83 forum messages posted by
Loz
| Messages (newest first): |
[Sort by Oldest first]
|
|
Page 1/7 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
|
|
| The Word's impact on the words of English Literature |
| 1 [2806] Posted by: Loz |
Monday 12 February 2007 - 05:42pm |
| Hey Jody,
Hmm, I think me posting on this website definitely counts as an addiction... I think I'm going to go cold turkey after this post!
Ho hum, time for my last response before I close the doors of Loz and end my babbling... Thanks for clarifying what you meant Jody. I'm not sure I agree entirely with everything you say but that probably isn't news! I'm not sure about the Abraham thing but I think your argument might be from silence, on the other hand what we can be sure of is the way in which it is referred to in Hebrews (which I can't remember from the top of my head...).
Anyway, it's been very nice chatting away to you, Karen and others, but I suspect that I would do much better applying my "critical faculties" to the things of paper rather than the things of electricity. It's been interesting, and I've certainly gained a clearer perception of how some view Conservative Evangelicals and their understanding of scripture. So thank you for your patient responses and I wish you all, all the best.
Grace and Peace be with you all from Jesus Christ, Our Lord.
Take care,
Loz
Ephesians 3:20-21 (English Standard Version)
Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. |
|
|
|
| The Ordination of Women |
| 2 [2804] Posted by: Loz |
Monday 12 February 2007 - 01:43pm |
| Jody, I'm reckoning that my previous post appeared after you wrote your response and yet was written before it... Thus I think I may have pre-empted what you were saying inadvertently, and so I'm not going to respond unless this is not the case. To quote myself quoting Fern, agreeing that a person's intention should not be the "sole or final arbiter" but nevertheless should be considered. Hence I highlighted it because I was not confident that this was necessarily the case. Anyway hopefully my previous post elucidates this. Take care Jody,
Grace and Peace be with you,
Loz |
|
|
|
| The Word's impact on the words of English Literature |
| 3 [2794] Posted by: Loz |
Monday 12 February 2007 - 02:21am |
| Hey Jody,
I agree that it is a gross caricature to use Dracula, but I think we are going to start competing at how many times we can repeat ourselves! I do find your comment about Abraham and Isaac curious and whilst I don't see it as a justification for child sacrifice I do see God as defining morality rather than affirming my perception of what the abstract meaning of "good" is. Thus what God says goes, so to speak. I'm not entirely sure you are rejecting that, but when you reject those who justify their views saying "God says it is" I'm not entirely sure you are not. Are you rejecting their views because it isn't what God is saying or are you rejecting their views because they are just saying "God says it is"? I don't know if what I just said made any sense but my addiction has led me to another late night...
Take care Jody, and apologies about misunderstanding what you think about sacrificial love.
Loz |
|
|
|
| The Ordination of Women |
| 4 [2793] Posted by: Loz |
Monday 12 February 2007 - 02:09am |
| Fern, I'm afraid I'm a little unsure as to how to respond to somebody who calls me precocious and mocks me by suggesting that they are a 103 year old Arminian. I regret that I gave you that impression. I was simply emphasising my relative immaturity in age (20), in academia (A-Levels - E, E, E,) and as a Christian (10 months), when speaking to somebody such as Simon Butler who is significantly more experienced and more qualified in all of those areas. Clearly this came across as precocious, but this was neither my desire nor my intent. I just figured that it would be more obvious than normal when I said something stupid whilst speaking to him, so I just wanted to warn him before I did so.
Anyway I'll have a shot at explaining myself to you again in light of your most recent post. I understand your comment on the pointlessness of expressing my own personal experience. However if people are advocating personal experiences of one kind, and mine is contrary to theirs, I think it quite reasonable to highlight this. Perhaps you disagree? I am thus not so much expressing a personal state or view, as an experience. Indeed as experiences seem to be something valued on this forum, I don't think it entirely inappropriate to express mine. However you are right in that there is a sense in which my views and experiences are worthless as they are not shared by others and I cannot physically prove them to anyone by writing about them on a forum. But as I said, since others had expressed subjective personal experiences I didn't think it was inappropriate for me to do so, perhaps erroneously.
