Materialism and self interest wins the contest for hearts, and science offers the excuse.

The State panders to those personal priorities with an electoral system designed to maintain wealth and wellbeing.

The Church moved sideways to accomodate personal preferences, and became an NGO in welfare services for profit.

The Church is dead, not God I’d suggest!

Dan.

There are so many big issues, not least environment, over-population, violence, inequality. But "traditional churches" are hugely identified with undermining women, gay and trans, abortion, assisted dying, and same-sex marriage.

With that spiteful agenda, no wonder they're "dying". They're just another right-wing party, but they lack the courage to run their own candidates. Instead, they scurry across party lines, to the parliamentary prayer room.

At least we turfed Morrison - Howard's direct political protege. I hope we'll never have a "devout" PM again. They simply cause far too much damage.

All good things...........

Perhaps many people do not need supernatural crutches but feel that such belief is a manifestation of a pre-scientific age. Prescriptive ideologies such as Marxism which incorporate a quasi-religious view of history may also join religion on the dustbin of discarded revelations. Perhaps many humans will continue living in a pre-scientific world and the crutches of religion and ideology will survive. Perhaps our potential to eliminate our species will be realised, and we will become extinct as other species have done

Old news. Organised Christianity and its bureaucrats lurched left long ago. Just like conservative politicians thinking that they can attract lefties, they have been rejected by their base. Christian beliefs are now a private matter, as they should be.

Historically, churches were a meeting place for all sorts of people, whether or not they were truly interested in God. Apart from their spiritual mission, churches also had social functions, even national functions, and now those functions were taken over by different institutions (including also the "happy clappy churches").

Nothing to cry about because the number of people seeking God has never dwindled.

---

Dear David F.,

«Perhaps many humans will continue living in a pre-scientific world»

There never was a "pre-scientific world" because people always aspired to know, people always researched. All that changed in the last centuries was that people in general became more materialistic, thus placed their hopes and aspirations in the material world and therefore turned their attention more to material science and less to spiritual science, that's all.

Words spoken 2,000 years ago and nothing since! And those words significantly revised, edited until there is no semblance between the earliest version of the bible and that in agreed use today.

Moreover, there seems to have been many words put in the mouth of JC to suit this or that version of Christianity and to confer authority that didn't ever exist.

As for belief in God, one only need look at a night sky with more stars in the heavens than there are grains of sand in all the beaches of the world! To believe in intelligent design, or if you will, a Creator!

That the universe and all we can perceive of it, is just energy vibrating a tad below the speed of light to become atoms separated by vast atomic distance that make up the molecules that is all matter both animate and inanimate! And that you and I are an integral part of that unified field of energy!

Simply put, Churches didn't create nor own God nor speak for him/her/it or the irrefutable truth!

And one does not need to belong to any organized religion to believe in God or to be a good and caring human! In fact the very opposite may be true? And also to avoid persecuting difference!

To believe based on faith based belief alone, one is obliged to hold open in the mind, the possibility that the opposite could also be true!
Alan B.

Thank you Everald for a thought-provoking piece. I’m an Anglican and we’re very much in the same boat, and I suspect for the same reasons you identify.

Though it doesn’t affect the substance of your argument you might want to correct one error in your piece and the headline. The census did not find that 44% of Australians believe in God, but that 44% identified themselves as Christian. Almost 40% identified as “no religion” with the remainder either not answering the question or identifying as other religions - Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/cultural-diversity-census/2021/Census%20article%20-%20Religious%20affiliation%20in%20Australia.xlsx

I’m sure many Muslims, Hindus, Jews and others would be quite offended at being categorised as not believing in God.

It is interesting too that after self-identifying Christians (44%) and non-believers (39%) the next largest category was “not stated” (7%). So a lot of people perhaps either don’t identify with any of the religious labels in the census, or don’t think their beliefs are any of the government’s business.

This essay and the book in which it is featured describes how conventional old-time institutional religiosity is now essentially obsolete

http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/chap_1_the_new_reformation.html

This essay describes the change in our understanding that occurred during and after the European Renaissance. Elsewhere the author points out that this radical change began several hundred years before the Renaissance.
http://www.daplastique.com/essay/the-maze-of-ecstasy

This profound essay also describes the world-views (paradigms) promoted by the pre-Renaissance "catholic" church, the Renaissance, and the now-time hunter-gatherer-behavior of the "22nd century"
http://www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm

And yes prior to the Renaissance the people altogether "lived" in a different kind of mind to us moderns. The collective right-brained essentially magical dream mind, as distinct from the left-brained power-and-control-seeking mind of scientific materialism.

