Hayden

No, what they call "High Anglican". I'm not sure how it works, but they're Protestant but have the Trinity as well. I'm pretty sure I was christened in that religion, but I don't know much about it.

HR

Arrowman

Hi Hayden. I was raised Anglican myself, and my (ex) in-laws are High Anglican. Your assessment of "Protestant with Trinity" is broadly accurate; in fact in many ways a High Anglican service resembles a Catholic Mass very closely - incense, the whole bit - a fair number of people crossing themselves and genuflecting, too.

My ex-wife said she didn't realise she was a Protestant until she was about 16

"They're dancing with Jesus now" sounds like an odd thing for an Anglican to say; a bit - er, "charismatic" if you know what I mean.

I don't say that to stereotype; just as a further comment on the nature of Anglicanism in general. Oh - right, that's a stereotype, isn't it! Oh, heck <stumble, stumble> - as a generalisation - Anglicans will think a dead person is "with God" or "with Jesus"; they don't think about Hell much, there's certainly no Purgatory, they have saints but they don't kiss statues of them, Mary has a special place but she's not "Mother of God" and she's not especially deified, and they don't (as a rule) say things like "dancing with Jesus". I suspect Anglicans dance, but Jesus doesn't.

John Shelby Spong is an Anglican.

Oh, and we get to use condoms. I just thoght you should know that, you know, in case it was bothering you

"For I am a Protestant, and I can have sex any time I like".

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Arrowman

Oh, absolutely. I'd be a bit upset if I thought the people in that article were reading this board right now. But I suspect they're not

Yep, fair enough. But I have to say that
(a) When I've seen discussions between Christians (eg Baptist Board) on that sort of thing, the discussion goes just a tad close to "told you so!" for my taste sometimes. I know they don't always mean it, but some of them do, and it certainly comes across that way. It takes a lot of "giving benefit of the doubt".
b) Here, we're scoffing at the (what we see as irrational) behaviour of the bereaved and not pointing out that the deceased are rotting in the ground, never to be seen again. "There", they largely ignore the behaviour of the bereaved, but talk mainly about the fact that the deceased is in Hell. I don't like that.

Indeed not. But the trouble is, sometimes people don't know when they're "initiating it". For example:

Suppose I am with a "bereaved Christian parent" and they ask me to pray with them. Now, I might try to not make a big deal out of it, like I wouldn't say "I WILL NOT PRAY WITH YOU!!!" - maybe I'll bow my head in respect while they pray, and perhaps think about the departed and how I can support the bereaved. Now suppose they notice that, and raise the subject of my non-participation, perhaps with the suggestion that they are aggrieved by it.

- In that case, I would suggest that some/many "Christian parents" would be unwittingly initiating a discussion they really don't want or need to have, but they're just stumbling in to it because the concept of "non-belief" is so foreign to them that they just can't understand why someone wouldn't pray and they don't know where the conversation will inevitably lead. In such a case, I would have to conduct all sorts of conversational gymnastics to avoid discussing my non-belief too openly, to avoid offending them.

I wouldn't do that. I'd be polite, but I wouldn't avoid the subject. Then, afterwards, they are just as likely to tell others about my "disrespect" and how I "attacked their sincere beliefs" etc. All because they brought up the subject, and I didn't avoid it.

Generalisation, I know, and I don't mean to stereotype all Christians. I hope you can see the point I am trying to make.

Arrowman

All human beings are inherently noble. What I have a problem with, is the implication that prayer is "noble" in some special sense - and more "noble" than simply bowing your head in quiet remembrance of a recently departed person.

Maybe that's not what you were trying to say, but as I said in my earlier post, I don't recognise the fact that a person has or expresses particular supersitions as being a special reason to regard them as noble or worthy of respect. That feeling is inherent in our society and I am sensitive to it.

(Although thankfully in the case of the Catholic clergy at least, the Emperor's starting to do a striptease )

And no, I don't have a problem with people "expressing their love through prayer". I mean, it makes no sense to express your love for someone recently deceased, by conducting an imaginary conversation with the mythical being which took their life, and I think it's silly, but I don't "have a problem with it".

