tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post5222774848731801497..comments2023-12-15T21:49:46.651+01:00Comments on Pluralist Speaks: Dead CatPluralist (Adrian Worsfold)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-85166551756693278872009-12-03T18:26:31.997+01:002009-12-03T18:26:31.997+01:00You clearly do not know Donald Allister. He is any...You clearly do not know Donald Allister. He is anything but depressing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-60229618028320554022009-11-21T12:59:22.705+01:002009-11-21T12:59:22.705+01:00"what is it I have done, regarding the other,..."what is it I have done, regarding the other, and should I have done it. What have they done, and should they have done it. Sit down, keep quiet, hear some words that may bounce off such a question, then later change if change can happen."<br /><br />That, I absolutely love!<br />Thank you.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-67970000062351675822009-11-20T21:37:05.820+01:002009-11-20T21:37:05.820+01:00My faith is about, what is it I have done, regardi...My faith is about, what is it I have done, regarding the other, and should I have done it. What have they done, and should they have done it. Sit down, keep quiet, hear some words that may bounce off such a question, then later change if change can happen.<br /><br />I think this is found inside the Christian tradition.<br /><br />It is also quite Buddhist.<br /><br />God may or may not be involved. Faith is a risk. A lot of it is don't know.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-57462069387156312682009-11-20T10:47:45.357+01:002009-11-20T10:47:45.357+01:00Adrian
I'm sorry, I didn't want to be pres...Adrian<br />I'm sorry, I didn't want to be presumptious.<br />Maybe I'm not finding the right words.<br /><br />We have often talked about our basic differences in our experience, that I believe in this exclusive "kernel" which you don't appear to have experienced, and which you increasingly appear to be rejecting on an intellectual level too. At least I understood you to have been saying that repeatedly.<br /><br />It's that difference I have been trying to talk about. There's no right or wrong about it. But we're back in the picture gallery, where someone who doesn't see the paintings has conversations about the exhibition with people who do see the paintings.<br />There's a sense that, at some level, although they all talk about the same gallery, architecture, visiting hours, visiting protocol etc., never the Twain shall meet.<br /><br />Correct me if I misunderstood you! I'm reading this blog because I want to understand!Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-53486262554703583422009-11-19T18:36:57.438+01:002009-11-19T18:36:57.438+01:00Well thanks very much for assuming I don't kno...Well thanks very much for assuming I don't know what faith is about when you do!Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-86636252846501229312009-11-19T14:34:25.371+01:002009-11-19T14:34:25.371+01:00"Assuming that, he says that God acts through..."Assuming that, he says that God acts through psychological processes, but not by moving objects, on the basis that this is all more naturalistic. But it is not, because God acting on humans is to affect their electro-chemical activity, at some point at least, even if it is at the point of internal perception (still moving their electro-chemical activity)."<br /><br />You’re assuming that there is a God who is singling out individuals which he then manipulates electronically or chemically.<br />But it’s much more like a symphony playing quietly somewhere and some people hearing it and others not. And of those who hear it, some respond, others don’t.<br />It’s not that God intervenes selectively in some people’s lives, it’s more that the same message is consistently given out to the world and some get it while others don’t. <br /><br />So I still think that your unawareness of what faith is about means you don't really understand what Jenkins is (or might be!) saying.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-23095236475463484302009-11-19T14:02:20.063+01:002009-11-19T14:02:20.063+01:00The other point here is that it is not for me, nor...The other point here is that it is not for me, nor for anyone else, to tell people what sort of faith to have. What we are doing is looking at the various recipes around and examining them for what they are. There is no affirming here of each one. Jenkins is looked at for his consistency and for the relationship to the Church. Same with Cupitt, the Myth people and so on, right back, and so long as I'll present I'll do the same with the more traditional and evangelical stuff.<br /><br />It's not an easy ride: and when someone said she can say that I make the search harder, that is what it is all about.<br /><br />There are a couple of very liberal people in that group, and it's no easier for them. In earlier sessions I've addressed some of the assumptions they have made in conversation. The one person so far who seems to be best off is someone liberal-orthodox and has encountered the arguments. I don't know quite how he does it, but as we go along into other theologies I think we might find out. I suspect it is a separation of the whole individual argument from the business of accepting a Church and its spiritual and doctrinal disciplines, but I don't know.<br /><br />I'm only presenting for a while. The previous presenter was a very liberal chap who sort of ran out of topics and then I picked it up by designing a systematic course. I've been in my own comfort zone for a while and soon I'll be into areas that require examination beyond my usual arenas.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-248472250548878182009-11-19T13:54:20.239+01:002009-11-19T13:54:20.239+01:00No, this is a theoretical end (in this part) discu...No, this is a theoretical end (in this part) discussion. David Jenkins makes the point that God acts. Assuming that, he says that God acts through psychological processes, but not by moving objects, on the basis that this is all more naturalistic. But it is not, because God acting on humans is to affect their electro-chemical activity, at some point at least, even if it is at the point of internal perception (still moving their electro-chemical activity).<br /><br />This is in contrast to having a set of human religious myths to which people invent God and the rest, about which behaviour is motivated but which is all purely social and anthropological.<br /><br />It takes some very sophisticated theological talk indeed to say that such purely human, collective and individual myth making and responding is God acting, especially given a Bonhoeffer and less so Barth (Barth with the ahistoricity removed!) theology. I concede that it can just about be claimed, but then activity is being ascribed to a divine agent that is more properly and realistically simply human, and that Jenkins isn't then quite eating the cake he claims he is having.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-17132765575710424692009-11-19T10:36:51.043+01:002009-11-19T10:36:51.043+01:00Adrian
“How can such a God shove chemicals around ...Adrian<br />“How can such a God shove chemicals around the brain, in acting, producing faith as part of redeeming the world, but cannot manouvre things equally as physical (as it is against naturalistic understanding that we use today).”<br /><br />You are still arguing against something no-one is saying.<br /><br />When you’re in love and you respond to the person who has touched your heart, you cannot claim that she is personally intervening in your life and making chemical changes in your brain.<br />Why would responding to God be any different?<br />Communication is not external intervention.<br /><br />And while you and your commentator might agree that in the end it’s all about examining history and not about faith, I would still say that doing theology without God, and religion without faith is completely missing the point.<br />That doesn’t matter for you personally, but it doesn’t help when you try to mediate other theologians to people and consistently fail to grasp what it is they’re talking about. <br /><br />Let it be about how many Angels on the head of a pin for you, but let’s also agree that this is a view that people of faith find desperately limited and completely missing the bigger picture.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.com