Talk:Don Cupitt

Query over categorisation

Is it really appropriate to categorise Cupitt as one of the "English atheists", along with names such as Richard Dawkins or Anthony Grayling? When, in 1984, the Radio Times wrote a review about his series Sea of Faith, it was pointed out that a previous source describing Cupitt as church-goer turned atheist "made the atheists very indignant", adding that "Cupitt is,after all, a Christian who very much believes in God". The article then tried to clarify what Cupitt meant by the word God. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a fair point - the category of Atheist Theologians is more apt - but perhaps the Atheists category is intrinsically broad. Stumps (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Some of the wikilinks in this article are red wikilinks,so could some one please start articles for those entries in red? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anglican?

Given the veracity of the last paragraph in this article, I don't understand how Cupitt can be considered an Anglican (and hence a Christian) except that he was probably baptized at some point and hasn't been excommunicated (though doubtless this is because the Anglican church rarely excommunicates anyone). Corbmobile (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

He also isn't an active Anglican Priest any more, he stepped down - how Anglicans tend to do things, plead with people to step down.

According to the definition here of "Progressive Christians", Christians don't really have to believe in God - they don't have to believe anything, except that there is some kind of "new way of reading Scripture" - rather vague. In some fringe churches - including ones which are officially Anglican, especially within TEC, "God" refers more to a kind of therapy, or a set of ethical principles, than it does to - well, God - the One who revealed himself to Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc. etc.. - there are principles in place which also prevent one from picking this notion apart, since this is considered "un-Christian" and it is said that it implies an individual trying to "define God" (even though all Trinitarian churches agree on a very robust common set of teachings of the Gospels).

Many like Cupitt also try to pigeon-hole Church teachings into a rather outmoded category of "metaphysics," so they can claim to somehow be Christians without taking upon obligations which they refuse.

It's a bit like joining a bowling club, because one likes the cool shoes and the ball bags, but then spending one's time at the club tap dancing and making comments that the guys bowling should stop bowling and join you in tap dancing, and that all the open minded people are into tap dancing and can't stand bowling. And that "real" bowlers would never say that tap dancing isn't bowling, because that is simply unbecoming of a bowling club. Since bowling really should be about tap dancing.

You see, if you go back to the really oldest historical sources on bowling, it's always pointed out that to bowl well, one must be nimble on one's feet. But the clod-footed bowlers neglect this in favor of that outdated, boring, violent behavior of trying to knock down pins. Real bowlers have nothing against bowling pins so would never wish to knock one down. They find other ways of developing that nibleness of foot. And obviously, that's tap dancing.

Clutching the ball with that awkward, strange grip in which one slides one's fingers into holes in the ball just takes away from the joy of moving around in an agile manner upon one's feet. It's also unhygenic, and really, bowling balls aren't balls at all, since they have holes in them, and should be better classified as violated spheres (violated by the drilling process).

Progressive bowlers just let balls be balls, don't insist on drilling them, since they don't need to clutch them in that funny, awkward pose one must take when violently hurling the ball in order to knock down those poor pins.

They just tapdance.

In the middle ages, people still engaged in the traditionalist form of bowling because of the violent and antiquated belief that striking down pins every once in a while kept gravity working. This is obvious, because why else would they want to keep on seeing things fall down?

Open-minded, educated people see that bowling shoes and shirts are really perfect for tapdancing, and you can just as well keep your shirts and shoes in the bowling bag that traditionalists still use for lugging around their heavy, violated balls which they use as a weapon against the helpless pins.

How come you aren't tapdancing already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.191.103 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How Cupitt still be a 'priest' if he stopped being a communicant member of the Anglican church in 2008? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.239.80.49 (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this struck me as well. Does Cupitt still claim to be a 'priest' and, if so, what does he mean by this? The term 'priest', by the way, is used by Catholics, Orthodox, and High Church Anglicans. Evangelistic Anglicans and Low Church denominations use 'minister'. So where does Cupitt stand in this terminological welter? I would suggest that you remove any reference to him as a 'priest' or even as an Anglican as he seems to have given up any real connection with the CoE or any Christian denomination.

The game analogy is perhaps not appropriate when it comes to considering philosophy and beliefs about reality, which have always been subject to considerable change. Quite a lot of ministers of various denominations would express scepticism about literal interpretations of miracles and other events that are represented as historical, but perhaps weren't. In earlier generations, this degree of scepticism would have seen those ministers exluded from their churches, whereas nowadays non-literal interpretations would be widely seen as acceptable and a reasonable approach to an understanding of ancient literature, effectively part of the process of translation. The idea that "God" might not be an invisible being but, say, a representation of a set of principles or set of ideals is not quite so radical in this context. The rules of bowls are perhaps less turbulent than those of theology - hence the "sea of faith", perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.94.248 (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

An Anglican priest officially ceases to be a priest if he renounces his holy orders or is defrocked by the church authorities. AFAIK the latter has not happened but I do not know if he has renounced priesthood himself. There are also non-practicing priests past retirement age who have not sought permission to officiate (PTO) from their home diocese. The best way to establish the issue is to see if he is currently listed in Crockford's, the directory to the Anglican priesthood.Cloptonson (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Theology

Hahaha, an article about a theologian that says virtually nothing about his theology. get a brain morans

"get a brain morans" - if that's a UserName, it seems appropriate. Hundovir (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Don cupitt.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Don cupitt.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Status as priest

Being a priest is defined in theological and legal terms. Theologically, the Church maintains that ordination has indelible effects on the soul, so once a priest a person is a priest forever, no matter what. As for his status as a priest in the Church of England, legally defined, unless he has been deposed from Holy Orders (rare) or has renounced Holy Orders (a complex procedure) then he remains a priest. I am not quite sure what the situation is if he has left the Church of England. I think there is a question of *how* he would have left. I believe that reception into another Christian denomination would remove the legal effects of his ordination, if not the theological effects. However, Cupitt has not joined another Christian denomination, or even another non-Christian religion. I do not know whether he has petitioned to have his baptism erased from records, which I know some people do attempt. Anyway, I suspect that if he has not been deposed from/renounced his Orders then he legally is still a priest. Theologically he would still be a priest.--90.206.67.185 (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Echoing a comment I made earlier on this page, is Cupitt currently listed in Crockford's, the Anglican Church's directory of its clergy?Cloptonson (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Funny English language!

Cupitt is married with three children,

I.e. polygamist and paedo... ??

who all now live and work in London, and two grandchildren.

They work in London and in two grandchildren... ??

Bewildered I am. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)