From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Apr 08 2005 - 07:57:57 BST
Hi Ham, all in this thread,
This issue came up a while back, in March2003 to be precise. I thought I'd
cut and paste in something I wrote then to Platt, as it pretty much gives my
answer to Ham's question, and touches on one or two other issues at the same
time. My views have changed a little since I wrote this, but not so much as
to make it not worth sharing what I wrote then.
Sam
"The fear of death is a sign of a false life" (Wittgenstein)
~~~~
In the original post, back in November, I said "I don't think that the
promise of 'life after death' has much weight in my understanding of the
world. I don't deny it, it just doesn't mean much to me."
I've also said: "if I were asked whether I believed in 'life after death'
(of either sort) the short answer is: I don't know, and it's not a 'weight
bearing' part of my faith. That is, I don't think and feel and act the way
that I do because I have a hope of a reward after death. I am the way that I
am because it is 'the way the truth and the life' - in this life. It makes
sense to me, it feels right, it seems to hold more truth and meaning than
anything else I've come across. Anything else (after this life) is a bonus.
I don't disagree with the idea of life after death, it just doesn't mean
very much to me - quite literally, I can't make much sense of it. The
beatific vision seems much too Platonic, everlasting life doesn't make
philosophical sense."
And "In so far as traditional Christianity implies 'everlasting' life - or
punishment - it doesn't have much meaning for me."
In the most recent posts I said "Views about life after death are very
diverse - diverse within Christianity as much as between Christianity and
other religions. For example, in the twelfth century in Western Christianity
there was a shift between viewing the resurrection as a corporate event at
the end of time, to being a personal judgement and vindication. It's a bit
of a distortion to think that Christianity depended on the appeal of life
after death. Clearly the Resurrection was the defining impetus for
Christianity, but how that was understood, even in New Testament times, was
never monolithic."
The reason why I was brought up short was when you then claimed that I
"appear to deny the literal resurrection of Christ from the grave." I don't
see how it is legitimate to get to that assessment from the things that I
had said. (I do see how you got the second part, "the Christian promise of
life everlasting" - because that is what we were talking about - and will
doubtless continue to talk about).
In other words, I think there is quite a bit of difference between talking
about the resurrection of Jesus and talking about what happens to an
individual Christian. Obviously they are linked, but it's possible to
distinguish them - and necessary, sometimes. For the record, I think a
belief in the resurrection is definitional for being a Christian, and I
certainly don't think I could be a priest if I didn't accept it. What
doesn't mean much to me is a promise of my own 'life everlasting'. As I said
originally, I don't reject it, it just doesn't form a 'weight bearing' part
of my faith.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 08:02:10 BST