Stephen, an interesting piece and I like the way your mind works around some of the 'belief' boundaries to expand those boundaries about how one defines faith.

May I take two paragraphs from your article:

"The Church will become a more fitting vessel for the Spirit when it gives far less emphasis to beliefs, far more emphasis to faith, and cultivates an understanding of the difference."

This statement fits well with the one in relation to panentheists and I think much more in tune with the natural world ie. the real world in which we live. The idea of a symbiotic relationships or a state of harmony (as I might define it) or the idea of "God" (I wouldn't use that term necessarily) being a part of all living things.

"...- not only more than us, but also utterly with us. They spoke of many other “thin places”, such as certain forest glades, streams, and mountains. But they can also be non-geographical contexts like singing a special song, the birth of a child, or a particular graveyard. Many Christians today are re-discovering the panentheistic worldview. Recognition of the value of “thin places” in spiritual life, along with much less acceptance of dogma and literal truth of scriptures, is making a considerable impact on the practices of many modern churches. This direction could lead to what Tacey calls the “re-enchantment” that so many Australians hunger for."

I see that yearning too Stephen, not only among Christians who are re-evaluating what it means to be Christian. As an atheist I hope that there is a move to further discussions and thoughts about what it means to be human and how we interact not only with each other, but all living things. How each and every living thing and their wellbeing is inextricably linked both in the physical and the 'spiritual'.

It is obviously a struggle for you, Stephen.

>>Being what many call “an unbeliever”, how can I retain any integrity as a member of a church regularly reciting with the congregation the Apostles’ Creed?<<

The answer is, of course, that you cannot. You either do, or do not, believe what you are saying. If you try to steer a course between, you quickly find yourself resorting to arguments that are very, very thin indeed.

>>The origin of 'credo' was a combination of two ancient words for 'give' and 'heart'. Credo thus meant 'I give my heart to'.<<

There's the first impossible stretch.

The origin of the word "mackerel" is "maquerel", meaning pimp, or procurer.

Clearly, etymology is only useful up to a point. And turning the simple "I believe" into the more complicated, emotionally freighted "I give my heart to", is more than a step too far.

>>'Credo in unum Deum ...' is a passionate utterance about your identity in relation to the Other, about who you are 'in your heart' and how you intend to live.<<

Sorry, that is entirely fanciful.

It actually does mean "I believe in one God".

Given the history of religions, I'd strongly suggest that it is actually the number cited - "one" - that is the key component.

One can only admire your struggle to reinterpret religion in your own image, though.

"Thus, while we cannot consider the Creed as a statement of logical and empirical truth, it does have great value as a tool of faith."

Hmmm. Fact is, there is no logical and empirical truth in any part of religion. In this context, it implies that you have a special requirement to relegate the Creed, specifically, to a position where you can choose not to believe in it.

The obvious next step, Stephen, is to accept that you don't actually - believe any of it. And that you and the Anglican Church have gone as far as it is possible to go together, and it is time for you to part amicably.

You can even say "Listen, it's not you. it's me."

i must assume your genuinly confused
seemingly..because of things like creeds

but then also..as to gods nature...then things like faith...as rationalised by belief..[your trying too hard]

the key is...to keep it simple..[kids get god best]
living a spiritual life..is as simple as loving neighbour
[or at least not judging anyone]...

and try to help others
[or at least..not hinder them]...

its not you..that is needed...
to judge anyone..[especially not yourself]

you being saved...can save others
[this is the parrable/lesson of the servants..gifted money]

the clue to god...is his creation
remove god from it...and there is nothing

god is best comprehended...by 'you shall call him emmanuel'
god with us...[as in god is with.[in]...us..[ALL]
sustaining..even the most vile..their life

think of god as that nurture...inherant in nature

the life supporting essences..in light
the purest love...that sustains all living...by his light

keep it simple..you cant do anything..
but do it..to..for/against god within..them..[and you]..
good..[god]..with..[in]..sustaining them their life..

thus we are all of the light
but not the light

you show..you get god..
by serving to the good..all that..of god...[good]

Pelly quotes:

"The Church will become a more fitting vessel for the Spirit when it gives far less emphasis to beliefs, far more emphasis to faith, and cultivates an understanding of the difference."

Indeed.. faith without works...is dead. (James) There should NOT be a difference between faith and beliefs (and works)..they all go together.

Pericles (for a change) is on the money here.

//The answer is, of course, that you cannot. You either do, or do not, believe what you are saying. If you try to steer a course between, you quickly find yourself resorting to arguments that are very, very thin indeed.//

Exactly!

All we need do now is bring dear Pericles onto the right side of that equation... into true saving faith.

When the last Christian turns the lights out in the last church and turns to take a look back at the trappings of their spiritual 'progress' through the twenty-first century they will see this written above the altar:

"We had to destroy God in order to save him."

Do you honestly think your non-existent but oh-so-important God is really fooling anyone?

@ Jon J, but if God doesn't exist, who's gonna tell me how to behave and what to think. Can everyone do what ever they want? Or, in your utopia will will someone like you be telling people what to do?

When I pray to you, should I face North, South, East or West?

It is interesting to see the absolute worshipping of the Pope by the multitudes when he takes one of his gun-proofed glass rides (surely God would protect him,or he would welcome the going to such a wonderful place as heaven). People who barely know the man cry and sob in the streets.

The trouble with a lot of religions is they pay more attention to worshipping a messenger then they do to just having faith in one divine or maybe more than one divine forces in the universe. This force being called God.

Mohammed and Jesus were only self proclaimed messengers, not God and yet they are worshipped and their dictates and decrees followed as though they are God.

As soon as mankind stops actually worshipping men in the form of messengers or priests and just believes in:-
One God who’s overriding message would surely be, try your utmost to do good and not harm whilst on this earth. And yes we all do know right from wrong.

There would then be no need for religious conflict between competing doctrines. Man has little knowledge of the biological and spiritual composition of such an alien force as a God entity. If you want to contest that last statement then describe to me in detail what God looks like or is.

Or do you really prefer in your mind to worship man in the form of Jesus and Mohammed.

TRUTHNOW78<if God does not exist who’s going to tell me how to behave & think.

If you don’t know what’s right or wrong honest and true, then your brain must be malfunctioning. God does not take the serial killer off the street on earth, man has to do that himself for the protection of society.

So in that sense wrongdoing will be punished and society and the people in it will send a strong message that we see this as harmful and wrong in a peaceful society. I never saw a serial killer yet that was or could be stopped by any belief in God. People who have worked to try and rehabilitate them with religion,or phyco training have had very limited success.

Some of the Sicilian Godfather mafia men were vey religious, their belief in the existence of God didn’t seem to increase their sense of the right and wrong thing to do. You need look no further then the muslim religion and in past centuries the Christian religion who were never stopped from murdering people in holy wars, on the contrary it gave them more of a reason to excuse their actions.
It’s a sad world when people have to be told what’s right and what’s wrong and hurtful. They already know that, but choose to not know out of selfishness whether they believe in God or not

Pericles:

<<It is obviously a struggle for you, Stephen.>>

Not at all. I feel that I belong with my church and that it nourishes me spiritually, but the article was a small project aimed at working out why as an “unbeliever” I do feel that way.

<<Clearly, etymology is only useful up to a point. And turning the simple "I believe" into the more complicated, emotionally freighted "I give my heart to", is more than a step too far.>>

The etymological excursion was actually meant to show that after some centuries many Christians lost that original understanding of the creed as an utterance of deep trust and loyalty (fiducia and fidelitas).

<<Fact is, there is no logical and empirical truth in any part of religion.>>

Not quite so. I would agree that empiricism is far outweighed by analogical and symbolical perception in religion. There is plenty of logic though – mainly in theology. It may be simply that you don’t agree with the basic premise from which a particular logical argument begins.

<<The obvious next step, Stephen, is to accept that you don't actually - believe any of it. And that you and the Anglican Church have gone as far as it is possible to go together, and it is time for you to part amicably.>>

Not at all, Pericles. The Anglican Church is a liturgical and non-confessional church. Anglicanism is not defined by doctrine so much as through worship. To quote the former Archbishop of Perth (who was also the Primate of Australia for some years): “Just as the Creeds are recited in the context of prayer and worship, so they must be understood from within this context...In response to the initiative of God [Anglicans]first respond in faith and trust...Only then do they begin to reflect upon, and express in abstract doctrinal form, what is grounded in their concrete experience.” (Reflections in the Glass, by Archbishop Peter Carnley, Harper Collins 2004. Page 73)

Pelican:
Thanks for your comments. I think we are very close in our views on human relationships with each other and the natural environment. I know there are quite a number of priests and laypeople in my church and other churches who have pursued the issue in great depth. I agree it is worth much more discussion – may be even an article or two one day.

Jon J:
<<When the last Christian turns the lights out in the last church and turns to take a look back at the trappings of their spiritual 'progress' through the twenty-first century they will see this written above the altar: "We had to destroy God in order to save him." Do you honestly think your non-existent but oh-so-important God is really fooling anyone?>>

Sorry, your statement just doesn’t make sense to me. God is indestructible, although human understanding of God does evolve. You seem to have a deeply ingrained hostility towards Christianity and my article, but apart from that I just can’t work out what point you are trying to make.

AGIR:
I can agree that there is a certain basic core of belief (faith as “assensus”) that I think is necessary for one to be a Christian. One needs to accept the centrality of God, the centrality of Jesus, and the centrality of the scriptures. From that starting point countless directions can be taken, depending on the person’s experience of those three. The path will be right to the extent that the person’s faith (in the three relational senses) is strong.

"The Anglican Church is a liturgical and non-confessional church.
"Anglicanism is not defined by doctrine so much as through worship."
Posted by crabsy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 7:50:48 PM

Some Anglicans are more equal than others, though. In Australia, and also world-wide with the various alliances such as Gafcon/FOCA in response to over-emphasised indiscretions.

@ CHERFUl,

So is adultery alright or not, and why?

One under god and others: Your comments would be much easier to read if you wrote “you’re” rather than “your” when you mean “you are”.

Crabsy: In the early 1960s, the vicar in the Walcha Anglican Church instituted confession. I don’t think it lasted but the experience does raise a small question about your statement that that the Anglican church is non-confessional.

Glen C:

"Confessional" in the sense you are using it is certainly quite applicable to the Anglican Church. That's all about confessing one's sins to a priest. Traditional Anglicanism makes confession to a priest available to people, although the practice is now quite rare in comparison, say, with the Roman Catholic Church.

But I was talking about was confession of faith, rather than confession of sins. Rather than giving assent to a set of doctrines that define the denomination as a separate and distinct brand -- i.e. reciting a Confession of Faith before others to show that you're a dinkum Anglican -- participation in the liturgy of the prayer book is emphasised. Anglican clergy are sworn to uphold the catholic and apostolic faith of the ancient undivided church, not some exclusive version of Christianity. Some other churches insist on their members reciting a Confession of Faith usually derived from an ancient founding father. In the early days of the Anglican Church Richard Hooker wrote "We confess without confessing."

I hope I've clarified the matter.

It isn't me you need to convince, crabsy, it is yourself.

>>I feel that I belong with my church and that it nourishes me spiritually...<<

Were it not for this kind of occasional protest, you come across as a perfectly sane, logical person who has seen through all the unnecessary trappings provided by the church, and is making his own way through what he may or may not believe in.

I reached this conclusion because you do not sound like any Anglican that I have ever met. Which also led me to observe that what we are seeing here is a "struggle to reinterpret religion in your own image".

Nothing wrong with that. At all. It is just the constant references to that particular version of your religion, one that is entirely at odds with your views, that appear strange.

For example, I cannot imagine the Jensen brothers sharing your opinions.

Do they?

Pericles:
The Jensens represent a peculiar pocket of Anglicanism that seems to be found only in the Sydney Diocese. They tend to be quite out of kilter with the Anglican tradition in many basic ways and are constantly at loggerheads with most other dioceses in Australia. But because the Sydney Diocese is extremely wealthy by comparison with others it can and does make a big splash in the media. This leads the general community to think of Sydney Anglicans, and Archbishop Jensen especially, as the image of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

I am appalled at many of the things Jensen says, and at the way Sydney fundamentalism uses its financial and media power to pull strings in Australia and overseas -- e.g. to campaign against homosexuals and against allowing women equality as clergy and bishops. They have led a movement globally, gathering in a few other diocese from Africa and other parts of the world, to inflict their fundamentalist ideas on all of us and radically divided the worldwide Communion.

The Sydney actions cause much anger in Anglicans elsewhere, including in WA where I am living.

Fair enough, crabsy.

>>I am appalled at many of the things Jensen says, and at the way Sydney fundamentalism uses its financial and media power to pull strings in Australia and overseas -- e.g. to campaign against homosexuals and against allowing women equality as clergy and bishops.<<

It does bring into question, though, the nature of Anglicanism, if it comfortably covers the spectrum from your own attitude towards the Creed to Jensen's attitude towards women and gays.

Not to mention the Nigerian rump, who apparently still believe in demons.

On balance, it would appear unnecessary to reinvent any facet of Anglicanism. There's obviously something there for everyone.

Crabsy,
Only what exists can insist, but it need not insist

To say God "does not exist but insists" contradicts this self-evident proposion. If God "insists" then He exists.

While i'm admire your struggle, your ideas appear incoherent.

By "insist" do you mean guidance?

salaams

gratefull...we had this discussion before
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11008&page=0

seems...its an athiestic way of deneying god egsists

insists is..somehow made..an inner experience
thus not egsisting...[egsist somehow means..external]

insist..somehow means within

i know its confusing..thus put up the link

god of course eg-sists...and in-sists
but he does not insist..
[he allows us all freewill]

this is the annoyance about santa clause..[satan clause]
who has a good list..and a bad list...

[god cares not..wether we are chosing
to do good..or bad..

or..we could not*..do..bad...
if he insisted..that we not do vile]

its confusing using terms..that change
others..try to change meanings of words

gay..should just mean happy..[for egsample]
work-choices..should mean we get a choice..but evil likes to decieve..by changing meanings...

[hiding..the good of jesus being born..behind a fat-guy
in a fat suit..judging others..bad/good]

god dont judge..[there is no such thing
as an endtime/judgment day..or else jesus couldnt have returned..in three days]..

ie he would still be waiting judgment-day..and..'reserction-day'..[these also are lies]

see how jesus birth..is masked/hiden..by a judgmental satan-clause
and his death..hidden behind an ester-rabbit

this is what vile/evil..does so cleverly
simply by changing words meanings

jesus..[born of wo-man]..is man
not god..as he said..that ye see me do
you shall do greater...

[greater than god?..
of course not]

grateful & oug:

Thanks for your comments.

When I was writing the previous article I needed a verb to apply to a way of being that was real but not external or objective to the person perceiving. "Existence" is these days mainly used to mean "objectively real" -- i.e. empirically verifiable being. This was not the sort of reality I had experienced with respect to the Divine.

I decided to use "insist", firstly because it came from the same Latin root as "exist", secondly because the prefix "in-" suggested the opposite from "ex-". But there was a third reason: the word "insist" also carries the meaning of "demand", which hints at the way I experience the Word which is God. Yes we are given free will, but there is a strength to the Word that is very much an insistence.

Sometimes there is a case, I think, for inventing new words or using old ones in a new way. Of course, there should be serious grounds for doing so; I don't approve of frivolous destruction of our linguistic heritage.

Peace and Joy.

Then don't do it, crabsy.

>>I don't approve of frivolous destruction of our linguistic heritage.<<

We've been through this before, of course, on the previous thread.

>>I decided to use "insist", firstly because it came from the same Latin root as "exist", secondly because the prefix "in-" suggested the opposite from "ex-"<<

I note that you studiously ignore the entire, lengthy argument that protested against such a skittish perversion of simple Latin - and English - words, merely in order to give expression to some personal need of your own invention.

It annoys me intensely when the language is abused in such a fashion.

Doubly so, when the defence is "well, language is a dynamic tool, and you're just a reactionary old fuddy-duddy for not going along with my re-working of it".

Trebly so, when the newly-minted usage is so transparently self-serving, that it would be utterly useless in any other context except "crabsy's existential dilemma".

thanks for ex-plain-ing crabsby
here is a talk about the 'other'..aspect..[dumbing us down]
http://www.infowars.com/audio/201012/201012.html

6 dec monday...about 20 minutes in

its revealing
thats why i hate words..changing their meaning

anyhow merry christ day

cheers all

Crasby,
I re-read your post in light of your explanation. You are definitely onto something. In nearly every paragraph i found parallels with Sufism. Further, if what you say regarding the trend away from the literalist tradition is true then this too parallels the decline of literalist readings and anthropomorpic notion of God that characterises Wahabism in Islam.

salaams

Pericles,

Thanks for your opinion.
<< I note that you studiously ignore the entire, lengthy argument that protested against such a skittish perversion of simple Latin - and English - words, merely in order to give expression to some personal need of your own invention. >>
I certainly had not forgotten the “argument” on the other thread you refer to as I responded to grateful and OUG. But I saw no need to bring it up in this recent discussion because I saw no relevance to their comments. If they want to read the sequence of exchanges between you and me it’s all there ready for their eyes.
I reject the view that the article was all about expressing a “personal need of my own invention”. One of my aims was to address an urgent need that I have found in contemporary discussions about atheism, religion, science, truth, etc. Again and again people come up with a statement to the effect that “unless you give rational objective evidence to prove that God exists then you are living in a delusion.” I wanted to show that the empirical evidence they demand is sometimes irrelevant because one can perceive phenomena through non-empirical means (dreams, contemplation of a numinous event in nature, listening to a powerful piece of music, etc.) that are just as real as objective facts encountered through the five senses. The central aim of that article was actually to help those attacking religion and spiritual pursuits to see a side to that sort of endeavour that they may not have come across before. If you still see it simply as an idiosyncratic “self-serving” con-job I don’t think I can say any more to you. We’ll just have to agree to differ and leave it at that.

Grateful:
I’m glad you saw echoes of Sufism in the article. I’ve always felt Sufi practices and approach to life to be a very helpful thing in the Muslim world.

Crabsy,
The reality of our situation can only be apprehended through the heart and God willing you'll rank high among His friends:-). I look forward to your future articles.

salaams

That's understandable, crabsy.

>>Again and again people come up with a statement to the effect that “unless you give rational objective evidence to prove that God exists then you are living in a delusion.” I wanted to show that the empirical evidence they demand is sometimes irrelevant because one can perceive phenomena through non-empirical means (dreams, contemplation of a numinous event in nature, listening to a powerful piece of music, etc.) that are just as real as objective facts encountered through the five senses.<<

Wanting to change the battleground is a well-established ploy whenever the existing one becomes uncomfortable.

But I think you may be fighting the wrong battle. And the manner in which you subvert the English language to your cause is evidence that you are also using the wrong weapons.

For a start, it is intensely unfair of anybody to describe you as delusional, if your only crime is to be unable to produce "rational objective evidence to prove that God exists". The only delusion you could possibly be accused of would be if you actually believed that there is such evidence.

So, it is pretty pointless to pick a fight with those who "demand" such evidence, since both you, and they, know there is none.

The other reason you should avoid such battles, is that it leads you to make statements like this:

>>...one can perceive phenomena through non-empirical means (dreams, contemplation of a numinous event in nature, listening to a powerful piece of music, etc.) that are just as real as objective facts encountered through the five senses<<

Those phenomena are of course real, in the sense that they clearly can exist for some people. That is black-and-white, yes-or-no, does-it-or-does-it-not stuff.

But I dispute that they are "just as real as objective facts encountered through the five senses". That is a use of the word "real" that extends it into a comparative, which renders it effectively meaningless.

"More real" and "less real" are nonsensical concepts.

Once again you are distorting the language, which only serves to to further confuse the issue.

Yes Pericles, I have to agree that I used poor language that time.

<<But I dispute that they are "just as real as objective facts encountered through the five senses". That is a use of the word "real" that extends it into a comparative, which renders it effectively meaningless. "More real" and "less real" are nonsensical concepts.>>

I stand corrected. Maybe a better wording would have been: "Those phenomena too are real, but perceived by different means than are objective facts encountered through the five senses."

hey gratefull
would appriciate your casting your eye over this
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4184&page=0

need some fact checking

[i quoted the words of the prophet
want to make sure i got the context right]

anyhow now to reading the other replies

happy new christ year

crabsby ..have you read this twaddle
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11380&page=0

it seems he is doing some strange twists
and i cant figure out where he is leading with this

by the same measure..im frustrated..that people dont get god
god is simply speaking..the logic...reflected in/of everything

pericules asks for proof
well..look at a dead thing
its egsactly like the living thing
but gods life spirit..has moved on from it

and nothing man can do to bring it back..
but make another..using gods method..[love/sex]

life comes only from life
you ask for a asign thats it

science claims life from NOT life
but cant manage to make the idea breath

you ask dear brother...for proof..of god
i ask for proof of not god

you have belief in science method
well get it to prove its theory

even this delusion of evolution...is without fact
little wonder people like crabsby..need to grasp straws

god egsists...in us all...and outside all of us
life is his sign..no life...
means an absense of god..sustaining it to live

we may know god..by study of the nurture inherant in nature
science didnt make life
it cant even create life..in the lab..or outside it

surely in this is a sign for the thinking man
as our dear messanger mahamoud revealed
first make one like it

may peace be upon them all
[upon you all]

realise who makes your heart beat
who makes your lungs beath
who makes the dna replicate rna..who does it all for all of us

by intelect..of faith...know the logic/logus
that via his light..sustains life into love

in the end..we all get we are a part of the light
but not the light

[for god is one]...

fullstop

see the light is within...and without
inside us...and outside of us

egsists...as well as insists

Yes OUG, its a beutiful description of Mary and the birth of Jesus.

Crabsy,

I think you would be interested in the following lessons in tasawwuf (sufism): http://www.shadhiliteachings.com/tariq/?act=file&id=3

salaams

grateful:

Thanks for the link. I'll keep it on my list for when I have more time.