Equal marriage

[Serial_Apologist]

Good to have cleared that up, jean. But as to what the Archbish should do, I'm not qualified; isn't the problem somewhat akin to that of apologising for slavery?

[Sydney Grew]

The original sentence is:

"A god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation people would be too terrified other than to obey."

It is NOT elliptical (i.e. no element is omitted). Let us briefly parse it:

"A god" is here an object NOT a subject, and in fact it is the object of the verb "obey" in a subordinate clause modifying the adjective "terrified". How terrified? Too terrified not to obey a god like that.

"who instilled such fear of eternal damnation" (is a subordinate clause, modifying the noun phrase "a god").

"people" (is the subject of the main clause).

"would be" (is the MAIN VERB of the main clause).

"too terrified" (is the complement of the main clause).

Mr. H. appears just to have been wrong-footed by the word order. Perhaps he has not read much Latin, or much poetry? It will probably help him if we adjust (normalize) the order: "People would be too terrified not to obey a god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation." Note that I have also substituted "not" for "other than" which makes the grammar slightly simpler but does not I think alter the meaning.

[jean]

...But as to what the Archbish should do, I'm not qualified; isn't the problem somewhat akin to that of apologising for slavery?

It's more complicated than that.

It's as if you wanted to apologise for slavery, but if you did, you would seriously upset the Christians who still believed slavery was part of the natural order of things.

That wouldn't be so bad; they'd just have to get used to it, or break away and form a new slave-owning Church themselves.

But worse, you would upset non-Christians who also believed in slavery, and they, thinking that the local Christians had given up their belief in slavery because you had, would set upon them and kill them in case the rejection of slavery should spread to them and infect them.

That's the situation the archbishop finds himself in, if the stories about what happened in Nigeria are true.

And I have to say I would pause and consider foregoing my right to get married in church, which I wasn't about to exercise anyway, if it would save African Christians from being massacred.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes jean, at every step one feels wrongfooted by the inconsequentialities inscribed into the doctrine. It would have been more straightforward had people in Africa risen up, not just against colonisation, but against the ideological justification contained in the religion that accompanied it. From the little that I remember of Christian upbringing a lot of that may have had to do with the "Our God is better than your gods" of which I remember reading in St Paul on his travels. It's maybe also worth considering that indigenous beliefs or at any rate practices were or have been allowed entry into service observancies that would have made the 17th century Puritans blanche - trance states and "speaking in tongues" representing a qualitiative break with the contemplative ethos and the sobriety of even The English Hymnal.

[ahinton]

OK, here, for the sake of my avoiding eternal damnation, are some alternative re-wordings:

"Under a god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation, people would be too terrified other than to obey [him]".

"A god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation would be too terrifying to be other than obeyed".

"A god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation would make people too terrified other than to obey him".

I did contemplate altering the last part of the third option to "too terrified to other than obey him", but that would involve a split infinitive.

Anyway, that's enough boredom from me for today!

Oi! God's a woman, isn't She?(!!)...

[ahinton]

Don't blame yourself. It's entirely ah's fault for misreading a sentence that was perfectly clear, if somewhat compressed!

There's no need for anyone to blame anyone else and, in any case, I did not misread it; I thought that I understood the meaning but, just to be sure, I queried one partiular word as to whether one other might have been intended as I assumed to be the case and this was confirmed; end of story!

[ahinton]

The original sentence is:

"A god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation people would be too terrified other than to obey."

It is NOT elliptical (i.e. no element is omitted). Let us briefly parse it:

"A god" is here an object NOT a subject, and in fact it is the object of the verb "obey" in a subordinate clause modifying the adjective "terrified". How terrified? Too terrified not to obey a god like that.

"who instilled such fear of eternal damnation" (is a subordinate clause, modifying the noun phrase "a god").

"people" (is the subject of the main clause).

"would be" (is the MAIN VERB of the main clause).

"too terrified" (is the complement of the main clause).

Mr. H. appears just to have been wrong-footed by the word order. Perhaps he has not read much Latin, or much poetry? It will probably help him if we adjust (normalize) the order: "People would be too terrified not to obey a god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation." Note that I have also substituted "not" for "other than" which makes the grammar slightly simpler but does not I think alter the meaning.

I need no such help, thank you; as outlined above, I asked a question and it was answered as I'd expected to be - and that's that!

[jean]

There's no need for anyone to blame anyone else and, in any case, I did not misread it; I thought that I understood the meaning but, just to be sure, I queried one partiular word as to whether one other might have been intended as I assumed to be the case and this was confirmed; end of story!

You did misread it.

You did not take account of the word people in the sentence you were objecting to.

S-A initially made the mistake of acquiescing in your misreading - but on rereading what he had actually written, he posted his #73.

Off you go now, and read that.

[ahinton]

You did misread it.

You did not take account of the word people in the sentence you were objecting to.

S-A initially made the mistake of acquiescing in your misreading - but on rereading what he had actually written, he posted his #73.

Off you go now, and read that.

I do not need to "go off" anywhere and have aleady read all the relevant posts about this; I did not in any case "object" to the sentence concerned - I merely queried the use of one word therein. My posts #81 & #82 therefore stand and the principal point here is in any case that the originally intended meaning was understood, which it has been.

Off you go now and develop the discussion of the actual topic if so you wish.

[jean]

I...have aleady read all the relevant posts about this...

Good. Then you'll have realised where you went wrong.

Off you go now and develop the discussion of the actual topic if so you wish.

I have already 'developed the discussion' with a post (#78) to which you haven't yet replied.

[ahinton]

Good. Then you'll have realised where you went wrong.

Er - no.

I have already 'developed the discussion' with a post (#78) to which you haven't yet replied.

I meant develop it further again - sorry. I've not yet had time to digest your #78 but will do so when I get back later and will answer it if I feel that I should. Thanks.

[french frank]

Oh, dear - I just knew this thread would prove contentious! :-)

[MrGongGong]

Oh, dear - I just knew this thread would prove contentious! :-)

Blimey indeed
and no mention of Elgar or CE or the EU at all

as you were children ;-)

[ahinton]

Oh, dear - I just knew this thread would prove contentious! :-)

The thread itself (at least in terms of discussion of its actual topic) has perhaps been rather less contentious than it might have been; it seems on occasion nevertheless to have gotten itself caught up in the detail of side issues but, provided that it can get back on track, I don't imagine that there's much for you to worry about on that front, at least for the time being.

[ahinton]

Blimey indeed
and no mention of Elgar or CE or the EU at all

Unsurprisingly, surely, given that the connection between Elgar and equal marriage seems at best tenuous, that between CoE and ditto is more relevant but largely only to its shareholders and to those who might see its arguable ambivalence towards it as a cue for disestablishment discussion and that betwee EU and ditto of less relevance even than that between Elgar and ditto given the extent to which it being supported elsewhere within EU.

as you were children ;-)

Is there supposed to be a comma after "were"? If not, as those contributing here would appear to be under the age of consent in your eyes, their contributions must surely be at best questionable, n'est-ce pas?...