Thank you Rhian for your prompt comment: I am a Hindu and do not consider my beliefs to be any of the government’s business.

Moreover, I heard that the numbers for this question are being used by government to proportionally subsidise "religious institutions". I used quotes because I don't think that any institution can receive state funding yet remain religious! Had there been a religion that I wanted to corrupt, then I could [falsely] nominate that religion on my census response. I wonder how many of those who responded to that "religion" question did so truthfully...

The truth, is there a god, or no good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqRNXZnsusA

Dear Yuyutsu,

The term, spiritual science, is nonsense.

Dear Yuyutsu

Thanks for your response. I saw in a different thread that you had said you did not respond to this census question, which piqued my interest in how many other people did not complete this question. It’s a lot!

I’m not sure that government does directly subsidise religious organisations. There were some religious organisations that did unjustifiably well out of jobkeeper, but that was a design flaw that benefitted other employers as well. And, there are some activities of religious organisations that are government funded or subsidised. But these tend to be charitable, educational or social services in which religious organisations are treated no differently to other not-for-profit (and sometimes for-profit) providers e.g. aged care, social housing, schools etc. I think there is a case against government subsidies for some of these activities (school chaplaincies would be on my list), and also a case that organisations receiving government funding should not be exempt from e.g. anti-discrimination laws.

I would agree though that government shouldn’t offer – and religious organisations should not accept – subsidies for everyday worship and similar activities.

The richest church in 'The Shire';

Scott Morrison’s church receives $110,000 government grant. The money headed for the PM's church will help pay for security cameras, video intercoms and a security guard. Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced his government had allocated $55 million to community grants to upgrade security at places of worship around Australia. So we noted with interest the recipient of one such grant recently was Morrison’s own church, Horizon.

Dear Paul1405

As I understand it that was part of the Safer Communities Fund which was available to not-for-profit community organisations to improve security at their buildings. Eligibility was expanded to include places of worship after the Christchurch massacre.

State, federal and local governments all provide grants and concessions to community organisations for lots of reasons, some of which are questionable as we saw in the run-up to the last election, but most of which are well-meaning. I don’t think religious organisations should receive any more or less favourable treatment under these grants than other community organisations.

Everald,

<<Census 2022 now reveals that the Uniting Church (UC) has only 670,000 members.This means that the death of the Church is about a decade away. . . . This means that 1.8 million members have been lost over a period of half a century even though the population of Australia increased by more than 25% during that time.>>

There is a solution, but your article did not point to it. If you read the Book of Acts, you will find the solution to the UC's problems: (1) The early church was planted in an environment by apostles who had a high view of Scripture and (2) Most of all they were Gospel preaching churches. Restore these 2 elements and the UC will become a vibrant church, but I fear it has gone too far down the path of theological liberalism to recover.

A couple comes to my evangelical church who attended a nearby evangelical UC but 60 people left the church and scattered to various Bible-believing churches when the evangelical UC pastor was told by the UC hierarchy he could not preach in other UC churches. The solution is there if the UC would return to biblical basics.

<<I do openly and regularly raise the basis of my faith in speeches by saying, ‘I am a Partner of Jesus of Nazareth. We work together to make the world a better place.’ I welcome your company along the pilgrim way.>>

That will not change people's lives, but a personal relationship with Jesus, the Saviour, will.

OzSpen

If you look at the data, it doesn’t support your hypothesis. Of the Christian groups identified, the largest growth numerically was in “Christianity, nfd” – in other words, people who identify as Christian but with no strong affiliation to any denomination. The decline in people identifying as Roman Catholic was actually smaller (4%) than for Christians as a whole (9%), while the biggest numerical increase for a specific denomination was Eastern Orthodox. In percentage terms, the largest decline was for the Salvation Army.

In my own denomination, Anglicanism, total numbers fell by 20% but the most evangelical diocese, Sydney, fared little better than average, with a decline of 17%.

In short, there is little if any correlation between whether a church is predominantly evangelical, orthodox or progressive, and whether or by how much its numbers increased or decreased. The orthodox fared best, but I suspect that has more to do with migration than theology.

