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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A way forward for Christianity > Comments

A way forward for Christianity : Comments

By Stephen Crabbe, published 25/7/2011

Debate between 'believers' and 'unbelievers' is noisy but today's most significant battle over religion is occurring within the religions themselves.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
You will excuse me for choosing not to take any guidance from the writings and ideas of Bishop Spong. Amongst other things:

- He refuses to believe in the miracles of the Bible

- He places Science over Biblical teaching

- He sees the Bible as out of date
"Can modern men and women continue to pretend that timeless, eternal, and unchanging truth has been captured in the words of a book that achieved its final written form midway into the second century of the common era? Would not such a claim be dismissed as ludicrous in any other branch of human knowledge?"

- His view of God
"We have come to the dawning realisation that God might not be separate from us but rather deep within us."

- Without ever stating it outright (either clever or he doesn't have the courage of his convictions), he clearly does not believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus.

And on he goes.

If you wish to present a reasonable evaluation of modern Christianity, which I am all for hearing, please start from someone who actually believes it!
Posted by rational-debate, Monday, 25 July 2011 10:58:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jesus of course was a Jew, a radical Spiritual Teacher who appeared and taught on the margins of the tradition of Judaism as it existed in his time and place. While he was alive he taught and demonstrated a radical, universal, non-Christian and non-sectarian Spirit Breathing Spiritual Way of Life. As described here:

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

He did not, and could not have invented the religion about him, that is Christianity, all of which was invented by others after his death - and most often very long after his death.

Jesus certainly could not have created the "death-and-resurrection" idea/dogma that became the central idea of the Christian belief system.

In 2011 such a belief should really be considered as an early form of Urban Legend.

With extremely rare exceptions Christian-ISM is an entirely exoteric religion, the principal purpose of which is crowd control or social order. It is even aggressively anti-Spiritual. Their are many taboos in our culture, both secular and "religious" against any one getting "mystical".

The author of the above essay was the prize-winning student at the Lutheran Theological seminary in Philadelphia - he got DISTINCTIONS in all of his subjects. Ironically he was not in any sense a Christian and no real interest or sympathy for the masses of boring stuff that he was obliged to study. He was studying there at the insistence of his then Spiritual Teacher, as a form of discipline.

During his studies he was going through and experiencing profound psychic, visionary and mystical phenomenon.
When he confessed this to his dreadfully sane buttoned down professors they were all uniformly horrified that their prize winning student was a "Mystic".

These two references describe the origins and cultural consequences of the wide-spread prejudice against any kind of non-ordinary experiences.

The Purification of Doubt - which is chapter 1 in this reference.
http://www.dabase.org/nirvana.htm

The Psychosis of Doubt
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism.asp
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 25 July 2011 12:28:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rational Debate,
I think peoples' beliefs are their own, I am not religious, and I have
a hard time believing much of the Bible. I believe too, that "Spirit" resides within, no matter what beliefs people own. I heard a Muslim man on TV about 15 years ago, saying that "God is your life blood, he is as near to you as your carotid artery, Man is his own God.," I thought that it summed it up nicely for me.I feel that Man, is responsible for his/her own actions, and at the end of the day, we judge ourselves and our behaviour.
NSB
Posted by Noisy Scrub Bird, Monday, 25 July 2011 12:40:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A further comment.
Both John Shelby Spong and Matthew Fox are either uniformly ignored or loathed in mainstream Christian circles. Protestant and Catholic - conservative or progressive, INCLUDING within the much hyped "emergent-church" phenomenon in the USA.

They seldom get mentioned in any of the hundreds of Christian blogs. This is especially so with Matthew Fox.

Fox was of course "excommunicated" by the Pope as a "heretic". One of the things he challenged was the absurd claim that the Pope is "infallible". Meanwhile it is completely obvious to the 5 billion non Catholics on the planet that the Pope is VERY fallible.

Meanwhile child-molesting priests were and are protected by the church hierarchy. Even by deliberate and systematic breaking and obstruction of the civil law.

One well known abuser was even made into a "Saint", with at the time, much fanfare.
None of them has ever been excommunicated - WHY NOT?

Two other modern scholars who have really done their homework are the well known Bart Ehrman and the lesser know Gerd Ludeman who is the author of several books including The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Enquiry.
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 25 July 2011 12:44:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So we toss out all the silly God stuff, and the crazy Jesus nonsense and the ludicrous Mohammed stories, and this ridiculous business about miracles, hell and an afterlife, and we're left with a religion that can inspire us in the 21st century?

I've had a religion like that for nearly forty years. It's called 'atheism'.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 25 July 2011 2:09:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J
LOL. Like your style
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 25 July 2011 2:50:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I post this comment at the risk of offending people who do believe in the Bible, it is, after all, their right, as it is every individuals' right to believe what resonates with them.
If Catholic Priests were allowed to marry, there surely would be less incidence of Children being molested, it would also allow them to have the experience of marriage counselling for their married congregation.
When the Pope recently said that he "Prayed to God to forgive the sins of the Molesting Priests", "Sins?" said someone who posted on another forum, "how about Crimes, instead".
NSB
Posted by Noisy Scrub Bird, Monday, 25 July 2011 2:53:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL @ Jon J - I'll pay that!a
Posted by morganzola, Monday, 25 July 2011 3:04:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will second that one Morganzola, Jons post was a rippa.
NSB
Posted by Noisy Scrub Bird, Monday, 25 July 2011 3:28:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It appears that you are still working on squeezing Christianity into a form in which you find yourself able to believe, Mr Crabbe. I'm not sure this piece helps you along the way, though.

Your previous two pieces addressed the same issue, from different angles.

In "God does not exist: God insists", you tried to approach it from the linguistic perspective, and in doing so tied yourself into some truly remarkable semantic knots. We then spent hours trying to unravel the language sufficiently enough to glean some underlying meaning.

As a direct outcome of this interchange, you produced a piece on the Nicene Creed, in which you determined, unilaterally, that "Credo in unum Deum" did not actually translate as "I believe in one God". Things necessarily went downhill from there.

This has a different flavour, one which - superficially at least - has something going for it.

Everyone who is not deeply embedded within one or the other, or who believes in none, recognizes that the external trappings of religions have no bearing whatsoever on the beliefs they purport to uphold. For one thing, if they did, there would be no strife between Christian and Muslim, Protestant and Catholic, or any persecution of the Jews.

Unfortunately, rather than accept that the formalization process itself is what causes the problem, you offer a solution which, to the outsider, is simply a new arrangement of the same old deckchairs - a "New Christianity for a New World" (your caps). Which, sadly, bears all the hallmarks of the old one, but with what the Gruen Transfer might call "added shininess"

So near, yet so far.

Once again, may I wish you every success in working through this "seeking an answer" phase, Mr Crabbe. It might help, though, if you were to spend more time examining the question.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 25 July 2011 3:45:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re the "religion" of atheism and its now world-wide cultural program (or extension) brought to one and all in the form of scientism or scientific materialism.

Scientism achieves physically effective control over physical objects, and human populations, by means of physically based technologies.

Scientism achieves physically effective mind-control over human individuals and collectives by means of physically effective technologies, practical and consumer-oriented inventions, power-alliances with social and political institutions, the broad-scale ritual propagandizing of "scientific" myths, and the broad-scale persistent propagandizing of IRREDUCIBLY "objectified" beliefs in such ideas as rationality, materiality, objective certainty, progress, analytical reason as an exercise superior to all other human efforts and forms of knowledge, the necessary mortality of nature, mind, and being, and both the "authority" and the presumed ultimate sufficiency of scientism, itself.

For an interesting, and amusing deconstruction of the truth claims of the dogma of scientism please check out this reference.

http://global.adidam.org/media/science.html
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 25 July 2011 5:04:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Jon J, don't keep it all to yourself. Please share the inspiration that has come from your atheism...
Posted by rational-debate, Monday, 25 July 2011 5:18:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you all who are contributing to the discussion of my article. My main purpose in writing it was to provide information and explanations to people who are either not aware of, do not understand, or actually misunderstand the changes occurring within churches today. I hope it is serving that purpose for you. I’ll try to respond meaningfully to your posts as best I can.

Rational-debate:
<< If you wish to present a reasonable evaluation of modern Christianity, which I am all for hearing, please start from someone who actually believes it! >>
The question to be asked and answered is: “what is modern Christianity?” You seem to be assuming there is one, and only one, answer – i.e. yours. The project on which emergent churches and progressive Christians have embarked is to find the core beliefs, facts, symbols and practices that they can share happily, and then use those as the basis for re-building the Church across the world. More than a modicum of self-examination is needed for this to succeed.

Ho-hum:
<< Both John Shelby Spong and Matthew Fox are either uniformly ignored or loathed in mainstream Christian circles. Protestant and Catholic - conservative or progressive, INCLUDING within the much hyped "emergent-church" phenomenon in the USA. >>
You’re wrong. Many priests and lay-people in my present diocese, and in others to which I have belonged in the past, read and discuss with great respect the ideas and thoughts of these two profoundly learned and spiritual Christians. And the situation is similar in many other communities of various religious denominations across the world.

Jon J:
<< I've had a religion like that for nearly forty years. It's called 'atheism'. >>
Quite a few of the Christians in emergent churches also describe themselves as “atheists”. Maybe it all comes down to what we mean by “theism”. And I’m interested in what you mean by “religion”, since you have one.

To be continued.
Posted by crabsy, Monday, 25 July 2011 5:40:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles:
Once again it seems I have to assure you that I am quite happy to call myself a Christian. Of course, like anyone attempting to achieve some integrity, I feel the need to question my own beliefs, relationships and behaviour. But in my articles, far from “squeezing Christianity” into a shape to suit myself, I am trying, for the benefit of those not associated with church communities, to present a picture of what is happening on the inside.

I won’t resume the past discussions you refer to, except to say that your description of them is wrong – in my opinion.

I acknowledge that quite often “the external trappings of religions have no bearing whatsoever on the beliefs they purport to uphold”. Perhaps that is a dichotomy innate to any type of institution, but as long as there is frequent, honest dialogue between the exoteric and esoteric components the discrepancies can at least be kept to a comfortable minimum.
Posted by crabsy, Monday, 25 July 2011 5:54:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rational-debate,
There may not be much inspiration from simply being with out god (a/theism) per se, but there is more inspiration from approaching life without constant reference to a third party or third parties.

crabsy,
Changes within a church or group of churches seem likely to be different or not aligned with changes in other churches or other groups of churches.
Posted by McReal, Monday, 25 July 2011 6:19:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crabsy
Thank you for an interesting piece – religion and spirituality articles have been a bit sparse on OLO lately.

Like you I’m part of a church where discussions on questions of spirituality and formal religion are very much alive. I have read both Spong and Fox and found then interesting. Though Spong’s theology gets a bit stretched sometimes, I think his admonition “any God who can be killed, deserves to be” is a great starting point to explore what you call emerging Christianity. Bonhoeffer’s call for religionless Christianity lived “as if there is no God” in a “world come of age” is, I think, a more articulate and challenging statement of similar ideas, though Bonhoeffer is much more orthodox than, say, Fox.

Christianity has always been a broad church, and each age has to grapple with how to interpret it in ways that make sense to its culture and understanding of the world. It is interesting that atheists are almost as keen as traditionalists to deny the legitimacy of this process.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 25 July 2011 6:22:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps I should have put 'religion' in quotes. But since people have asked me for a defence of atheism, here it is:

My atheism is a by-product of a rationalist, materialist view of the world. How do I justify this view? Ultimately, by the only means by which anyone can justify anything: it WORKS. I'm happy, reasonably well off, I have a nice house in a nice area, I'm not on drugs and I'm not in jail. I have an affectionate spouse and loving, kind, intelligent children with a great potential. My life is about as good as it gets.

Of course, many believers are in the same position: but I maintain that per capita many more theists are prematurely dead, maimed, poor, sick, miserable or in jail than atheists. You can see some of the reasons why at

http://religiousatrocities.wordpress.com .

Perhaps I'm missing out on a blissful afterlife, but so far nobody's given me any reason to think that's the case. If they do, I'll reconsider.

So there it is; a pragmatic justification for a pragmatic view. Respond by all means, but just one thing: if you're going to tell me that religion is 'another way of knowing' then I need you to specify 'knowing WHAT'? Otherwise you're simply spouting hot air.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 6:51:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not only do you admit that atheism can be a religion JonJ, but it appears you believe in a prosperity gospel as well! I'm sorry, but from any perspective I find the size of your bank balance to be irrelevant to any truth claims of any sort of religion or philosophy of living.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 7:16:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal - Would you care to elaborate on how you can make the statement "there is more inspiration from approaching life without constant reference to a third party or third parties"? According to who? What measures? I'll give you a challenge to get the ball rolling. Research all the major charities in the world today and do the sums on what percentage were founded by Christians. Inspiration indeed.

Jon J - If a Christian supported their faith with the statement you have (How do I justify this view? Ultimately, by the only means by which anyone can justify anything: it WORKS.) they would be howled down. Guess the rules don't count for everyone...

And your statement "but I maintain that per capita many more theists are prematurely dead, maimed, poor, sick, miserable or in jail than atheists." is simply false. There has been endless research that proves this, yet surprisingly, it gets little media coverage. If the contrary were true, you'd never hear the end of it. Curious that.
Posted by rational-debate, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 8:16:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I need no such assurance, crabsy.

>>Pericles: Once again it seems I have to assure you that I am quite happy to call myself a Christian<<

The label that you attach to your belief system is totally irrelevant to me. As I have observed before, a branch of religion that can contain the Jensens, the Church of Nigeria, the Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in San Francisco as well as family units from Sydney's leafy North Shore, is indeed a walking definition of a "broad church".

But it's clear I was on the wrong track.

>>I am trying, for the benefit of those not associated with church communities, to present a picture of what is happening on the inside<<

I had assumed that there would be some form of relationship with the "believing" part of religion, rather than merely an examination of the workings of its corporate structures.

But on re-reading the piece, it should have been fairly obvious from the outset that we weren't in the land of spirituality...

"...here I confine my observations to Christianity, which I know best. Within Christianity "emerging churches" are rapidly multiplying..."

Fair enough. Seems to me a little like trying to make sense of the global economy by observing the structure of your household budget, but if that was all you want to share, that's fine.

Have a great day.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 8:47:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The subject is the way foward for true Christianity to grow in the hearts and minds of the present and future generations. The basis to be called Christian is to understand the attitudes and actions of Christ himself because to dismiss him is anything other than Christianity. It is obvious most want to write their own religion beliefs but it is not Christian unless it embodies the heart of Christ.

To be a follower of Christ is an individual committment and not a national control religion as seen by some. Christ appeals to the inner man as a spiritual individual for his personal heart committment. Christianity for it to be real as intended by Christ must remove itself from nationalalistic aspirations by a Religious heirarchy and become personal. That every man has the heart of God expressing love and compassion for those injured, oppressed and failing.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 9:56:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Jon J - If a Christian supported their faith with the statement you have (How do I justify this view? Ultimately, by the only means by which anyone can justify anything: it WORKS.) they would be howled down."

Then that would be an excellent incentive for them to abandon Christianity.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 11:37:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Not only do you admit that atheism can be a religion JonJ, but it appears you believe in a prosperity gospel as well! I'm sorry, but from any perspective I find the size of your bank balance to be irrelevant to any truth claims of any sort of religion or philosophy of living."

