tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post4532786764084060046..comments2023-12-15T21:49:46.651+01:00Comments on Pluralist Speaks: In DepthPluralist (Adrian Worsfold)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-76839958079468803582010-02-22T03:53:52.298+01:002010-02-22T03:53:52.298+01:00It does sometimes take several goes to get a point...It does sometimes take several goes to get a point across that at first is so unclear. It's partly why I have descended into humour.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-63896327920807210232010-02-22T00:32:22.667+01:002010-02-22T00:32:22.667+01:00Sometime ago, I realized that the arc of the Chris...Sometime ago, I realized that the arc of the Christian story -- Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Church -- didn't fit the shape of actual events. Humankind began to spread over the earth about 60,000 years ago (what happened? development of language?)and to practice agriculture and build cities about 8,000 years ago. Jesus comes late to history -- and was little known over most of the earth for another 1,500 years. Not an efficient engine of salvation. <br /><br />Now Adrian has given me some theoretical backing for my intuition. I didn't understand his essay on Episcopal Café -- his invoking of fractals and chaos theory there seemed like trying to press trendy terms into theological service (as ideas like "uncertainty principle" have been used by some). His sermon printed here helps me get his point -- and say thanks: <br /><br />"We do not have Truth with a capital T, but truths relative to themselves. . . . we have to analyse only from the first relevant phenomenon in any chain of reasoning. And in chaos theory, we cannot know the outcome of so many events simply because tiny differences iterate into hugely different outcomes. . . . Christianity is a linear time system: divine cause, intervention and outcome is the very stuff of Christianity. . . . Yet the whole basis for this, in Pure Forms, and in causal chains, is dead and gone, and reasoning is something that has to be relative and phenomena based. . . . I have long argued for relativity, for questioning realism, and for seeing religion as more like art. Religion, I think, is about something more personal, deep, reflective and contemplative. It is not about doctrines that rely on proofs. The proofs are not there."<br /><br />MurdochGary Paul Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12941698776126034822noreply@blogger.com