There is no doubt the stories of Jesus engender a number of emotions and feelings in His followers under the umbrella of 'grace'.

It seems unlikely that much anger is directed at that or the notion of "the between of self and neighbour".

Proposing that "leaving all of the billions before his coming and those in far-flung countries who have not heard of him out in the cold, or rather, burning in everlasting fire" is "logically credible" may raise some ire, though.

I much prefer this Understanding of the Universal, non-Christian, non-sectarian, Spirit-Breathing Spiritual Way of Life taught and demonstrated by Saint Jesus of Galilee while he was alive.

http://www.beezone.com/up/secretsofkingdomofgod.html

Plus this assessment of the fabricated origins and political purposes of the Bible. Political purposes which intended to consolidate the political power of the church "fathers" who won the culture wars of their time and place, and who thus had the power to define "official" Christian-ISM.

http://www.beezone.com/up/forgottenesotericismjesus.html

Plus this reference on the origins of the modern so called religious mind, as distinct from the mind, or rather psyche, that informed religion in ancient times, and prior to the European Renaissance.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism.aspx

Just a suggestion, Mr Sellick.

Listen to your daughters. They are trying very hard to explain something to you. About you, not about your ideas.

"Being broadminded liberal moderns they objected to my exclusion of other ways to God or enlightenment. They are supported by the current ideology that sees inclusiveness as the highest virtue."

That comes across as condescending. Maybe it's in the editing, but it seems to me that you are being somewhat scathing in your description of them as "broadminded liberal moderns", and dismissive of the idea that inclusiveness is actually a highly commendable trait.

They probably admire your intellect enormously. Don't disappoint them by belittling theirs.

Your theology students are also trying to tell you something, this time about your ideas.

"I must have been seen as narrowly sectarian and ignorant of other cultures and religions."

The rest of your piece here simply confirms this as an accurate assessment. You appear to be trying far too hard to justify a literal interpretation of John's gospel, when a less tunnel-visioned approach could yield far more effective results, in terms of your students' understanding of the Christian message.

I am an atheist myself, but I can still spot poor marketing technique when I see it.

Dear Peter,

<< One can live a good life without Christ. The answer is obviously yes, one can.>>

Not so. The true answer is yes, “but”!

If Christ is “full of grace and truth.” Why does the Christian Church promote threats, fear, uncertainty and doubt to sustain itself? Is this because Christ’s love is conditional?

Conditional upon abiding by the man made rules created by theology? The same Theology that insists divine and not man made rules? The same theology that insists that, “it rejects the use of violence in the achievement of our ends.”? The same theology that pretends it does not embrace bias, bigotry, abuse, misunderstandings, obfuscation and the exponential growth in hideously complex explanations for that which is inexplicable?

Is in not wonderful that you can one the one hand, be sensitive to the anger against Christianity, then create a possible explanation based upon your fabricated theology, then use your fabricated theology to explain this phenomena, then use the same theology mitigate it on behalf of “unbelievers”?

The mind blowing absence of reality can only be explained by the Autopoiesis upon which it is based?

When are you going to explain why there are now some 34,000 registered man made religions on this planet?

For an in your face example of christian-ISM as uniformed militant intolerance why not try Googling: Alternet Tax Dollars Going To Creepy Christian Dogma.

Of course right-wing USA christian-ISM is a completely different kettle of (rotten) fish, as compared to right-wing christian-ism here in the land of Oz.

Islam has similar nonsense. Their statement of faith: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Christians have their humanoid god in Jesus. Muslims have their voice of God coming from Mohammed. It's the stock-in-trade of missionary religions to claim their mumbojumbo is the unique and exclusive truth. That gives them a license to murder the infidel in Crusades and Jihads. Both nutty beliefs can feel holy while murdering.

I doubt that there is a God. However, if there is one I can't believe that he/she/it is either represented by the Bible or the Koran.

There are religions that are not as unreasonable as Christianity and Islam. One is Buddhism. The key idea of Buddhism is simple. The human condition entails suffering. Suffering is caused through the human ego, by desire, clinging, attachment and greed. Humanity can find tranquility only by removing attachments that are at the root of human unhappiness, anxiety and aggression. The way to liberation is not through the worship of a god or anything else, but by becoming a fully autonomous and compassionate human being. The implication of the Buddha’s logic is that even belief in God is itself a form of human desire and clinging, a product of the ego and another cause of suffering in that it prevents a person from becoming an autonomous and free human being.

Jesus is the only One qualified to forgive the corrupt nature demonstrated by all men on this earth. Without His forgiveness we are totally lost. The self righteous can't stand Him because of this truth. I suggest Peter you stop worrying about what others think and accept the simple fact that God has no plan B. Without Christ you are left with useless dead religion. It will be the name of Jesus Christ that every knee bows to not Allah, not Buddha, not Obama, not Gandhi. To deny this is to deny the gospel.

"Us church folk take this seriously!"

Well, there's your problem!

"I maintain that the anger and suspicion poured out against Christianity in our society is based on misunderstanding and/or bigotry."

Well, it could be. Or it could be because our tax dollars are going to organisations like Access Ministry with an avowed aim of recruiting 'disciples', and funding tax breaks for some of the biggest landlords in Australia. It could be because of the massive heartbreak and financial catastrophe brought about by religiously-inspired lunatics like Harold Camping. It could be because of the history of systemic child abuse being brought to light in both the Catholic and Protestant church and school systems, and the slimy cover-ups carried out by officials of those churches. It could be because atheist billboards are knocked over or burnt down, atheist advertising is defaced, and atheists are denounced from Christian pulpits around the world by the likes of Cardinal Pell, Pope Benedict and Archbishop Jensen. It could be because Christians have shown their readiness to violate laws and resort to violence to defend their unearned privileges. It could be because of any one of the hundreds of examples of religious stupidity and intolerance documented on sites like this one:

http://religiousatrocities.wordpress.com .

In other words, Peter, you could be wrong. You should think about that some time.

Why so many knives out, I cannot fathom. The author has presented more of a question than an answer, a contemplation of so many unnecessary misinterpretations of Christianity, an olive branch for understanding and compassion. He presents as a man struggling with a quandary - universal exclusivity, or universal grace. His struggle is at once worthy and tortuous.

The author's concluding statement is "....a life lived in the way of Christ is to be envied." But he has given insight in his article that no exclusivity is meant by this, where he states "... we are at base, graced in our lives and that to be a disciple of Christ is to become more so." So, we (all of humanity) are graced by our very existence, and who could argue with that? He has previously explained what it means to "live in the way of Christ" as simply leading the sort of life most of us would like to be universal - that is without violence or greed, and with understanding and compassion. This then is the universal lesson - to lead good lives, as exemplified by the best of examples. One such example is Christ, but there have been so many others, and of various occupations and various beliefs. Belief is not a boundary, and the leading of a good life is a bond, unconsciously held. Love and grace present a pretty worthwhile guidepost.