Dear OzSpen,

When you were having your personal relation with Jesus can you tell us what he said to you?

Dear OzSpen,

I have a personal relation with my wife. Last night she told me about taking a little girl to the Parklands at South Bank. The little girl asked as they were leaving, “What are we going to do tomorrow?” My wife told the little girl, “You haven’t thanked me for taking you to the Park today.” Sometimes we hug. Sometimes we talk about family, play scrabble, decide what we’re going to have for our next meal, talk about the different kinds of infinity in mathematics or quote poetry. We do many things together since we have a personal relationship. I have heard much talk from Christians about a personal relationship with Jesus. However, they never give any details. I have told you a little bit about my personal relations with my wife. Please tell me about your personal relations with Jesus.

The concept of a god is losing its appeal to solve human problems and increasingly organised rationality, or science, is filling the vacated areas of human endeavour previously devoted to ritual, doctrine and dogma.
It is becoming apparent that completely materialistic and natural forces are exerting their influence.....the processes of evolution are obviously selecting against supernatural explanations. The wider and deeper the base of science develops, the less importuning and satisfactory is that of the supernatural. With science the progress of human civilisation is identifiable and measurable and provides a rational picture of much greater appeal to the rational mind. Religious faith is being trampled by the natural and leaving the 'super' aspect increasingly empty of meaning and foundation-less.

There is no real progress inherent in the supernatural, in religious faith. The bottle-neck we encounter that is hindering science's advance is the doing of dying and anachronistic concepts. The sooner we treat with Nature on her terms, the sooner will Life's progress ease our next great adventure in cosmic exploration. It must be acknowledged that we, humankind and all life, are a component of Nature. The question that will demand wisdom of a kind not yet common in us is, do we work within/conform with or compete with Nature?

Dear Rhian,

«I’m not sure that government does directly subsidise religious organisations.»

I also don't know whether they still do it today, but I have heard, some 30 years ago, that a Rabbi urged his congregation not to forget to fill their "Jewish" religion in the census because government pays religious institutions proportionately to their membership according to the census.

That hypocrite practice is undoubtedly disgusting, how an organisation that presumably teaches "thou shalt not steal" avails itself of moneys that were taken from others against their will.

Yuyutsu

It’s a mean and ruthless world in which the wealthy are not forced by the state to share in that wealth by the now common method of taxation.

You appear to have a skewed view of individual rights.

And why is that Rabbi appealing to his congregation for honesty in the census?

My view is in order to achieve a fair share of taxation from the State to return it to his community through charity.

I’d be interested to read your response..

Dan

david f,

So you think it more intelligent to follow the electron through the nest of semiconductors, diodes and transistors than to simply watch the aces line up on the screen and listen to the scream of the jackpot siren then?

Dan.

david f,

<<When you were having your personal relation with Jesus can you tell us what he said to you?>>

I speak with Jesus in prayer and I'm not going to tell you its content. He speaks with me through the Scriptures and sometimes through inner promptings.

Dear Dan,

«It’s a mean and ruthless world in which the wealthy are not forced by the state to share in that wealth by the now common method of taxation.»

This world is mean and ruthless anyway to those who were mean and ruthless in their past. The key to stop experiencing meanness and torture is to stop doing it to others. Forcing others to give only fuels up the cycle of violence.

Sharing one's wealth with the [deserving] poor is a virtue. When one's wealth is taken away by force rather than willingly through choice, that virtue is being denied and counts not as charity. What matters is not the money passing hands, what matters is the good-will and compassion, and these are stifled by compulsory taxation (though I would support non-compulsory taxation).

«You appear to have a skewed view of individual rights.»

No, I do not believe in rights. I believe in non-violence.

What the state does is robbing away one's natural freedom and choices, then returns back bits and pieces of it in the form of "rights". Think of a robber forcibly taking $100 notes then returning you a few copper coins in change for taking the bus home.

«And why is that Rabbi appealing to his congregation for honesty in the census?»

Perhaps because they were lazy, perhaps because many in the congregation were overtly atheist and only came to synagogue for social reasons (we are speaking of 30 years ago when atheism was not that popular and openly admitted), perhaps even so they persuade their non-Jewish partners and friends to do them a little favour and also mark down "Jewish" in the census.

«My view is in order to achieve a fair share of taxation from the State to return it to his community through charity.»

Yet money taken by force or in stealth, is not going to bless anyone.

Someone spoke to the former Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe through a gun, seems the assassin didn't like the religious company he kept.

Paul1405,

<<Someone spoke to the former Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe through a gun, seems the assassin didn't like the religious company he kept.>>

That's the religion/worldview of pragmatism speaking. If it works for me, I'll use it. Mass shootings in the USA are proof of how this 'religion' devastates a nation.

It killed 6 million Jews and others by the Nazis in Germany during World War 2. If I do what's right for me, it means I can do anything, no matter what it does to you. It's a recipe for individual and national disaster.

OzSpen wrote “I speak with Jesus in prayer and I'm not going to tell you its content. He speaks with me through the Scriptures and sometimes through inner promptings.”

Dear OzSpen,

I really am not asking about the contents of your prayers. I am interested in what Jesus answers. If one has a relation the other party speaks to you. Generally, people who think that God or Jesus speaks to them are candidates for a mental institution.

It seems reasonable to assume that you do not reveal the contacts of your dialog with Jesus because the personal relation with Jesus is nonsense. If he ever existed he has died a long time ago.

Getting info from Scripture is not a personal relationship. Neither is getting inner promptings. I read various authors. Although I find much to think about from what I read I do not think that I have a relation with the authors. However, Jesus is not even an author of scripture. The 80% of the Scriptures that Christians call the Old Testament does not mention Jesus. The New Testament records the words of Jesus as other people have recalled them at a later time.

I get inner promptings also. They may be random thoughts, need for food, toilet or sleep or reminders that I should do something. I don’t think these inner promptings come from anything outside of me.

There is much nonsense in Christianity – a God in three parts, virgin birth, life after death, belief in a messiah which is a Jewish superstition and the Christian belief that Jesus is that messiah (He couldn’t get the job done so the added superstition is that he is coming back again to finish up).

You have accepted a superstition that many other people also accept. Enjoy it.

Hi David,

Just as one can be "good" without a belief in a god, but if Christian faith, and a belief in a god inspires some folk to do good works in the community, such as charitable/humanitarian work, and for the same reason are good within themselves and towards others, does it matter if God exists or not. Is it not the end result that counts?

Dear Paul,

An excellent observation!

«Is it not the end result that counts?»

The end result is not just being a good person, the end result is the realisation of one's own identity with God, thus also being ever blissful and free from all limitations and pain. Yet being a good person is an extremely important milestone on that road. I dare say that anyone who succeeded in becoming a good person has covered the most difficult part of the road.

Believing in God often (but not always) helps in becoming a better person, but this is not a required milestone. An atheist who is a good person can also realise their identity with God - they would likely not use this word, 'God', to describe themselves because that would not be part of their terminology, but then who cares?

Unfortunately, belief in God has justified atrocity. The Inquisitors thought they were doing the will of God. Calvin presided over a tyranny in Geneva in which such atrocities were committed as executing Servetus who doubted some Christian dogma. Hitler said he was furthering the work of the church, and many Germans believed him. Hitler may have believed he was doing good. It is an open question whether belief in God has been more of an evil force or a good force. Such belief can enable one to do evil with a sense of righteousness. I think it better to consider acts on the basis of what they result in rather than on the basis of belief. At this time the Chinese are forcing the Uighurs to discard their belief system by putting them in 're-education' centers where their beliefs are disregarded. Are the Chinese doing worse than was done in the mission stations in Australia where Christianity was forced in the Aborigines?

Dear David F.,

«Are the Chinese doing worse than was done in the mission stations in Australia where Christianity was forced in the Aborigines?»

What possibly could be worse than the Uighur holocaust?!

And it is not only the Uighurs - all religions are banned in China, even while some churches are still allowed to operate by name only.
China allows just one pseudo-religion - the worship of their leader.
While they don't formally name him 'God', that is their attitude, that is how they treat him.
Even those Christian-in-name churches that are still allowed to operate had to replace the crosses and images of Jesus with enormous pictures of Xi Jinping and their sermons by his praises.

Yes, Aborigines in Australia were wronged in many ways, but they never had to endure 1/100th of the tortures the Uighurs are undergoing.

May China's name be obliterated for eternity.

«belief in God has justified atrocity.»

Nothing justified atrocity. Even when evil people tried to use their belief in God or whatever to justify their acts, that never in fact justified them.

As for Hitler, while he said so many things, he never believed in God.

david f,

<<Generally, people who think that God or Jesus speaks to them are candidates for a mental institution. It seems reasonable to assume that you do not reveal the contacts of your dialog with Jesus because the personal relation with Jesus is nonsense. >>

That's your worldview speaking through its presuppositions.

The facts are, according to the Bible: (1) Jesus counselled His disciples, “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). Through prayer, we can overcome temptations to sin. We can pray for God’s help to keep us from making wrong choices. I don't expect you to understand this biblical dynamic. (2) Paul told the Roman church Christians: "Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer" (Romans 12:12).

So, Christians who pray are not heading for a mental institution. To the contrary, they pray not to fall into temptation (to sin) and they are faithful in prayer to indicate they are joyful and patient in trials of various kinds.

I will not reply to any of your further scoffing at my Christian beliefs.

Dear OzSpen,

You said, <The facts are according to the Bible>

The Bible is a compendium of legend and is not a source of reliable facts. It is not a peer reviewed journal, a scientific text or a reliable chronicle. Certainly I scoff at appeals to that unreliable document. There is wisdom in the Bible amid the dross.

There are Christians who are aware of this and how the Bible was constructed. They question and see both the imperfections and value of their faith. You accept it without question. I do not scoff at all Christians. I scoff at your willful ignorance.

I hope that I am a good person. I know I have flaws. The flaws will not be corrected by appeals to an imaginary deity. Neither will yours. Blind belief is not a virtue.

Paul1405,

<<Just as one can be "good" without a belief in a god, but if Christian faith, and a belief in a god inspires some folk to do good works in the community, such as charitable/humanitarian work, and for the same reason are good within themselves and towards others, does it matter if God exists or not. Is it not the end result that counts?>>

How do you define the boundaries of what is "good" and "bad"? Without some absolute standard, human beings are subject to subjective, changing human values.

The Christian life is not meant only for doing good humanitarian work. Jesus Christ changes people from the inside out, causing people to worship God, have a relationship with Him, and enjoy the privileges of eternal life that begins now.

Dear Yuyutsu,

How do you know what Hitler believed? Could you read his mind?

We don't know the full story of what went on the missions and will never know. It is easy to see those we oppose as devils and disregard our own faults.

There is a tendency for humans to think, "We are the good guys. They are the bad guys." There is a tendency for the oppressed to want to get back for the wrongs that have done to them. The past haunts them. The Chinese did not have the strength in the past to stop the English selling opium to them. At one time 1/7 of English income was derived from selling opium to the Chinese, so I have read. At one time various bits of Chinese territory were controlled by mainly European powers and Japan.

The Chinese are not devils. We are not angels. We both emphasize what we want to emphasize.

david f,

<<The Bible is a compendium of legend and is not a source of reliable facts. It is not a peer reviewed journal, a scientific text or a reliable chronicle.>>

You need to do more homework. There are ample peer-reviewed journals and books to demonstrate the reliability of the Bible. See:

+ K. A. Kitchen, "On the Reliability of the Old Testament" (Eerdmans 2003). This is a magnum opus of 662pp by a Professor Emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool.

+ F. F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" (Inter-Varsity Press 1960). This is by the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, University of Manchester.

You are ill informed about the reliability of Old and New Testaments.

Hi OzSpen

David f’s view of the bible is not ill-informed (though I don’t fully agree with it).

There are peer-reviewed books across the theological spectrum, from authors who think almost everything described in the bible is historically accurate, to those who think almost nothing is. The great majority of scholars are at neither of these extremes.

Few mainstream scholars nowadays would accept the analysis of F. F. Bruce, for example. His early dating of the Gospels and their sources, and inclination to believe the authenticity of the disputed Pauline epistles, has not stood the test of time. More importantly, his assertion that the historical accuracy of the miracle stories is the most plausible explanation for their presence in the Gospels entails circular reasoning and brushes aside the reasonable demand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I don’t think the Gospel writers were lying. But they used poetic, symbolic and literary language as well as historical information to convey the truth of who Jesus was. For example, both Matthew and Luke have given us beautiful and profound birth narratives exploring the nature of Jesus’ identity. But neither is plausible as an accurate historical account (and it takes extraordinary mental gymnastics to synthesise an account in which both are historical)

Rhian,

<<I don’t think the Gospel writers were lying. But they used poetic, symbolic and literary language as well as historical information to convey the truth of who Jesus was.>>

Historian, Craig Blomberg's, "Historical Reliability of the Gospels," (Apollos, Academic, 2007) disagrees with you: https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Gospels-Craig-Blomberg/dp/0830828079

Dear OzSpen,

Those who accept the Bible as authoritative live in a self-imposed cocoon of ignorance. They choose to ignore the contradictions and errors found in that book.

The Bible is an unreliable authority because it contains numerous contradictions. Logically, if two statements are contradictory, at least one of them is false. The biblical contradictions therefore prove that the book has many false statements and is not infallible.

Examples of Old Testament Contradictions

The contradictions start in the opening chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent creation stories are told. Genesis chapter 1 says the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 gives a different order of creation: man, then the animals, and then woman.

Genesis chapter 1 lists six days of creation, whereas chapter 2 refers to the “day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Genesis 1:2-3 claims that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day; but Genesis 1:14-19 tells us the sun, moon, and stars weren’t made until the fourth day.

Chapter 1 reports that the fruit trees were created before the man, while chapter 2 indicates they were made after him. Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.

Contradictions are also seen in the biblical story of a worldwide flood. According to Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Nevertheless, Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos.

Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah’s ark rested on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. The very next verse, however, says the mountaintops could not be seen until the tenth month.

The above was taken from:

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-humanists-reject-bible/

Examine your own Bible to see if this website is accurate.

Dear OzSpen

We can each give hundreds of references to authors who support our positions.

I think some of the most influential theologians of the past 150 years would be closer to David f’s position than yours. So whether or not you disagree with David f’s position, to dismiss it as uniformed is to ignore the intense and ongoing debate about what is historical in the Gospels, what is not, and how much it matters.

One of Australia’s leading bible scholars is Sean Winter. This is his take on the question of the historicity of the birth narratives:

“The reason why things are contested is because our sources (in the Bible) don’t give us anything other than much later interpretations of his life. When you read the gospels you are basically looking at the equivalent of an omelette and it is very difficult to separate it back out into the yolk, which is historical, and the white, which is interpretation.

“Almost every detail of his birth or how it was narrated or what historically is in the Christmas story is open for significant debate. My view is the Gospel stories about Jesus’s birth are almost all interpretation.”

Quoted in
https://victas.uca.org.au/the-birth-of-jesus-what-is-fact-and-fiction-probably/

Rhian,

<<I think some of the most influential theologians of the past 150 years would be closer to David f’s position than yours.>>

You mention not one of them and give no quotes and sources. That's poor documentation.

<<One of Australia’s leading bible scholars is Sean Winter. This is his take on the question of the historicity of the birth narratives:
“The reason why things are contested is because our sources (in the Bible) don’t give us anything other than much later interpretations of his life. . . .>>

Who is Sean Winter? He is a promoter of death for the Uniting Churches, the very theme of this thread. "Sean is currently the Academic Dean, Co-ordinator of Studies in New Testament, and Associate Professor within the University of Divinity. He teaches across a range of New Testament subjects, is involved in the formation of candidates for ordained ministries within the UCA [Uniting Church of Australia]", https://pilgrim.edu.au/about-pilgrim/faculty/research-profile-sean-winter/

Sean endorses the theology of death in the Uniting Church that this thread is all about.

In contrast, Dr Paul Barnett of the evangelical Sydney Anglican Diocese, former Archbishop of North Sydney, and ancient historian, whose church does not promote a culture of church death. He teaches/has taught ancient history at Macquarie University and wrote: "There is a sound historical basis to the New Testament" ("Is the New Testament History? rev, Aquila Press, 2003, p. 12).

In my opinion the best remark concerning religion was made by the Roman, Seneca:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

Dear David F.,

«In my opinion the best remark concerning religion was made by the Roman, Seneca:»

Regarded as best by whom?

Religion is presently regarded by the common people as nonsense, but some of them at least have the decency to admit that they don't understand it.

The wise can distinguish between true religion and the social nonsense which often, through ignorance, passes for religion.

And the rulers should wet their pants in fear of the religious because they do not need them and their favours, nor are afraid to die, thus of punishment and of telling the rulers' weaknesses and corruption in their face.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I wrote:

«In my opinion the best remark concerning religion was made by the Roman, Seneca:»

You wrote:

<<Regarded as best by whom?>>

Since I wrote 'in my opinion' it should be obvious who regarded it as best. Since you don't seem to read well, I regard it as best. That's what 'in my opinion' means. True religion? I think it's all crap. Apparently you prefer to label some of the crap as true. That's your right.