HelenM

Sorry, Hayden!

I was guessing at your name being a female one. I should have looked at your profile...nice pic btw

love
Helen

HelenM

Originally posted by Arrowman:

Oh, absolutely. I'd be a bit upset if I thought the people in that article were reading this board right now. But I suspect they're not

I think that's a reasonable assumption.

I have to say that
(a) When I've seen discussions between Christians (eg Baptist Board) on that sort of thing, the discussion goes just a tad close to "told you so!" for my taste sometimes. I know they don't always mean it, but some of them do, and it certainly comes across that way. It takes a lot of "giving benefit of the doubt".

Did I say I realized it could seem like 'gloating'? If not then I certainly thought about writing that earlier in this thread.

b) Here, we're scoffing at the (what we see as irrational) behaviour of the bereaved and not pointing out that the deceased are rotting in the ground, never to be seen again. "There", they largely ignore the behaviour of the bereaved, but talk mainly about the fact that the deceased is in Hell. I don't like that.

I can understand why you don't like it.

Indeed not. But the trouble is, sometimes people don't know when they're "initiating it". For example:

Suppose I am with a "bereaved Christian parent" and they ask me to pray with them. Now, I might try to not make a big deal out of it, like I wouldn't say "I WILL NOT PRAY WITH YOU!!!" - maybe I'll bow my head in respect while they pray, and perhaps think about the departed and how I can support the bereaved. Now suppose they notice that, and raise the subject of my non-participation, perhaps with the suggestion that they are aggrieved by it.

- In that case, I would suggest that some/many "Christian parents" would be unwittingly initiating a discussion they really don't want or need to have, but they're just stumbling in to it because the concept of "non-belief" is so foreign to them that they just can't understand why someone wouldn't pray and they don't know where the conversation will inevitably lead. In such a case, I would have to conduct all sorts of conversational gymnastics to avoid discussing my non-belief too openly, to avoid offending them.

I wouldn't do that. I'd be polite, but I wouldn't avoid the subject. Then, afterwards, they are just as likely to tell others about my "disrespect" and how I "attacked their sincere beliefs" etc. All because they brought up the subject, and I didn't avoid it.

Generalisation, I know, and I don't mean to stereotype all Christians. I hope you can see the point I am trying to make.

Yes, I do understand. I value honesty highly and I respect that you aren't going to bend over backwards to lie or be evasive in the face of a theist pushing you to do or say something you don't want to do or say.

I simply meant that I was assuming no-one here would aggressively try to debate someone in in grief on some theological issue or even use the event causing the grief to try to prove that the bereaved person's theology is backrupt.

I think we're basically agreed...

love
Helen

Arrowman

I think we are, too. Trouble is, in this community people are so (a) opinionated (b) desirous of making themselves absolutely clear and (c) capable of thinking in shades of grey, that a discussion between people who essentially agree can go on longer than a "do!" "do not!" disagreement.

love ya too, baby
Arrowman

The Other Michael

Inherently noble? Tom DeLaye, Benny Hinn, need I go on?

I don't see any particular need to bow my head to remember things. Actually, I'm more apt to look around to see if something catches my eye and jogs my memory.

Bowing the head in remembrance is just a religious practice - part of the praying ritual. If you aren't praying, then no need to bow your head.

This is not to say that you can't stand quietly without making a big fuss over things while you remember.

cheers,
Michael

HelenM

Originally posted by Arrowman:

I think we are, too. Trouble is, in this community people are so (a) opinionated (b) desirous of making themselves absolutely clear and (c) capable of thinking in shades of grey, that a discussion between people who essentially agree can go on longer than a "do!" "do not!" disagreement.

Yep!

love ya too, baby

thanks! I've never got that response here, that I can recall...

love
Helen

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Arrowman

Helen: You should catch me when I've been drinking