Printable View
I saw the movie where he got his head cut off. A beheading is probably quicker than being drawn and quartered which I hear can take a while, but I didn't know the Church of England canonized him as well. I wonder if that was around the time the Brits were itching to get into the EU?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Beheading was for the elite because (as long as it went well) it hurt less. Anne Boleyn was sentenced to be burned or beheaded at Henry VII's pleasure after supposedly screwing around on him. Hank went for the head. Drawing and quartering was usually the punishment for treason. It was painful and degrading. You might be castrated first if the executioner was in the mood. Then you'd be hanged by the neck until not quite dead. And then, hey, let's see what those abdominal organs look like! And there was other nasty stuff. Anyone who tried to poison anybody important could look forward to a long afternoon of being repeatedly dipped in a pool of boiling water until finally left for soup (they had a special machine for it). So it's not like the traitors and heretics had all the fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I don't know why the Church of England made More a saint. My guess is that it was to be nice and get people to like them. The C of E has been steadily giving up the ship for some years now. I wonder if they will cast More back into hell now that Wolf Hall is popular. Christian churches never cease to amaze me.
Speaking of which, was the movie you saw A Man for All Seasons, which portrays More as an earnest and principled scholar done to death by diabolical court schemers, or Wolf Hall (actually a miniseries), in which he is more of a Tudor Uriah Heep: creepy, fanatical, and dangerous? The last time I saw A Man for All seasons I didn't think it had aged well (though Orson Wells is still cool as Wolsey). But Wolf Hall is a memorable production, and the two books (so far) are even better.
I'm still thinking about your comments on subjectivity and objectivity. I wonder if they could be applied to my distinction between zoe (life) and psyche (personality or soul). Perhaps objectivity is what makes God unknowable. Perhaps it is what happens to us when the animal body and brain die. It would be an elegant solution to the problem of death, although not one I think many would welcome.
I've been away a few days and you're all still on this. Jeez!
I can see why Catholics might have been tempted to canonize Thomas More, but not the Church of England. Atheists like to portray Christians as mentally challenged, but when Christians canonize a-holes like both Catholics and Protestants did, it makes me think that those atheists, in spite of everything, are not entirely wrong about everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I saw "A Man for All Seasons" about 15 years ago, however, that was after reading Moynahan's book, "God's Bestseller", and so I had little sympathy for the main character: he got better than he deserved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
The subjectivity-objectivity ideas come from applying ideas from an introductory book on phenomenology and existentialism to Whitehead and Russell's "Principia Mathematica" keeping in mind Godel's proof of the incompleteness or inconsistency of that project. That probably doesn't help explain my point, but because of that I view the objective as "idolatrous" if it attempts to "completely" and "consistently" replace our subjectivity. That objective idolatry could be a text taken too literally, an authority structure believed to be infallible or a computer into which some future rocket scientist may be deluded enough to try to download our consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Pre 1500 there was a very different world view in which there were no clear boundaries between the scientific and the symbolic – think of Dante. No doubt the Bible was believed to be literally true, but it was not necessarily the most important aspect. And it would not have been Biblical literalism as understood by some modern American evangelicals which is consciously in opposition to widely held views.
On consideration, Biblical literalism is irrelevant to Red Terror’s OP. There was a census, then there was a plague. Red Terror’s (understandable) criticism is of the theological view that God caused the plague because of the census.
It is a view of God that is inconsistent with the understanding of God in much of the Hebrew Scriptures (eg Isaiah or Hosea) let alone the Christian New Testament.
The C of E does not canonise saints. The date of Thomas More’s martyrdom is in the current calendar as an optional commemoration with no specific liturgical material provided
Would you rather we made impressive-looking lists of books we all read 20 years ago (again). :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
Protestants don't canonize saints, YesNo. The C of E has them just the same. JR and I discuss this briefly below.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
The men who prosecuted More was Thomas Cromwell, the hero of Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall novels. (Spoiler alert for the not-yet-published The Mirror and the Light). Cromwell followed Moore to the block a few years later. I remember the theater exploding in applause when that detail was given in the epilogue of A Man for All Seasons. And when Mantel's book (finally) comes out, hearts are going to break.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
People are always confusing art for history (and history for historicity). In this case I find it a little funny.
