by
the very finger of God.
But if it means something along the following lines:
God: Oi, Moshe! Write down what happened when I created the world,
will you?
Moses: Yeah, OK. Um, what *did* happen when you created the world?
God: Well, to begin with there was nothing but chaos. Chaos
and me, that is. No light, no stuff you'd recognize as
stuff, just chaos and the Spirit of God.
Moses: <writes>"In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth. And the earth was without form and void,
and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
God: Well, there weren't exactly waters as such, but that's
pretty good. It'll do. So, anyway, the first thing I
had to do was to make some photons.
Moses: Eh?
God: You might as well call it light; that'll do.
Moses: <writes>"And God said, Let there be light. And there
was light."
... with the words coming from the human authors, even if
they're subject to correction by God, then I wouldn't say
that *that* position is well described by saying that "God
wrote the Bible". When I say that most Christians don't think
God wrote the Bible, I'm not meaning to imply that most
Christians don't think God directed its writing and made
sure it didn't have mistakes in it.
> Also without any evidence, I am quite certain the majority of US
> evangelicals and pentecostals ("majority" being defined as > 50%) would say
> that the Bible was inerrant as "given" (communicated) by God, and would also
> say that even allowing for transcription and/or translation errors, it is
> still "inerrant in message".
That's an entirely separate question from whether God wrote it.
Alan Zanker
Taking the whole range of SoF viewpoints they may well consider
themselves to be the mainstream!
Alan
George Russell
> Taking the whole range of SoF viewpoints they may well consider
> themselves to be the mainstream!
First time I saw that abbreviation I thought it stood for "Ship of Fools".
Kevin Donnelly
<al...@zanker.org> writes
Got it, or eureka (I think): the Sea of Faith people were all at sea
about faith, stoically but gallantly led by Cap'n Cupitt and his
so-serious seafarers. Reminds me of Wagner for some reason.
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Alan Zanker
Alan Zanker
>Got it, or eureka (I think): the Sea of Faith people were all at sea
>about faith, stoically but gallantly led by Cap'n Cupitt and his
>so-serious seafarers. Reminds me of Wagner for some reason.
Some (though not I) might suggest Joseph Conrad,
Alan
Alan Zanker
Tony Gillam
news:e1pqgvo5s97mdko49...@4ax.com
Tony Gillam
Theo Markettos
> The course starts with the question "Is there anyone bigger than us
> out there?" - and spends an entire session just on that question. The
> next one is "If there was a God, would we be able to find out about
> him?" It avoids technical religious terminology and just assumes a lot
> less of the participant.
JOOI are there any downloadable similar courses out there? I'm after
something fairly basic - for people who are nominal Buddhists so we need to
start at the very beginning. I'm not denigrating the book/video method but
really I just want a starting point that I can hack around - in an
international setting with people who speak little or no English,
traditional courses aren't much use. In such a case sending paper around
the world seems a bit pointless when it is only going to be pulled to bits
at this end.
Thanks,
Theo
--
Theo Markettos th...@markettos.org.uk
Larisa, Greece th...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.markettos.org.uk/
Al
> that just pathetic? (but then...I'm not a "young" ukrc lurker... *sigh*)
>
Well, I'd say from the rare occurences that Biblical stories get
taught in high school here in the UK from when I was a child - they
are taught devoid of any spiritual significance, if you weren't a
chruch going child you'd never ever know what was the importance or
meaning of some of the following - I've added my hopefully humurous
interpretation of them when I first heard them 25 years ago.
1.Joseph. He had a coloured coat that his brothers wanted. There was
a stage play about it with well known songs.
meaning: don't boast about nice coats as people get jealous.
2. Lots of stories about circumcision. As no one I knew knew (have you
ever had two knews in a row ?) anyone who was circumcised we didn't
really undertand it.
Meaning:we as Brits don't need to have it chopped off.
3. People were stoned to death a lot, especially women:
Meaning:society has progressed
4. Samson. Far fetched story. A guy had long hair and beat up people.
His wife cut his hair. He lost his power but could still bring down
the walls.
Meaning: People with long hair are naughty. We mustn't allow women to
cut our hair.
5. Noah. Built a ship called an Ark. People laughed at him.There was a
flood. All the animals were saved. No one knows how they kept and fed
the animals on board and the teachers didn't believe it themsleves
anyway.
Meaning: Don't worry if people laugh at you - you should do what you
want to do.
6. Pontius Pilate. He was horrible.
meaning: Be careful of rulers.
7. John the Baptist: Went baptising people.
meaning: in that day and age we had to get wet to be religous.
8. Census. Jesus birth. Mary and Joseph found no room at the Inn. They
found a stable. There was a thing called a manger and a crib. No one
in England under the age of 22 knows what a manger or a crib is.
Cattle stood around and looked at Jesus. Manger and crib are words
for /cradle/cot/cattle trough/ but no one knows which is which.
Meaning:There wasn't any hotel space so they slept in a shed. People
are nicer nowadays and will rent out a spare room for a small fee.
9. Faith will move mountains.
meaning: People mis-interpret "faith" as "assertiveness" or
"self-belief" or "persistence" and will try and take back shirts they
bought that were too small and will insist on a full cash refund
instead of a replacement shirt. When they get a refund they will talk
about how their faith in themselves helped them.
Phil
news:bek3sv$khe$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Alan Zanker" <al...@zanker.org> wrote in message
> news:e1pqgvo5s97mdko49...@4ax.com
> > George Russell <g...@tzi.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Zanker wrote (snipped):
> >>> Taking the whole range of SoF viewpoints they may well consider
> >>> themselves to be the mainstream!
> >>
> >> First time I saw that abbreviation I thought it stood for "Ship of
> >> Fools".
> >
> > Also 'Society of Friends'
> >
> Or 'Songs of Fellowship'
Silly old Farts
Phil
Kim Tame
news:333d2e50.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > My goodness, most US citizens don't even recognize Noah and the ark!!
Isn't
> > that just pathetic? (but then...I'm not a "young" ukrc lurker... *sigh*)
> >
>
> Well, I'd say from the rare occurences that Biblical stories get
> taught in high school here in the UK from when I was a child - they
> are taught devoid of any spiritual significance, if you weren't a
> chruch going child you'd never ever know what was the importance or
> meaning of some of the following - I've added my hopefully humurous
> interpretation of them when I first heard them 25 years ago.
>
(snipped brilliant stuff)
I love it! From seeing what my children have learned in RE, they are told
when a story is supposed to have spiritual significance. Whether they get
it or not might be another matter.
Kim
Sun Kitten
> JOOI are there any downloadable similar courses out there? I'm after
> something fairly basic - for people who are nominal Buddhists so we need to
> start at the very beginning. I'm not denigrating the book/video method but
> really I just want a starting point that I can hack around - in an
> international setting with people who speak little or no English,
> traditional courses aren't much use. In such a case sending paper around
> the world seems a bit pointless when it is only going to be pulled to bits
> at this end.
I don't know if it'd be any use to you, but the Visa course is a course
adapted from Alpha that is specifically intended for international
students of English (ie, it's not their first language). I have never been
on one, so I can't say anything about what it's like, I'm afraid.
This website:
www.friendsinternational.org.uk/Templates/fi-region-cambridge.html has a
bit about the international student stuff in Cambridge - Bartow Wylie is
the man I'd contact if I was interested in the Visa course. I haven't
found a page on the Visa course specifically, but I haven't looked very
hard.
Hope that's some help
Morag
--
'This is the species that's lethal at ten paces, right?'
- http://www.toothycat.net/strip.html
Kevin Donnelly
<philip....@ntlworld.com> writes
See of Fatalism
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly