The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The scandal of Christianity > Comments

The scandal of Christianity : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 22/6/2005

Peter Sellick argues that the critics of Christianity get it wrong.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 19
  9. 20
  10. 21
  11. All
Peter I don't think many people have any objection to what they understand as Jesus' message. I think the problem is with the church.
I had 12 years of Catholic schooling, left the church as soon as I left school because of the hypocrisy, but like many a lapsed Catholic have continued to read and explore the subject. I don't want to underestimate the value of study and expertise, but if one reads the Bible, with commentaries and aids, investigates projects like the Jesus Seminar etc then I think Jesus' message is really quite clear. Very simply it's about love and justice. And it's definitely not about excluding, judging and punishing. And yes, there's another mystical level, as there is with really profound ideas.
I suppose what gets me angry about the church is that it really does seem anti-christian in many of its social teachings - on women, on homosexuality for example. You obviously don't support the literal interpretation of the Bible, because you invite us to "enter the story" - but then, stories are open to varied interpretations. I just don't think the churches' position on those subjects can be a valid interpretation: it's the opposite of Jesus' message. And your claim that "the Christian story is the best, deepest and truest story around. It produces graceful human beings and truly free selves" is a bit of a boast - you have to admit that there are and have been plenty of non-christians who are graceful and free.
Posted by solomon, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 3:47:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter

I would like to draw your attention to an interesting article in the New York Times from a fellow Christian.

He writes: "Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth"

You wrote in your post above "The God that Christians worship is the God who rules from the cross"

You know God's truth?

I am in awe.

Here's the link for the complete article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html?incamp=article_popular

I am curious as to why you bothered with your article at all, knowing full well the usual pro and con brigade that would invite. Did you hope to convert an atheist from the error of their ways?

You argue critics of Christianity get it wrong - I posit that Christians get it wrong as well.
Posted by Trinity, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 5:29:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Priscillian.
“Peter, first convince us the Gospels are true then we can work on the rest using your basis in faith.”
True in what sense? Would you be happy with an event that happened last week reported in the Australian? Or perhaps six months ago or 2 years ago? Alas the earliest writings we have are from Paul, who, as you say did not meet Jesus. Paul’s earliest are about 40years after the death of Jesus and are occasional letters written to young churches. None of the NT material pretends to be an historical account, which is a very recent idea. They were written by the church and for the church as documents that sought to shape faith. So there are no independent eye witnesses who wrote. The only way the NT can convince us that it points to truth is the witness of our hearts and minds as we read it. This does not mean that we base faith on purely subjective grounds nor does it mean that faith is irrational or a leap into the dark. My experience with the tradition is that the more I live with the texts and preach from them and read about them, the deeper they become. My world would be impoverished without them.

Even if we had a video record of the life and death of Jesus that would not help because the richness of the NT lies in the years of reflection and embellishment that went on in the early church. It took quite a while for people to understand the import of the history.

Solomon.
The church has always been a mess and always will be, from Paul’s troublesome congregations to the present malaise. We are invited to look beneath the mess and see the body of Christ. I know full well how painful and disappointing being in the church can be but it is they only place that I can hear the words I need to hear and be with the people I need to be with.
Posted by Sells, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 5:42:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Even if we had a video record of the life and death of Jesus that would not help because the richness of the NT lies in the years of reflection and embellishment that went on in the early church."
Help at what Peter? If we knew it was authentic and it contained miracles it would help in determining whether there are any gods. But I don't think that is what you meant, instead it seems to me that you have a different purpose in your replies than responding to issues raised. Instead you use them to play with ideas and delve into your own Xian theory.

To demonstrate: gw asked five different questions of you, laid out in a stuctured progression. I'm sure you answered honestly, but your responses were in my view, nebulous and esoteric - had I asked those questions I would have felt totally dissatisfied with the response. Your actual meaning is not clear and the connection to the questions is too. Seriously, what does ruling from the cross *mean*? Thinking in terms of the trinity doesn't solve anything because the trinity is largely extra-biblical and ill-defined. Yes, the conception of God will have cultural baggage, but at least for me, you have not made clear what the correct version is - quite probably you will admit to not knowing. Like the Bible your responses are poetic and while there is no doubt some truth in them, but we don't have millenia in which to work out what you meant.

"The only way the NT can convince us that it points to truth is the witness of our hearts and minds as we read it. This does not mean that we base faith on purely subjective grounds nor does it mean that faith is irrational or a leap into the dark."
Likewise for adherents of other religions. It does however mean that there is no solid grounding for Xian belief. It's something you only feel, that you cannot establish in any way. Don't ask us to look deeper into an image that apparently isn't there.
Posted by Deuc, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 8:10:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Peter, I do agree on one point, religion isn't the blame for all past atrocities, but nor can the secular regimes be blamed for recent ones. Tyrants kill, and wars rage, secular or theistic ideology is often –but not always- just a pretext.

I’ll follow up on Deuc’s ‘nebulous and esoteric’ remark though in that fine make Christianity impossible to refute with facts and science but also condemn Christians like those Creation science advocates over on Margo K’s blog abusing science by trying to validate their literalist version of Christianity.

BTW for the record are you a Intelligent design Christian or a Creation Science Christian?

Also allow the worlds other faiths the same latitude. Turning around and then saying either they don’t stack up scientifically or they are theologically incorrect smacks of double standards.

In all respect and sincerity Peter please tell us how or why you think your religion cannot be tied down and be analyzed for truth content but still come away thinking your religion is the one true faith and that other religions are ‘wrong’?
Posted by Neohuman, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 11:04:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GW. Great questions, I would like to share my opinion with you. Concerning question one. When we look at the character and nature of God, as we know him in the Christian bible we see a God who deals with us in love. Now to many, love has several definitions, but to define love as we see in the character of God, this is a love that is not motivated by fleeting feelings or emotional needs, but one of choice. Simply put, God chooses to love us in spite of ourselves. With that being said let me address the question. Because God loves us, he allows us to make our own decisions and because of this, we reap the results of bad and good choices. Not only are we affected by our choices but those who are on the receiving end are affected. This can range from being unkind to someone, to raping a person or even murdering someone. All afore mentioned actions are choices and there is someone receiving the consequences of those choices. Coming back to the point, God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, but because he loves us he does not force us to follow him, he allows us to make choices and some of those choices are devastating. Yes, it is true God can make a virtual utopia by taking away our ability to choose and forcing us to act and think in a certain way, but God gives us all the freedom to choose and sometimes we choose poorly. I believe this also addresses question number four. Thanks for allowing me to share.
Posted by chrisstaples, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 11:25:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 19
  9. 20
  10. 21
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy