Some of the quotes used in this article come from the profound but by now almost forgotten book by Kornelus Miskotte "When the Gods are Silent". Other ideas came from Harink; "Paul Among the Postliberals" especially the chapter on Sanley Hauerwas.

I've always felt that this Lennon effort was the height of hypocrisy. "Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,.."

You probably can't imagine giving up your possessions, but I, John Lennon, am so morally superior that I can imagine such a system. This from a man who at the time of writing was one of the wealthiest people in Britain and who had caused the break-up of the Beatles, in part, because of money disputes. Hypocrisy in the extreme.

The Beatles did not break up because of money disputes.

The problem with John Lennon is that he was held up (and maybe he beleived) that he was some sort of political figure when all he was was a singer/songwriter - and a damn fine one at that.
Why entertainers (Bob Geldof, Sean Penn) think they have some intrinsic knowledge they can save the world simply because they entertain is beyond me.
I certainly wouldn't pay to see John Howard, George Bush or Kim Beazley sing or act in a movie.
It is easy to sing a song about no heaven or world peace but they are just empty words.
If they really want to make a difference they should run for public office - at least Arnie and Peter Garrett have chosen to put there moeny where there mouths are.
t.u.s

Hi Peter,

Having lived and worked in communities significantly affected by missions and also profound abuse of human life - such as East Africa - grappling with the particular over the universal has not been easy .. particularly when working in the humanitarian sector where discussions of human rights are central.

However the "obscure wandering teacher" and bread and wine both make profound and particular claims. Thanks for your article - it is helpful for me as a christian struggling with a complex world, where jumping to abstractions is comforting, as is a retreat into "ghettos of the like-minded".

I will look out for the articles you have referenced.

"Here we have a firm basis for atheism or a superficial religiosity that can only result in nihilism."
Ah, those of the superior faith! Pity the untermensh: the followers of Budda, or Taoism, the Hindu faithful, Shinto, those of no religious belief at all.
We live in a world and time when tolerance is acutely needed for the differing mental gyrations of others' confrontation of the interesting imponderables of life. This article's superior stance slags-off at others while showing little understanding of them: Almost a millennia after the first campaign, another launch under the crusaders' banner, and similarly unhelpful.

Peter,

wasn't Barth's point that what God chooses to let us know of Him is found neither in history nor reason, neither the creation nor abstraction, but paradoxically in the tension between the two?

Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.

There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It’s easy.

Nothing you can make that can’t be made.
No one you can save that can’t be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

Nothing you can know that isn’t known.
Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love (all together, now!)
All you need is love. (everybody!)
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need (love is all you need).

Yee-hai!
Oh yeah!
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.

peter, what you are essentialy argueing for is the a disolving of the seperation between church and state, are you not? and not only that, a return to a system of government both national and international (you mentioned the failings of universality at the UN), based on a litteral interpretaion of biblical law, (i assume this because you stated that the church as accomodated universal modernity through an abstraction of the biblical texts).

well i have the perfect solution for you, its called IRAN and sharia law.

before Boaz jumps all over this im not suggesting that the content or application of the laws would be the same, just the concept of a litteral and absolute(particular if you will) application of biblical text as law.

it strikes me that the trend towards universalism is a product of a global(or at least western) trend towards democracy, i.e your 'individual entity' the voter. it would follow that the 'particular' societies and governments of the past and present are all theocratic dictatorships, of which iran is a classic example.

however worthwhile the message of that bearded carpenter is as soon as you attemp to implement it as some form of government (let alone as some replacement for the UN) all you achieve is a ruleing priest class, popes, monks, mullahs its all the same, accountable only to a god.

you describe elections as 'particular', is that because you see only the 'narrowness, sigularity and limited course' as the only option for the voters?

sounds kinda like those elections in iraq where saddam was elected by a near perfect majority.

Mr Sellick,
What constantly confounds me is why the most active & commited Christians seem to believe there can be no morals or ‘good values’ outside the Christian doctrine.
The world is full of good people who are non-christian or secular. These people I judge through my own, learned ‘system of values’. I define ‘good’ as ‘non-violent’ , benevolent, learned, acting with forethought and for the good of themselves & mankind. With minimum contradiction. With truth & strength. Without the need to dominate others. Values at the core of most religions.
I am a humanist. I think John Lennon was too.

ITS NOT EASY... 'Jump Jump Jump' :) nah.. chill... I am not an advocate for the "Christian State", and certainly not using the Biblical Text as 'law'....

For one thing, the "Law" of the old testament, was really mean't to be the 'vehicle' of obedience in the heartfelt sense. They expressed their covenant relationship to God through obedience, but.. God had some very firm words for those who thought it was just about the 'outward'...

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart; you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up" (Deuteronomy 6:5-7).

Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the "Law" in his own sacrifice.
The calling of mankind today is into fellowship with God through Christ, not in the establishment of an earthly kingdom or empire.

I keep harping on this, because no one seems to be 'getting' it, and the repeated charge is that we want 'theocratic Christian rule'... I'll repeat again :) "Salt to preserve... Light to illuminate"..neither of them 'to force' .. the heart cannot be forced.

Swilks

We do not argue that there are no 'good' values apart from reference to God. We argue that there is no 'foundation' for them which can cause them to be regarded as 'universal'. Without a divine reference point, we are left with 'opinion'.

Neither are we 'superior'.. we are sinners saved by undeserved grace.

Paul, "I am the chief of sinners, for I persecuted the Church of God"

We live at the foot of the cross, depending on Grace alone.

If we suggested that we are superior, we would be the first rejected by God.

Mr. Sellick
A puzzle for you. What is meant by the term "God is righteous?" Does it mean that everything that God does is defined as morally right merely because He defines it as such? Then morality is meaningless. God could flip a coin & whatever comes up is right for today - relativity at its extreme.

Or does it mean there is a right & wrong outside of God. A morality which God must adhere to in order to be considered moral [which of course He always does]. Then an athiest or agnostic would merely say "no problems. I'll follow that sort of morality too. I still don't need religion or God to lead a moral life."

Sorry but I found your article simplistic in the extreme. Religion does not automatically equal morality. Not even by adherents stiving to obey what they believe are it's commands. Ever heard of Torquemada? A very devout & mystically inclined monk who had a nasty habit of torturing people - for the good of their own souls of course. His excuse was that by allowing these people a foretaste of hell he was persuading them to turn from their sins & turn back to God. There's a good example of BAD particularity in action. How would you suggest we avoid it? Certainly not by adhering ever more closely to a particularity in religion. After all that's what Torquemada did in the first place.

This is a remarkably lucid exposition of a point of view which is insightful in its description of the issue but whose conclusion I can't bring myself to agree with. To me, the problem is that one could write virtually the same analysis from the point of view of Islam, or Buddhism, or Judaism, or whatever. I think maybe Rhian makes the most interesting and ultimately useful comment. Peter is not wrong in pointing out the pitfalls of universalism, but once we have glimpsed the universal perspective we can't simply retreat into our parents' particular tradition, whether it's Christianity or anything else. Rather than embracing one view and rejecting the other, maybe we do have to sit with this as our koan, admitting there is no easy either/or solution.

I bet that when Abraham rejected his household idols his neighbors warned him that he was courting nihilism. Probably Jesus was accused of the same thing. (Actually, perhaps what Jesus was about, on some level, was a radical synthesis of the particular and the universal.)

What is it about Peter that particularly bothers me?. At first I thought it was the Reverend/Dr. title, the sort of mutually exclusive alliance of terms similar to "military intelligence" or indefensible names such as "Catholic University" and "Liberal Pary". On reflection I think it is Peter's almost successful attempt to give intellectual legitmacy to a fundamentally literalist belief system by couching it in barely fathomable language and convoluted logic. Here though, Peter has almost outdone himself by interpreting a song by John Lennon using the same superficial literalism he uses in his reading of scripture. He has taken the dreams of a poet and used the most basic understanding of the words to denigrate the intent and to pump up his own superficiality. Yes, I am guilty of Ad Hominem here. I offer no apology.

The song "Imagine" is NOT suggesting the end to religion, possessions or countries but cleverly uses the inverse of "argument from adverse consequeces" as a mechanism for reflection. By posing his questions, no matter how impractical and idealistic, Lennon allows us to see the error in our ways. Using simple language and sophisticated ideas he helps us to contemplate possibilities, consider a better world. The Bible does this as well. The loaves and fishes story was not about catering for a large crowd or indeed even the performance of a miracle. The "raising of Lazarus" story was not about bringing a man back from death. Maybe Peter actually recognises this but will skip over a much loved piece of poetry to make a cheap point to fit in with an egocentric piece of social theory.

Personally I believe too many try to place the divine into sectarian boxes like Christianity, Islam, Buddaism, etc, that can be defined as religious cults imposing doctrine and law; rather than understand what is normal design, best human practise, best of knowledge and wisdom are principles that the eternal Creator has put in place and revealed to us. The best of human character is expressed in our enhancement of and service to others and not our control or manipulation. The character of God is best expressed in the incarnation of His spirit in the lives of man who are devoted to bless others. The example of Christ also expresses our cultural pinacle in this way, by the giving of our lifetime for the benifit of others. There is no greater man than one who lives by his good social conscience; and that will mean he will lovingly endeavour to enhance the life and well being even of his enemy.

Thanks for the article Peter

I don't give a damn if John Lennon was wearing white clothing, sitting on white silk sheets and looking as if he was insincere. The bottom line is - his song will reign long after you and I are dead - and I think that people will, as a result, keep thinking and re-thinking their existence on this planet.

I was christened a Christian. I have an open mind to most things - apart from terrorism and its concommitant Islamic association.

Cheers
Kay

Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m.

All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

C'mon
Ev'rybody's talking about Ministers,
Sinisters, Banisters and canisters
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.

All we are saying is give peace a chance

John Lennon

Given the manifestation in the past week in the Gaza Strip of the kind of religious "particularity" of which Sellick is enamoured, I for one am pleased that the vast majority of us have abandoned strict adherence to the religious beliefs and strictures derived from the historical particularity of the competing interests of some Semitic pastoral tribes of yore.

The comparison with Lennon's "Imagine" is specious: while it is a truly memorable popular song that expresses a utopian ideal, at the end of the day it's just a pop song. If it has become an 'anthem' of sorts to many people who can imagine a better world than one which is ruled by capitalism, and international and religious conflict, then that is fine by me. It's certainly a better and more memorable song than, say, "Advance Australia Fair".

An apposite but less well-known Lennon song is "God":

God is a Concept by which
we measure our pain
I'll say it again
God is a Concept by which
we measure our pain
I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in Tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in Yoga
I don't believe in Kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me...and that reality

The dream is over
What can I say?
the Dream is Over
Yesterday
I was the Dreamweaver
But now I'm reborn
I was the Walrus
But now I'm John
and so dear friends
you'll just have to carry on
The Dream is over

giaman,
What is Lonnon saying, "I don't believe in Buddha" ...but then he says that when the dream is over; "But now I'm reborn. I was the Walrus; But now I'm John and so dear friends you'll just have to carry on. The Dream is over"

Isn't the song an alluding here to a Buddhaist dreaming view of reincarnation?

Are there multiple recordings of the song, or are you editing? My version has: "I just believe in me -- Yoko and me -- and that reality."

Peter,
I don’t object to you having faith but when it is such a blind faith then it becomes dangerous, inciting, and scary.

You claim, “The desire for universal peace and justice is admirable but you cannot get there by ignoring the particular such as the United Nations found when their troops were relegated to being observers of genocide in Rwanda and the Balkans….”

Let me enlighten you on some of the particulars. Rwanda is one of the most highly Christianised nations in Africa (87%) which pre-genocide missionary groups held as example of what could be achieved through evangelicalism, but where trials are still going on for the priests, bishops, and nuns who blasted their hate from the pulpit. Rwanda can hardly support your claim “Where the gospel has taken hold, we find ordered communities”. These were Christians fighting Christians.

As for the Balkans, this is where Serbians troops leaving razed and brutalised Moslem villages raised a three fingered salute in triumph; it symbolised the father, son, and the Holy Ghost. Christianity runs so deep through this country that recently, for a short time at least (much to the delight of our Christian right),outlawed the teaching of evolution in its schools.

Rather than doctrinise Christ teachings could I instead invite you to follow the example he set. When the woman from Canann first came to Christ to ask his help for her ailing daughter he would not even talk to her, when she tried again he, in what most would consider a racial slur said “It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs” And she said, “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.” Then Jesus answered and said unto her, “O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

In recognising her faith and humility despite her objectionable status Christ made the first tentative steps toward universality, I invite you to strive for more of the same rather than less

The world is flat!
Get over it Peter and the rest of the GB's your imaginary god (the one lurks in the shadows of our ignorance) world is getting smaller and smaller. This is a rerun of the pathetic notion that GB's like to put about, “that without a god then there is no foundation for our morals”. What a load of crap, it just highlights the superiority complex that religious types have and reveals one of the fundamental flaws that attracts them to religious belief. Our moral codes are formed in the same way as every other animal on this planet. A mixture of nature and nurture with the basic's laid down in our DNA and the details passed on in memes. That’s why all cultures of the world pretty much share the same basic moral codes. Christianity is just another primitive attempt to rationalise and codify this. It give no special insight into these matters compare to other religions of it’s time and most invented since. Believers who study the contents of their religious texts talk about them in the same way the a book reviewer does if they have read the book three or four times. Ask a lord of the rings fan to tell you about the book you’ll get the picture. Johns Imagine song was a song about if you took away the things we always seems to fight about then maybe we would live in peace. Your arguing that if Everone believed the same as you we would all live in peace what’s the difference?

Peter you say: "The only basis that is left once the person has been freed to be himself is desire. Natural desire is to be our guiding light in all things. This means that greed, sensuousness, power, vindictiveness and envy are free to have their way with us. In the words of Paul we are to be delivered over to the elemental spirits of the universe so that we live under the law of sin and death."

This is one of many non-sequiturs in your piece. An infidel wouldn't see what is wrong with certain desires. Your list of desires are all fairly negative behaviours. An infidel can desire to live a harmless life with desires that are positive. One can choose the positive rules of many cultures as a guide. Many cultures share particular laws - that is, they are universal. This is not to mention the universality of human feeling. Paul says: such and such - so what? It is just his opiniion.

I was bought up an Anglican and I have had very positive experiences with that particiular religion; but it would be wrong of me to pretend that I agree with all its precepts and preachings. Among other things, given the you-are-either-with-us-or-against-us attitude of the church and that the negative desires mentioned in P.S.s article are found in the noisiest religious folk, I have chosen to be non-religious and thus authentic. This is not a sin -but honesty. (To be frank I don't care if it is a sin).

I found this Shelley saying (which alludes to some desirious positive things) for you and interested bloggers.

Until the mind can love and admire,
And trust and hope, and endure,
Reasoned principles of moral conduct
Are seeds cast upon the highway
Of life which the unconscious
Passenger tramples into dust,
Although they would bear the
Harvest of happiness.

Csteele, like most of the responses to date, has completely missed the point.

He/she relates a Gospel story that is profound as are all the stories of encounter of Jesus with women. And concludes that "Christ made the first tentative steps toward universality". I would have thought his whole life was one of moving away from the universality of the Law to the particularity of oneness with the Father.

It is my understanding that Peter Sellick is talking of particularity and universality in terms of the personal v the masses; the personal encounter v the religious process; the beauty of the "I am" v the barrenness of the "God is this or that"; the historical story v abstracted ideals.

In the Christian context, it is indeed the particularity of the personal relationship with God through the incarnate Jesus and Risen Lord that has for too long been obstructed through the universalistic formularised bible-book religion and doctrinal-ritualised religion of the Protestant and Catholic traditions over the last centuries. Yet the Christian West, through its millennia of formation, and the experience of the bloodiest century just behind us, still has residual faith and human institutional roots that grew within Christianity's moral ecosystem, to safe guard us for the time being of the nationalistic and tribal excesses of the Rwanda and Balkans tragedies. Yet I fear the steps from the village to the jungle are lessening.

In my view, in the secular context, the shallow universality in the "imagineering " of John Lennon is displayed as perhaps the worst expression of imagination; no roots, no direction and ultimately no hope. He was a great Beatle, but deluded almost everywhere else. Of course that is okay, it is just that he should not have peddled it to the emerging 'free thinkers", who problematically "felt" rather than "thought". What a fine mess they have gotten us into, in the words of another talented, but benign entertainer.

PS. Rancitas. How interesting. The first two lines of Shelley are the attributes of a faith Peter writes of. Alas, to endure is to be particular.

CSTEELE
I appreciated your reference to Jesus with the Canaanite woman.
I particularly enjoyed your sharing 'and from that moment her son was well'........

Just one of MANY reports by eye witnesses and reliable chains of tradition, of what Christ did, which caused John to say "But these things are written, that you may believe, and in believing, have life in His name".....

But may I urge ALLL of us, to consider this for what it is.

No less than God the Son, God in Christ, showing us Himself "I and the Father are one"

I'm a great believer of 'If we look to Christ, we can't go wrong'.

But there are 2 ways of looking to Jesus, the 'he was a good example' way.. and the "Personal faith encounter with Him".

Its only the latter which will change/transform/renew us at our deepest core level.

Peter tends to complicate a very simple part of life.

The last sentence of my article runs as follows: “However, universalism may only be opened to us after we have embraced the “narrowness” of Israel, the “particularity” of election, the “singularity” of the Name, the limited course of the story of YHWH and his people.” The road to the universal must begin with the particular struggle of Israel with its God and the man Jesus because these are anchored in reality. To forsake particular historical experience in order to come to universal morality, spirituality, philosophy or fabricate principles of living, even though they may involved “respect for life” is to construct a system that is not grounded in human reality. It is only via the crucified Christ that we may come to the cosmic Christ.

Scripture cannot be forced into the mold of moral manual. Because Lot’s daughters seduced their father in order to bear offspring does not give an excuse for incest. Because David seduces Bathsheba and contrives for her husband to die in battle does not bless adultery of murder. These are all believable stories about the human as good literature is and are more like a map of the human heart than stories with a moral point.

The scientist and the theologian have one thing in common, they both deal with the particular, they cannot weave a scientific theory or write a theology without real data from the natural world or real history of human living.

Many of you have taken umbrage because it looks as though I would return to primitive religion. But as the scientist must work with data from nature the theologian must work with biblical texts that sometimes describes the elaborate celebration of the cult. This does not mean that we must return to animal sacrifice, it means that we take as our datum a specific experience of Israel when they did. In other words the canon of scripture is a whole, even if it is composed of many literary genres, even though we may be repelled by the idea of putting adulterers to death. This was the religious experience of Israel and it was the genius of Israel, that was handed on to OT writers to include the scandalous and the unsavory as well as the primitive. It is all the Word of God because it represents the struggle of this particular people with religion.

The transition from the particular biblical text to understanding is a task that happens in preaching. The story of Ruth and Naomi may include the actions of a seductress but it is mainly about faithfulness, remarkably, between a daughter in law with her mother in law. This is why the book of Ruth is such a good book to preach on for a wedding.

When out society loses these stories it loses the vocabulary of Western civilization, worse, it loses the vocabulary we need in order to understand the human condition. That is why particular stories are important. When we try to produce a universal ethics from these stores we fail, as Arnold Toynbee and Albert Schweitzer have shown so vividly. We must listen to the stories themselves, on their own terms, when we do we will hear echoes of our own existence. Perhaps this engenders the peace of God that passes understanding, we know that as strangers and aliens in the world we are also at home in it?

Ps. Thanks to David Boaz for a hint about “Imagine” in one of his posts

I’m probably the only one on this site who’s been on stage with John and Yoko (Albert Hall, 1968). But I think that John’s “Imagine” is best described as naïve utopianism, with little link to reality. And reality has to be the basis for any spiritual development.

But this is not the particularist, surface, reality referred to by Peter Sellick. That “reality” attempts to convey the transcendent, the unconfined, within the narrow limits of words and the so-called “conscious” mind.

A deeper reality is central to most major religions and to spiritual growth, whether it is referred to as knowing God, union with the all, realising Nibbana or experiencing that which is beyond time and space. This reality cannot be conveyed by words, it can’t be mediated by priests, it isn’t the property of any organised religion - it must be experienced directly.

And this reality cannot be sectarian, it must be universal. Rejection of such universality, as by Sellick, comes from ignorance and attachment which block spiritual growth.

So how do we experience this reality, this ultimate truth? As Jesus and many saints and sages have said, “Know thyself,” “The kingdom of Heaven lies within you,” spiritual realisation requires self-realisation.

But how to do this? Again, it cannot be a sectarian method, it must be universal. The Buddha taught a universal method (not a “Buddhist” method or Buddhism) for introspection. This has three interdependent parts. First: broadly, adherence to a moral discipline (abstaining from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and intoxicants). This is not an end in itself, but is necessary to quiet the mind sufficiently to take the second step – developing control over the mind, the ability to concentrate. This enables the third, critical step – observing with detachment the reality of the present moment as it manifests within one’s own mind and body.

This depends on no particularity, no tradition; it’s here and now, and enables access to the deeper levels of the mind, the so-called unconscious which is in fact always conscious. And now the dreaded word limit strikes …

Peter,
Your approach assumes that univeralism and particularity are oppositional concepts where there is only one or the other in any circumstance. But what if instead there was a kind of 'sandwich' structure that allowed of both universals and particulars?

Human rights for individuals could be seen as a balance to the power of modern states. The abstractions of the rule of law and individual human rights - together - work in the modern context of national states. These universals provide the space for a person living within a state to exercise their freedom in whichever particular way they choose.

We are socially constructed - we are born into families, into a social environment, learn a social language, develop an identity etc, etc. These are some of the particulars that you refer to, and every person is by definition unique and has their own stories. The universals of the rule of law and human rights for individuals are also socially constructed - within the context of modern states - so that we can live our unique lives as we please, without being subject to undue coercion by the state or the people who control it.

So the point that I wanted to make is that univerals/particulars could be configured in such a way - like a sandwich maybe - that enable each other rather than being oppositional either/or polar extremes. One thing that seems to be forgotten in the debate about human rights and modernity is that this is all happening within the context of modern states. The history of the twentieth century shows how modern states can become extremely destructive when the balancing concepts of human rights are undermined.

If anyone is interested, there is more on this approach in my blog http://pharoz.blogspot.com but in an unorganised way...

Dear Rowdy

Many thanks for your contribution and thank you very much for the link. What a great experience - good on you!

Cheers
Kay

I have just a teeny problem with the main article: I don't believe in the Sellick God, or for that matter any other. I don't need it, want it, respect it or have any regard for it. Peter Sellick is welcome to it. This is a democracy and he can believe as he will, and I will always support his right to do so. But this kind of vacuous theologising is about as relevant as the old one about angels and the head of a pin.

No hell below us, above us only sky: how ironic that the author of these words was gunned down in an American street by some loon. Almost Christlike, some might say - a message of peace rewarded by death. Lennon's words aren't (repeat, aren't) scripture, they don't instantly liberate us from all wordly problems but it would - if widely believed - put a brake on religiously inspired bigotry, violence and murder. Northern Ireland. Indian subcontinent. Al Qaeda. Must I go on?

As long as we are quoting songs, how about:

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that your preacher
is liable to teach yer
ain't necessarily so.

Mhoram

My goodness... it just struck me.. as I was reading your post Mhoram.... I"ve alread posted on this subject in response to another article...

but Lennon's song, with the haunting words "No hell below us, above us only sky"....... think... THINK about that..... I mean.. reallllly think about it...

Now.. a so called 'loony' takes that song to heart, and says in his mind "Hmm.. well it doesn't really matter whether I embrace John or blow his brains out, but in order to be remembered, to attain 'salvation/immortality to make his name endure beyond his years.. he chooses to blow Lennon's brains out".. It is so fitting in a way, it matches the philosophy of the song.

1 The words of the Teacher, [a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."

Later:

1 I thought in my heart, "Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good."

4 I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. 5 I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. 8 I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired men and women singers, and a harem [a] as well—the delights of the heart of man. 9 I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me.

10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my work,
and this was the reward for all my labor.

11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun

I must thank Faustino for putting the opposite case so well. He (or she) has sketched out the path of religion. That is, we start from what we think is the good, we start with ideology. We then realize that the one barrier to the attainment of this good is attachment to the world and most importantly to the self. The religious quest then becomes a road of discipline, of freeing oneself from the urgings of the self and hopefully reaching some level of enlightenment. This inevitably leads to a dualism between the good that the self aspires to and the evil of the world.

The consequences of this dualism is that the world is neglected and this accounts for the state of disarray of Buddhist countries. A Christian parallel may be found in denominations in which the attainment of heaven after death dominates life and in Islam for the same reasons.

By contrast, when we begin with the particular experience of a people whose genius was to reflect on their history in a theological way we arrive at knowledge of how the grain of the universe runs. We do not start with ideology, or the perceived good, but with historical experience. In this way the Judeo/Christian tradition is empirical in the same way that science is empirical, they both rely on experience. Whereas theology reflects on the experience of past events (if we rely on religion we will lose the battle) science relies on the experience of the here and now. They are both in the business of searching for the truth, they are both centered on revelation.

I am interested that Faustino states in her second sentence: .”And reality has to be the basis for any spiritual development.” The question is, what is the reality that is that basis, the “reality” of wishful thinking and ideology or the actual experienced reality of the world.

Rowdy,
The universal and the particular are not polar opposites, what I am saying is that one can only reach the universal via the particular. For example, we all think we know what love is but it is not till we see the love of Christ, the love that means that you give your life for your friends, that we really come to know what love is. So often love is sentimentalized because the concept relies not on flesh and blood example but on an idea; that we must be nice to each other. It does not occur to us that love is costly, that it demands fidelity and that means that our options are automatically limited and we lose our freedom. In a society that is obsessed with freedom that does not bode well for the health of marriages.

Freedom can only be based on the particular freedom of Christ, the freedom of give oneself away.

This also applies to the idea of justice. Israel was hospitable to aliens because it remembered that it lived as an alien in Egypt. Thus the universal of hospitality is based on the particular historical experience of the nation. That is why the national memory is so precious.

The pacifism of Japan is based on the particular experience of defeat in WWII etc. Rather than being a sandwich the particular and the universal exist in a sequence

There is so much wrong-headedness in this article, it's hard to know where to start. Probably the most offensive thing about it is the assumption that non-religious understanding of the world can be somehow captured, even partially, with reference to Lennon's 'Imagine'. I would've been around fifteen when that song came out,and i recall even at the time finding it grossly embarrassing in its naive idealism. Maybe it did catch the zeitgeist of the time, but that zeitgeist has long since evaporated, surely.
Your championing of particularism is fine, though I don't see what that has to do with Christianity or religion. The 'enlightenment' philosopher David Hume long ago pointed out that our greatest bonds are with family and close friends, and that we only feel in the most abstract way for our fellow humans in far flung places. This from the philosopher whose essay 'On Miracles' is one of the finest critiques of Christian gullibility ever penned.
All of your attempts to present non-Christian or non-religious morality as somehow inferior are spurious, and could be demolished easily enough if one wanted to be tedious, but I might simply confine myself to the observation that Christianity, 'that ole time religion', has been with us a mere two thousand years, or less, whereas humans have been striving and thriving on this planet for near on a million. For this and many other reasons i think it's safe to conclude that Jesus' claim to godly status is profoundly unconvincing.
I've just been reading the bible, out of interest, and find the god described in the pentateuch to be a very particular fellow, and a nasty bit of work - a mass-murderer and state terrorist in the Stalinist mould. He seeks to excuse himself by continually bleating that he's 'a jealous god', but his only real excuse is that he's an invention of his time, clearly based upon the most all-powerful figures of the age - blood-thirsty and ever-insecure tyrants. No wonder theologians ever since have tried to soften him into an all-loving universal figure who'd be unrecognisable to the Bible's authors.

Sell,
I appreciate what you are saying with regard to a Christian understanding of love and freedom.
I wanted to point out that maybe that cold abstract universal individual freedom is more about balancing the power of the state, rather than being a belief system in itself. But also that it is because of this abstract individual freedom that we have the space to live by our own beliefs.

Everyone already does live by their beliefs. Maybe a point about individual freedom is that everyone has the right to decide on and live by our own beliefs. It is not up the Government of the day to decree some set of beliefs as the official 'national' beliefs - and then try to force that onto the population. That's what the 'sandwich' idea is about. Individual freedoms go with modern states. [And what happens outside modern states?]

One problem with some polar opposites in the context of modern states - and I appreciate your point that you are not taking about polar opposites, but instead are talking about approaching the universal through the particular - is that when there is no anchor or reference point that we all can agree on, then a nihilist kind of relativism can sometimes be used politically.

For instance take the individual/collective opposition. When it suits the Howard Government, the IR laws are about empowering individuals yet when it comes to backbenchers, everyone must work as a collective - no individuals in parliament thank you.

So we may be debating about different things. We have both used the concept of individual freedom. You argue that this concept is void of meaning that only a particular belief can nourish, if I understand you correctly, while I argue that individual freedom is perhaps an abstraction that balances the power of modern states, and also provides the space for a person to live by whatever particular belief they find agreeable, in the context of a modern state. I was not talking about a historical sequence or pattern.

When I look at photographs of the known universe and wonder at its indefinable size, well beyond any human comprehension I am in awe. I am also amazed that people could place belief in such a limited deity such as god. A very partiachal being that demands worship. How very tiny. Why would such a supposedly powerful deity bother with a tiny planet in a small solar system on a far flung arm of an average sort of galaxy among myriad other galaxies?

Scientists have recently discovered that there are other planets in other solar systems and they are only getting started....

To limit our beliefs to the apparent words of a very male sort of god is a form of lobotomy. Further to state that one cannot hold to moral standards without a belief in a deity is simply absurd.

Peter believe what you like, but please do not claim moral superiority over those whose thoughts range further than the limitations of a paternal lord.

I am but a child of the universe.....

Xena, loved the reference to "Desiderata" - perfect in this context !

Like Luigi I know there's no point in responding to Peter's arguments in detail, so I'll just give kindly advice: Peter, you need to get out more. I was lucky enough when younger to live and work in non-western cultures, including fairly non-religious ones, like China. Guess what, people everywhere have values ! The same as yours in fact : honesty, loyalty, generosity, courage, self-sacrifice .....

Boaz_David, do YOU remember the name of Lennon's murderer (as opposed to looking it up on Google)?? I honestly don't. I recall Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan but not the fruitcake who shot Lennon or the one who tried to kill George Wallace or the one who shot Reagan.

As for the rest of yr post...I dunno what to say really. If it means that one can't be satisfied with legitimate success, I disagree. If it means one needs in addition some sort of "spiritual" dimension, on the basis of personal experience I disagree. You may (and fair enough, for you), I don't. So much for universal prescriptive rules.

Mhoram

Randy
Freedom is a key biblical concept from the exodus from slavery in Egypt to Paul’s saying “For freedom Christ has set us free.” Karl Barth describes the bible as the book of freedom. The historical difficulties between church and state stem from this freedom. Christians owe allegiance to no earthly power although they cooperate with secular power when that power acts justly. So if you are looking for a way of balancing the power of the state, look for it in the Christian tradition. The problem with communism is that it displaced the ultimate allegiance owed to God with the state and that gave the state unlimited power to produce the result we all know.

The freedom of the Christian is not like the freedom espoused by our secular society because it is a freedom won, paradoxically, from becoming a slave to Christ. Hence the saying: “ For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.” (Mark 8:35 NRSV) This freedom comes from clinging to something outside of ourselves. There is no freedom for the person who remains self obsessed, they remain in tight bondage to the self. This is why I continue to rage against the secular idea of freedom which is not freedom at all.

The baptismal liturgy speaks of us sharing Christ’s death and resurrection. While in Buddhism it is the self that tries to set the self aside, a kind of suicide, in Christianity it is another who comes and puts the self to death so that we may be free

Rhian
That is a very intriguing statement, do you have a reference in Barth I would like to follow it up.

Mark David Chapman
Earl(?) Bremmer
John Hinckley

I had to rack my brains for Hinckley. Of course, since I'm an American, these hits hit closer to home.

I used to go to a lot of Beatles conventions, because my girlfriend was in a Beatles cover band, and there was always someone sitting at a table trying to get people to sign a petition demanding that Chapman never be paroled. I don't think John would have approved of someone devoting so much energy to a campaign grounded in hatred and anger. (Any more than Jesus would have approved the persecution of the Jews.)

Looked it up -- it's Arthur Bremmer.

"The problem with communism is that it displaced the ultimate allegiance owed to God with the state and that gave the state unlimited power to produce the result we all know."..Sells

Could we not equally say:-
... the problem with Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Paganism is that the ultimate allegiance to a God concept displaces allegiance to the common good that can give religious fanatics the unlimited power to produce the result we all know.

"Imagine" isn't so much about universalism as it is about giving up divisive illusions. There's nothing about giving up ethnicity, culture, history or the diversity of ideas. When the song talks about religion, God and Heaven, it's referring to the delusion that these mental constructs have an objectively definable, external reality -- the delusion that these are things which it makes sense to fight about, or be imprisoned by. If you remember the Zen koan/Donovan song: "First there is a mountain; then there is no mountain; then there is;" "Imagine" refers to the stage of realizing that there is no mountain.

To those who do not understand faith and hope in a future and for a better place. Faith is the energy of the immagination that dreams of better things. That we are not locked into a limited physical experience. There is a movement in the human psyche that we are not locked in a fatal existence but in a movement toward better and higher experiences.

Philo believes in pie in the sky when you die.

Why is that these believer types are so terrified of the prospect of personal extinction on death that they have to invent God + heaven + hell + souls etc so that they can believe in life after death? Fear: that's what ails them.

I'm not exactly overjoyed at the prospect of personal extinction either (I'm mid fifties, so there are fewer days ahead than behind) but I can accept that that's how it is. Of course were I wrong, then according to the just and merciful God I was taught about by the Christian Bros (who did not molest me, either) I'll get to warm my toes by the fires of hell forever.

Mhoram

Mhoram

I'm mid 50s also, 56 to be exact.

I'd rather reach out to you than 'bomb' you with words :)
The 2nd part of my post, was straight out of Ecclesiasties, written by King Solomon son of David.

One other thing he states "God has placed eternity in mans's heart, but not so he can know the beginning or the end"

The man tried everything, power, pleasure, empire building. None of which most of us get to do, and his conclusion was that mans duty is to 'remember your creator in the days of your youth' and work hard, obeying God in your life.

This is the dude from whom we get the saying "The wisdom of Solomon"

The point I was making, is that this guy was no slouch, and he has been and done a heck of a lot more than you or I have. If ever there was someone who did not "need" God, it was this guy.

So, while your independance and strength are admirable in some ways, I just question whethere you really should be cutting yourself off from your creator like that ?

Your experience of the Christian brothers, the education you received, may not have given you a picture of spiritual bliss, but I assure you, that to know Christ is without question the greatest experience of my life, so I urge you Mhoram, to enquire in the gospels yourself, to meet 'The Main Man' so to speak, and I pray you will experience His forgiveness and love in your heart, and the new life which knowing Him gives.

If giving yourself to christ is so beneficial (I already have problems with this concept), anyway how come in the past 2000 years christians have yet to achieve peace and harmony?

If the answer is that everyone in the entire world has to go christian, then I would have to say "you're dreaming". Why? 'Cos everyone believes that their religion is the right one. Ergot it just ain't gonna happen.

But even if, theoretically, everyone did embrace JC, there would still be wars, murders poverty etc. How do I know this? Because blood shed and mayhem still occur within christian communities just as they do every where else.

I don't need to read the bible to help elderly frail people, I don't need to believe in a man who was apparently tortured to death on a cross (charming) to perform volunteer work.

Interestingly, as I go about my life and I do not hide the fact that I am not religious, I never receive any of the vitriol that I have received on this website. Does this mean that christians keep their contempt for others till they are in a 'safe' situation before slinging with the insults? I would like to acknowledge that I have yet to be attacked for my beliefs on this particular thread. I am referring to others where christians have indulged in name calling.

Here's a challenge - I will continue to post why I don't believe in religion. But can those who have insulted me in the past refrain from insults on this thread. In other words can you accept that other people are kind, just, compassionate, charitable without religion?

I am no less than the trees and the stars.....

Sells,
States are something historically new. In a post-industrial era the modern state has a collective power that could easily crush individuals or minorities, if the state was not answerable and accountable to the whole of the population. It is in my interest to make sure that the state treats everyone within the rule of law and with due process, and that we all have a say in publicly discussing the justice of laws. This is also in your interest, and in the interest of every section of society. The secular ideas of human rights and freedom fits into this kind of context. How people decide to exercise their freedom is a separate issue. Secular freedom is a container - so that people can fill their lives with whatever accords with them.

Christian beliefs are one of many belief systems that a person is free to live by. Faith and conversion may not feel like a rational choice to the individual involved, but secular freedom as a concept means that in a liberal democratic modern state Christians have the same rights as everyone else.

One of the problems with Communism was that it sort of tried to make modernity into a religion. Progress was understood teleologically. The party was supposed to be only good, like a church. Science was deemed to be the only worthwhile belief system, centralised planning was economically rational - and some people in the west still believe that one, etc etc.

The problem with Communism was not that it was a belief system [based as it was on false premises], but that it tried to be the only belief system in a Communist state. States that allow for only a particular religion or ethnic group can be just as oppressive, even if that religious belief were to be Christian. That is not a criticism of Christianity, or any other belief system, it is a recognition of the power of modern states, and the importance of the separation of church and state in this context. How an individual exercises that choice is a matter for them.

This is a bit tangental, but in relation to communism .... I've had the unusual experience of being a very small cog in the wheels of both a fascist and a communist government. What I found out - others would know this from books, but I'm a slow learner and need to experience things first hand - is that living in such a system was exactly like being brought up as a Catholic in the 1950s. I'm not kidding. I never had any problems with totalitarian environments - I had learnt just how to live in them, thanks to the Church.

Question: What do you give a pedophile who has everything? Answer: a bigger parish. I just got this joke from over on the (usually very politically correct) New Matilda website. They got it from a website www.shipoffools.com where there are dozens more. If you found the joke offensive, you probably need to go there and read them!

Xena
very fair questions... and I’ll try to provide responses of considered depth.

Firstly though, Insults ? I don’t recall deliberately name calling or insulting. Though I do recall about 3 references of yours in a row describing me being a ‘little’ man - kind of up there isn’t it eh :)
..and one other issue. (to respond to a previous post of yours) The Biblical view of women is not that they are ‘there’ for the sexual pleasure of men. Please revisit that issue, and think about it.

Your Questions

1/ Why haven’t Christians achieved peace and harmony in the past 2000 yrs ?

Paul outlines this in his letter to the Galatian Christians.

13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

May I encourage you to read that whole letter Xena, some will seem a bit elusive but most is very clear. Seeing as the topic is ‘Christianity’, please don’t feel my scripture references are ‘preaching at’ you.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=1&version=31

Pretty much all of what you raised is answered in that one letter.

2./ You don’t need faith in order to help the elderly etc. Very true, I don’t recall saying you did ‘need’ faith in Christ in order to do those things. No argument about that.

3/ No less than the trees and stars ? :) no girl..

23Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. 24Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! 25Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[b]? 26Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? (Luke 12)

ROWDY.. many issues in your post. Must explore them sometime.

Solomon

I found your paedophile joke abhorrent - so I guess you must be a paedophile and that you condone horrendous sexual acts on children?

A paedophile is a psychopath. Psychopaths do not have a super-ego (sense of guilt or conscience). Paedophiles do not have remorse, or show any remorse, because they believe that their disgusting acts upon children demonstrate love. Paedophiles associate with paedophiles. They are not a "sick" group. They are "bad" to the very core of the soul of human nature.

If you are not a paedophile, then it seems to me that you are condoning paedophilic behaviour.

If I have misread your joke and its intention - I don't know what to say.

I simply cannot get my head around any decent human being who makes child abuse jokes.

Kay

And no matter how you try to justify yourself Soloman - you made a child abuse joke.

Actually, I thought it was very funny

Good for you Peter .... poor Kay. I went back to New Matilda to see what comments Jane Caro got for posting that joke - 13 comments, none unfavourable!

Shipoffools.com is well worth looking at - I sent it to a still practising Catholic friend and she replied that she had laughed out loud. I think the site is actually run by Christians.

Peter, I didn't want to get involved in all the turgid debate etc, but I remembered today to request a copy of a book from my local library that I heard about on Radio National's "The Spirit of THings". The book is "James, the brother of Jesus" by Eisenman.

Now hold on, I don't want you to comment on the book, just that new bits of information, new interpretations keep coming out - and surely you are still open to these ?? because you seem really closed and dogmatic in your beliefs. I mean it's not like the Bible was written yesterday, by God.

Solomon.
Interesting question: what is genuinely new in Christian theology? The most accepted form of knowledge in our time is the form of natural science which does not accept a limitation on its knowledge. There can be no closure of the scientific canon. Theology is somewhat different since it reflects on a history and their came a time when the old men decided that everything had been said, particularly with the book of Revelation, the great canon closer. It is interesting that all of the archaeological research that has been done, the dead sea scrolls etc, have had little effect on how we understand the Christ event. One could argue that even if they found the body of Jesus that it would not alter our theology one bit. What can be new in theology is different interpretations of the existing texts. Any sermon may be an occasion for this to happen. So it is not that we can add to our knowledge of biblical texts so much as coming to a deeper understanding of what they are saying to us. Theology is an open canon in that there will always be more things to be said. As the words of the prophets always opened a new future for the people, so with preaching. This is why it is dangerous to lay down so called Christian principles, because that closes off the future and traps the faith in law. I have previously pointed to the story of Lot and his daughters. This is a prime example of how Israel collected stories that did not seek to solidify around ethics but was open to the new and the strange. There are many OT books that do the same, they erode religion just as Jesus did and allow the future to be a surprise.

Peter,

I'm not convinced. You say "their came a time when the old men decided that everything had been said" - - why do you accept that ? isn't it true that these old men were human beings - they selected, they left out, they altered .....I guess you share Kevin Donnelly's aversion to 'deconstruction', but what exactly makes this 'text' different to any other. Just 'faith'?

When you say that the new discoveries "have had little effect on how we understand the Christ event", would it be true to say that they haven't affected you and others, and that's OK, but that there are many senior clerics who have been very much affected by these new findings and interpretations; and given that, that you might be a little less dogmatic ?

Solomon.
I have never paid much attention to the formation of the canon, it always seemed a bit boring. My hunch is that the canon was closed under pressure from things like the Gnostic gospels. The decision was made that these were not of the unity of the NT as it stood and were to be excluded. In hindsight they were right to do so since the Gnostic gospels (Thomas) carried quite a different flavor with them that was quite averse to the theology already developed. I know that in modernity this seems suspicious but modernity would have no boundaries on anything, just a free for all. The church understands that there is such a thing as the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit of Christ. It was deemed that the canon as it stood reflected this spirit. Unfortunately the spirit has been supernaturalised into some kind of force by the charismatic movement. But it is no different from saying that democracy carries with it a certain kind of spirit.

Which brings me to say that the bible is inerrant, not because, judged by our empirical understanding of history it tells us what actually happened, but because it is all guided by the same spirit. This does not mean that everything in it needs to be justified either, it can be an account of unfortunate events that are immoral. As I have said before, the genius of Israel, which the church inherited, is to reflect on its experience in a way that exposes the truth. The only proof that God exists is the existence of Israel among the nations. That is, its reflection on human experience exposed the truth so that is survived the downfall of all of the nations around it. Any people who do not have this understanding will fail and that is the strength of Western civilization. Having God on your side is the same as understanding the truth about humanity.

Sells,
Your second paragraph in the previous post expresses some views that are, what I consider to be, unusual interpretations. Sure, your're entitled to them. There are a few points that I would like to make though. The content of the Gnostic Gospels found at Nag Hammadi seems very diverse - admittedly after only a brief browse through them - and they contain some way out ideas in places. Some of the language is the kind of stuff that you hear coming from the neocons, and in some other kinds of institutions - forces of evil versus forces of light - trippy stuff like that.

Now I think that the Nag Hammadi texts show us that we need to take this kind of stuff into consideration when we talk about religion. That is one part of the religious impulse that the old church leaders thought was taking things too far, and it was banned. But that extreme impulse remains and reasserts itself, especially in uncertain volatile times. If a church can not be universal, by its own admission by banning part of the early religious texts, then it needs to recognise that there are other views. There are gaps, and there always will be.

One approach to this problem was to try to force a uniformity of expressed views throughout populations, which lead to the very worse kinds of religious violence. All religions seem to be capable of doing this. The idea of freedom in secular states is a protection against this violence, among other things.

The Gnostic Texts are interesting in many ways...

Rowdy,
I am not saying anything should be banned. The scholars of religion are quite at liberty to take the Gnostic texts seriously, as historical documents. However, as far as Christian theology is concerned we must make distinctions about orthodoxy, otherwise we would have to take Dan Browns rubbish seriously as well. When you come across an ancient text that is so out of step with the rest of the canon, for example it posits the sort of dualism you indicate, then you must make the decision that this is not at one with the Word. I know this raises all kinds of concerns about the church trying to impose a monoculture and the burning of heretics but theology does have the task of discernment as does any intellectual discipline. We have had wacky theories in auditory science that have been relegated to the dustbin. Unfortunately, the discipline of theology has been reduced to individual belief in which mine is as good as yours and you have not right to be critical. There is still such a thing as blasphemy.

Sells,
I personally do not see a problem in asserting a limited set of beliefs, or consistent theology, with allowing other people to also hold beliefs in a similar way - even if the content of our two belief sets differ or even contradict themselves. There is a sense where this individual freedom expresses the Golden Rule in form, rather than by a specific content. Everyone believes something, but that something is not believeable to everyone. But that shouldn't detract from real faith...
Its not about claiming that all beliefs are equally true to everyone. Knowledge is always partial, even if it feels absolute.

Sells,

You tell us that "the Bible is inerrant" and the only foundation for truth, values etc, then say "I have never paid much attention to the formation of the canon" - so we really are in the realms of 'faith' here and it's probably pointless to discuss it.

But when I mentioned the reputable clerics, theologians etc who have had their faith profoundly changed by new interpretations, you cite Dan Brown ! Not the same thing.

You say that "the only proof that God exists is the existence of Israel among the nations" - is this sort of mystical, or the country Israel ? if so, why couldn't I replace Israel with 'China'?

One other thing ....

One thing I really like about old people is that so many of them move past 'particularities'; pejudices, habits and limits of a lifetime seem to melt away as unimportant and they just appreciate and accept and value the person / life in front of them.

Here's a superficial example - my mother is about to give up her driver's license and will stop going to the Catholic Church she has been to forever and instead walk to the nearest church - which is Church of England. She doesn't see the difference as very important. She has her own thoughts but is interested to hear those of others. Mind you this didn't seem to apply to the last Pope who was so good at silencing some of the most respected Catholic theologians - blasphemers I suppose. What's the better approach - my mother's or those members of the Church of England who are tearing it in two over their differences ?

Sorry for the revisit of my chestnut but this one still grates.

In pondering Christianity's apparent unwillingness to contemplate the implications for the faith of the Rwandan massacres, as evidenced by Peter's comments, I was struck by the following verse from Matthew 23;

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass the sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

It might be time to cease casting stones at universalism and the perceived mote in John's eye and look to the log in your own.

Sells
You stated in your last post that the gnostic gospels were excluded because they didn't agree with the gospels. That's not quite how it was. A huge number of gospels were in existence by the time that the christian canon was decided upon. One bishop in the 2nd century lists 40 that were around in his part of the world. So how did the church decide on the 4 we have now? According to the church council this was very simple. They picked those four because they agreed with christian theology. But how did they know that they had the right theology? Easy. They knew because their theology agreed with the gospels they'd just chosen. A beautifully circular argument!!
I'll give you a historian's version. The gospels were chosen because some guys in a back room decided what the church should believe then went a looking for evidence to fit their theology. Fact is they could have chosen any of the hundreds of gospels then in existence. They just happened to have chosen those four. Then all they had to do was declare all the other gospels heretical because they didn't agree with the 'canonical' gospels.

Solomon,
I did not say that the bible was “the only foundation for truth, values” science produces truth, what I would say is that it is the best source of knowledge about “being-in-the-world” that we have, not because of any mystical reason but because of the 2000years of human experience that it represents. “Inerrant” is an abused word and I used it in a very narrow sense.

Sure there are many whose faith has been changed by new interpretations, but that is quite a different thing than new material produced by linguistic or archeological data. Theology is a work in progress but its datum is scripture just as the datum of natural sciences is nature.

Sorry about the confusion about God and Israel. My point is that societies that have religious notions that are inaccurate descriptions of being-in-the world, that are mired in superstition, that attempt to escape from the world, that are burdened by arbitrary law (fill the names of the religions in for your self) will not be successful, many will fail and some will limp along. Israel is the only society that I know that has had a continuous identity for over 2500 years during which time it held fast to a religious conception of the world. This says something about those conceptions and something of the character of the God they worship. History is full of dead gods, but YHWH is still around and has become Father Son and Holy Spirit and, whether you like it or not is the basis of Western civilization.

Solomon
I would go with your mother!

Bosk.
You seem to think that there is a conspiracy under every bush. This really is Dan Brown stuff. If you read the history of the composition of the OT and NT canon you will not come up with a bunch of blokes rigging them to suit their purposes in a back room. You will find two hundred years of discussion and decision that ended up with the churches, even when they were rent in schism, holding to approximately the same canon and thus giving hope for ecumenism. These were not arbitrary decisions.

Theology is faith seeking understanding and you will not come to grips with the Christian tradition unless you walk a little along the way. While faith is not gullibility, cynicism is a dead end

I've been reading all the posts on this topic and wish to comment on Luigi's statement that "i think it's safe to conclude that Jesus' claim to godly status is profoundly unconvincing."

