Graham, Gloria and Gossip! Religion Chat thread (part 4)

[nickelbabe]

I know we've not officially finished the last one, but I wanted to get the link in before we ran out of room!

Everyone welcome - the aim of this thread is to generally chat about church life, or just gossip in general!
You don't have to be a regular church-goer, nor do you have to know what we're going on about!
It's not about debate, it's just about chatting
:)

Oh, I don't mind. it's on the breakfast show on Radio 3 this morning at about 8.35.

Oma! Gosh now I understand what you were on about . Off to listen on Listen again.

Hello all

How is everyone? Have you noticed all the religion threads around MN at the moment? Soo much vitriol.....sigh.....wish I was better at words and all that.
DO I must listen to your thing, have you got a link for it at all?
Have a great weekend, hope it's restful for you all. :)

Try this for size MHD it's 2 hrs and 6 mins into the programme.

I haven't noticed any religion threads, I gave up on them as people on the whole don't want to be persuaded and half of them can't spell atheist anyway.
Or is it athiest?

Yes, I noticed one seeker started yesterday? about asking for examples of "christian bashing" because it always comes up in threads when there's an argument on either side.
I know that SolidGoldBrass (lovely as she is!) always comes on any thread talking about religion (usually in schools) and goes on and on and on about make-believe fairies etc.
[yawn]
That's why I was a bit wary of started our chat thread originally - I wanted to make it clear that we didn't want debate, we just wanted to chat. :)

Well, the chat thread certainly took off, didn't it nickel? Well done you!

I know I haven't been here since forever (new job is incredibly demanding: sometimes difficult, sometimes rewarding, always inescapable) but I do think about you all and I have a quick scan of this section occasionally (late at night usually). Just had to pop back today to tell someone (and I don't have anyone at home to tell really... dh just raised an eyebrow ) that dd2 has been asked to be a server. She's really excited by the idea and I am a proud mummy. (Mind you, she hates incense, and I suspect that this will put her in the direct firing line - we're talking Anglican cathedral, quite 'high' - so I can see her spluttering and sneezing her way through the services!).

Hope everyone here is well. I know I'm hideously out-of-date, but have been thinking of nickel (hope the pregnancy is going well and that you're feeling OK) and MHD (with the move) in particular. Will try to pop back sometimes when I have some time and catch up a bit, but just had to share about dd2.

That's really lovey TUO, I hope she manages witht he incense.

Oh... just had a thought. Will it matter that she's not baptised? I'm sure no-one there realises that she isn't, as we just rolled up when we got back from the US and said that we'd been living abroad for a bit, and no-one really questioned it. I guess everyone assumes that she has been baptised. I've tried googling but I can't find anything on this... Would it be terribly wrong simply not to mention it unless asked? Or should I raise it? And with whom? (Apparently the person in charge of the servers is going to ring us sometime - but is s/he the right person? Or should it be one of the priests? And which one... there are so many of them?)

Or am I over-thinking this?

Wouldn't mention it until asked. Don't even think about it. It's just a human institution, God will love your child just as much whether she is baptised or not.
Our son sang in an Anglican choir for some time while we attended a Baptist church. The problems arose about times of services and us not being able to be in two places at once and that sort of thing, they knew full well he had not been baptised!

Bless you, Oma. I probably worry about this more than I need to, because, now that I've re-embraced my faith, I wish that I'd had the girls baptised as babies (which I know isn't your tradition - and I understand why not - but would have been mine). But I know you're right about God not holding it against her. Thank you.

So great to hear from you TUO :) That's great about dd and I wouldn't worry about mentioning it, it may be something she will bring up as something she wants to do at some point which would be fab.

DO will listen to that exerpt when I get a min, v busy today, out for lunch and we have neighbours round in a bit for tea and cakes. I'm exhausted. Church was nice again, very welcoming and the children like it. The worship will never be 'me' but I can appreciate how it works for a lot of people that way and so can live with it if I need to iyswim.

Thanks MHD... The only reason I'd mention it, I suppose, would be to protect dd, because I wouldn't want her to be asked about it directly and made to feel that she was somehow 'not good enough' (and I'm sure no-one would do that on purpose, but...).

I imagine that at this point (she's 9 and a half) the most likely thing (assuming she continues enjoying church and wanting to be involved) will be that she'll get baptised and confirmed at the same time in a few years' time. I think that was also the consensus of an earlier thread I had on here about it.