The author struggles with the interpretation of - "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” I see no problem with this, for my interpretation (and possibly that of his daughters) is that the "through me" means living in accordance with "the truth and the life" - which is a good life, and not necessarily any more than that - and to "come to the Father" means to maintain the grace and opportunity with which we are all blessed at birth.

My interpretation may not satisfy everyone, that is their choice. I see universality, not exclusivity.

"My interpretation may not satisfy everyone, that is their choice. I see universality, not exclusivity."

But if you and Peter are free to interpret the teachings of Christianity to mean exactly what you want them to -- and all the adherents of the 34,000 other Christian cults are equally free -- then why do you need anything to 'interpret'? Why not just admit that you are making it up as you go along, and calling it 'Christianity' because it makes you feel good to do so?

You think you have the right answers, and so do I. But I don't pretend I got them from a zombie carpenter in a caftan.

Dear Peter,

Jesus can't love you. If he ever existed he is long dead, and dead men rise up never. However, runner loves you so be happy with that.

Commenter!

Have a heart; don’t spoil Mr. Sellick’s business.

Stirring emotions and feelings is all the poor man can do for a living.

After all, more than sixty per cent of us cannot produce any goods or offer any services.

Probably I am wrong. It may be more than seventy per cent of us sponging on the rest.

Perhaps I should ask the Economists or the Politicians or the Lawyers or the Academics or the Clergymen or the Army men or the Policemen or the Bankers or the Developers or the Estate-agents, not to say of the journalists, the book-keepers and shop keepers and don’t let me forget the organizers of do-gooders, who live in penthouses a life tax-exempt.

These people may know the true percentages

Peter Sellick,

I found that an elegant piece theology (though if I was uncharitable, I might say sophistry) in that it does plausibly resolve that old bugbear of exclusivity Christianity is so often harangued with.
The immediate flaw in your argument though is that your neat little compromise isn't explicit in the text--nor preached or appreciated--but a species of post hoc reconciliation--ingenious exegesis--damage-control.
Additionally, the whole controversy, as you present it, elides the antagonism, on both sides, which can readily be argued to have precipitated it. You conclude by saying, "Who could feel judged and left out?", but those that do, do not feel so merely from a misreading of the text (it's unlikely many have even read it) but from the active denunciations of those believers who also, apparently, don't understand this textual subtlety.
So when you go on to say, "I maintain that the anger and suspicion poured out against Christianity in our society is based on misunderstanding and/or bigotry"--putting aside that this is not the only issue unbelievers object to (and believers often revel in!)--can you see how you tacitly exonerate the church of all the fire and brimstone, and actual violence, along with the bigotry and victimisation it has practiced since time immemorial? It is precisely these vices(?), as witnessed by history, that have "provoked" (why doesn't Graham let us use italics?) the "misunderstanding and/or bigotry" you now sanctimoniously condemn?.
I certainly think your exegetical revision is commendable, and you ought to agitate Christianity adopt it as standard, but please also acknowledge that hitherto it's only been observed in the breach.

Thoughtful article, Peter. A good one to chew on.

As usual, the OLO crowd is as unforgiving as the Melbourne weather when it comes to commenting on anything that attempts to advance a religious viewpoint.

It's supposedly arrogant and bigoted to claim to know the truth and to tell everyone else (however tactfully) that they are, in fact, wrong, or at least not completely right. And yet, at the same time it's perfectly acceptable to make the truth claim that all worldviews are equally valid and that anyone who doesn't believe that is arrogant and bigoted. This is a truly irrational quirk of the apathetic, lazy 21st century culture that we live in, and this kind of pluralistic thinking is why the exclusive nature of Christianity is now so taboo.

If there's one thing I can most definitely agree on with the loud public figures who decry religious belief, it's that ideas matter and that it is perfectly acceptable to claim that your viewpoint is the true one.

I found this an interesting read, and have taken a bit of time to think it through. At risk of harping on about the same old document, the Catholic Church (of which Notre Dame is an arm) presented an alternative view in the Second Vatican Council, in the encyclical Lumen Gentium.

With that document, the Church posited that the path to salvation is through Jesus, but also that one does not need to follow or even know Jesus to follow that path. In its roundabout way, Lumen Gentium contends that Muslims (as followers of a different understanding of the same God) as well as those who have fallen out of communion or those who never entered into communion may be saved. They key is not to hang on Jesus' every word; rather, it is to follow the message of Jesus and live according to Christian values, whether you realise it or not. In that way, people come to the Father (to use your reference) through Jesus' example rather than through His name. Many would disagree with me, but I think this is a higher path. How many people go to Mass each Sunday but live by the tenets of cruelty and self-service? How many people never enter a church but live lives governed by charity, decency and love? Which group would Jesus choose to hang with if He came back to Earth?

Dear Peter,

You wrote: "John’s gospel and the epistles attributed to him give us exclusive statements that point to Jesus and also statements that are breathtakingly broad that include all people who live in love. I understand this as the particular of Jesus representing a universal phenomenon. He is the one in whom grace abounds to the fullest extent and thus he becomes the model of who we are in our fullest. Christ, through is grace, makes us who we are in truth, those who live in grace.

There is no reason that I should accept John's gospel or any other. I try to do my best. To say I live in love would be an unwarranted exaggeration. I don't believe most people, Christians or not, live in love. We are all human. Sometimes we hate. Sometimes we love. Sometimes we have other emotions. Why not simply accept me and all other humans with all our frailties regardless of our religious beliefs or lack of them?

Best statement of Jesus, recorded in John's gospel.

"To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

Thanks Otokonoko, for your thoughtful and informative post. It has helped me to clarify my thoughts on this aspect of my faith and my humanity.

I was also impressed by your potential confirmation of a view I have held, that Allah "is a different understanding of the same God", which to me means the One and the same God - at least, as I understand you, this is the view the church put forward in the Lumen Gentium. Not being literate in these matters, I would appreciate your further advice on this - whether this was a proposition put forward, or if it is now accepted doctrine. (I don't actually know what the Lumen Gentium is, or means.)

I have received a couple of rebukes in response to my humble posting on this thread, on Comments page 2, accusing me of "interpreting" - which I take to mean I have supposedly been taking liberties with "the word". My posting was an attempt at my "understanding", which I suppose is similar to "interpretation", though I see a subtle difference in intent. Maybe Otokonoko can help me with this also.

To the naysayers, I can only say that, though I respect your views, I find them generally harsh and not really justified. I wish for once we could have a reasonable and reasoned discussion on a theist issue without the anti-theists just hoeing in on the same old negative, pit of the stomach, reactive diatribe. I'm sure you have a heart, and would just like to see a bit more of it.

Squeers, I think your "sophistry" comment (soft-pillowed), and your "sanctimonious" comment (fairly direct) were hardly called-for - but then, your overall response I found to be objective. Don't necessarily agree, but appreciate your viewpoint. On the positive side, I always pick up a few new interesting terms from you - "exegesis" for example. Thanks.

Trav, Wednesday, 25 May 2011 7:35:57 PM

Of course not all worldviews are equally valid ...

.. but by the same token - when it comes to religious worlviews - it is "arrogant and bigoted to claim to know the truth and to tell everyone else (however tactfully) that they are, in fact, wrong, or at least not completely right".

...........................

Otokonoko, Wednesday, 25 May 2011 9:35:58 PM

Yes, it would be best if people could live through the examples of the stories of Jesus' example - lives governed by charity, decency and love- rather than through His name while living "by the tenets of cruelty and self-service"

How much does a myopic worldview allow the latter?

"My posting was an attempt at my "understanding", which I suppose is similar to "interpretation", though I see a subtle difference in intent."

In order to 'understand' something there must be a correct interpretation which can be determined by rational investigation. I can understand "Allons, enfants de la patrie!" because I can look up a dictionary and ascertain what French speakers mean by it.

I can't understand "Erky perky pinky doodle pop!" because there is no agreed meaning and no amount of rational investigation will reveal one. All I can do is to impose my own meaning on it via wishful thinking, then debate, abuse, torture or kill -- depending on my level of certainty -- anyone who wants to impose a different meaning, or who points out that it is inherently meaningless.

The fact that there are thousands of religions and cults, all of which disagree on their most fundamental tenets, is a pretty good indicator that the scripture and other 'revelations' of God are just another "Erky perky pinky doodle pop!"

Saltpetre:

"Squeers, I think your "sophistry" comment (soft-pillowed), and your "sanctimonious" comment (fairly direct) were hardly called-for - but then, your overall response I found to be objective. Don't necessarily agree, but appreciate your viewpoint. On the positive side, I always pick up a few new interesting terms from you - "exegesis" for example. Thanks".

I was initially impressed with this article and I still think this is a good way to resolve the problem, at least in the minds of religious adherents. I also think that in the abstract--that is divorced from doctrine and reducing Jesus and God purely to the values they "represent" (which to a large extent is what theologians do. Terms such as God and Jesus {the person} are incomprehensible and incongruous respectively)--the values espoused are certainly worthy of emulation.
Having considered all this I then came to the final paragraph and saw that everything that preceded it was indeed sophistry, and not contemplated self-reflectively (either personally or on behalf of the church) or for the sake of reconciling textual aporia, and so being reconciled in the humble faith that "Christ, through is grace, makes us who we are in truth".
No, the final paragraph was triumphant, designed to retroactively not only counter criticism, but both to refute and condemn it simultaneously--which is what afforded the author the luxury to wax sanctimonious at the last. Instead of invoking the depth of love and grace etc. for contemplation, Peter Sellick has rationalised the dispute (based on real discrimination by real men and church policy) into a purely one-sided affair--the necessary premises of sanctimony.

In Peter's defence, he clearly has strong convictions, and rationalists are often just as offended and indignant in defence of their world-view.

Squeers, thanks for that explanation, you are far more learned in these matters than I. (And another new word for me.)

Jon J, At least my gobbledygook was based on an objective as well as subjective evaluation of an issue of text and its applicability to reality. I made no mention of fundamental tenets or of revelations of God, that is just all your construct. Sorry if my posts cause you angst or offend your dignity, but the counter-view you put forward is demonstrably untenable.

Squeers’ post encouraged me to look at the last sentence of the article again. It is:

“For when we understand it a right a life lived in the way of Christ is to be envied.”

We really don’t know what a ‘life lived in the way of Christ’ is. We can discount the miracles as merely standard treatment for that type of writing in that time. We cannot even be sure that there was a real person as the basis of the myth.

Given that there are a number of people we can model ourselves after.

A life lived in the way of Darwin, Newton or Einstein would mean a life lived in a search for scientific explanations.

A life lived in the way of Shakespeare, Racine or O’Neill would mean a life lived to produce drama.

A life lived in the way of Thoreau, Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. would mean a life lived for social justice.

A life lived in the way of George Eliot, Goethe or James Joyce would mean a life lived to produce literature.

Even if we can’t attain the heights those people did we can be as creative as we can be. If we are not particularly creative we can at least appreciate what these people did and enjoy their works. It seems to that an appreciation of real people and a life lived in emulation of them is far more worthwhile than living a life in emulation of a semi-mythological religious figure.

Hey skeptic, just curious to know who the 30 (or maybe 40) percent are who contribute in a valuable manner to society? Always looking to improve myself where I can...

Davidf

Exactly.

Saltpetre

Suggest you take time to read the prolific articles by Peter Sellick published on OLO.

Sellick is selling - but perhaps you will interpret his spiel differently to me.

BTW

Atheist simply means non-belief in a deity, not anti-anything. Which brings me to the comment you made regarding Pericles, AJ Phillips, Squeers, Grim et al not always agreeing 100% all the time - because atheists are not a homogeneous group - not following any tradition or text. A disbelief in god may well be the only thing they have in common - although they are all excellent writers. And they are not taking "the mickey" as you suggest.

However, I do agree 100% with Squeers observation regarding Sellick's final words:

“For when we understand it a right a life lived in the way of Christ is to be envied.”

Sells is proselytising as usual, but don't take my word for it. Check out his writing history. I am sure you will enjoy his articles where he takes issue with atheists.

With respect Peter, I think you are still missing the point. Inclusiveness is not about 'missing out' as you propose but accepting as your daughters put forward that there are many ways to interpret Jesus (or God) and many paths to enlightenment.

Then your final words in relation to a life lived in Jesus is a life to be envied, has immediately painted a picture of exclusivity and a negative judgement about the different paths others might choose.

The reactions you categorise as anti-Christianity may in fact just be anti-non-secularism and values around personal freedoms, privacy and more egalitarian policies in relation to religious interference in public policy.

The hatred you feel is perhaps the misinterpretation, not the other way around.

'His struggle is at once worthy and tortuous.'

I keep misreading things lately, I read worthy and tedious....

'there are many ways to interpret Jesus'

I see that as dangerous. Why would a church embrace relativism. Any thoughts runner? The only thing that would bring me to religion is seeing the church sticking to their guns. I cant respect an organisation that goes all flim flam on me. People say the church needs to move with the times, I think the opposite. It's all too permissive. It's moving too much with the times.

As for the derogatory use of the word 'proselytising ' I cant relate to this. It should be the duty of people that think others are to burn in hell to try and save them from such a fate.

I reckon good on them. Nothing says you have to listen. What are you all so afraid of? You brave athiests that don't believe in god

Houellebecq

You seem a lot closer to the truth than most. You write

'I see that as dangerous. Why would a church embrace relativism. Any thoughts runner? The only thing that would bring me to religion is seeing the church sticking to their guns.'

The only problem with this is that 'the church' depending on your definition has got it wrong as often as this current Government. The simple plain words of Jesus However are not and will never be wrong. He was a straight shooter. It is one aspect I admire in your posts. You cut the **. Either Jesus is who He said He is or His a phony. Too many religous folk and theologians have made Him some limp wristed image that is so far from reality that one could hardly respect Him let alone worship Him. Jesus made it clear that you are either for Him or against Him. He had the integrity to say it unlike many High Priests of atheism who hide behind some sort of pseudo intellectual cloak. The words and teachings of Jesus still to this day surpass by miles the teachings of mere man.

The problem, Houellebecq & runner, is that the Word is often not just "the words" but rather what you discover between and beneath them.

<<The words and teachings of Jesus still to this day surpass by miles the teachings of mere man.>>

"The words" of Jesus have been recorded, remembered, translated, paraphrased, simplified, condensed and then wrongly remembered again for all those centuries since he trod the earth. Reliance on them alone is folly.

To hear the Word, we often have to use anything but words. A non-literal approach to the scriptures, as when reading poetry and the fiction of the very highest quality, is a good first step. Experience during excellent liturgy, listening to or participating in outstanding music, or relating deeply to good friends or lovers are often some equally revealing pathways to the Word.

From my own experience, though, I'm beginning to think that the indispensable component is meditation.

"Jesus made it clear that you are either for Him or against Him."
runner, Thursday, 26 May 2011 3:04:46 PM

Yep, and He was against those against Him.

..........................
"Either Jesus is who He said He is or His a phoney."

Yep, we don't know what He said about himself, just what other say. By your logic this makes him a phoney.

................................

"Too many religous folk and theologians have made Him some limp wristed image that is so far from reality that one could hardly respect Him let alone worship Him."

Yep. Also, that is a version of the not-a-true-Scotsman fallacy.

Crabsy makes a good point.

It could be argued the Church has always been about relativism which is reflected in the enormous number of Christian denominations. Even within denominations there is much discussion and debate on some issues. So who knows what Jesus really said, it is all in the reporting.

It is a veritable supermarket of choices out there allowing people to choose the Church that already best fits their worldview. The exception if of course for those who are born and raised within a particular Church and who have not come to it of their own adult free will.

I am not sure how Judaism fits in with this, given Jesus was Jewish, or how Judaism differs in essentials from Christianity

McReal...Jesus IMO was a poor sole, which in his time, saw many disastrous inflictions upon the people he cared about, and so he was born into. In his mind, humanity as we see it, was any-thing but, so with nothing to loose, he spoke out, and thats what made him a man of strength.

See! not everyone can be a blood wheedling swordsman or the clinical righteous one, but many others are very humble indeed, and need the light, so the darkness will not get them, and at the morning rise at Stonehenge, the sun will always remind us, from where the true men are born.

Truth is always out there, if you want to find it.

LEA

Hi Saltpetre,

I'll try to shed some light on Lumen Gentium here, but be warned that my understanding is far from perfect. As with many church documents, it is quite verbose and at times confusing. It is, however, official church doctrine and one of the most important products of Vatican II.

For starters, 'Lumen Gentium' is loosely translated as 'light of the nations'. It deals with Jesus' role in the salvation of mankind, and asserts that He wishes for all of mankind to achieve salvation. It identifies three types of people who will be saved:

1) Those who know the Word (specifically, Catholics) and strive to follow it in all that they do (i.e. good Catholic citizens, not those who are Catholic in name only).

2) Those who do not know the Word (atheists) but, unbeknownst to them, lead good lives in accordance with the Word.

3) Those who have an imperfect understanding of the Word (people of other faiths; Jews are implied, while Muslims are specifically mentioned), but strive to follow their understanding of the Word in all that they do.

Damnation is the exclusive destination of those who know the Word, but choose not to follow it; specifically, those who KNOW that the Church is 'the right path' but choose not to be a part of it, and those who KNOW that they are sinning but do not attempt to desist.

(cont'd) ...

... (cont'd)

There is a lot of talk of 'knowing the Word' and 'seeking God', neither of which is defined with any real clarity. My understanding is that 'knowing the Word' is a matter of Christian morality; if you know that something is a sin but do it anyway, then you know the Word but choose not to follow it. As for seeking God, it is my understanding that 'God' is manifested in all that is right and good. Therefore, when we seek what is right in the world, we seek God. We may never actually seek God as an entity, but if we seek the same aims - a world of peace, love and charity - then we seek God without necessarily knowing it.

By my understanding, then, the Church still aims for all of mankind to join in its communion, but does not blame non-Catholics for failing to do so. Instead, it blames those of us who know the Word but do not endeavour to spread it for this failing. Again, this opens 'the Word' to interpretation. I don't spend my life preaching; I do, however, endeavour to live a life of virtue in the hope that others will follow in that example. Obviously, I'm not virtuous all the time - cut me off at a roundabout and I'll often demonstrate that - but I try. I believe that I spread the Word by living the Word; I know that this is the approach adopted by many Catholic schools, including my employer. We recognise that we can preach all we want, but our kids will lead Christian lives only if such lives are modelled for them. Obviously, many Catholic schools have consistently failed in this mission.

(cont'd) ...

... (cont'd)

I think Lumen Gentium is one of the reasons that I'm content with my Catholicism: it mirrors my own understanding of morality, and my own ability to accept that not everyone sees things the way I do. That damnation is only a path for those who knowingly and unashamedly sin is comforting to me. While the church sets out its own understanding of virtue and sin, it acknowledges that not everyone will receive or understand this message, and that is not the fault of those people. If they continue to sin because they don't know any better, then that is hardly a cause for their damnation.

