Allegory

Discussion in 'Sacred Scripture' started by seagull, Aug 22, 2013.

  1. seagull

    seagull Active Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    88
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Well, since you've read through the postings on this thread, you know what I think. but one thing I have become aware of (or more aware of, since I knew it already) is that on this side of the Pond, very few members of the mainstream Christian religions are creationist, whereas in the USA it seems that quite a few are. Why that should be, I don't know.
     
  2. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    359
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer
    I'm trying to reconcile the fact that some here who deny the plausibility of the Genesis account as being factual, every Sunday participate in a service where mystical words are spoken over bread and wine, and then rush to the altar to receive it without question. A dear friend commented to me that the Episcopal Church had become a "sacramental Unitarian church", but perhaps he should widen the scope of that comment.:think:

    Jeff
     
    historyb likes this.
  3. seagull

    seagull Active Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    88
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I'm not sure what you mean by "receive (the sacrament) without question". In practice, Anglicanism, or at least the CofE variety, allows quite a broad choice with regard to the sacrament, from "merely symbolic" to consubstantiation to transubstantiation. Many believe in the essence of John Donne's stanza, "it's what God makes it".

    Similarly, both Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism allow freedom of choice when it comes to belief in the area of creationism/evolution.

    Do "Conservative Anglicans" in the USA insist on creationist beliefs?
     
  4. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    359
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer
    seagull, I apologize for not making my point clear. I simply find it confusing that the simple truth of scripture is often watered down and marginalized by the labels of allegory or poetry, while things never mentioned in scripture such as ordination, apostolic succession, and/or the mystical aspect of the Eucharist, are taken as authoritative. Even in the crumbling ECUSA where the scriptural truth of traditional marriage and gay relationships are dismissed, they hold rigidly to the idea that only an ordained priest in apostolic succession may celebrate the Eucharist, which is never found in scripture.:think:

    Jeff
     
    Old Christendom and historyb like this.
  5. seagull

    seagull Active Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    88
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Do "Conservative Anglicans" accept the four points of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral? Or are they anti-gay creationists who feel that Holy Communion is purely symbolic and may be administered by a layman (? or woman)?

    Incidentally, in the Church of England and the Church in Wales, same sex marriages are illegal.
     
  6. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    359
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer
    seagull, I think it's high time we look to the historical truth of scripture, and it's clear teaching.

    Jeff
     
    Stalwart and historyb like this.
  7. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I'm not a creationist but I sympathize with Jeff's view rather than the contrary. Modernism has done incalculable damage, what with making everything as tenuously attached to truth as possible, and for this even reactionary creationism is understandable.
     
  8. seagull

    seagull Active Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    88
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    You're ducking my question, aren't you?
     
  9. seagull

    seagull Active Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    88
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Has "modernism" done incalculable damage to Islam?
     
  10. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    1,980
    comparing christianity and islam is comparing apples and oranges. Christianity is the true religion. Islam is a false one. Truth needs no modernizing, while a lie can and should change with the times.
     
    alphaomega and historyb like this.
  11. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    359
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer
    No, not at all. I'm simply saying that I'm at the point in my spiritual journey that I will look to the clear teaching of scripture, and not to uninspired writings 1500 years after the source. In my opinion, this has been the downfall of the Eastern Orthodox, who hold the councils and writings of later Bishops on level ground with scripture.

    Jeff
     
    historyb likes this.
  12. seagull

    seagull Active Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    88
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Oh dear. You still haven't told me if you reject the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Can we take it though, that you are a creationist and that you are opposed to women priests?

    Your sort of Anglicanism and mine seem to differ markedly. We are, of course, a broad church, but you might have difficulty finding a niche in the Church of England (or the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales).
     
  13. seagull

    seagull Active Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    88
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    They are both monotheistic Abrahamic religions. And I believe that most Moslems are creationists.

    Is Judaism a false religion? Are those of us who have modern, liberal views false Anglican?
     
  14. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    359
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer
    First, let's put your question into perspective. In America 99% of parishners have never read the Quad, nor could they quote any of the 39 articles. Seminary trained Priests never speak of it or quote the articles in sermons, and when I questioned them recently, all replied they were "horribly outdated". Now for me personally, rejection and not holding it on level with scripture are two separate questions. It's a very late document in the grand scheme of things, and it was an effort to unite spiritually with Rome, something I have no desire to do.The first stated point that "scripture contains all things necessary to salvation", is very close to the current liberal statement by our presiding Bishop that "the Bible contains the word of God, but is not THE word of God". As to your other question, I have and will fight for the ordination of women, and if believing the Genesis account to factual, then yes, I am a creationist. What are your motives for not taking Genesis as a literal account?

    Jeff
     
  15. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Of course not. Islam has rejected a lot of things such as reason and science on top of modernism which is about 100 years old.
     
  16. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    359
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer
    Allow me to comment, with no malice intended. A wise old cop once told me during a street gang symposium, "If you wonder what the gang problem will be in your city in 10 years, simply look at Los Angeles". I might apply that analogy to the CoE, if they're not careful in their choices and priorities, within 10 years they will resemble the ECUSA.

    Jeff
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  17. seagull

    seagull Active Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    88
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    In the CofE most people would not have heard of the Quad, nor is it mentioned in sermons. But to me it is very important and I go along with it. No way is it "horribly outdated". What has replaced it? I note the point you make on Scripture (I'm comfortable with the Quad wording), but do I take it that you also have reservations about the other three points? If so, Anglicanism cannot have much attraction for you.

    I am an evolutionist, because, like the vast majority of English Anglicans and Roman Catholics, I believe that evolution has been scientifically proved. I mentioned the Creation/Evolution Working Party at my church. It came down unreservedly in favour of evolution. It contained three people with science degrees, including the chairman, an Oxford chemistry graduate who is also an Anglican priest.

    By chance, in yesterday's Sunday Times, there was a four page pull out on Evolution by Steve Jones, emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College, London. Creationism is not mentioned at all. I would be very surprised indeed if the newspaper receives any letters of objection.

    But look, as Admin has stated, this is not the forum for a creation/evolution debate. Both are allowable within Anglicanism.
     
  18. seagull

    seagull Active Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    88
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    OK, we have the doomsayers, many of them. Most of them never set foot in a CofE church. Yes, we have a problem with a decline in numbers, but the picture is patchy. Some churches are getting larger congregations, And the number of people attending cathedral services has increased sequentially since the War and continues to do so, The number of Ordinands is also increasing. We have a good new Archbishop of Canterbury.

    There is no room for complacency, but neither is there any room for despondency.

    Now, you tell me. What do you mean "careful in choices and priorities"? Should we ban women priests, Disallow evolutionists? Ban gays from communion? I repeat, you tell me. And how would your purported solutions improve things?
     
  19. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    359
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer
    With all due respect, I've found the 3 legged stool pretty wobbly. The "reason" leg equates to social norms and pressures, and it has surpassed scripture and even reason in priority. Sadly, the faster growing religion in your country is Islam, not the CoE.

    Jeff
     
    historyb likes this.
  20. Alcibiades

    Alcibiades Member

    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    49
    Country:
    Perfidious Albion
    Religion:
    Uncertain

    Although I'm sure this is mostly pedantry on my part, I must disagree with the notion that 'modernism' is 100 years old. Surely it begins with the Enlightenment? Otherwise the first works of historical ('higher') criticism on the bible would pre-date modernism by 200 or more years (if you count Spinoza's attempt). At any rate the idea of a 'pure' reason that could 'uncover' the true nature of things through rational thinking and empiracal observation is older than 100 years.

    Might I add, that if we were still living in the age of 'modernism' I don't think I would even be here talking to you. The very fact that current thinking suggests there is no 'pure' 'universal' perspective that we tap into by rational thinking is, I would say, an opportunity for Christianity, becuase we can again take all other kinds of thinking and methods of interpreting as actually being ways of knowing and understanding again in (potentially) a true sense. For the first time in 300 years I am persuaded that religious faith may have an intellectual leg to stand on.
    ///
    On an unrelated note, with regards to the evolution/creation debate. What about geocentrism? Once believed by (near) everybody, challenged by a scientific hypothesis in the face of conservative church opposition with scriptural citations and yet presumably we all accept the heliocentric model now?