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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The spirit of preaching > Comments

The spirit of preaching : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 16/3/2016

When the Old Testament prophet begins or ends his prophesy with the words 'Thus says the Lord' he knows that the words he speaks are not his words

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
The OT shifts terminology for a single figure between man, lord, angel, and Lord --eg. Zechariah 1

7 ... the word of the Lord came to Zechari′ah the son of Berechi′ah, son of Iddo, the prophet; and Zechari′ah said, 8 “I saw in the night, and behold, a man riding upon a red horse! He was standing among the myrtle trees in the glen; and behind him were red, sorrel, and white horses. 9 Then I said, ‘What are these, my lord?’ The angel who talked with me said to me, ‘I will show you what they are.’ 10 So the man who was standing among the myrtle trees answered, ‘These are they whom the Lord has sent to patrol the earth.’

and Zechariah 2 -

1 And I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, a man with a measuring line in his hand! 2 Then I said, “Where are you going?” And he said to me, “To measure Jerusalem, to see what is its breadth and what is its length.” 3 And behold, the angel who talked with me came forward, and another angel came forward to meet him, 4 and said to him, “Run, say to that young man, ..."

etc
.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 9:03:00 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
The musings of the brainwashed? This highly dubious article is based on an entirely unproven and unprovable premise and as applicable to the new testament, from hearsay words only written or appearing in patently plagiarized print some 350-500 years after the event?

And given energy can never ever be created or destroyed, merely transformed; and given we are all the Sons and Daughters of the unified field of energy that is the universe, so saith the Lord.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 9:05:03 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
Peter, I wish you would address the big issue...how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Posted by Cobber the hound, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 9:54:50 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
you certainly have a very different view to the apostle Paul. He called for all men to repent and turn to Christ. You Peter just leave me mystified.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 10:04:09 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
When any sentence uses the words "and so sayeth the Lord" we know it is a lie, because no one has actually heard any God speak.
Humans made up gods, just as they made up the bible stories and other religious books.
To me, 'preachers' are just good actors who enjoy the attention of a crowd.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 10:13:17 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
Thank you Peter,

I think I understand the message of this article.
But in order to get it, I had to dig it through the Christian layer,
which not everyone is familiar or agrees with.

So let me briefly rephrase the article in a language that does not rely on Christian concepts:

1. What exists or doesn't exist is a material question - which should therefore be left for science and should not concern religion.
2. Instead, religion is concerned with the question "What is good" (which for the theological-minded is equivalent to the question "Which way leads to God").
3. Preaching remind people of their resolve to do good and strengthens that resolve of theirs.
4. When preaching is done with the right intention of serving God, coming deep from within the preacher's pure heart without being obstructed or hijacked by the preacher's ego and desires, it can be considered the "word of God".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 11:50:07 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
Everything,and all of our experiences are a modification of Consciousness. Consciousness is our only experience.
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/consciousness-experience

There is no separate self:
http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm
The presumed separate self is a dark golem, and everything that is says and does is an extension of its golem-like characteristics, and reinforces its dark golem-like characteristics (despite or contrary to its best lets-pretend intentions)
http://www.dabase.org/hardware.htm

How does one therefore transcend ones dark golem-like characteristics.
These two references describe the necessary process:
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-3.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-4-4.htm
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 12:35:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Peter

Thanks for this, I think you have nailed the most common types of bad preaching well. I have also been fortunate enough to hear some truly excellent preachers, whose words I still remember well.

I don’t share your fondness for the more complex theological works of Karl Barth, but he was an exceptional preacher. Preparing some notes for holy week I came across this sermon he preached at Basle prison.

http://postbarthian.com/2015/04/29/criminals-karl-barth-sermon-basel-prisoners/

that would get his listeners’ attention
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 3:00:27 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
The only fact established by the author is that some people, in the 21st century, still believe in a Bronze Age Semitic sky god, who appears to be a total bastard

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/01/stephen-fry-god-evil-maniac-irish-tv

Ah the insoluble problem of theodicy.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 3:17:34 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
Rhine,
That is a remarkable sermon! Barth only preached in the prison at Basel while he was there. He was, par excellence, the theologian of the Word of God. It intrigues me that you are not interested in his theology.
Pete
Posted by Sells, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 5:16:30 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 done, Peter! Now all you have to do is explain how something that doesn't exist can speak, and you've nailed it.

Your articles have been getting more rational over time. This one seems like a retreat to obscurantism and zealotry. Have you been reprimanded by your superiors? Or should we be concerned about the balance of your mind?
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 17 March 2016 6:07:24 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
Hi Peter

I am interested in Barth’s theology, but I struggle with it, both for its complexity and its uncompromising hostility to many other important stands of theology, including natural theology. But that same unflinching willingness to follow his own theological reasoning to its conclusion, however unexpected, is what makes his sermons so arresting.