I was thinking of you today as we had Harvest Festival and the kids were in for the whole service (they normally come back in time for the Peace) and we had some quite lively singing ('Morning has broken', 'Lord of the Dance'... bit 70s - it was primary school all over again for me!!) and I almost... almost caught myself swaying slightly. Give me another ten years or so and I might break out into some full-on clapping! Next week, dd1 has a Guides Church Parade at our local (much more evangelical) church, so I shall be going there instead, which might be interesting. I think I might be ready to loosen up just a fraction; though the familiar (and relatively anonymous) routines of the cathedral have been comforting to me over the last year as a(n initially slightly nervous) returner...

I am incredibly busy and often stressed, but also so very happy with where I am at the moment, iykwim. Just felt the need to say that!

Hello

I hope no one minds me posting this here. I didn't want to start a new thread though because I thought it'd probably just attract unwelcome comments. I'd rather get a Christian perspective than be told that my faith is a load of tosh (see thread in AIBU). I suppose I've got two questions. The first is, how did people decide what texts to put in the old and new testaments, and how did they decide what to miss out? I know there are some differences between orthodox, protestant and RC bibles, but don't understand why. And if there were other texts that were just missed out entirely? Also, what consideration has been given to manuscripts which have been found since decisions were taken about what to put in the bible? I've heard people talking about the gospel of Mary which was found in the 19th century but have no idea what consideration has been given to it. Or if it is even genuine.

Sorry about all the questions. I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but I've been wondering about this all day and there's no one in RL I'd feel comfortable talking to about it.

Well, I didn't answer to these questions, not because I thought they were stupid or in the wrong area, but simply because I didn't know the answer either.
However, since nobody else has said anything I googled "How the Bible was put together" and there is quite a lot of information on there which you might find helpful.
Equally, I think if you google Gospel of Mary some info might roll out.

Well done to your DD TUO - that's a huge thing!
It won't matter if she's not baptised - she won't be able to hold the cup, but she'll be able to do all the other stuff, which is just as important (of course, that depends on the tradition of your church - but the person in charge of the servers will be able to answer)
Blimey, your Harvest service sounds like my worst nightmare! Why do they always assume that children won't sing proper hymns? Morning has Broken and Lord of the Dance at Harvest? can't think of any less appropraite hymns for the season!
We did a hymn called Praise God for theHarvest, which turned out to be to the tune of When a Knight Won His Spurs, so that was fun
(i did enjoy it)

The calendar I made seems to be going down a storm! I was really worried that noone would want it and that they would think it looked rubbish, but loads of people have bought it so far, and loads have complimented me on it!

wow jaffa - that's a really hard question!

There are loads of chapters that count as the "apocrypha" - added chapters to books that were kept in and some extra books, too.
You can buy it as a separate book, but some bibles have "with apocrypha".
That's tricky, because the word apocrypa means fake, so I'm not sure what the official line on it is....

Most of the bible stories were put together many many years/decades/centuries later, so they would have been handed down by mouth until then- who knows how much of it is exact and how much is chinese whispers!

Good question Jaffa!

Right, well, I'll do my best.....may be somewhat flawed!!

The first five books of the OT, The Pentateuch, were often attributed to Moses and the story of the children of Israel, and accepted by Jesus as scripture, as were the Psalms, the Prophets and the wisdom writings (Proverbs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes) so we know these were around and accepted.

The NT is slightly more complicated. It does seem that by the time of Paul some of the gospel writings (largely Luke who he mentions) were in use by the early church as scripture, and basically the rest was gathered together over the next three to four centuries. You may think this somewhat trial and error-ish, like how could that work over so long, but from various early christian writings (Ignatius of Antioch IIRC, and also Polycarp, then later Constantine etc after conversion) it seems that certain books were used by the church as a whole and therefore accepted across the board, and these books crossed over and came together with each other over time.

Then, in the 4th century there were various councils of Christian leaders/bishops (Laodicea was one I think) and they came up with a definitive list. It wasn't random at all, they actually applied various criteria such as whether it was accepted by the larger church and whether the writings seemed to reflect the teaching of Christianity and were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It seems there was prayer over the contents. That was when it was decided that the 39 OT books and 27 Nt would be included.

There were various Apocryphal writings left out. Some of these are included in some versions of the bible (NRSV, Jerusalem Bible) but are not accepted as 'canon' (Scripture) but as useful writings for one reason or another. I've read most of these as they are interesting but funnily enough never felt that spark, but that's hardly objective when it comes to the whys and wherefores of it all. In the end it comes back to faith and trust: Do we trust that God inspired these people to put the writings in God wanted God's people to follow and live by?

