It's the easiest answer here is that it didn't happen?

Obscurantist twaddle. 0/10.

Sells, go and have a look at this interview with Stephen Fry and then come back and tell me that you still believe all that eschatological BS.
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/compass/RN1411H024S00

David

Gee what next? Naturaphy? All the same nonsense.
I will take this opportunity though to whinge about the ABC and it's fawning and facile "respect" for islam. We are getting more experienced and free so despite the ABC we can deride religion and other frauds.

David,
Thank you for the link to the interview with the admirable Steven Fry. I am always interested in the intelligent criticism of Christianity but confused that the opinions so expressed are so lacking in readily available depth. It would be interesting to see an extended conversation with say, Rowan Williams, or John Milbank or Graham Ward, all brilliant English theologians, alive and well and ready to be interviewed.

Fry did not comment on eschatology. Perhaps this is an indication of how shallow his theological position is.

Peter

The only thing supported by factual evidence in this treatise is Newtonian time!
The fact that someone may have said something way back when just a few scribes could read or write; or record or plagiarize something?

Proves nothing, except the Jews were master storytellers and embellishes of written text, so it would fit this or that alleged Prophecy!?

Faith based belief is problematic Peter!

If e.g. you believe a man called Jesus Christ died nailed to a cross as a matter of personal belief, or as a matter of semantics?

Then in order for you to keep that faith based belief, you have to keep open in your mind the possibility of the opposite being true!

Without which, you and all your kind are no better than any other faith based fanatics, who give themselves permission to judge, deny, persecute, pillage and destroy; all in the name of a one true God, who seems powerless toprevent the most terrible things to happen to complete innocents!?

I like iconic history revealing pictures; one of which resides in good company, on the wall as a mural, in the catacombs below the Vatican. (yes I've seen it) And purports to show/reveal a female Pope or the daughter of Peter?

Which may well be one and the same?

So you're expecting the second coming?

Sorry mate, I was just breathing heavily.
Rhrosty.

The problem with all you theologians is that you can't see the evidence when it is staring you in the face. When Jesus was on the cross calling out wondering why God had forsaken him, you lot all come up with some crazy theory that God was letting this happen because he was atoning for the sins of the world. The simpler explanation was that in truth there is no God, end of story. You don't need to look for some BS explanation. Wake up to reality mate.

If your God is so loving and caring, why is he standing by while all the terrible things are happening in the world. Why were so many people slaughtered in WW2 without your God lifting a finger to help them. It was only the kind and generous people who often with little thought for their own safety who went out of their way to help. Don't tell me that God helped.

Last Christmas, the choir to which I belong sang carols at several different services to celebrate the birth of Jesus. We were continually told how this event would bring peace into the world. It went on ad nauseum. We are still waiting for this peace and I am not holding my breath. What a lot of crap.

David

Time and space were independent in the Newtonian view. Special relativity relates the two and makes time dependent on the velocity of the observer. Classical physics can no longer explain all observed physical phenomena. We never did live in the world described by classical physics although in some respects it was quite adequate to describe many phenomena. Modern physics no longer has the Newtonian view of time.

However, the idea that any person existed before he or she was born is absolute rubbish as is the notion of eternal life. The Christian fantasies of an end to history are also rubbish. Human history will end when there are no more humans around to write it or read it. By that time Christianity will have disappeared. Like human beings religions appear and disppear. Manichaeism, Mithraism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and all other religions are the products of human minds and disappear when no human mind takes them seriously. Manichaeism and Mithraism have already disappeared, and Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Shintoism will follow them into oblivion.

//Time was absolute in that it proceeded regardless of events and it had a direction that could not be reversed.//

Rubbish. Newton's Laws are fully time-reversible. Most of the 'Laws' of physics are; neither the special nor the general theory of relativity favours the 'future' over the 'past'. The only physical law which seems to indicate the arrow of time is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But that opens up such a huge can of worms that I don't have the post limit to address it.

//However, the idea that any person existed before he or she was born is absolute rubbish//

No, it depends on your frame of reference. From Jesus' frame of reference - practically speaking, the same frame of reference as anyone else on Earth - it is obviously impossible for Jesus to have lived before he was born or after he died. But for the three-headed emu-people of Omnicroxicon 7 who are a couple of thousand light years away from us, Jesus hasn't even born yet. Any day now their astronomers will be reporting with great excitement a nova that will shine directly on Bethlehem, Earth, to herald the birth of their Great Prophet: Brian.

And for the Evolved Hooloovoos of No Fixed Address, Jesus has been born, died, resurrected, gone on sabbatical, come again, won the battle of Armageddon on penalties, got bored with it all and left for Valhalla with the farewell statement 'By Father these Christians are bunch of miserable, boring old wet-blankets. I'm off to get three-sheets-faced on mead and slay some giants with Thor and the rest of the lads: now there are Gods who know how to have fun.'

On a serious note: I am always interested in a good discussion about the physics/metaphysics of time. I just don't see what it has to do with the life of Jesus.

Always amazes me the hatred directed towards the One that the something from nothing faith deny. They certainly spend a lot of time and energy spitting their venom. Illogical but then again so is their irrational faith.

That is an interesting take on the moral angle, runner.

What is your position on the metaphysics of time?

Runner, it isn't hatred at all. It all about whether what you and other Christians believe is credible. The emotion we feel is sorrow. Sorrow that people like you can be so gullible. You need to look at real history, not just what you read in the bible. You need to realise that what is in the "good book" is a series of stories written by jews to convince their people that they are the chosen ones of God. However when you look at recent history during the second world war, there was no god out there looking after the jews at all. Millions died at the hands of the Germans in concentration camps under the most appaling conditions. That is not what a just and loving father would allow to happen. Get it into your brain man, there is no just and loving father out there, no God, period.

The great majority of posts on this thread assume that I am writing science and they, rightly, ask for evidence, for proof. The minds of these commenters have been taken over by the paradigm of natural science to such an extent that they cannot imagine that there are any other paths to truth and this despite the obvious fact that scientific study cannot deal with questions of beauty, salience, purpose.

I am not writing science. I should know. I have written many a paper published by peer reviewed journals, some to acclaim. I know the rules of evidence and proof and repeatability of results.

Do we complain that Shakespeare lacked evidence for the stories he told and are the great existential passages he wrote wrong because he lacked evidence that they were true. We read them and something connects in us that tells us that they are true. We have no evidence apart from our response.

But such a thing requires imagination, identification, indeed a whole expansion of consciousness that allows us to appreciate literature and art. But no, our geeks insist that everything has to be measured by the criteria of natural science. What a dull, one dimensional world is opened up to us here.

Our trolls are geeks! They are not only obsessed with the awfulness of religion, they lack the imagination that would humanise them.

When I go back and read the comments section it all amounts to the same old guff: where is the proof? I must be writing about chemistry!

