tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post3399362848815007005..comments2024-02-19T04:50:58.170-08:00Comments on Shuck and Jive: What Presbyterians Believe (except me)John Shuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-74581523791377428392016-06-24T20:52:56.674-07:002016-06-24T20:52:56.674-07:00John, this was a delight to read. I identify as a ...John, this was a delight to read. I identify as a "Christian Atheist", and your explanation of your worldview was music to my ears. Even though I am philosophically convinced that no supernatural beings exist, I think that "God" can be a powerful story, a life-changing parable, a name that I give to my religious experiences, and a personified metaphor for the beauty of the universe. Keep up the good work! Kurious Iesous.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12263329771515097227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-20478575377324067172012-04-05T09:08:38.811-07:002012-04-05T09:08:38.811-07:00I stand with you, John.I stand with you, John.PresbyFredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08155232387622156591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-35716602694029985742011-10-30T10:50:26.953-07:002011-10-30T10:50:26.953-07:00Delete the word "pagan" then.Delete the word "pagan" then.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-89284911230556169012011-10-30T10:00:33.811-07:002011-10-30T10:00:33.811-07:00RE: The other toward a more pagan Earth-focused un...RE: <i>The other toward a more pagan Earth-focused understanding where meaning is located within this life. "Life sucks. But it is what it is. We will make do and find our bliss amidst the natural rhythms of Earth."</i><br /><br />:sigh:<br /><br />Not all of paganism (which isn't even "a" religion, but more like a "category" of paths) can be defined as "Earth centered." Many pagans are more focused on clan, ancestors, culture, the Gods/Holy Powers, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-35410644225935674952011-07-14T11:32:39.168-07:002011-07-14T11:32:39.168-07:00I myself am a Unitarian Universalist and the list ...I myself am a Unitarian Universalist and the list of your beliefs couldn't match more to mine, even had I written them myself.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09807530900350858246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-56248103034994702802011-06-14T19:53:40.166-07:002011-06-14T19:53:40.166-07:00Way back to @Red Reverend,
It does all come down ...Way back to @Red Reverend,<br /><br />It does all come down to proof-texting. Meanwhile our little box of meaning with its Trinity and creeds gets smaller as the world outside of it gets larger.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-66658455337242094672011-06-14T19:49:07.775-07:002011-06-14T19:49:07.775-07:00No reason to bother with religion at all Nixon, or...No reason to bother with religion at all Nixon, or for even reading a religious blog for that matter. <br /><br />If folks don't like my philosophy or my blog or my church, then what might possibly be an answer to such a conundrum?<br /><br />Can anyone imagine a possible solution to that problem?John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-20213748761437192232011-06-14T19:38:30.351-07:002011-06-14T19:38:30.351-07:00If none of this is anything more than a metaphor, ...If none of this is anything more than a metaphor, why should I bother with religion? Why not just stay home and save my money and time and effort?<br /> You're wasting your time on something that even you don't believe in. Why do you try to get other people involved in this nonsense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-23992365500349226102011-06-14T14:39:03.158-07:002011-06-14T14:39:03.158-07:00No, I deliberately said "devil and all his mi...No, I deliberately said "devil and all his minions" as a knowing joke between the two of us. You know, it's easier working with Grandmère Mimi.MadPriesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120376342802143188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-15529138132574964882011-06-14T14:36:46.956-07:002011-06-14T14:36:46.956-07:00I thought what I wrote was pretty funny. Good thi...I thought what I wrote was pretty funny. Good thing I entered ministry and not comedy. : )John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-82034005965553343652011-06-14T14:34:16.127-07:002011-06-14T14:34:16.127-07:00John!!!