Dear OzSpen

Whether you agree with Sean Winter’s views on the bible and abortion is irrelevant. I was quoting him to demonstrate that David f’s view that the Bible is a not a source of reliable historical facts is a common one among mainstream academic bible scholars and theologians, and your rather insulting comment that David’s position is based on lack of “homework” does not hold water.

I don’t disagree that there is a sound historical basis to the NT. Nor does the quote from Winter deny it. The key questions are – how much is historical fact, and how much does it matter? Some fundamentalist Christians think it is almost all literally true, and some fundamentalist atheists think it is almost all invented. I don’t agree with either position, and nor do most academics.

As to the views of leading theologians, probably the most influential of the past 200 years was Karl Barth, who said “I take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally.” Barth’s view of the Bible (and much else!) is complex, and he was an equally trenchant critic of liberalism and literalism. There’s a good summary here:

https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/karl-barth.html

John Crossan is one of most articulate critics of biblical literalism:

“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are dumb enough to take the literally.”

- From Who Is Jesus? Answers to Your Questions About the Historical Jesus

Others you might wish to look up include Moltmann on the virgin birth, Rahner on fundamentalism, Schliermacher on divine non-interventionism, Tillich on Theism, Thomas Merton on the resurrection (http://merton.org/itms/annual/09/Merton1-7.pdf), and John Polkinhorne on miracles:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0824524063/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0824524063&linkCode=as2&tag=musionscieand-20

Dear Rhian,

Thank you for that. I am most interested in religion and think there are valid insights to be found in it. I will look up your references. I am turned off by those who refer to 'true religion'. 'True religion' is what they choose to believe. I am also turned off by those who believe they have a vision of the supernatural. If something is truly supernatural we cannot know what it is. I believe in doubt - asking what we know - questioning what we hear. I think we learn and grow more by doubt rather than faith. To me faith is a vice. It means to me giving one's mind and thought to something somebody else says is so. At the moment I am reading two histories of philosophy. Grayling's history rejects any idea of the supernatural or God but has the virtue of including Indian, Chinese, Arabic and African philosophy. Kenny’s history confines itself to western philosophy and is divided into four sections – ancient, medieval, rise of modern philosophy and modern philosophy. At the end of each of the four sections is a chapter which tells how people at that time thought of God. That tells me a lot about the people in that era.

I do not believe in any religion but am intensely interested in what other people believe. Amid the various insights found in philosophy and religion are valid guides for behavior to each other. There is joy in learning. By my grandmother’s bedside when she died was a history of the French and Indian Wars. She came from Lithuania and settled in the Adirondacks in New York State. The French and Wars told her more about the history of the Adirondacks. She wanted to know more about the history of where she was living. I am 96 and hope to learn more as long as I live.

Dear David F.,

«I am most interested in religion»

Is that so?

You do seem to be focused on organisations that CLAIM to be "religious", their various belief systems and especially their misdeeds. There is nothing wrong about such interest, but all that fluff does not amount to religion.

Let me provide an example, an analogy as to why I doubt that you are interested in religion: suppose you have a particular interest in studying scammers and their sophisticated techniques to convince their victims that they can "make money fast". Does that imply that you are interested in making-money-fast? Of course not!

Surely you are sufficiently intelligent and experienced to not buy into and fall prey to scams of sorts, so why here? Some people claim to be religious and you just fall in, hook, line and sinker. Why?

Now:
It must be either possible or impossible for people to come closer to God. Right?

From my long acquaintance with you, my impression (but please correct me if I am wrong) is that you consider it absolutely impossible - and that's perfectly your right.

However, saying that it's not possible for one to come closer to God is equivalent to saying that religion does not exist. It's a corollary, and in that case, here you just claimed to be most interested in something that does not exist.

That is fine. Many people like fiction and are considered normative so long as they don't actually believe in dragons and magical spells.



«I am turned off by those who refer to 'true religion'. 'True religion' is what they choose to believe.»

Well, that would refer to my recent words:
"The wise can distinguish between true religion and the social nonsense which often, through ignorance, passes for religion".