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that I am also happy, healthy and well-beloved?
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 11:39:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good Post Philo,
But, at the end of the day, I guess that people are entitled to believe what they want/need, and it is not for any one else, Christian or Otherwise, to tell everybody else that they are wrong.
At the end of the day, we came in to the world the same way, ditto with our departure from it.
NSB
Posted by Noisy Scrub Bird, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 11:42:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did JonJ. But it is the same thing. I find it hard to justify a set of beliefs on the basis of whether your family is happy or not. They could be happy for all the wrong reasons. Or what if they are not happy tomorrow? Does that mean you recant your atheism?
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 1:34:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I made my criticism of the "emergent-church" movement on the basis of a familiarity with the many blogs of those involved with this movement, including some of the key movers and shakers.

The writings of Spong & Fox are notably absent from these blogs.

By the way I quite like the work of Matthew Fox. I have read three of his books. He is an excellent voice for ecumenical tolerance.
But the question remains - why does everything have to turn out to be Christian?

Re this so called emergent movement.
These "renewal" movements have been a feature of Christianity all along, and all over the world too. They appear like clock work ever 2 or 3 decades all over the world.
Billy Graham and his "crusades" was very big when I was a teenager.

There is of course a huge and politically powerful "renewal" movement among right-wing "catholics" too. A movement which would abhor both Fox and Spong, and which really has no tolerance for alternative interpretations of the Bible and its origins, or for any kind of real ecumenical dialog and understanding.
What is there to understand? The "catholic" magisterium is the only source of truth in the world!

But what about the Luminous Wisdom Teaching of the author of the essays I pointed you to?
He spent 35 years patiently considering quite literally everything, including the very important topic of Sacred Art.

Indeed His Divine Image Art IS His most important communication.

http://global.adidam.org/books/transcendental-realism.html
http://www.adidaupclose.org/Art_and_Photography/rebirth_of_sacred-art.html

He published over 60 books which described the Process that He engaged with His devotees. And the transformative Process (and its significance) that He was involved in too, which was signalled by the various names that he used during his life-time.

And yet He is completely ignored by every one, even by those who have some kind of sympathy with esoteric or "mystical" Spirituality.
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 1:57:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I find it hard to justify a set of beliefs on the basis of whether your family is happy or not. They could be happy for all the wrong reasons. Or what if they are not happy tomorrow? Does that mean you recant your atheism?"

If it ever became the case that theists were all well off, healthy and happy, and atheists were all poor, sick and miserable, then I expect my subconscious would be able to come up with convincing reasons for me to convert. But I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 4:30:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am an orthodox Catholic, and would find difficulty in agreeing with many of the ideas of Bishop Spong or Matthew Fox who deny so much that is essential to Christian belief. I appreciate that in the hallowed quarters of this debating forum I am unlikely to find many who would favourably agree with my understanding of what Jesus taught and who he was, but I ask your forbearance.

I accept Christ’s teachings of how we should love God, and that we should love our neighbour as ourselves; I do believe that Christ rose from the dead in the resurrection; that he established the institution through the apostles to carry on his teachings.

Unfortunately man being what he is, is a fallible creature, including popes, bishops, priests, and through all levels of society, from kings to paupers, as has been shown through the centuries. The Church as that institution, truly is made up of saints and sinners, it always has been and always will be. Right from the time of the Apostles with their human fragility in their difficulty in living as Christ called them to live, from the betrayal of Judas, the denial of Peter and the doubting of Thomas. It was from the Resurrection that they finally gained understanding of Christ and his message and the courage, to the point of martyrdom to go out preach it
Posted by bagsyl, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 11:22:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2
I do not disparage or disrespect people who genuinely hold other beliefs. I have amongst my friends believers who are other Christians, Buddhists, Moslem, agnostic and atheist. I believe that it is the spiritual nature of man to search for meaning and that this can be seen in the many religious and spiritual movements since man existed. I accept that an ethical ways of living between people can come from other spiritual and philosophical outlooks, indeed the socially applied nature of Christian teaching has drawn inspiration from such as the Greek philosophers. It was from this milieu that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights arose after one of history’s catastrophic conflicts. It certainly owes a lot to Judeo-Christian concepts of man but is also strongly influenced by other religious and philosophical human concepts of how man can live peacefully and fully in this world.