I hope all of this helps. If any readers disagree with what I say, please help me to understand why I am wrong. I'm aware that many in the Catholic Church - even many in high places in the Church - still don't follow the principles of Lumen Gentium. That is a shortcoming on their part, rather than on the part of Catholicism as a whole. It's there in writing, as a statement of what the Catholic Church believes. While the last couple of paragraphs are my interpretation, I'd appreciate it if people could tell me WHY I'm wrong (with specific reference to the document or to other more recent teachings of the Church) rather than simply saying that I am wrong. I'm not saying with any authority that it is correct - just that it is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Otokonoko, Thank you for your very thoughtful and informative response. You have certainly made things clearer for me, and I think you have put it very well. For myself, I also try to live in the way of the word, but I freely admit I am far from perfect in this, and I really should make a conscious effort to do better. Thank you for reminding me of communion, for this is a union in mind and contemplation which I had not really thought about for quite a long time.

I also hope your post will make things clearer for some others on this forum, and particularly those who seem to hold some confused and, in my opinion, at times some unfair and unfortunate views of Christianity. (I had also better try harder to take a more Christian approach to my interpretation and response, or avoidance of response, to some posts which occasionally rattle my cage.)

My best regards,
Peter.

Otokonoko,

Mat I join Saltpetre in commending you for the clear words you wrote concerning a position that obviously not everybody has to share, only accept as a legitimate one in the family of many world-views that are able to coexist in a civilised and tolerant world.

Otokonoko,

I have several problems with this carrot and stick dogma, ostensibly professed by the universal church as the "Word", prime among them being that it's obviously more in the nature of exerting social control, and fostering compliance to various norms, than it is God's rule.
A problem we have is that as social animals we need norms and even some prohibitions, but that Catholic ones are neither relevant nor adequate to modern conglomerate society. Human societies were of course endlessly diverse, respective norms equally so (Catholicism, in the universal sense, has always been monumental hubris), but modern Western culture has consumed all these and so contains myriad distinctiveness, in diluted form--the melting pot. To make matters worse it's a competitive and opportunistic culture wherein novelty is prized as potential capital, thus all and any form of idiocy or debauch is commodified, either on the legal market or the black market--there's nothing that isn't bought and sold. Meanwhile, because this seething mass culture is both democratic and heterogenous, almost everything is tolerated, what isn't is pushed underground. It's like one massive feed-lot, wherein diverse human societies, no longer ends in themselves, are farmed en masse; the yield, rather than mutual security and solidarity, is profit.
The whole human race is enslave to the same rubric, whether starving or prosperous. But we can only be "enslaved" if our wont is to be free. Even this works against us, as the freedom we are vouchsafed, to compete and to consume, gives sufficient of us the illusion of freedom, or at least "contentment" or "success", to maintain the whole automated enterprise.
The universal Catholic church within this unholy mix is just another means by which compliance is encouraged, or non-compliance is mediated. It's carrot and stick approach, heaven and hell, are patently means of maintaining social equilibrium in this world. Such might be all to the good if universal culture was essentially healthy, sustainable and humane, but it's not and the church effectively helps maintain it, by maintaining norms, tending to the spiritually sick, offering its members hope in the next world etc.

Don't fret, Otokonoko, you're amongst friends.

>>If any readers disagree with what I say, please help me to understand why I am wrong<<

I am sure that some people will disagree with what you say, that is just the way the world is.

But rest easy. That doesn't make their views "right", any more than what they think can make yours "wrong".

You are dealing with your own view of the world, in your own way, with your own standards. It seems fairly clear from what you say here that you mean no-one any harm, you are tolerant and understanding of the views of other people, and you think very deeply about the values by which you live.

Dare I say it, with your attitude to life you'd make a very good atheist.

Well said Otokonoko & Pericles.

>> 2) Those who do not know the Word (atheists) but, unbeknownst to them, lead good lives in accordance with the Word. <<

Nyah, nyah, Saltpetre, Runner.

Jesus would not be very happy with you, if he was real.

Ammonite

you demonstrate my point well

'The words and teachings of Jesus still to this day surpass by miles the teachings of mere man.'

There is a simplicity in the tenets attributed to Jesus.

Every now and then a man is born who seems to stand apart from the fussing and fighting that is part of the human paradigm - and Jesus is the most notable example in the Christian tradition....but others appear every now and then who seem to possess a quality that lifts them beyond the ordinary in a way that inspires the common man.

That these types are often hounded into oblivion by the great hordes is also true.

In opposition to the figure of Christ, the institution of Christianity in its myriad forms at once seeks to complicate the tenets attributed to Jesus. All the dogma associated with Christianity translated through the church and harnessed by humanity often serves to sully the simplicity....and employs the symbolism of Christ to separate rather than unify.

Squeers: And what pray tell is God's rule? Which in your words "... are patently means of maintaining social equilibrium in this world." (Forget to say "unholy" world?)
This unholy, competitive, consumerist driven enslavement to the capitalist icon of the "holy dollar". Bow down'n give praise. Aaaamen, Brother. And there, but for the grace of God, go ...

".. as social animals we need norms and even some prohibitions, but that Catholic ones are neither relevant nor adequate to modern conglomerate society."
Why so? Because turning the other cheek and loving your neighbour is sure to get your head knocked off, by your neighbour's husband?

What's this?: ".. in the nature of exerting social control, and fostering compliance to various norms.." Amen to that!

"The universal Catholic church within this unholy mix is just another means by which compliance is encouraged, or non-compliance is mediated." The compliance bit I get, but the mediation? Twixt Man and his Maker" Or, with the bank manager?

This bit I also get: ".. maintaining norms, tending to the spiritually sick, offering its members hope.." A nice thought, and true.

What profit a man, if he gain the Earth, but lose his soul?

Pericles: A very good atheist? One for the home team?

Ah, Ammonite: Always a refreshing voice of faith, hope and charity.

Runner: And He Saves as well.

You know, Poirot, I have my dog, but have misplaced my dogma. Can't think where I may have put it, or even if I ever had it. Blast. T'ol' memry, t'ain't what't us't t'bee.

Bless you Poirot: "..Christianity in its myriad forms at once seeks to complicate the tenets attributed to Jesus." and, ".. often serves to sully the simplicity..", "..to separate rather than unify."
Unfortunately too true - but thankfully not universal, in spite of constructed differences. Humble followers nonetheless continue to cling to the simplicity, and unite in its purity.

I got my hands, I got my feet, I got my head, I got my heart, I got my soul, got my'y so'oul.

According to the gospels, Jesus was a political radical rather than a "Messiah" (which was etymologically closer to "warlord" than son of God) in the popular sense, and there was little in the way of spirituality in Jesus' politics. Unlike the modern "institutional" church, Jesus was uncompromising in that devotion to love and justice meant rebellion was axiomatic; he suggests that Christians not in open rebellion against the powers that be are unfaithful to his mission.
Wealthy institutional Christians who think they can enter the pearly gates by being well-behaved are implicitly anathema to Christ, who preferred the company of sinners and down and outs to the self-righteous.
Indeed some modern scholars read the New Testament as a species of materialism rather than spiritualism; Jesus is forever curing the sick of body rather than soul. It's corporeal sickness that's of the Devil and not middle-class depression or yearning for eternal life. The Gospels never recount Jesus delivering pep talks about the inevitability of physical suffering either, and those he cures are the detritus of society. Even the Catholic church's cherished "Magnificat" is a revolutionary chant whose strains ought to provoke unease in the Hearts of the Sunday congregations rather than reassurance. The Beatitudes too demonstrate indifference for the virtuous while "the wretched of the Earth" (great read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wretched_of_the_Earth ) are blessed. Indeed in the authentic scriptures, it's been argued, Jesus' message of hope was meant entirely for the poor, and not the "poor in spirit".
I'm afraid the modern, and moderate, Christian churches are whistling out the proverbial rather than heralding the kingdom to come.
What this world needs is "material" intervention, and not reconciliation--pure palliative. Jesus might have died for our sins, but that didn't mean we could complacently nurse our souls and sit on our hands thereafter.
The unexpurgated Gospels can be very compellingly read as Jesus calling on Christians to confound and rebel against corrupt authority and decadence. This puts those who are merely contemplative in a spirtual and material no man's land.

Otokonoko
Thank you for that interesting lesson about Lumen Gentium, something of which I was unaware. It is a much more inclusive and dare I say secular approach. A quick Google reveals there exists some disagreement around Lumen Gentium, some believing it the step to heresy but still with growing support from within the Vatican.

There are aspects of Lumen Gentium that continue to focus on evangelisation despite the attempts to increase understanding of those outside the Church. Conversion still remains the major goal, however I think the approach much more inclusive and tolerant than some of the 'damnation' and 'hellfire' approaches adopted in the past. That has always been a turn off for many in a civilising and evolving world, the idea of being born of sin and the negative aspects of human nature emphasised rather than the good.

However most Catholics I am acquainted with live via the essentials of Lumen Gentium almost by 'accident' in the same way that many Atheists and Agnostics live by the same tenets as Christians and other faiths which focus on universal good (barring some of the more discriminatory aspects but change is inevitable).

May I add support to Saltpetre and George's well expressed opinions particularly - "...commending you for the clear words you wrote concerning a position that obviously not everybody has to share, only accept as a legitimate one in the family of many world-views that are able to coexist in a civilised and tolerant world."

Certainly Lumen Gentium is a position that could be expanded apon as Catholics see fit and sits at the heart of respectful and congenial coexistence.

I come from a Protestant background so I’m no expert on the Lumen Gentium but that was pretty much how I understood it. Although after thinking about it again from an atheistic perspective I never realised before just how condescending it is.

“Damnation is the exclusive destination of those who know the Word, but choose not to follow it; specifically, those who KNOW that the Church is 'the right path' but choose not to be a part of it, and those who KNOW that they are sinning but do not attempt to desist.”

Does that last part count for the sins that aren’t immoral and that to consider them a sin would actually immoral in itself?

Meh… what do I care? I’m on my way to hell for apostasy anyway - according to most Christians.

I think the important lesson in all this is: don’t indoctrinate or proselytize. That way others don’t run the risk of rejecting the Word and going to hell.

"And what pray tell is God's rule? Which in your words "... are patently means of maintaining social equilibrium in this world." (Forget to say "unholy" world?)

I don't pretend to know what God's rule is, m' ol' Salt, it's just a rhetorical device to me; I implied the institutional Church, in league with the government, is "exerting social control, and fostering compliance to various norms".
Similarly, I implied that Christian norms "are neither relevant nor adequate to modern conglomerate society". At 2000 years they're obsolete, and the remainder of my post goes on to make the point, so your petty parody is misrepresentative.

The next bit is crucial; the church plays a fundamental role in mediating grievances, "Twixt Man and his Maker" Or, with the bank manager"? you ask="between unrest and the managers of the farm" I answer; the church provides whatever is needed to keep things running smoothly=equals carrots and sticks=heaven and hell.
It would be nice if someone would refute my arguments with cogent argument, but who needs argument when you've got concensus?
The religios are perfectly self-satisfied in the cosy ideology they've made for themselves (and ascribe to God), as I'm bound to say, are the secularists.
It's easy to be critical, but damned hard to be self-critical.

Squeers, I am bitterly disappointed. You appear to be very well informed about Catholicism, and far better informed than I, but I am forced to take you to task over some of your assertions on this thread. I refer to your last 3 posts, and although I initially viewed the first of these to be only mischievous, on review I see you were actually quite serious in your intent to ridicule and hold in contempt. (I won't be making that mistake again.) From there I feel you only descended further into unwarranted and purposeful deprecation and demeaning of matters which are obviously much more important to some of us than they are to you.

Firstly, you placed your own distorted interpretation on Otokonoko's thoughtful response to my enquiry of him, and not content with that have set off on an opiate delight of convolution and misconstruction worthy of a Hitchcock movie - and equally fictitious.

Post 1: "Catholicism, in the universal sense, has always been monumental hubris." I suppose such grand statements must make you feel all-knowing and beyond the supposed grandiosity you so easily infer of this 2,000 year old institution which preaches love, peace and harmony?

You say society needs norms and prohibitions. But, then you proceed to ridicule the church's provision of these to its flock, and label these as ".. neither relevant nor adequate to modern conglomerate society." On the contrary, the description you give of modern society is as of "Sodom and Gomorrah", and the unavoidable implication is that no norms or prohibitions would be relevant anyway. Nice try, but logically and practically the ethical standards of the church are just as relevant as ever, and probably more so.
TBC>

Squeers, Continued:

Post 2: You attempt a perfunctory near-heretical rewriting of history, through shear oblique manipulation. Are the poor not likely to be sick of spirit? Would tending to their physical needs not coincidentally lift their spirit? And, if you promise them the earth, is this not "giving them a pep talk"? So, who needs spiritual uplifting more - the poor and downtrodden, or the comfortable self-righteous? I see no conflict there.

".. Jesus was uncompromising in that devotion to love and justice meant rebellion was axiomatic;" Yes, Jesus strove for justice for all; and further you say He agitated for reform and stirred His followers to rebellion to achieve it. So, where is this contrary to our current understanding? Did He not do this out of love and compassion?

"Jesus might have died for our sins, but that didn't mean we could complacently nurse our souls and sit on our hands thereafter." And just where do you get that idea from? Complacently nurse our souls? Did you get nothing from Otokonoko's post? Please!