Just please note that I never claimed that my own (or anyone else's) beliefs constitute a true religion. Religious people could potentially believe in anything... or nothing. In my view, an atheist too could be very religious even without believing in God, gods or the supernatural: none of that is required for being religious!

Hi Yuyutsu,

I'm always interested in your views as they tend to look at things from another prospective. There are several issues here; What do you define as being "religious"? What is the relevance of a god(s) when defining ones "religioness"? What part do/should organise religions (churches) play in all this?

Something of interest, what Buddha had to say about the existence of god, I'll post it again, and I would like you to comment, its interesting to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqRNXZnsus

Religion is hard to define. The root of the word is the Latin word, religio, which means ‘I bind’, and religions bind people together. Religions may be connected with a god, many gods or no god. There are examples of all three cases. People tend to think of religion in terms of the religion they are most familiar with. Looking up ‘definition of religion’ on the net I find “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” That definition does not encompass most of Buddhism, humanistic Judaism, Unitarianism, animism, polytheistic religions or many other forms of religion. I regard Scientology as a scam. However, in some jurisdictions it is recognized as a religion. In the end we can only define religion by usage. A form of social connection which a number of people agree can be called a religion is a religion.

I have a sense of wonder that there is anything here at all, at the beauties of physics and mathematics, at the beauties of life and matter in its manifold forms, of artistic creations and social organizations of humans and other life form. Religion is one of these forms of social organization that I look at with wonder. However, I do not identify with any religion and do not feel it is necessary.

Dear David f

I deliberately selected influential theologians from different periods and intellectual traditions to illustrate that OzSpen’s views are not representative of a good deal of modern theology. In fact, about the only thing these scholars would agree on is that a literal historical reading of the bible is inadequate.

For context, I’d rate Schleiermacher as the most influential c19 theologian. He was the founder of modern liberal theology and his most influential work - On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers – was addressed to people very like yourself who rejected religion for its contradictions and apparent absurdities.

Barth was undoubtably the giant of c20 theology. Initially a liberal and follower of Schleiermacher’s school, he rejected theological liberalism when he saw many liberal theologians embrace German nationalism during WW1, and became liberalism’s most effective critic. He founded what became known as the neo-orthodox school. OLO columnist Peter Sellick is a great admirer of Barth, and his writing reflects that.

Thomas Merton was a Roman Catholic monk with an intense and gentle spirituality that speaks to all Christian denominations and beyond. He was influenced by Buddhism (I suspect Yuyutsu would enjoy his writings).

John Dominic Crossan is a controversial scholar of Jesus’ life and times and was a leading figure in the Jesus Seminar. He and his school think that very little of the Gospels reflect what Jesus actually said and did.

If you want a single coherent overview of non-literalism I’d recommend Marcus Borg’s Reading the Bible Again For the First Time. Borg was a well-respected professor but I find his writing clear and approachable.

https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Bible-Again-First-Time/dp/006060919

Dear Paul,

«What do you define as being "religious"?»

In the most general terms, anything which brings one closer to God.

However, while the drive towards God applies to all creation, it's not too practical to describe a butterfly as religious, so we usually reserve this attribute to the conscious choices of people, any choices that result in them coming closer to God.

For example, eating a banana could be a religious act for those who are weak and hungry, because we need a strong body to worship God and it is quite difficult to think of God or pray when one is weak, sick or dead. Yet for a person whose stomach is already full, that same act of eating a banana would make them tired and sleepy, thus not inclined to think of God, so for them eating a banana would not be a religious act.

«What is the relevance of a god(s) when defining ones "religioness"?»

Believing in and worshiping god(s) can be used by many people as a very effective religious technique. It helps them to focus and purify their minds and hearts, and pure minds and hearts are extremely important when approaching God.

But again, if a belief in god(s) causes one to harm others, as can happen, then their heart and mind would become even more dirty and set them further apart from God. In such situations, it's best they never came to such beliefs.

«What part do/should organise religions (churches) play in all this?»

1) Educational. To teach devotees and their children about God and how best to approach Him(/Her/It).
2) Encourage good company, so that devotees can support each other, discuss God together and avoid as much as possible the counter-religious influence of others who are not interested in God.
3) Provide a safe and relatively distraction-free environment for devotees to turn their attention towards God, such as in prayer, songs and meditation.
4) Provide opportunities for selfless service to others, because it helps to purify one's heart, making it more ready for God.

Your video about Buddha is no longer available.