I do not see the alleged conflict that many who call themselves atheists allege exists between Christianity and Science. In fact my own background training was in Chemistry and the social sciences. I enjoy the sciences and for me the more man discovers about the universe and the complexity of the awesome glory of nature, the more I marvel at what I regard as the Intelligence who gave it being. For me I see the ‘finger prints’ of God. From the social sciences, although less precise, one can learn much about the nature of man and society and how it functions, which also can lead to deeper understanding of God and His creation.
Whether believers or non -believers, it would do all of us in the modern world to show a dose of humility. When arrogance reigns in human dealings we have a great tendency to lapse in to authoritarianism and worse still totalitarianism.
Posted by bagsyl, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 11:27:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
part 3
”. On the question of humility the lessons in the lives of truly great people, including the lives of Mother Teresa and a person I was very grateful to have as a friend, Father Joe Devlin of Boat People fame have taught me a lot. Humility (especially before God) and love can cure so many human social pains.

You cannot force people to become Christians (as has been done in the past, often with ethnic and political objectives) – a person must come to understand, believe and accept, and obviously this requires faith in the nature and the teachings of Christ. I might add that a belief in an intelligent and infinite God, from my perspective is more rational than a belief in an infinite matter giving rise to the life and intelligence out of chaos. Faith arises from the search for the meaning of what it is to be human, and that we have purpose over and above our material existence.

The skeptics, the ‘convinced and dogmatic’ atheist amongst you may drag all sorts of arguments against what I have stated as ‘my beliefs’, I just ask you to respect me and others like me, even where you disagree. In turn I will respect you and your right to your beliefs, and to that extent I value what is genuinely secular in our society, not as an ‘ism’ that can be authoritarian or totalitarian, but as a societal platform for society to live peacefully together. Certainly there will and should be debates as social values that arise from this cocktail of beliefs, but there must always be the search for truth.
Posted by bagsyl, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 11:30:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice post, bagsyl.

>>Certainly there will and should be debates as social values that arise from this cocktail of beliefs, but there must always be the search for truth.<<

I personally don't have any issues with searching for truth.

It's the people who claim to have found it that I have a problem with.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 28 July 2011 11:01:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If my article has stirred some thought about your own assumptions, beliefs and world-view -- or about why yours differ from those of others -- then it was worth the effort to write. Thank you once again to all who have been contributing to this discussion.

Philo: I can only agree with you that Christ calls us all to have “the heart of God expressing love and compassion for those injured, oppressed and failing”. I think we should add to that, however, “whatever their colour, creed, nationality, gender or sexuality”.

Bagsyl: Thank you for your articulate and detailed posts. Although you call yourself “an orthodox Catholic” I am sure most of us would find the general thrust of your comments align quite well with our own views. As a “progressive Anglican” I deeply appreciate your emphasis on humility, compassion, and respect for people of different faiths and none, along with the imperative to seek the essence of humanity.

I included references to Spong and Fox in my article knowing that the radical nature of their views and, especially in Spong’s case, the very forthright manner in which they express them, would be very challenging to a lot of Christian readers. I thought this would be the best way to exemplify the nature of the ferment within the global Church today. For those who rely on uninformed assumptions about what the Christian church actually is like, I wanted to give a glimpse of views and directions usually not readily apparent behind the public façade presented by the institutional hierarchies.

Pericles: << I personally don't have any issues with searching for truth. It's the people who claim to have found it that I have a problem with. >> I agree. Every answer is questionable. I need to keep reminding myself of that.
Posted by crabsy, Thursday, 28 July 2011 12:20:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J,
Your life is written in light that is observable in light years that will resound for thousands of years. Is it worth observing as a style?
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 28 July 2011 5:05:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J,
Your life actions are recorded in light and observable forever in light years. It it worth observing as wholesome or ignoring as irrellavent?
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 28 July 2011 5:10:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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