Surely non-realism hasn't made you non...John!!!<br />Surely non-realism hasn't made you non-humourous.MadPriesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120376342802143188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-42271667830893749542011-06-14T14:31:19.091-07:002011-06-14T14:31:19.091-07:00...modernity and its certainties have done more da...<i>...modernity and its certainties have done more damage to the world than the devil and all his minions ever achieved.</i><br /><br />Especially since the devil and his minions aren't real.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-74477445744069993302011-06-14T14:06:33.228-07:002011-06-14T14:06:33.228-07:00"Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. Now where'..."Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. Now where's the reception being held?"MadPriesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120376342802143188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-64822347232223241632011-06-14T13:37:13.430-07:002011-06-14T13:37:13.430-07:00Heck, it's not my church anymore, so I can'...Heck, it's not my church anymore, so I can't be included in the way it looks at things. I'm just putting forward my own views on stuff which I can do now. I don't think I've claimed anywhere that I speak on behalf on anybody else. That, surely is the whole point of what I've been saying. <br /><br />I am both a realist and a non-realist, whatever suits. But usually I don't even pay any heed to the differences as that would be so modern and modernity and its certainties have done more damage to the world than the devil and all his minions ever achieved.MadPriesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120376342802143188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-22888040458074788012011-06-14T13:29:25.769-07:002011-06-14T13:29:25.769-07:00You are twisting things around. The church has be...You are twisting things around. The church has been realist-oriented throughout the centuries. That philosophy has demanded adherence. The very fact that my posts raise eyebrows is testimony to that. <br /><br />The realist philosophy demands that if you are not realist you are not really on the team. Some realists may be nicer than others and tolerate the non-realists, but the very presence of non-realists as a legitimate point of view threatens the very notion of realism. <br /><br />If a non-realist says (and receives no condemnation for saying it) that the resurrection of Jesus is a metaphor then that that destroys the realist structure. <br /><br />Why are our church denominations dividing? In part, it is because the realists cannot abide the non-realists in their midst. <br /><br />BTW, your interpretation of Adam and Eve is very non-realist.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-34608786385378183972011-06-14T12:44:50.485-07:002011-06-14T12:44:50.485-07:00No. You do not demand adherence. Your philosophy, ...No. You do not demand adherence. Your philosophy, of itself, does, because it is a scientific philosophy. You can only say "I know" or "I don't know." You cannot say "I might know."MadPriesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120376342802143188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-51644452185673603352011-06-14T12:27:29.195-07:002011-06-14T12:27:29.195-07:00Oddly enough, it is not my philosophy that demands...Oddly enough, it is not my philosophy that demands adherence. I will be taking no one to heresy court. In our glorious history the demanding of adherence has come from the other direction. People are free to accept or reject anything I have to say and make up their own minds as do you.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-41432321130478798522011-06-14T12:24:02.448-07:002011-06-14T12:24:02.448-07:00The story of Adam and Eve is beyond doubt, except ...The story of Adam and Eve is beyond doubt, except for the narrative in which it is placed. Sometime in the history of humans (or maybe before that) one of our ancestors had the first thought that could be regarded as philosophical rather than instinctive, and somewhere in our history one person realised that he or she was going to die. I delight in both narrative and science and believe that my life as a thinker would be rendered miserable if I was to have to decide which is real and which isn't. So I don't. This is a wilful decision on my part as is my religion. And it is the will that gives us worth above a lump of rock or a cog in the theist's watch. Without will there is no morality as morality has to come out of choice. <br /><br />So, no, John. I don't believe in a feeling. I believe in an object. But I can't observe the object which I believe in so my claims about it must be subjective and such claims cannot demand adherence from anybody else. But I can talk if people want to listen and the language I use in those situations is realistic and not metaphoric from my point of view. How the listeners regard it is up to them.<br /><br />My criticism of your philosophy, John, is that it seems to demand adherence.MadPriesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120376342802143188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-22756659900332136022011-06-14T12:14:42.054-07:002011-06-14T12:14:42.054-07:00How timely. I just realized that this coming Sund...How timely. I just realized that this coming Sunday is Trinity Sunday. How a non-realist deals with the Trinity. Film at eleven.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-56694928896882447662011-06-14T11:33:13.813-07:002011-06-14T11:33:13.813-07:00Thanks all for the very wise comments. I do agree...Thanks all for the very wise comments. I do agree with the humble part. My direct and short statements likely come across as certainty. I am not certain, but I don't want to hedge either on what I think I mean to say. There is much more to say as well. I don't think anyone should ever feel bashful about saying what they really think. That is way we are honest and can move ahead. <br /><br />As we move away from realism to non-realism from the less threatening "Were Adam and Eve real?" to the money question "Is God real?" we find folks taking their stands at different points. <br /><br />For instance, some might say, "All else may be metaphor, but I stand on the resurrection of Jesus being real." <br /><br />Others might say, "All else may be metaphor (including Jesus' resurrection) but my consciousness survives my death and there is an afterlife."<br /><br />Many people have a point where they are not willing (yet--or never) to pass. <br /><br />In a sense we are all a combination of realist and non-realist. At different points we stake our claim.<br /><br />Personally, I tend to think that religious language more likely than not does not have a real thing to which it points but does have a real feeling or need reflected. That may be the subjective that MP is talking about. Some may express that subjective sense in orthodox language (as I think MP, you are saying you do).John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-5623956630854318452011-06-14T08:10:17.311-07:002011-06-14T08:10:17.311-07:00Kudos, John, you heretic! I read the issue last n...Kudos, John, you heretic! I read the issue last night and saw that every writer justified historical tradition and did so by calling on scripture. This led to proof-texting. Further, where these writers call on scripture, they assume that all scripture says the same thing and can be harmonized. The church that seeks to tighten the reins (reigns?) on doctrinal belief will die. There are no self authenticating truths any more.Dennis Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030902830985145482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-29885104907399848532011-06-14T03:11:52.947-07:002011-06-14T03:11:52.947-07:00Yes, insomuch as I accept that, at this moment in ...Yes, insomuch as I accept that, at this moment in time, god(s) cannot be an object for us and therefore we can only define god(s) subjectively. The subjective is always uniquely personal so the definitions of god(s) is as myriad as the number of people believing in god(s). Logic dictates that this means, at the most, just one person has the true definition and even that is incredibly unlikely. <br /><br />However, I do not think that this necessarily creates a dichotomy between concrete and vague or leads to a necessary syncretism. My belief in the Christian God is boringly orthodox and realist (concrete). I am content with my present definition of God. However, at the same time, I must accept that I am most probably wrong in my definition of God to some degree and this means I must be evangelically humble when in conversation with people of people with different beliefs or non-belief, who are everybody else in the world.<br /><br />I would emphasise that I am only concerned here with the definition of what god(s) is. The things we deduce from our individual definitions of god(s), ethics, morality, ecclesiology etc., are, in my opinion, the product of human reasoning and invention and so open to human discussion with as much or as little humility as one's personal rules of life allow.MadPriesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120376342802143188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-57140556992229240062011-06-14T02:30:14.119-07:002011-06-14T02:30:14.119-07:00@MadPriest - what you say seems to resonate with w...@MadPriest - what you say seems to resonate with what might be described as the "apophatic" strand of religious thinking, which has emerged from time to time in Christian theology, (and I include both ancient and more recent apophatic thinkers). This strand of thinking has been much valued by some, but has never become mainstream.<br />Would you recognise this comparison? If so, do you think this way of thinking is any more likely to become mainstream in the future - or will many people continue to need something more "concrete" to hang on to?DaviGosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10847764561754658767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-59554424655754748162011-06-14T01:32:22.046-07:002011-06-14T01:32:22.046-07:00Hi. As a UK Anglican I identify with much of what ...Hi. As a UK Anglican I identify with much of what you say and wanted to applaud and say hello.<br />At the same time i do hear something of what MadPriest is saying. - But most of the church around me is still stuck at somewhere pre-modern.DaviGosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10847764561754658767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-62493314325720515172011-06-13T09:43:19.610-07:002011-06-13T09:43:19.610-07:00Equal doubt is good. If I speak in modernist term...Equal doubt is good. If I speak in modernist terms then that is because it is the world we inhabit.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.com