No, I think understand. It strikes me also that religious orthodoxies could be regarded as idolatrous insofar as formal doctrine/dogma replaces our subjective experience of the object divine.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Thank you for clarifying your position and thank you for the above concession of sorts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson
Please note that I did not say they canonized him (how could they?) But the calendar to which you refer--the one on which More was placed in the 1980s--is the the Church of England's Calendar of Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church, right? And that is pretty ironic given the history, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson
Orthodoxies could, but they don't have to be. There is no way for anyone to create an real idol. All idols are false. That is, there is no way for someone to create a computer into which they could download our consciousness. The problem with the idol (or that computer) is the dehumanizing belief that it has been successfully constructed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I'm also relieved to find out that the Church of English doesn't actually or officially canonize stuff. I was beginning to have one of those moments of shock like when I heard for the first time about the Big Bang or when I heard that no one actually went to the Moon during the Apollo missions.
Don't be too relieved. It still formally affirms a torturer and persecutor as a saint and hero of the Christian Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
That spell of words creating a halo around Thomas More makes me think it is just begging to be broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Terror
I’ve just been reading Chaucer’s The Nun’s Priest’s Tale in the Canterbury Tales in which is quoted this same text from the Letter to Timothy (which scholarship for the last century or so would attribute to a writer far less subtle and imaginative than Paul).
For seint Paul seith, that al that writen is,
To our doctryne it is y-write, y-wis.
Taketh the fruyt, and lat the chaf be stille.
The ghastly passage from 2 Samuel strikes me as an obvious example of ( very nasty) chaf. Even the version in Chronicles had to tone it down.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 is often cited by Biblical literalists as proof that the New Testament was divinely inspired. But since the author was writing before the texts that ended up in the New Testament had been selected and canonized as Scripture, he could not have been talking about them. Rather he is referring to the Hebrew Scriptures--and possibly to the translation his community used (the Septuagint), which was reputed to have been divinely inspired. The author does not say Scripture, of course, but ypaphn ("writing"), which can be used synonymously with Septuagint in Koine* But it cannot mean New Testament because at the time there was no New Testament as such.
Of course the literalist claim that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 provides a "proof text" that the letter (with the rest of the NT) is "from God"' and therefore infallible is absurd on the face of it. It is as if I were to say: "Everything Pompey Bum says so is from God and therefore infallible. Why? Because this post by Pompey Bum says so, and of course everything Pompey Bum says is from God and therefore infallible. But the text is not making such a ridiculous claim, even if some Christians do. And for the record, Pompey Bum's opinions are as fallible as the Bible.
*This idea was suggested to me by Helmut Koester, the well-known Biblical scholar and student of the great Rudolph Bultmann (I was a friend of Koester's daughter).
Not long after Jesus's death, the apostle Paul counseled total obedience to the state (the very Roman state that had crucified his savior), claiming in Romans 13.1 that "The powers that be are ordained by God." Since there exists no authority save by the act of God, it follows that those who do not submit to earthly rulers are in effect resisting celestial authority "and shall receive to themselves damnation." Preaching while that homicidal autocrat, Nero, was sitting on the throne, Paul assures his followers that the ruler is both virtuous and benign, working for the good of all and ready to punish evildoers. He deserves obedience not only out of fear "but also for conscience sake" "for he is the minister of God." So should people "render tribute" (taxes) to the authorities, for they do God's service. Soon after this, at the instigation of a rival Christian faction, Paul himself [along with Peter and a number of other Christians] is said to have been arrested and executed by the divinely-ordained secular authorities.
By Dr. Michael Parenti, History As Mystery
Romans 13:1-7 (New International Version)
Submission to the Authorities
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
The divine right of kings!!!!! Indeed this is where it started, eh??? Or was it with King Saul in the
Old Testament???? Saul or Paul???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson
What are your suggestions, Red Terror, for improvement?