Listen: there is another world out there that you have not imagined. Your little world of control and evidence limits your humanity.

"Do we complain that Shakespeare lacked evidence for the stories he told and are the great existential passages he wrote wrong because he lacked evidence that they were true. We read them and something connects in us that tells us that they are true. We have no evidence apart from our response."

"Listen: there is another world out there that you have not imagined. Your little world of control and evidence limits your humanity."

The problem with that argument is simple. How do you decide which particular set of stories you are going to believe, when there are many contradictory stories to choose from? They can't all be true, so how do you decide which is true and which is false, if you reject the very notion of evidence as being determinative in such questions? Why is your story about god's son being nailed to a cross to be preferred over the story of Mohammed, or Krishna, or Quetzacoatl or the Rainbow Serpent?

Dear Sells,

One can get great enjoyment from reading about imaginary worlds. Plato, Shakespeare and other great thinkers and writers have created imaginary worlds that give us great insight into the real world. However, most writers who create imaginary worlds do not maintain that their imaginary worlds exist. You not only claim your imaginary world exists but get impatient with those who point out the obvious. You are not writing a scientific treatise. You are not writing a creative work of imagination. You are writing nonsense.

'Runner, it isn't hatred at all. It all about whether what you and other Christians believe is credible. The emotion we feel is sorrow. '

VK3AUU

don't feel sorry for me. I found mercy from the One you deny. When you are able to misread and misrepresent the God of Israel it is certainly you that needs the pity. Again the hatred you show towards the One you deny is pulpable.

Runner, I don't feel hatred at all. Pity is perhaps a better word. One cannot feel hatred for something (or someone) who does not exist.

Sells, your last post absolutely amazes me that someone with your undoubted intellect can come up with such a lot of drivel. You should be locked away somewhere to keep you from harm. You cannot defend the indefensible.

David

'One cannot feel hatred for something (or someone) who does not exist.'

Oh David you could of fooled me. The amount of time and effort to ridicule something/Someone you don't believe in. You must love discriminating as I never hear such rage about the tooth fairy or father christmas.

JBSH
There is evidence of truth in religious narrative. It is not that applied in a science lab but rather stems from the fact that the narratives are formed by the experience of a people. The truth of such narratives is two-fold. Firstly they are formed around real human beings in history in particular places and times. This does not mean that all that is related of them actually happened, there are varying amounts of theological interpretation. Secondly, some narratives have the ring of truth in that they reveal something about our own situation in this life. For example, if you read the passion narratives, you will see the ironies of the disciples abandonment, the vested interests of the temple authorities, the fear of the Roman overlords. These stories are about us, our abandonment, vested interests, fear. This is the guts of the thing, not belief in supernatural events. These are human stories that infect and inform our lives.

Not all religious narratives have the historical property of the Judeo-Christian. Some lead to disfunctional and cruel cultures, and the societies that are formed around them are evidence of their lack of truth and a subsequent lack of an ability to nurture life and freedom.

So what you are saying Sells is that if believing the moon is made of green cheese makes people lead moral lives, and prevents the development of "cruel and dysfunctional" cultures, then the belief in the cheese-like nature of the earth's satellite is "true" in some sense?

Protest Christian-ism is of course the religion of the spirit-killing left brained word.
William Blake railed against the baneful cultural influence of the single "vision" of Newton's Sleep (left-brained "reason")

A quantun Understanding of the phrase "christ is risen"
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/christ_equals_emsquared.html

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/timeecstasy.html

Not much reference to ECSTASY or Sat-Chit-Ananda in any of the "theological" scribblings of any of the usual suspects or the hot-shot "theologians" that Sells points to. Although David Bentley Hart unsuccessfully tried to account for this primal "trinity".

Therefore, true religion must retire to Light.
The heart must be permitted to achieve a universal felling-ecstasy!

Sells wrote: "Not all religious narratives have the historical property of the Judeo-Christian. Some lead to disfunctional and cruel cultures, and the societies that are formed around them are evidence of their lack of truth and a subsequent lack of an ability to nurture life and freedom."

Thank you for your explanation. The genocide ordered by God described in the Book of Joshua, the Inquisition, the wars of the Reformation, the expulsion from Spain of Muslims and Jews, the Southern Baptist approval of slavery in the US, the mass murders by the Nazis who were supported by almost all Catholic and Protestant German churches were not expressions of cruel cultures. I am enlightened.

I really don't know why I bother with you people.

Dear Sells,

You cannot explain away the cruelties of the culture you espouse. To maintain it is some way superior is to ignore the evidence of the atrocities it is responsible for.

Another reference on the paradoxical nature of quantum Reality, or Reality as Conscious Light.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/EWB/lastwords.html

David f,
Read the history of the 20th century and you will find atrocities that far outweigh those committed in the name of God. How many died under godless communising in Russia and China, how many died in two world wars in the name of the Fatherland? People who live in glass houses really should not throw stones. This kind tit for tat is against your position.

Dear Sells,

You are the who posted, ""Not all religious narratives have the historical property of the Judeo-Christian. Some lead to disfunctional and cruel cultures, and the societies that are formed around them are evidence of their lack of truth and a subsequent lack of an ability to nurture life and freedom."

Your culture is not the only bad one, but it is nothing you should boast about. I pointed out the fact that it has produced disfunction and cruelty. It does not make it good to point out it is not the only bad one. I have not tried to explain away anything. You are the one who has claimed righteousness. I am not the one offering panaceas. I don't have that arrogance.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 contains an article I wrote titled "Why so many corpses?" It explains why the massive communist murders were a direct result of following the ideas in the Manifesto. Both Christianity and Marxism offer a millennium based on following a groundless belief. The view of history is roughly the same. Eden/primitive communism followed by clash of good against evil/class conflict followed by the millennium/classless society. Both Christianity and Marxism are similar Utopian fantasies.

Sells, you have conveniently ignored the facts that Hitler was a Catholic and also that the German motto was "Gott mitt uns".
David

Whoah, whoah, whoah: last time I looked at this discussion we were having a nice friendly chat about metaphysics. I come back not a day later and it's descended to the level of a big-dick contest over whether theism or atheism kills more people.

Can't we all just try to get along and have a nice discussion about time and philosophy

Toni Lavis,

>>it depends on your frame of reference. … who are a couple of thousand light years away from us, Jesus hasn't even born yet.<<

Whatever your understanding of Jesus, it should not infect your understanding of what frames of reference refer to in (special) theory of relativity: time depends on how FAST the two observers move with respect to each other, not on how FAR they are from each other.

And also according to relativity, it's impossible for information to travel faster than c. Our sun is 149.6 Gm away from us so light takes about 8 minutes to get from there to here. Omnicroxicon 7 is a lot further than that, so when they look at Earth - or we look at them - the light has taken thousands of years to get there. For any selected frame of reference, an observer making astronomical observations from that frame will be looking into the 'past'.

And according to Hubble's law, a stellar object's relative velocity away from Earth is directly proportional to its distance from Earth.

I welcome the end of "big dick" arguments about who has killed more people. However I am disturbed that we are now off onto a discussion of relativity. In other words the natural sciences have hijacked the discussion. My article is about eschatological time, the central concept without which neither the New testament of the theology based on it can be understood.

Yes, as I was saying, its relative velocity not distance matters.

Dear Sells,

It was you who started an argument about who killed more people.

I just responded to your post, ""Not all religious narratives have the historical property of the Judeo-Christian. Some lead to disfunctional and cruel cultures, and the societies that are formed around them are evidence of their lack of truth and a subsequent lack of an ability to nurture life and freedom."

I did not argue about who killed more people.I merely contended that from its bloody history Christianity was a cruel and dysfunctional culture not too different from other cruel and dysfunctional cultures.

From Diarmaid MacCulloch's "A History of Christianity"

For most of its existence, Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all competitors, with Judaism a qualified exception, for which (thanks to some thoughts from Augustine of Hippo) it found space to serve its own theological and social purposes.

//In other words the natural sciences have hijacked the discussion.//

Well what did you think was going to happen when you invoked the spectre of Newton? Shot yourself in the foot there, didn't you?

Wikipedia had this to say about eschatology:

//Eschatology is a part of theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity. This concept is commonly referred to as the "end of the world" or "end time".//

There are number of theories about the the end of the world. Some of them are more plausible than others: heat death is a more reasonable theory than John of Patmos's hallucinogen-inspired ravings. The plausible ones that I've read all predict that we've got a few billion years to go before we have to start worrying. It's unlikely that I'll live longer than fourscore more years, which is somewhat less than billions. I'm not particularly worried about something which is going to happen long after my death.

Dear JBSH,

I'm a bit late in this discussion (sorry, no time to visit these days): usually I like Peter's articles, but I cringe from this contamination of religion by science as he did in this article.

<<So what you are saying Sells is that if believing the moon is made of green cheese makes people lead moral lives, and prevents the development of "cruel and dysfunctional" cultures, then the belief in the cheese-like nature of the earth's satellite is "true" in some sense?>>

I can't speak for Peter, but my answer is 'Yes': If such a belief miraculously worked that way, then I would consider it as a religious practice - and "true" in the sense of bringing us closer to God, the only Truth, so if the green cheese of the moon does the trick for you, then I would recommend that belief to all my friends.

<<The problem with that argument is simple. How do you decide which particular set of stories you are going to believe, when there are many contradictory stories to choose from? They can't all be true, so how do you decide which is true and which is false, if you reject the very notion of evidence as being determinative in such questions?>>

How? Just decide, follow your heart, or someone you love and respect, whatever, but for heaven's sake, do jump in! Choose such a set of stories that inspires you to follow God (but if you can't even make sense of it, then select something that would make you a better person and build your character to grow beyond the animal's bodily desires and concerns), whatever, then stick with it, rain or shine and may God bless you so you attain eternal life with Him, in Him, as Him - your true self!

So much anger toward Christianity. Yet anger or criticism of Islam should be silenced. "Progressive" logic.

//So much anger toward Christianity. Yet anger or criticism of Islam should be silenced.//

I've just re-read all the 37 posts in this forum and the only person who has thus far suggested that criticism of Islam be silenced is you, Aristocrat. You're way off topic.

What is your position on the metaphysics of time?

I have just read Augustine's Confessions 11th Book in which he deals with time. A good start on the metaphysics of time but not on theological time. Better is Barth's Church Dogmatics 1.3 sect 14. If we lose God's time we also lose man's time.

Dear Sells,

I have also read Augustine's Confessions. His speculations on time are sublime. He evidently had a great mind. Unfortunately those with great minds can be as neurotic as those with trivial minds. As a teenager he stole pears from an orchard. As a grown man he had a connection of many years which produced a son. He suffered from neurotic guilt due to his teenage dereliction and his love. He got Original Sin adopted as church doctrine thereby transmitting his neurotic guilt to generations of those who came after him. Augustine thought that sex in itself was sinful, and he should embrace celibacy on becoming a Christian. The much more reasonable Pelagius who maintained that humans are born with a clean slate and what they do in life determines what they are was forced into exile.

Pelagius emphasised a natural, innate human ability to attain salvation. That sensible attitude did not go with the ecclesiastical nonsense that asserted that salvation was only possible through belief in mumbojumbo.

There is a Hasidic story that Reb Zosya said, "When I meet the Lord he will not ask me why I was not like Moses. He will ask me why I was not like Zosya."

Pelagius and Reb Zosya had the sensible idea that humans can reach salvation if they are all that they can be. Unfortunately the ideas of the steeped-in-neurotic-guilt Augustine prevailed. One is guilty if one is not perfect, and no human can be perfect.

Dear David,

>>nonsense that asserted that salvation was only possible through belief in mumbojumbo.<<

The word salvation in this context is used in the theological - that you call mumbojumbo - meaning of the word. So it itself should be part of that mumbojumbo. Actually, the whole assertion should be described as mumbojumbo since it makes sense only as a theological statement.

"There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism." (B.B.Warfield)

In http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/pelagiannatural.html it is claimed that “Pelagius saw salvation in purely naturalistic terms - the progress of human nature from sinful behavior to holy behavior, by following the example of Christ (the concept unthinkable without that of God). This to my diletant eyes shows rather that Pelagius was on the Christian side (using Warfield's distinction), and, anyhow, I think the Augustine-Pelagius dichotomy is being now resolved in the post-enlightenment theologies. Peter Selick will certainly know more about it.

>>"When I meet the Lord he will not ask me why I was not like Moses. He will ask me why I was not like Zosya."<<

This resemles the Chistians saying: When we meet the Lord He will not ask me whether I followed your conscience, neither whether you folloed mine, but the other way around.

Yes, Augustine had a problem with sex. He feared the loss of mental control that sexual ecstasy evoked. He was a man of the mind. I have no problem with the idea of original sin, although misnamed. I would be fine if I lived alone on a desert island but as soon as I get into a relationship with anyone I know there is something up with me that is not good.

Dear George,

How can one follow anything other than one’s own conscience? One can ignore one’s conscience, but one can never know what anyone else’s conscience tells them unless one is able to reach into their mind. I regard it as an abdication of responsibility to let anybody else determine what is right or wrong for you.

Warfield had a blinkered view. Like many other believers in a particular religion he lumps together all those who follow another path as heathens. Every religion has its bigots, and Warfield is an example of one to be found in Christianity.

Pelagius was certainly a Christian. I have no problem with agreeing with wisdom whatever the source. Christianity has been subject to many influences. According to MacCulloch’s “A History of Christianity” at one time it was uncertain whether Christianity would follow Marcion, the Gnostics or the bishop of Rome. The history of Christianity encompasses many schisms, disagreements and arbitrary paths.

Dear Sells,

No man is a man of the mind.Our mind is only part of us. Augustine was very much subject to the demands of the flesh. He had the sick idea that it is sinful to heed the promptings of the flesh.

We can only express our humanity in relationships with others. The idea that we can take on the sins of others or that others can take on our sins is inherent in the idea of Original Sin. To me it an ugly, sick idea. It is also found in Judaism.

Leviticus 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. 16:9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Sex is a natural impulse and the context of its expression determines whether it is bad or good.

Dear David,

>>How can one follow anything other than one’s own conscience? <<

By being persuaded or made (e.g. legally enforced) to act according to what conscience dictates to the other, e.g. law enforcer or moralist. Otherwise, what you write is exactly what the saying is supposed to mean. Also, I just quoted from Wikipedia, to point out the distinction, not to endorse Warfield’s terminology. You obviously know more about his views than I.

Toni Lavis "I've just re-read all the 37 posts in this forum and the only person who has thus far suggested that criticism of Islam be silenced is you, Aristocrat. You're way off topic."

My point was that if a Muslim scholar wrote an article similar to this and people disagreed with it with such ferocity, then they'd be called bigots and Islamophobes.

"What is your position on the metaphysics of time?"

The article, while I appreciate its attempt to define time differently, isn't convincing. It appears to conflate a moral perspective (grace given to all as a result of the crucifixion) with time. This is fine, I suppose, as different conceptions of time have appeared regularly throughout history (Hindu, Chinese dynasties), but it's not clear how cause and effect notions of time is eradicated through such a view. Regardless if God/Christ is always present and has given everybody grace, each event can traced to preceding causes. I guess that the author is wanting us to forget such a way of viewing phenomena and imbuing us his moralised version of time.

Dear George,

I only commented on the obvious bigotry in Warfield’s statement that you cited. I was not familiar with his other views. Since then I have looked up more about him.

However, look at his statement. “"There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism." (B.B.Warfield)

Don’t believing members of all non-Christian Abrahamic religions (Muslims, Jews, Bahai’i) believe that salvation comes from God? Are all non-Christians heathens?

Are Buddhists heathens even though they may not believe in God?

It is characteristic of a bigot to lump together all those he denigrates and to think of them as all alike.

Dear Sells,

You have no problem with Original Sin. If law courts found a person guilty for a crime committed by another person that would be a miscarriage of justice. However, in Original Sin all humans are condemned for the supposed sin committed by Adam and Eve. Apparently miscarriages of justice are acceptable if they are part of a religious narrative. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that Adam and Eve are any more than legendary figures who had no real existence. So all humans are born guilty because of some act committed by imaginary entities. That is an ugly idea.

I am a father and saw my oldest son a few minutes after he was born. He was not wrinkled as most newborns are. He was simply beautiful, and I was in awe of his beauty. To think of that beautiful young life as guilty of anything is outrageous.

Dear david f,

As I said, I did not quote Warfield to approve of his terminology. So maybe he should have written “The former is the doctrine of e.g. common Christianity” and not used the word “heathen” which many see as derogatory, although in my dictionary it means simply “a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do.”

Also, I have never heard of (personal) guilt being related to “original sin”, although apparently all sorts of misunderstandings used to arise from that (see e.g. http://taylormarshall.com/2011/07/does-original-sin-guilty-babies.html if you are into such Latin technicalities, that most Catholics nowadays do not care about because they never think of associating original sin with personal guilt). Many young generation Germans still experience the burden of the Nazi “national sin” (often explicitly connected to their grandparents) although nobody accuses them of being personally guilty of that.

Dear George,

Catholic Encyclopaedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

“Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.”

runner maintains that we are all sinners. I have heard that from other Christians. That means humans are sinners whether they actually have sinned. It sounds like group guilt. It sounds like that beautiful baby is also a sinner. I do not recognise the concept of national sin or any sort of group guilt. Young Germans who did not live in the Nazi era are guilty of nothing connected with that era. Adenauer who was a German during that era was also not guilty of the Nazi crimes. However, as head of a successor government he had his government pay reparations even though he personally was not associated with the crime.

The meaning of words is determined by usage. Usage may or may not conform to the dictionary definition. I doubt that heathen in Warfield’s usage was anything complementary. It is quite common for bigoted Christians to refer to non-Christians as heathens or even atheists. I encountered a Christian group when I went to university which talked about bringing God to Muslims as though Muslims were atheists. I have also heard of Jews being referred to as atheists. Unfortunately some Christians conflate being an atheist with not being Christian. This is an old usage of the word, atheist. Early Christians were called atheists by some Romans since they did not believe in the Roman pantheon.

A sin simply means "missing the mark" - aiming above it, below it or to its side. As such, identifying oneself with a body, finite and imperfect, is to miss one's divinity, thus a sin.

Regardless whether Adam existed or otherwise, the punishment for this sin is mentioned in Genesis 3:16-19. Since bodies have to eat and procreate, if one is to identify with them, then one has to suffer their pains of labour (both meanings of the word).

Dear david f,

As said, I agree that Warfield should not have used - and today probably would not use (he died in 1921!) - the politically incorrect (“blasphemous” to secularists?) word “heathen”. And that Sellick probably should not have published here a sermon that only Christians can understand (whether or not they share his views), to whom the symbol of Original Sin is non-controversial, not associated with personal guilt, and “we are all sinners” stands more or less for the secular “nobody is perfect”.

David f,
Of course the figures of Adam and Eve are not historical figures. If that were the case then your criticism would be appropriate. Rather, the second creation story, like the first is a fictional narrative that is designed to express theological truth. It is thus not that the first couple transferred their sin to us but that the narrative tells us something about us and god: that we reach after the things of God (religion) and thus transgress the boundary between the creator and the created.

These narratives are central to Christian theology. They are full of irony and pathos and tell us who we are. We are the creature, that through arrogance have been cast into the world to find our food among thistles and who are destined to death. The mood is existential rather than causal.

Your positivism of history is a barrier to you listening to the text. This is not history, it is legend, saga.

Dear Sells,

You make it sound as though the scriptures were purposely put together to teach us how to live, and they carry lessons for life. Theologians treat them that way. However, in my view the reason there are two creation stories is that scripture contains a patchwork of legends. One creation story has Adam and Eve created together, and the other creation story has Eve made from Adam's rib.

Apparently the second creation story is related to Sumerian legend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve

Ninhursag charged Enki, her lover and half brother, with controlling the wild animals and tending the garden, but Enki became curious about the garden, and his assistant, Adapa, selected seven plants (eight in some version) and offered them to Enki, who ate them. This enraged Ninhursag, and she caused Enki to fall ill. Enki felt pain in his rib, which is a pun in Sumerian, as the word "ti" means both "rib" and "life".

The words for rib and life are different in Hebrew but having Eve made from a rib keeps part of the story.

There is no fixed meaning in these stories but those who find allegories see in them what they want to see. Christian theologians may see the snake as a manifestation of Satan, the tempter. However, Jewish theologians see the snake as tempter but not related to Satan.

I find all this stuff fascinating but see no more reason to give the biblical accounts precedence over Norse, Sumerian, Greek or other legends or scriptures in other religions.

David
Scripture is a patchwork. It's aim is not necessarily to tell us how to live but it is rather a map of the human heart. It is the original form of humanities, it humanises us.

Dear Sells,

Scripture humanises us? Parts of Scripture inculcate hatred and prejudice. The Book of Joshua describes genocide ordered by God. The statement by Jesus in the New Testament claiming that only through him can one enter the Kingdom of Heaven is horrible. It doesn't matter how good a life you have lived or what a decent person you are. Only by subscribing to a certain belief can you enter the kingdom of heaven.

Scripture advocates death as a penalty for a person who violates the sabbath.

It is not possible to live a moral life which to me means being a decent person and acting with consideration to other human beings and also take scripture seriously as a guide to behaviour.

The issue of slavery is perhaps the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced, and the Bible got it wrong.

It's no wonder that it gets other more complex issues such as human sexuality so horrendously wrong too.

The Bible certainly not something that anyone should regard as a benchmark for anything good. And anything good in it can be found in plenty of other places.

Dear Sells,

We find a map of the human heart in many sources. I read scripture and find much good in it in addition to the horrible parts I have cited. Scripture is not the original form of humanities. The Jewish scriptures were not canonised until the first century at Yavne or Jamnia. The different varieties of the Christian tradition have different versions of the New Testament. However, to make the claim that scripture is not the original form of humanities is to ignore Plato, Buddha, Epicurus, Confucius and other minds and their thoughts of those who have considered the human condition. Such a statements indicates a great ignorance of the history of human thought. JWs have come to my door and told me the Bible is the first book written. You display similar ignorance when you state scripture is the original form of humanities.

I am inspired by the life of Spinoza who rejected all what he called narrative religion. I am inspired by Newton, Darwin and Einstein who discovered laws by which nature operates. I find much in mathematics - Gauss, Cantor, Euclid and all the other great minds that developed mathematical relationships. I am inspired by Roger Williams, a colonial American Baptist minister, who supposedly was the first to use the phrase separation of church and state. I am inspired by Sebastian Castellio who protested the execution of Servetus in Calvin's Geneva. "To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man."

To see scripture as somehow privileged over other sources of inspiration is to give stone age legends an inordinate priority.

David,
You insist on moralising the bible. You could equally say that a history of the first half of the 20C promotes mass slaughter and hence dismiss it. King David was an adulterer and a murderer. The genius of Israel was to report the truth even when it showed the famous David in a very bad light. What other regime would do that?

AJPhilips
As for the bible getting slavery wrong and a whole lot of other things, it is not a document of morality but of history, art, legend, song poetry etc. Paul did say "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." This worked its way down the centuries to produce a Christian response that abolished slavery.

I find your comments so biased towards the negative that I wonder about plain old prejudice.

Sells, I am now curious.

If the Bible is not a document of morality, then what is the basis of your morality?

What is the basis of Christian morality, if not the Bible?

Dear Sells,

We see things very differently. I find Paul's statement, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." extremely offensive.

Suppose you want to keep your identity as a Jew, Greek, male or female. As far as being a slave goes Paul advocated accepting that condition and serving your master. Suppose you don't want to be in Christ Jesus.

It really means little that Paul will not discriminate among those who buy the bill of goods he is selling. It is far better to treat all humans with consideration regardless of their identity, to respect their right to that identity and to treat them with kindness and respect even though they disagree with your viewpoint.

It is just another version of the prejudice inherent in Christianity. You're OK if you see things my way. Sells, I prefer to regard you as OK even if you don't see things my way.

Sells,

If you believe that the Bible is not a document on morality, then you would be in disagreement with the majority of Christians. Even conservative atheists think it is and thank it for a moral code that it did nothing to provide us with and often goes against.

I don’t think Paul was condemning slavery there. More mentioning it in passing as if it were a normal, natural thing. In fact, he even tells slaves to obey their masters at another point. In all those pages in the Bible, neither Jesus, nor his Father/himself ever bothered to say something as simple as, “Slavery is wrong.”

But I guess this is beside the point if you don’t think the Bible is a document on morality. I hope more and more Christians start to share this view of yours. The Bible certainly isn’t a place where one would want to look to for moral guidance, and just like this wishy-washy obscurantist, apophatic form of Christianity that some are turning to when losing their faith is not an option, I think it will spell the eventual death of the Abrahamic religions. After all, how often is it that the recovering gambler or alcoholic finds a God that can only be described by what he is not? Not many, that’s for sure. They’re usually swaying their arms, speaking in tongues and denouncing evolution in a happy-clappy Pentecostal church.

As for slavery, Christian churches (especially the Southern Baptists) used the Bible to justify it. Sure, there were Christians who fought against slavery but to suggest that Christianity was the driving force behind the abolition of it is a bit much. This sort of re-writing of history is common among Christian circles. I’m willing to bet that fifty years from now Christians will be crediting the church with the achievement of marriage equality.

There is no doubt that the bible has some moral teaching in it. The ten commandments is an obvious example. But what about the rest? Why do we have all those historical chapters, the psalms, the book of Job and Ruth and the prophets? There is obviously more going on here than a teaching of morality. That attitude is a leftover from a time now far from us: the bible as a book that teaches us how to live. For example the teachings of Jesus is rarely on morality but more on the transformation of the individual and society, not by being better but by the existential death of the individual and subsequent resurrection to a different kind of life. This is why I go on so much about eschatology, we are entering into a different kind of time, the end time is now in the past on Golgotha.

You need some imagination to understand this. It is not reached using the often crippled kind of rationalism that is so about in our time.

David,
Why do you continue to miss the point? The statement by Paul is a statement about equality but not the kind that politics can produce but a radical kind that can only occur "in Christ." Yes you have to die to reach this. But that death leads to life and freedom of a more radical kind that can be imagined by philosophy or politics.

That's rather rude, Mr Sellick.

>>You need some imagination to understand this. It is not reached using the often crippled kind of rationalism that is so about in our time.<<

You are telling us that because we refuse to accept your interpretation of the concept of time, we are deficient in "imagination", and operate a form of "crippled rationalism".

Rather than be impolite in return - which, given the nature of your eschatological leanings would not be at all difficult - I would just point out that abusing those who differ from you in their opinion is more an admission of defeat, than an argument.

//As for the bible getting slavery wrong and a whole lot of other things, it is not a document of morality but of history, art, legend, song poetry etc.//

It is all those things and more, Mr. Sellick. But surely, to an enlightened mind - or at least one that has been illuminated from the right direction - so are the Qu'Ran or the Tao Te Ching or Star Trek or the Discworld novels. I for one have learnt more about history, art, legend, song, poetry and morality etc. from Terry Pratchett's (OBE, PBUH) magnum opus than I have from the Bible. That goes for Star Trek as well.

So why single the Bible out as special from all those other texts which occupy the same spiritual and philosophical niche? What's so good about it that makes it the Good Book and the others just good books (or TV shows as the case may be)? What can it teach me that other, better written, books can't?

Toni,
Because it introduces the historical into human consciousness. The culture of Israel was the only culture that brought humanity to self consciousness and for whom the past and future existed. It was able to do this because it broke with the cycles of nature and projected a future for the nations. The call to Abraham is an instance. This is where our culture got the idea of progress, secularism as it is. In short Israel was the first historical people and without that we would still be living in huts.

//Because it introduces the historical into human consciousness.//

Does it? Herodotus wrote The Histories in about 440 BC, well before anybody had thought about writing the Bible. So either Herodotus had a time machine, or the historical was already a part of human consciousness.

//The culture of Israel was the only culture that brought humanity to self consciousness//

No, self-awareness is a a basic facet of human consciousness and is exhibited by all cultures. Tribes people living in the heart of the Amazon jungle who've never seen a Bible or heard of Israel are self-aware.

//and for whom the past and future existed.//

No, spacetime exists for everybody.

//In short Israel was the first historical people and without that we would still be living in huts.//

No and no. Sumeria and Egypt are considered the first historical people and they pre-date the Israelites by a couple of millennia. And it's really the Romans that we have to thank for getting us out of huts and into houses, far more than any contribution from the Israelites.

Sells wrote:

David,
Why do you continue to miss the point? The statement by Paul is a statement about equality but not the kind that politics can produce but a radical kind that can only occur "in Christ." Yes you have to die to reach this. But that death leads to life and freedom of a more radical kind that can be imagined by philosophy or politics.

Dear Sells,

I did not miss the point at all. You are blind to the bigotry in that statement. l was exchanging emails with a man who wrote: "I would suffer unutterable joy if you came to Christ."

I told him I found his statement objectionable. I did not expect him to change his views to accord with mine, and I thought it unreasonable that he would be happy if I changed my views to accord to his.

It is your view that adopting your superstition leads to life and freedom. It may have been his also. You are entitled to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe. I expect you to remain in the depths of your superstition. However, there is no reason to expect me to adopt it. It remains an obnoxious statement expressive of Christian bigotry.

Herodotus may be called the father of history but he did not engender or belong to a nation with historical consciousness. He found few disciples for his aim to plumb the causes of the conflicts between Greeks and Barbarians in a culture that consulted the Orphic Oracle in all important political matters.

My article on resisting mythological consciousness explains this in detail.

Self awareness is necessarily historical. Otherwise it is limited by involvement in the cycles of nature and of ahistorical mythology. Israel was the only culture to make this break and it did it as far back as 600BCE.

Sumer and Egypt were not historically conscious in the way that Israel was. Where are their histories, where is their contemplation of the past and their projection to the future? They were just as caught in timeless myth as all of the other nature cultures. These cultures, including that of Greece, have been dead for thousands of years, witness to their failure to deal with time, particularly in their attitude to how the past feeds into the future.

Israel is still a nation, there are still observant Jews and Christians, witness to their ability to deal adequately with time. The consistent bias in this thread against anything to do with Christianity amounts to cultural self hatred since most of the cultural achievements of the West are linked to Christianity.

Sells wrote: The consistent bias in this thread against anything to do with Christianity amounts to cultural self hatred since most of the cultural achievements of the West are linked to Christianity.

Dear Sells,

It is absolute nonsense that most of the cultural achievements of the West are linked to Christianity. The advent of the Dark Ages was marked by the murder of Hypatia, a philosopher, scientist, mathematician and teacher, by a Christian mob. With the Enlightenment and the questioning of religion Europe emerged from the Dark Ages. We are still living on the cultural achievements in Greece and Rome before the Roman Empire adopted Christianity. The Renaissance was characterised by a re-examination of the pre-Christian classic culture. The Dark Ages were marked by the dominance of Christianity.

Christianity is not entirely evil but there is much evil in its opposition to science and culture. The adoption of Christianity by Rome was marked by the destruction of pagan temples and art by Christians. The Reformation was marked by the destruction of Catholic statues, architecture and paintings by Protestant mobs. Catholic Rome burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600. Bruno speculated that there were other solar systems than earth. Protestant Geneva under Calvin burned Michael Servetus at the stake in 1553. Servetus discovered pulmonary circulation.

The cultural and scientific progress of Europe since the Enlightenment has been characterised by the emergence from repressive Christianity.

Christian apologists rewrite history to claim that Christianity fostered what it actually destroyed.

Hmm, let me see. The development of art in the West beginning with Giotto was Church art and that continued apace especially in Holland, Italy. All the great renaissance artists worked for the Church.

The music of Byrd and Tallis and J.S Bach music for the church, the development of polyphony, we could go on.

The major composers wrote Masses, Mozart, Beethoven etc.

The Italian language was formed by the work of Dante, the German by Luther.

All the early European philosophers were Christian, Augustine, Aquinas, Bacon, Malebranche, even Locke in his strange way and Hobbes in his own strange way.

The culture of Europe was essentially Christian, who can doubt that?

Among writers Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Shakespeare: on and on a Christian influence.

Even natural philosophy (now called erroneously “science”) had its basis on the Christian tradition and the nominalist push that did away with universals so that individual things could be investigated.

David, your argument is selective and demonstrates the consistent and erroneous bias against Christianity that can only be called prejudice

When a flower blossoms from a cowpat, I guess the cowpat was in some way partially responsible.

However, flowers can also bloom without cowpats.

You can marvel at the flower and celebrate the cowpat, but I don't.

You may think that's bigotry, but then I did grow up in a christian tradition.

Dear Sells,

I have not denied that the culture of Europe is essentially Christian. I think Europe has suffered because its culture is essentially Christian. I have not denied that great art has been produced under Christianity. What I have denied is your claim that European art and culture stem from Christianity. That claim denies the tremendous influence of the pre-Christian classical age. That claim denies the consistent hostility to science displayed by the church. That claim denies the fact that the Christian dominant Dark Ages largely put a stop to cultural and scientific progress. That claim denies the fact that the Renaissance was sparked by a return to Europe's pre-Christian cultural roots. That claim denies the fact that the Enlightenment which caused the resumption of the cultural and scientific progress slowed by the Dark Ages was characterised by a challenge to Christianity.

I contend that the cultural progress of Europe would have much been greater had the Roman Empire not adopted Christianity as its official religion. I have admitted that there is good in Christianity, but I contend that its evil outweighs the good. Faith in unprovable propositions is an enemy to reason.

I think you are a good man taken prisoner by religion which has caused you to be an apologist for the unjustifiable.

Dear Sells,

Christian culture has produced the towering figures of Bach and Michelangelo along with many others. Does that outweigh the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Wars of the Reformation, the Holocaust which centuries of Christian hatred made possible, the opposition to science which Christian authorities felt challenged church dogma, the extirpation of indigenous cultures along with the people who formed those cultures, the massacres, the expulsions and the other manifestations of Christian intolerance?

We have different opinions in that area.

David ,
I think your rabid hatred of the Church has obscured your vision.

Dear Sells,

I don't think I have a rabid hatred of the church. I think you prefer to call someone else a hater rather than consider what they said. It is apparently easier to call names. I have said nothing that isn't true. You prefer to ignore it and call me a hater.

It is easier to be self-righteous. Jesus advised one to examine the beam in their own eye rather than the mote in their neighbours. It is easier to call another person names than to do that. I thought you were better than that.

Dear Sells,

The Inquisition, the Wars of the Reformation, the Crusades and the Holocaust all happened. They are not my imagination. In the foregoing Christianity played a determinant or prominent role. If you want to take credit for Christianity's contributions to civilisation you must also take blame for the Inquisition, the Wars of the Reformation, the Crusades and the Holocaust. It is not rabid hatred to recognise that. It is being fair.

Sells, there are many of us out there in the real world who have grown up in the Christian tradition, but we have taken off our rose coloured glasses and seen the many fallacies that we had thrust upon us as children. As a grown man with some considerable intellect you need to do the same.
As an aside, I wonder what your take is on the recent discovery of humanoid remains in Africa. Those who assert that god made man in his own image may have to rethink that proposition. If He did, then it is apparent that He had a few tries before He got it right. Eg, The latest find and Neanderthals and a few others to boot.

David

Dear Peter,

Rather than be angry with me for pointing out the horrors caused by and associated with Christianity you might ask yourself what there is in Christianity that produced the horrors.

I can assure you that I have read enough church history not to see with rose tinted glasses. The church has been used by evil men. That does not mean that its essence is evil or anti-life. My problem with anti-Christian posts on this thread is that there is an unwillingness to look deeper at what the church is. At its heart is the gentle Galilean. To despise Christianity because of what evil men have done in its name is shallow. All history requires interpretation. If that interpretation does not look deeper than the superficial events then we continue to miss the point. Worse, it is prejudice.

It is like the Liberal party crumbling about Labour's dept and deficit while brushing over the fact of the GFC. Propaganda insists on recognising some things and ignoring others so that our position is established.

Hence anti-Christian writers ignore the birth of Western Civilisation in the destruction of paganism brought about by the Church. If we would go back to paganism we would have to make most of our population into non-humans. That would include all women, servants, workers, children and slaves. It was Christianity that broke this whole tradition of natural inequality and produced the individual and the view of the equalitarian society. Should we go back to that?

If not, where else could we derived the society that we are now proud of?

The problem is that Christianity took up all of the space leaving nothing outside of itself. Now, with its withdrawal, it leaves a vacuum in which people believe in nothing i.e.. in nihilism. All is about individual choice and we can see where that is leading.

//The problem is that Christianity took up all of the space leaving nothing outside of itself. Now, with its withdrawal, it leaves a vacuum in which people believe in nothing i.e.. in nihilism//

Because those are your choices: Christianity or nothing. Hinduism and Buddhism and pantheism et. al. have nothing to teach us because there is only Christianity or nothing.

Sells, the notion that meaning can only be found within Christianity is parochial to the point of solipsism. Christianity does not have some sort of monopoly on truth and enlightenment, and I don't see that it is any better guide to living a good life than other great religious and philosophical works.

I am serious. No one on this thread offers an alternative. Nihilism is not doing us much good. But what else is there? Rationalism cannot simply spin meaning out of thin air. The constructions of modernity are paper thin like the language of human rights. Please direct me to a system of thought that will carry the day!

The problem with Christianity is not that evil men have perverted the message of Jesus. To be a Christian one is required to believe in a series of propositions.

1. There is a God.

2. This God is all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful.

3. In spite of being all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful this God needs a sidekick like Batman needs Robin.

4. The sidekick is produced by a human female impregnated by a spirit in much the same way Zeus impregnated a number of ancient women.

None of the above has any relation to reality, but Christians are required to believe the above nonsense is true along with other nonsense. Not only are the assertions unprovable, but Christians are required to impose them on others. Thus, others are regarded as infidels that Christians have a right to either convert or bring under subjection. Christianity as MacCullough in "A History of Christianity" contends is therefore the most intolerant of religions. Christian notables such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have endorsed his book. Believing Marxists maintain that the revolution was subverted by the evil Stalin. It is similar to your contention that the message of Jesus was valid, but all the atrocities were the work of evil men.

As Toni Lavis pointed out there were many alternatives. There were many alternatives even in Christianity - the Ebionites, the Docetists, the Arians and others. It didn't matter which version eventually triumphed because basically they all rested on nonsense.

Any authoritarian system which contends that it has the only truth and this truth is not subject to verification has the potential for atrocity. Christianity has not been subverted by evil men any more than Marxism has been. The evil men are a product of Christian belief.

Opposed to authoritarian systems such as Christianity or Marxism is democracy. Democracy recognises that evil men may take power so checks and balances are necessary. These checks and balances assume that the ideas and acts of those in power can be challenged by discussion, the vote and other means. Such checks and balances are lacking in Christianity and Marxism.

Dear Peter,

<<No one on this thread offers an alternative... Please direct me to a system of thought that will carry the day!>>

I do offer an alternative, a system of thought that will carry the day.

I have nothing against Christianity, which I consider a valid path to God, but as per your request, may I direct you to the Vedanta system of thought, aiming to unite us with God and heal our every pain of feeling limited, impure and separate from Him.

http://vedanta.org/vedanta-overview

Sells (and others),

Aren’t you confusing Christianity with Christendom?

“Ye are the salt of the earth …” (Mt 5:13). Many meals become tasteless without salt but no meal should have salt as its main ingredient.

Although I do not like conclusions drawn from “what if”s in contemplating history, perhaps it is indeed a pity that Constantine, the founder of Christendom, did not differently interpret his dream.

Dear George,

Christianity is a belief system that has brought comfort and meaning to many. With that I have absolutely no argument.

However, if there is not separation of religion and state Christianity has a tendency to become Christendom.

In Weimar Germany there were several forces. One force were those who supported democracy and the Weimar Republic. Another force were the communists who wanted to convert Germany into a soviet. Another force was the Nazis who put themselves forward as a bulwark against Bolshevism. The German people in general regarded the Weimar Republic as something that had been foisted on them. To some extent that was true. Many Germans saw Hitler as a saviour who would save them from decadent democracy and godless Bolshevism. "The Crisis of German Ideology" is one source which tells part of the story. In general Christian churches supported Hitler as he was regarded by many as one who could rescue Germany from godless Bolshevism and decadent democracy. Nazism with its faith in a peerless leader and its authoritarian character had a great appeal to many German people and both the Protestant and Catholic churches. Germany had a tradition of merging church and state. The Kaiser was the head of the German Lutheran church. Martin Luther became a vitriolic Jew hater when Jews refused to join in his new religion. The Nazis printed Luther's hate diatribes in their newspaper. This supported Hitler's prejudices along with the prejudice in much of the German people. The Nazis signed a Concordant with the Vatican which saw Hitler as a bulwark against Bolshevism.

There is a vastly different Germany today. Apparently most Germans now accept democracy. However, without an acceptance of democracy and separation of religion and state Christianity has a tendency to become Christendom.

//Rationalism cannot simply spin meaning out of thin air.//

Perhaps not, but neither can Christianity. That doesn't stop millions of Christians doing exactly that.

//Please direct me to a system of thought that will carry the day!//

Zoroastrianism. I'm not Zoroastrian but it seems as good an answer as Christianity. Especially considering that Christianity plagiarised half their ideas anyway.

To be quite honest, Sells, the most enlightening text on the meaning of life that I've read is The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which teaches us that the meaning of life is the number 42. But in H2G2 it isn't the answer that's important, you see: it's the question.

I perceive a valuable allegory tucked away there in all the humour: it is the process of seeking meaning and answers that it is the important thing. Picking up a Good Book which purports to have all the answers written down in it discourages people from asking questions and seeking meaning and answers for themselves, and thus hinders their development as a person.

Dear david f,

>>Christianity has a tendency to become Christendom<<

I think Christianity cannot “become Christendom” any more than mathematics can become natural science. In both cases, the latter cannot exist without the former but the former can exist without the latter. In both cases the former cannot “become” the latter but it can be “implanted” into an external world (including or not the human factor) whose “workings” it can then try to represent.

Dear George,

I was trying to use your terminology which was wrong of me. One definition of Christendom is the part of the world in which Christianity is the most prominent religion. I will leave it at that. China contains Christians but is not part of Christendom.

I think we agree on the value of the separation of religion and state and the desirability of democracy.

Toni,
Now you are just being silly. We live in a time in which all religion has been removed from us as an option. I know that your suggestion was not serious but it betrays a reality: we are a post religious people. It is now impossible to simply take up a religion because being "religious" has been deconstructed and now means nothing.

The vacuum that opens from the demise of religion leaves us stranded in the untutored, unhistorical self that does not even know what is good to desire. This is what I mean that we all now believe in nothing i.e. not that there is an absence of belief in anything but that we believe that "nothing" is the answer. We think that this sets us free to be whatever we want, even to re-invent ourselves but it is a kind of hell.

You should stop parodying things like the bible. Only fundamentalists treat it as an instruction manual.

Yes, Douglas Adams gave us a brilliant satirical view of where we are and a brilliant satire on the search for "meaning". It is not, after all a search for meaning but a search for the substantial and deep self.

Dear Peter,

<<We live in a time in which all religion has been removed from us as an option.>>

What nonsense - nobody is denying us the option to practice religion, not in Australia anyway, where in fact it is unconstitutional!

When you claim "we are a post religious people" you might be speaking of yourself but you have no right to speak on my behalf and on behalf of so many others who remain faithful to God.

<<It is now impossible to simply take up a religion because being "religious" has been deconstructed and now means nothing.>>

Nothing stops any of us from taking up religion: being religious has nothing to do with what others think of you!

<<The vacuum that opens from the demise of religion>>

Religion is alive as ever and is even better off without the shackles of involvement with authorities.

Yuyutsu,
Methinks you misunderstand me. I am not saying that religion is not allowed, I am saying that for most of us, any act of attaching ourselves to religious belief is increasingly impossible. Being post-religious we tend to see through all religions. That is why I have such a hard time of it on this thread. However, Christianity is not something we choose on its merits or in the belief that it will do us good or to fit in. We are addressed by a Word of grace and when we hear it we have no choice.

Christianity itself is a polemic against "religion". This is obvious in the OT. It is renewed in the NT in which it is the religious people who demand Christ be crucified. Thus the cross is the end of all religion. Religion, that which binds is displaced by faith that lives by grace.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for clarifying:

<<I am saying that for most of us, any act of attaching ourselves to religious belief is increasingly impossible.>>

Well, "impossible" is an exaggeration, but I can agree with "difficult" - and that is why I appreciate the work of people like yourself in repudiating religious literalism that mixes up religion with science thus unnecessarily brings them to clash.

Science is for answering material questions for those with material goals, while religion answers spiritual questions for those with spiritual goals. Science for example asks "what exists?" where religion would ask "what is good?", thus there is no need for a clash between them and for the difficulties that arise from it. Once understanding this difference, one need not become "post-religious" only because they happened to be exposed to science.

<<Christianity itself is a polemic against "religion".>>

Now you confuse me: you are a Christian deacon whose calling is to help bringing your flock closer to God, which is what religion is all about, yet you claim to oppose religion?

<<it is the religious people who demand Christ be crucified.>>

But what makes you "buy" their false claims to being religious? Is it perchance their long beards? Those priests and Rabbis who murdered Christ were anything but religious - they were corrupt hypocrites, seeking power and money and the most likely reason they killed Jesus was his overturning the tables of the money-changers in the temple, making them lose their commission.

<<Religion, that which binds is displaced by faith that lives by grace.>>

Religion is there to bind us to God, so such practices which fail to do so, are merely pretence and do not belong in religion. Such practices perhaps bind people to other things, such as their nation, their king or their priesthood, but that never had anything to do with religion in the first place.

Both ritual and faith have their respected place as religious practices. Obviously different religious practices are more suitable to prescribe for different people of different temperament and in different stages of their spiritual journey.

Dear Peter,

I do not accept any religion or philosophy that depends on faith. That requires that you agree to something because other people believe in it. I cannot be sure that I am right in what I think, but I will do the best I can. If my opinion can be shown to be wrong I will change my opinion.

If your faith promotes or is associated with atrocity it requires additional faith to attribute the atrocity to evil men. It is not reasonable to think that one who points the atrocities is a rabid hater. Please examine yourself.

Ah, David you are a true son of the Enlightenment. That may not be a bad thing. However it does tend to blind you to certain things that defy rationality. That does not necessarily mean that they are irrational but that they appeal to something els.