Post 3: "I implied the institutional Church, in league with the government, is "exerting social control, and fostering compliance to various norms". So, the church has the government in its pocket? And so, by coercion the church exercises some influence over society as a whole? That's a new one to me.
"I implied that Christian norms "are neither relevant nor adequate to modern conglomerate society"." I find them totally relevant, and perfectly adequate, thanks all the same. It is not the fault of the church if portions of society choose not to exercise responsible restraint.

Conclusion: To take a leaf out of your own book - "It's easy to be critical, but damned hard to be self-critical."

Saltpetre:

"...From there I feel you only descended further into unwarranted and purposeful deprecation and demeaning of matters which are obviously much more important to some of us than they are to you".

This statement, like everything else you've said in your two heated posts is hyperbolic and undeserved, and only tells me you haven't considered anything I've said. From my first post I've made thoughtful contributions to this thread which are not disrespectful at all, but merely critical.
If you have any valid argument to offer in response to anything I've said, I'd be glad to consider it.

But now I'm going to watch my sons play soccer.

Saltpetre,

Is it not obvious to you that we in the West hold hegemonic sway in the current world order - and that Christian institutions are standing on the podium alongside all the other institutions who validate our triumph?

Can you not discern that much of what "Christianity" reinforces is in direct opposition to Christ's lessons? How do you rationalise the Church's tacit support for the West's indulgence in greed and excess with Christ's example?

How can an institution like the Christian church remain faithful to Christ's example while depending on the patronage of those who act antithetically to his ideals?

Poirot, I think you're having a lend of me, but I'll respond anyway.

".. we in the West hold hegemonic sway in the current world order - and ... Christian institutions are standing on the podium alongside all the other institutions who validate our triumph."

If you say so. Standing on a podium with others is not a sin, and as for "triumph", the Church is humble and does not believe in such thoughts or displays. As for others on your "podium", I expect they would mostly also be clear thinking, moral, ethical, honest, responsible and compassionate groups.

".. much of what "Christianity" reinforces is in direct opposition to Christ's lessons? How do you rationalise the Church's tacit support for the West's indulgence in greed and excess with Christ's example?"

The Christian Church does not "reinforce" examples contrary to His teachings.

Could you perhaps mean that Christians should live apart, without possessions, in pure communion with the Lord? Christianity is a "living" Church, and followers have to blend in, conducting a reverent, virtuous and inconspicuous existence. Nonetheless, the Church continues to rail against injustice and inhumanity wherever it may be found.

Tacit support? So the Church does not rail against our Western Capitalist Consumerist society? The Church may show the way, but the choice to follow is in the hands of the individual.

"How can an institution like the Christian church remain faithful to Christ's example while depending on the patronage of those who act antithetically to his ideals?"

Those who act antithetically to His ideals? That would be a broad church indeed. If some such choose to support the Church, good on them, all contributions gratefully received, in the name of the Lord.

In general response: I would expect any responsible western government to exercise similar morality, ethics and integrity to that expounded by the Church - but then these are after all the foundation of universal truth in any event, and virtually as seeded into our being as the air we breathe, so one should not really expect less.

Thanks everyone for your comments on my lengthy post(s). And I'm sorry they were so long - I tried to revise them down, but brevity is not one of my strengths.

As you point out, AJ, it is quite condescending in some ways. While they acknowledge that people who disagree with them aren't necessarily destined for a grisly eternity in hell, the College of Cardinals stick to their guns with the notion that Catholicism is the 'best' and 'purest' path to salvation. As a Catholic, I can't put myself in the place of the non-Catholics to whom it offers an olive branch. I can imagine, though, that some could be offensive - in effect, it says that 'these poor people don't know any better, so we'll let them come to heaven with us anyway'. In a human sense, Vatican II was a conference of old men back in the 1960s - men who had experienced their religious formation in a time when devout Catholics (i.e. the types of Catholics who would end up becoming priests) genuinely believed they were better than everyone else. In that light, despite the somewhat condescending tone, I think some of their findings were remarkably progressive.

The shake-up brought about by that council was not, as pelican points out, universally accepted. There was, and continues to be, disagreement. While it signified the 'waking up' of the Church to the 20th Century, I think it fragmented Catholicism quite a bit. It took away a lot of what made Catholics different and a lot of what gave them confidence that we were right and others were wrong. While I see this as a good thing, I can imagine others don't.

Otokonoko

Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate posts. I imagine the upper echelon of the Catholic church doubtless feel dismay at the apparent fragmentation within their ranks. Thus far, their response has been disappointing at the very least. I am thinking of priests like Peter Kennedy and others who have been expelled.

All religions change over time, admittedly at a very slow pace compared to other human endeavours.

I would posit that Buddhism has managed to adapt as we understand more about this wondrous universe and have found the serious scientific studies of meditation techniques by Buddhist monks very interesting.

The Dalai Lama was once asked why he had not participated in the tests, he replied that he was not as good at mediation as those who were involved in the study. Can you imagine such humility from George Pell?

Of course, "humility" is a key word here. And I suppose it's more difficult for large a institution to humble itself. It is, therefore, left to the individual members to take it upon themselves to follow this spiritual virtue.

Saltpetre, when I criticise religious institutionalisation, It doesn't blind me to the merits of individuals. I derive much in my life from my everyday encounters with people around me. Strangely enough, yesterday I found myself in the company of a nun who works as a teacher of refugees for a Catholic order. She was humble and extremely interesting as she described her experiences....and this attitude is evident in lay people as well.

I get the impression, however, that spirituality is really something that is nurtured in quiet and humility, and agree with Ammonite that it's not something I would associate with the Cardinal Pells of this world.

Sloppy arguementation and banal conclusion. Altogether pointless. A sad article by a man saddened by the political marginalisation of the church, and a very good arguement for maintaining that marginalisation. But then, anyone who has looked into the biblical compositions knows that they're not history - the things written about did not happen in the way the bible describes, if at all. The sooner people realise the bible is fiction, the sooner we'll all be on our way to a brighter future. That goes for the Koran readers too, of course.

dear peter

i note your use..[ab-use]..of john..14;6
[thats how we get into trouble]..[misslead]

see the full context..of 14 john
AFTER john/13..
[where jesus..predicts the fall of peter]

then in 14
re-assures HIM..!

""do not let..*your heart..be troubled""

''TRUST IN GOD*...trust also in me""..
[you can trust god
and in what im,..saying..TO YOU..*[my deciples]

2/''for in my fathers house..are many rooms'"

..."im going there to prepare a PLACE for you"
3/..""and i go to prepare a place for you..!'

think of a group of us
sitting arround a table..and you point at me
then point at someone else..to highlight the point further

he says..to peter
14;4..''you know the way''..[deeds/works/love]
""to the place im going'

but then at 14;5..'thomas responds'
and it is specificly to thomas..to which he replies.