Lastly regarding your ultimate point about what Jody was saying, I absolutely agree with you in the sense that "those making such affirmations should not be either the sole or final arbiter of whether they are". However I never said that they should be, and Jody never said that they shouldn't be. I merely sought to suggest that people advocating the MH view were not necessarily trying to subjugate women and searching scripture for a justification for doing so. Of course intention does not mean that somebody is totally innocent, I just wanted to highlight it for consideration. As I just wrote, I don't think I ever advocated that it should be the "sole or final arbiter". I find your reference to racists, and antisemites, mildly inappropriate, since they do directly intend to devalue a certain race. I could elaborate further on why I think it is inappropriate but I think the less said about your usage of these terms the better, since I myself am not fully British and have experienced some mild racism growing up. |
|
|
|
| The Ordination of Women |
| 5 [2792] Posted by: Loz |
Monday 12 February 2007 - 01:39am |
| Heya Karen, you are right and I apologise, I myself was being far too simplistic in my description and far too general for the purposes of this forum. Of course my "impressions" are purely subjective and I do not know anyone outside of these electronic walls, and even if I did I still think that I would be in no position to make any proclamations about anybody else's position or views. I am sorry that I have offended you in any way and I will try to clarify what I was trying to say, indeed, as I ought to have originally written. You are right, I do need to be more careful in the way that I express myself. Please accept my apologies, I slightly let my lexis drop in the most recent posts (reflecting the lazy rugby playing bloke part of my character...) as you could probably see from when I start using words like "dunno"...
Let me try and make amends. "People that don't agree with the CE view are putting Scripture first too as well as God Himself - just like the CEs." Agreed. However it does seem that many (apologies generalisation yet again) of those who object to a lot of the views expressed by CEs appeal to experience in terms of the application of scripture, to the extent that they will even raise experience over scripture. It also seems that the views most objected to are the ones which seem most controversial to our society and thus the most uncomfortable for anyone to advocate. Perhaps this is just a very unfortunate coincidence but it is nevertheless a curious phenomenon. My comment about "issues" was pondering whether or not CE go too far in sticking to scripture to the point where their expositions are too intellectual to the extent that they can sometimes leave me lacking an emotional response. A weakness on my part probably, but one that seems to be shared.
Again I apologise for the lack of clarity in my usage of the word "simple". I was recalling a previous comment about the "covenant milieu" with words to this effect, "it is a world in which there are not only no questions about sexuality. But no questions at all." That is not a very accurate quotation but I think that was the gist of it. I think to suggest that people who do not question anything or permit anyone to question anything, might reasonably be described as being simple in some sense. If I don't question, I don't learn. Elsewhere others have quoted CE authors out of context creating a "straw man" which they subsequently blew over. I don't think it was you, but that particular part of my comment was referring to the general portrayal of CEs by some on this forum. Again I apologise for the generalisation prevalent in that comment. Undoubtedly some CEs have made some stupid comments...the particular CE lemon writing this post has just demonstrated that superbly.
Again, I apologise for the inappropriate familiarity evident in the comment "I know that you clearly hold in contempt the idea that they are drawing from scripture..." To be honest I'm not even sure if it is justifiable even to challenge a broad grouping of people with words like "contempt" let alone individuals. I am sorry about the way that I phrased this, I certainly did not mean "hateful" rathermore the way in which the phrase is used in court, when somebody is "held in contempt of court" which I understand to be more of a lack of respect and a disregard for something. However unless you were reading my mind, you weren't to know this. In that sense of the word I think my statement was not entirely incorrect as I did have in mind what you had actually written in the past, particularly regarding what you said about the lack of conversation or questioning in CE circles. I think the semantic difference you pointed out is a helpful one, and also an unfortunate result of my poor phraseology. Although I do think that ultimately the dispute lies in whether or not somebody is drawing from scripture or drawing from scripture with previous assumptions and preconceptions about its meaning. There is a sense in which everyone does the latter of course but it seems to be a vein of argument emphasised against CEs on this forum (more generalisations...). Once again I apologise for the presumed familiarity evident in my previous post and highlighted by you. Rather than assuming personal knowledge of your views I was in fact thinking of previous comments that you had made, thus rather than presuming knowledge of you I was instead trying to comment on what you had already said. However I don't say that and instead I come across as rather presumptuous and arrogant, apologies. I hope this post helps. |
|
|
|
| The Word's impact on the words of English Literature |
| 6 [2781] Posted by: Loz |
Saturday 10 February 2007 - 08:40pm |