He was undoubtedly a giant of 20th century theology, though, and on balance I think a positive influence, in particular for dissecting liberal theology (especially its tendency to align with dominant political ideologies), and for his work opposing the German Church and Nazism.

He’s a bit like Kant in philosophy – impossible to ignore, and hugely influential, but hard to love.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 17 March 2016 1:57:39 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
Rhian,
Barth was certainly uncompromising. It is sad to see that most of his friends fell away from him as the years went by. I think that his main contribution was to base theology almost exclusively on Christology in his theology of the Word. This was bound to distance natural theology. His opposition to natural theology was political, he objected to the Nazis' insistence on "Blood and soil" as being antithetical to any consideration of Christian witness.

I have not found Barth hard to love. Have you looked at "Fragments Grave and Gay"? It is of course impossible to read the dogmatics from beginning to end. Dipping into them, though is rewarding and illustrates his theological method. There are many Books about Barth's theology that can give you a clearer idea. I have in mind books by Bush and Goring.

I read a lot of theology but Barth is for me the watershed. He stands as a giant in the 20th century that cannot really be ignored.

BTW.
Some of my commentators complain that there is no evidence for what I write. They clearly compare my writing to writing in the natural sciences for which a kind of evidence is necessary. But discourse in the arts is quite seperate from the logic of natural science. Theology is not irrational, it just relies on a different kind of rationality. It is a typical case of these people living totally under the regime initiated by the Enlightenment to the exclusion of any other discipline. This represents a great impoverishment of thought for our time.
Posted by Sells, Friday, 18 March 2016 12:54:13 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
Peter, you can't simply claim that your arguments make sense, you have to SHOW they make sense. That's the point of putting them forward in the first place. To claim that your arguments don't need to make sense because they appeal to a 'different kind' of reason -- well, that way madness lies. Do you wonder that I am concerned for your sanity?

Show us that this 'different kind' of reason exists and can produce results, and that your methods give you access to it, and you will have a case. Otherwise you might as well apply to join this select group and be done with it:

http://brainz.org/13-craziest-crackpot-internet-sites/
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 19 March 2016 8:54:13 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
Dear Jon,

Talking about insanity, isn't it insane and what possible sense does it make to base one's actions on a system of reasoning which itself predicts that those actions will produce no results?

Science tells us that whatever exists will one day disintegrate, that whatever is born will one day die, that whatever experiences we collect will one day be forgotten, both by ourselves and by all others.

So basing one's life on scientific evidence and reasoning is certainly mad, whereas using different systems of reasoning that do not predict an inevitable total-loss, at least provide a CHANCE of achieving lasting results.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 19 March 2016 8:54:39 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
Yuyutsu, are you saying that it's sensible to pretend our actions have some long-term results, in order to make ourselves feel better? Because that may be true; but for those of us with a firm grasp on reality, it's simply not possible to pretend in this way. Luckily we don't have to, because we are free to do things that pay off now, for ourselves, for our loved ones and for humanity in general. I have, with luck, another twenty-five years to live; and my energies are fully occupied with doing things that will make those twenty-five years as happy and productive as possible.

I have no time to waste on pointless thoughts about what I would do if some unimaginable part of me -- for which there is no evidence -- lived forever.
Posted by Jon J, Sunday, 20 March 2016 6:19:00 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
Dear Jon,

Well it seems that you do have time to waste on something that you know for certain that is futile.

Within an infinitesimal speck of eternity, your pleasures will be forgotten and both your loved ones and humanity in general, will all be gone.

Pretending that your actions have some long-term results, in order to make yourself feel better?

You are free to pursue this lifestyle, but don't call it is sane or rational, further discarding other options as insane or irrational.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 20 March 2016 8:24:30 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
Jon J,
By a different kind of rationality I mean a rationality that runs not on a=b, or z is the cause of y, but on analogy, metaphors, paradox, drama, poetry, song and legend. This is not unusual in the arts. All novels use this rationality, all literary criticism. Of course it is not "true" in the sense of the natural sciences but it is "true" according for our feel of ourselves and others and the world.
My protest is that epistemology has become captive by the scientific method. But the scientific method does not give us absolute truth. It is always a hypothesis and often does not give us any idea of mechanism. In other words we as a civilisation are becoming obsessed by what are called facts, mesmerised by the idea that we can know something without error or change. This is a kind of epistemological idolatry, a concern to possess right knowledge.

This leaves us in a very sterile world, a world that has been dominated by scientism. Your insistence on scientific rationality in all things would eliminate all of what we require to be human.

Logical positivism was a dead end. Descartes' promise that we would be able, using rationality, to have clear and distinct ideas turned out to be just plain wrong. His physics was fanciful.
Posted by Sells, Sunday, 20 March 2016 9:51:44 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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