[that you take*..
as a means..[generalisation]..
to exclude others..from being saved]

lets get back to
the truelly important info

14;2..IN MY FATHERS HOUSE*..
there ARE many""..[EGSISTING ROOMS]..

""I AM GOING THERE""...[to the FATHERS/house]
""to prepare a place...[a room]..for you*""

just as the others..[b.c]..BEFORE CHIST
allready have..had built..THEIR OWN 'ROOM'

yet you focus..on the devisive
in lue of focusing on..what he said..to his own*

[for them..his words are a promise
to those..upon whom it turned out
this xtian church..was built]

this dont exclude..those..
who belong in the ';other rooms'
their messangers..*allready..BUILT FOR THEM*

mahamoud could[did]..much the same thing
that applies to those..who follow him

there are now divisions..
even in christs room
lutherans/seventh day/mormons/jehova witness..etc..etc

''if you REALLY knew me,..
you would know..*our father as well..!';

our father..who has many rooms
many children..of infinite callings and loves

for you..[peter/phylip/thomas/john
to go to the father
you must be in his house first

dare you build your own room?..

its much easier
going through an egsisting room

phylip said

show us the father first
[i am..*in the..father
and he is..*within you*

and within you
and you

[with-in..every living thing..
sustaining them..their life..*too]

emmanuel:
god with[in]..
us[all]..

ahh men

camo,
Can you give examples of your claim that the Bible is fiction. What is that way and the brighter future you desire? It sounds like you believe in fantacy and bigotry to me.

further thoughts after re/reading peters words

quote/...""In the first letter of John
we find the popular text for weddings:

“God is love and those who abide in love abide in God.”

THATS a perfect egsample

[if we got love...we dont need jesus
to introduce him [god/good]..to us..!]

[peter knew god/the way of charity..[works]..
and mercy..[grace]

*the frits of loving neighbour
as the way to love god]

clearly many xtians need a guide to god
BECAUSE THEY DONT GOT LOVE..thus need jesus
to point *love out..for them..

""Where now the exclusive statements of John’s gospel?""

god is all INCLUSIVE*
many messengers from old test-i-meant..to new covenant
taught us much...jesus was the cherry on top

revealing the IMPORTANCE of works

and of letting the good grain...mature peacefully
in the field
with the 'bad'/tares
cause we all gety SORTED in the next realms
[sent to our 'own' rooms...those of the christ..to christs room]

thopse of mosus..to mosus room
those of cain to cains room
those od satan to satans room

in the end we all get sorted
into our basic animal natures..[in heaven and in hell]
each being with those of the same love/works

lovers with lovers
gredy with greedy
slothsome with slothfull

racists with racists
blashemers with blashemers
goats with coats/sheep with sheep

its not rockett science
kids get it more easy than adults
stop over thinking it

god is good
if its not good..ITS NOT OF GOD...!

good
love
grace
mercy
charity

its easy once you know
the importance of chosing...*why?

Sells

I think what your daughters and students are trying to tell you is that, notwithstanding your Anglo-Catholic conventions, the idea of the 'exclusivity of Christ' has potential for evil and is closely linked to the evil the Church has perpetrated in the form of Crusades, Inquisitions and Witch Hunts throughout its history.

What you are trying, albeit rather clumsily, to describe is the uniqueness of Christ. 'Exclusivity' is a most unfortunate choice of words under the circumstances. The inclusive-exclusive dichotomy emphasises discrimination and division rather than conveying any sense of the universal scope of the Christ event.

The Gospels are essentially protest pamphlets speaking out against the dominant imperial conciousness that made some powerful and others powerless. It invokes the Kingdom of God as Hope for the powerless in the universal struggle against human power structures in general.

The particulars of the man Jesus serve only to alert us to a universal truth about the human condition. The idea that God favours the powerless is the radical element of the Gospel that points to a universal reversal of evil and offers hope to all. This idea has power whether or not you accept the historicity of the Jesus narratives, whether or not you believe Jesus was, in some way, a material extension of God, whether or not you subscribe to church dogma and even if you cant personally give intellectual assent to the proposition that God (whatever is meant by that) exists.

waterboy,
Please give authority from Jesus teaching has potential for evil and is closely linked to the evil the Church has perpetrated in the form of Crusades, Inquisitions and Witch Hunts throughout its history.

Philo

Your question doesnt make sense.
What is your point?

philo
i tghink the key bit of waterboys wisdom is this

""the idea
of the 'exclusivity of Christ' has potential for evil""

he isnt saying that it nessesarilly does
only that excusivity...sets this possability up

and it does...for those thinking...
only xtians get to heaven

or thinking
jesus...the man
is god...jesus was pure man

[that ye se me do....[DO!}
ye will do BETTER*....ie not worse
as christ DID..ashould be a minimum..
of what we together MUST be seen to be doing

your both saying the bible says,...do not murder
nothing jesus said ends that LAW...no excuse for it
no decree to do it...its a pure fiction..ALL MUDER is a mortal sin

[please see jesus didnt go to murder
that is a thing that is self evident...
to any...messenger from the *LIVING good..[god]

i see you
but in seing you i learn more about my god
no matter who you are

KNOWING..the wheat MUST grow with the tares
and that by loving both....i love god
[have heard [not erred]..

in following christs teachings]

that we do to the least*
we do to the most*...[god]..[our holy host}
sustaining *EVERY life...their living

waterboy,
I havew just repeated your own claim that Jesus teaching gives possible rise to Crusades, witch hunts, inquisitionns. I ask where does Jesus teaching give authority for such practise?
Please give from Jesus teaching authority for potential evil and its close links to the evil the Church has perpetrated in the form of Crusades, Inquisitions and Witch Hunts throughout its history.

Philo

Perhaps you should read my post again. There is no reference to "Jesus' teachings".

But you have merely repeated your question. Now answer mine.

What is your point?

Irrelevant, Philo.

>>Please give from Jesus teaching authority for potential evil and its close links to the evil the Church has perpetrated in the form of Crusades, Inquisitions and Witch Hunts throughout its history.<<

I could ask you where Jesus gives "authority" to the establishment of a religion that is conducted on his behalf.

It was - and is - the people who choose to do these things "in his name" that are the problem. By all accounts Jesus seems to have been a really nice person. But that does not absolve Christians from responsibility for the nasty stuff they have done, believing themselves to be "doing God's work".

Pericles,
Absolutly agree! "But that does not absolve Christians from responsibility for the nasty stuff they have done, believing themselves to be "doing God's work"."