| Jody, I'm afraid that I disagree in the sense that I suspect that Bram (which was short for Abraham) Stoker deliberately used this structure and thus it can be turned around, even if you find it morally repugnant. I could be wrong but was not this their understanding of scripture then? (As indeed it is for me now...) It just seems to me that the opposite parallels of Dracula compared to Our Lord seem so direct, and so numerous, that the act of sacrificial love demonstrated in Christ seems the exact opposite of the selfish unrestrained indulgence of Count Dracula who effectively sacrifices the lives of others to sustain his own. Dracula lacks the restraint which Stoker seems to be contrasting with Christianity. Even the "Crew of Light" at various times reveal themselves to be of imperfect characters, apparently endorsing the idea that there is a bit of Dracula in all of us. We see this also in the numerous references to the basic animal hunger and thirst of the human characters which is mentioned from the outset of the novel and sustained throughout. Also the fact that Dracula creates more vampires is a twisted sort of resurrection with living dead. The comparisons as I said are vast, and I think the sacrificial idea can be reversed here to emphasise the contrast between Dracula's unrestrained selfish feeding on the "life blood" of others, which stands in contrast to what I read in the Bible as Christ's unrestrained self-sacrificial love. You may reject the idea of sacrificial love having a Biblical foundation but nevertheless I do not get the impression that Stoker's text would agree with you for the purposes of this thread. Thus I think though you may disagree with the implications of my conclusion, I don't think they are forced upon the text by my "tinted" glasses, as much as they are self evident within Stoker's novel and consistent with the way in which he writes the novel overall. |
|
|
|
| Homosexuality, Scripture and Church |
| 7 [2777] Posted by: Loz |
Saturday 10 February 2007 - 07:08pm |
| He he Ken, excellent question! You know I'm sure it technically qualifies as an addiction for me now posting on this forum... I mean how many of you knew that after exactly 03:00 you can no longer post to the server or access the website as a whole... As for quiet times, well, let's just say that late night posts on fulcrum don't work in their favour... and whilst I enjoy reading what is said on here, it just aint a replacement for The Word! Hmm perhaps I ought to sever my usage altogether... |
|
|
|
| Homosexuality, Scripture and Church |
| 8 [2766] Posted by: Loz |
Saturday 10 February 2007 - 02:49am |
| Oscar, "(Lest you think I am exaggerating, be aware that there are already substantial pockets of younger people who even now see the Christian church in this way, precisely because of the homosexuality issue)" Speaking as a very recently ex-teenager, I just wanted to say that I have not found this to be the case. Since largely speaking most teenagers don't really seem to care! (Other things are much more exciting than following what's going on in the Church.) Of course there are some who do and insist on being heard, but they tend to be the almost militant extremes, and you can find kids who are no less passionate about their views on the other side... I'm not really saying anything much but I just think you might be taking a lot for granted here... |
|
|
|
| The Word's impact on the words of English Literature |
| 9 [2765] Posted by: Loz |
Saturday 10 February 2007 - 02:29am |
| Just to respond to an irreverent earlier mention on the thread "The Ordination of Women", let me briefly speak in defence of the Good Count's name.
Karen and Jody, "Dracula - potboiler, sexist, prurient, orgiastic, middle class fear and loathing of the other - nuff said" Ouch! Far too simplistic! Stoker is much more complicated than that.
"1. Dracula, really really bad idea to invert this understanding of sacrifice to find Jesus.
2. Dracula, women are helpless objects to be devoured or protected, depending on which 'side' the man is on."
1. Oh, no it's not! It works on lots of levels. I can go into great depth if you like. Trust me, it is uncanny or perhaps I should say, unheimlich, to see the way in which Stoker has drawn upon Biblical imagery and themes. The bizarre parallel Stoker seeks to draw between Dracula and Jesus is self-evident. I'm not "finding Jesus" so much as I am pointing out the obvious. Stoker literally quotes from the Bible in more than one place. I could really take the novel apart but for the fact that this post is already way too self-indulgent... Needless to say may I also highlight that Count Dracula has his very own "voice of one calling in the Desert" in the form of Renfield. Note that Van Helsing's first name is Abraham... Note the way that the Novel was written post-enlightenment, and the characters who stick rigidly to science refusing to think outside of their understanding thus become frustrating to the readers in their refusal to accept the obvious existence of the abnormal. (You might thus conclude that if we are going to believe in God we should also believe in Dracula... but don't...)
2. This response relates to both you, Jody and Karen, there are indeed elements of what you are saying but note several things. Firstly, it is on Mina's initiative that the "Crew of Light" are able to take up the dead trail of Dracula. Secondly, occasionally we read of the men finding things "hysterically" funny. Hysteria comes from the Greek word "hysterikos" meaning "of the womb, suffering in the womb," as originally it was defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Elsewhere we read of Jonathan Harker being described in an effeminate manner. Thirdly, Mina is a teacher, and as readers we are encouraged to believe that Mina collates the various narratives which compose the book and it is through her efficiency that the "Crew of Light" are able to predict Dracula's flight. Fourthly, whilst Van Helsing in some places seems offensive towards women he speaks of Mina in a praiseworthy manner. Fifthly and finally, the last paragraph of the novel starts with this... "We want no proofs. We ask none to believe us! This boy will some day know what a brave and gallant woman his mother is."
Karen and Jody I hope you will thus agree that Stoker's treatment of women is not quite as simple as you both appear to indicate... (I had an excellent English teacher with a passion for Gothic literature...) |
|
|
|
| The Ordination of Women |
| 10 [2764] Posted by: Loz |
Saturday 10 February 2007 - 02:17am |
| For response to gross and criminal accusations by Jody and Karen, relating to the Good Count Dracula, please see the new English Literature Thread. |
|
|
|
| The Ordination of Women |
| 11 [2763] Posted by: Loz |
Saturday 10 February 2007 - 01:50am |
| It all seems very "happening" on this thread now doesn't it... well above my levels of pontification.