As for later writings like the Qumran stuff (dead sea scrolls) and Gospel of Mary, well the Qumran stuff reflects something of what is in already, doesn't contradict it, and Gospel of Mary seems to be a piece of Gnostic writing, the Gnostics were around in the first century and later and saw the way to God through knowledge, didn't believe in the resurrection etc. I'm no expert on the Gospel of Mary at all but I believe there are some questions as to A) it's authenticity in general and b) whether it was written by the original Mary. In all, it seems it wasn't 'meant' to be in the bible, but all of these writings can be used in many ways and shouldn't be discounted.

I am waffling hugely, will try and find some articles that put it all better and more succintly/correctly!!!

Ooh well done MHD I was waiting for you to come along and enlighten us . I was talking to DH about this last week and he was saying that part of the decision making over what was included was also to do with proximity to Jesus and his disciples - ie books that were included had to be written either by someone who knew him directly, or by a 'student' of such a person. That may be wrong and I'll double check with DH later on .

Re use of the different versions, my understanding is that the Catholic church uses the version with what Protestants would call the Apocrypha. Most Protestants would say that the books in the Apocrypha aren't part of the 'authorised' version of the bible and so don't have the weight or authority of scripture but can be useful for additional study. The Orthodox church here uses the same version of the bible as the Protestant church (so that's Russian Orthodox) but I don't know if that's the case generally or for Greek Orthodox. HTH!

Yes that's right milly I'm sure, one of the categories books were judged by was whether they were written by close disciples/friends of, not just some random bloke off the street

It's also worth saying that although it's true writings were passed down through oral tradition, there are very early fragments of gospels/letters etc and they have really not been altered from the original, people will often say the bible has been changed and altered over time as a lot of it was oral tradition but that's a false argument. Firstly, oral tradition was incredibly accurate, much more so than say different newspaper accounts of an event, every word was memorised and said by rote again and again (much like we say the Lord's prayer for eg or the National Anthem, only with far more to remember - but they had the tools, the tradition and the wherewithal to do so); and secondly, much of it was written down, earlier than some scholars would have you believe. So by the time the councils took on the task of compiling the canon of scripture there were established and true-to-original 'books' of the bible in circulation. It's so exciting that what we read in say, Matthew, today, is so close to what was written about the Jesus who lived then and lives today. Just awe inspiring. Love it. :)

TUO...so glad you feel happy :) Lol at the 70's harvest - bit inclined to agree with nickel about those particular songs' suitability for harvest - stick with Come ye thankful people come I would reckon!! Keep on swaying and you never know, you might end up dancing in the aisles in a white floaty skirt with ribbons I do love to rip off my own tradition...

Surely the ribbons would be on the tambourine MHD or is that Salvation Army tradition?

a tamborine with ribbons is a tabret isn't it?

Thank you very much everyone and especially MHD. Sorry to be so difficult. I just feel that if you have questions it is better to try and deal with them head on rather than sweep them under some sort of mental carpet. Seem to have had a lot of questions recently ...

Lol at skirt with ribbons. Sounds like something I'd have worn when I was a student provided it had been died purple or black first.

we don't mind your questions being difficult!
that's part of the chat, isn't it? getting ideas from other people, and getting other opinions to help you understand stuff.
:)

Hi all... I think it was precisely the naffness of 70s singing that I liked yesterday. Like I said, it took me right back to my primary school days! (We did also have 'For the Beauty of the Earth' and 'We Plough the Fields and Scatter' for the traditionalists! I'll let you know if I get my skirt with ribbons on (or my tambourine) out for the local church next week!

Don't think they'd let dd near the cup, Nickel... she's only 9!

I didn't know the answer to Jaffa's question, but was aware of the differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles from when I first started to work on medieval literature and someone said to me 'You do have a Catholic Bible, don't you?'. I think I just nodded and ... and ran off to the bookshop to find out what the difference was (Ecclesiastes is one of the books that Protestants treat as Apocryphal, isn't it?). I also tend to work with the Latin Vulgate, and what always catches me out is that the numbering of the Psalms is different...

Still feeling happy!

BTW, Milly, one of the most beautiful churches I've been in (not only beautiful to look at but for the atmosphere and sense of stillness too) was a Serbian Orthodox church.