Karen, nice to see a bit of Plato, makes me feel cleverer jus reedin that! I'm not sure it actually makes a point about anything though. I mean couldn't anyone have posted that, right after they claimed that much of liberal "belief about women is Belief not fact and not even biblical fact"? I dunno maybe not. It does strike me that this "False Consciousness" argument would be an excellent way to simply reject anyone's views out of hand and can easily be turned on it's head. Indeed I think John Foxe seems to be doing just that in some way. Unsurprisingly it doesn't seem to be going down too well... I dunno I just find that Conservative Evangelicals aren't as simple as everyone keeps portraying them to be. They sure aren't perfect, but they do have issues in that they keep putting scripture first the whole time. I know that you clearly hold in contempt the idea that they are drawing from scripture and whilst I'm sure you have good reasons for doing so, I for one am thoroughly unconvinced that they are not. Not that I'm convinced by MH proponents but ironically it is just that I'm so unconvinced by the weakness of the arguments found in that article which you previously referenced! I'm not leaping to any conclusions but it just seems ironic that that has been the effect on me. It just seemed to skirt around the complicated stuff without really engaging with it before going on to freely say what they liked. Sorry that was a bit wishy washy but I think you know what I mean.
Jody, (response to Thursday 8 February 2007 - 05:14pm) I'll get on to Dracula in a moment... Point of clarification, I wasn't talking about whether or not "another guy's actions or words are NOT devaluing to a woman/women". You have added two words "to a", which I think significantly change the intonation of my intended statement. "to a" suddenly shifts the "valuation" on to how a woman feels she is being valued, rather than what I was trying to refer to, how one person values another person. Does that makes sense? Sorry back to semantics, but in this case I think I'm being misread, because I definitely agree with what you are saying. As I've made clear before I think it would be totally inappropriate to talk about what it feels like for any woman in whatever situation they may be in, because frankly, I'm not a woman and I'm not in their situation. Lastly just to respond to your most recent post, either way whether we are loving ourselves too much or others too much, God is missing in both scenarios? Isn't that the most significant thing? I'm probably missing the point again... (as per usual!) |
|
|
|
| The Ordination of Women |
| 12 [2732] Posted by: Loz |
Thursday 8 February 2007 - 12:32am |
| Perhaps a literature thread would indeed be appropriate. One of my recent A-Level retakes was English Literature, Frankenstein was also on the cards but much more significantly, Dracula. It blew my mind, nearly every lesson I kept pointing out blatant Christian references to the point where it was tedious. I assure you that Shelley's Frankenstein has got nothing on Bram Stoker's Dracula! It was ridiculous, there were direct Bible quotations in several places, most obviously "the blood is the life", and how Dracula instead of sacrificing himself for others, sacrifices others for himself, keeping himself alive eternally by taking their "life blood"... It is steeped in Biblical references! Well worth a read for any Christian.
Anyway to make a vague attempt to return to the topic of the thread. It is perhaps worth pointing out that I don't know any Christians who somehow devalue women whilst advocating Male Headship. Quite the opposite, they seem to place a huge value on women and their critical importance in the Church. The complications seem to arise as they differ in understanding of roles within the church. That doesn't necessarily mean that women are any less valued. I know you aren't saying that but elsewhere it seems often to be an unsaid assumption which in my limited experience has been untrue. Ho hum, it's all so complicated isn't it? At least Jesus is pretty stark and clear! Although even then some would disagree with me... so many questions to ask God! Although I suspect we won't be too fussed about them later on... we'll be too busy rejoicing and praising him!!! I don't want to be controversial but it does strike me that all of the examples you cite we have women serving not as leaders, and Jesus is a bloke. I'm not saying that justifies Male Headship, but I'm not sure it undermines it. Either way I'm confuddled about the whole thing! Don't know enough of either side. Probably ought to spend more time hearing what He says about it all... isn't that always the way!?!
Anyway, hope the studies go a whole lot better than mine (admittedly not very difficult but you know what I mean!) Don't hesitate to throw me any Eng Lit questions...(although it may have to be coded so that people don't start accusing us of diverting the topic of the thread...)
;-p |
|
|
|
|
Page 1/7 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
| Top
|
|
|
Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill
Commons Report and Third Reading Briefing. CofE Website, 19 May 2013
19 May 2013
Tory rebellion on amendment to grant civil partnerships to heterosexual couples will 'cost οΎ£4bn and take two years' Guardian Online, 19 May 2013
19 May 2013
Top public schools have put it in their curricula and David Cameron has even set out to measure it, now churches are embarking on a drive to teach happiness to the nation. Telegraph 18 May 2013
18 May 2013
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
A comment on the most controversial funeral of the century.......
|