The authors of the New Testament claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a normal man in every respect but one - his extraordinary qualities of character. Christian church doctrines regarding Divinity, Trinity, Virginity, etc were introduced by later church fathers for two reasons: (a) to appeal to the pagan citizens of the Roman Empire whose mythology abounded with divinely-impregnated virgins and (b) to conceal what two new testament authors state quite plainly - that Jesus of Nazareth was born out of wedlock. Let's not attribute to Jesus any claims to divinity - the man himself would have regarded such absurdities as profoundly shocking.

vynnie, thank you for some down to earth common sense. Jesus was a man - end of story. To ascribe virginal birth, miracles (walking on water/loaves&fishes etc) is clearly biblical 'spin' to rope in the masses - gullibility indeed.

To maintain a degree of scepticism towards any outrageous claim such as Creationism is to maintain a sense of the real world - something we need to do to remain responsible for and aware of our actions. Else claiming 'it is god's will' and taking a superior moral stand to others on this basis is essentially a cop-out and the last refuge of the scoundrel (apologies to Samuel Johnson).

No, no, no, no. I am the first to concede that the bible contains mythological material such as the virgin birth, the miracles and the resurrection. But they are not mythological in the way that the Tiamat creations stories of old Babylon were or the dreaming of Australian Aboriginals because they do not include spiritual identities that have a life of their own. That is, they are rather legend than myth because they are constructed from ordinary reality. Our problem, living this side of modernity, is that we dismiss much biblical legend because it is physically impossible and rightly so, however when we do this we miss the author’s original intent and are impoverished by that loss. This is true for the doctrine of the two natures of Christ as it is for the virgin birth etc. The question is: how do the texts understand the divine. This cannot be read from the Greek notion of divine beings like Zeus etc because in Jesus (and in Israel) the divine is radically different from that understood by the nations. Being divine in the case of Jesus means being truly human, the tables have been turned. Religion and divinity has been redefined. By simply going on about the impossibility of the miraculous or of divinity misses the point.

The point I made has been missed! What I am saying is that the new testament does NOT contain these myths or legends, call them what you will! In all cases, the new testament authors regarded Jesus of Nazareth as a normal man, born in humble, disadvantaged circumstances and therein lay the point of the entire exercise i.e. that an ordinary person can rise to 'divine' heights through strength of character. Man had to become 'godly' not god become 'manly'.

They did NOT say he was born of a virgin, nor that he was the literal son of god or anything else of that ilk. Such doctrines are worse than pointless because of their implication that unless one is endowed with VERY special qualities, one cannot hope to emulate the standard set for us in the person of Jesus. Doctrinal Christendom arose through ignorance of Jewish modes of thought and expression.

(Mat 1:18 NRSV) Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

(Mat 1:19 NRSV) Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

(Mat 1:20 NRSV) But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

(Mat 1:21 NRSV) She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

(Mat 1:22 NRSV) All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

(Mat 1:23 NRSV) "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."

And

(Mat 16:15 NRSV) He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

(Mat 16:16 NRSV) Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

(Mat 16:17 NRSV) And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.

I thought that in those days a virgin was a woman who did not 'belong' to any man. That word did not necessarily mean the same as chastity does now. A virgin forest, for instance, has some of that meaning of a forest that is not owned by any man.
There was an interesting program on The Spirit of Things on Radio National recently. It was about the Dead Sea Scrolls. These were written around the time that Jesus lived and towards the end of the program the scholar who was being interviewed virtually said that the Jesus of the Gospel was a Pauline creation - and actually at variance with what the historical Jesus might have been like.
The transcript is at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s1427956.htm
As texts the Gospels may have been interpreted and understood in different ways over the centuries, and as vynnie pointed out, the original meanings may vary from what is read into the texts now.
Again, that does not really detract from the texts, as long as they are not taken too literally in the same way as science or history is.

BIBLICAL SPIN ? to rope in the masses ? woooooo..... now you have got me going :)

Firstly, and categorically that statement and the ideas propounded by Vynnie.. are outright incorrect. (on Jesus Divinity) Do a google

I’m more concerned about the claim that the New Testament Documents are nothing more than SPIN to ‘rope in the masses’.

. If that was true, then it would pander to the ‘desires’ of the masses.. now THAT... is common sense, like promising them up to 4 wives, showing by example that 9yrs old is not too young,
by offering a share of ‘war booty’- virgins in paradise...etc

I mean, seriously, who would be attracted to this:

Luke 14
25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Kinda confronting to the ‘me’ generation I think.

Note..

1/ LARGE CROWDS were following Him.. (masses)

2/ Turning to them..... he says... (see above)

Conclusion ? err.. spin to suck in the masses... yeah right ! Bear in mind, ‘carry one’s own cross’ was far more meaningful to them than to us, we have never seen revolutionaries on crosses lining both sides of Maroondah highway from the CBD to Ringwood..like they would have then.

Now.. Xena.. and Vynnie.. if you’re going to make sweeeping statements about ‘church and spin’ at least ensure it has at least SOME connection to the foundation documents.

Check out John 6

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31

66 ...From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Mark 8
34Then he called the CROWD to him along with his disciples and said:

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me...”

ROWDY Pauls letters were written B4 the gospels, you can explain the ABSENCE of Pauline Theological expressions in the Gospels ?

Sells, I reiterate: Christian Church doctrines arose out of ignorance of Jewish modes of thought and expression.

BOAZ_David, I never used the term ‘biblical spin’.

THE USE OF THE TERM "VIRGIN" IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
Matthew was indeed quoting Isaiah 7:14 and if the context of that passage is studied it will demonstrate that the birth to come was to occur in Isaiah’s own lifetime. (Matthew presented the life of Jesus as a microcosm of the history of Israel, hence his use of the passage from Isaiah is purely allegorical.)

It has been known to Church fathers and scholars (e.g. Eusebius, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus) for at least 1700 years that the ‘young woman’ (almah) of Isaiah 7:14 had been incorrectly translated into Greek as ‘virgin’.

It was also attested by a chain of church fathers that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew and that he used the term ‘young woman’. To quote the historian Gibbon “…this Hebrew gospel is most unaccountably lost”.

THE USE OF THE TERM "HOLY SPIRIT" IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
The Old Testament writers regarded the Holy Spirit as the agent of every human birth.

To give just one example: from the Old Testament Book of Job comes “The Spirit of God hath made me and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life”.

Joseph was simply told that Mary’s pregnancy was in accordance with God’s plan for salvation.

The Hebrew name ‘Immanuel’ is here given its literal meaning – ‘with us god’ Many Hebrew names had similar meanings e.g. ‘Elihu’ one of Job’s friends whose name means ‘god himself’.

THE USE OF THE TERM "MESSIAH" IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
It is incontestable that the NT authors regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the longed-for Messiah but that had nothing to do with the manner of his procreation. Why they mentioned his birth at all was to demonstrate that he was entitled to sit upon the throne of David (prevailing opinion was that the Messiah must be a physical descendant of David)

Man does not become godlike as he rises by his own efforts above his human frailty. Man cannot by any means he might employ apart from God rise to the nature of God. The spirit and nature of God comes to us where we are in our frailty. God rescues us in our human frailty and assures us we are his loved sons. It is the implantation of His divine seed [to use the Apostle John's term] by the Spirit of God that motivates us to live godly lives. It is our recognition we by our selves have failed and only in God do we have a unique place in the history of man and can fulfil that unique place in the purpose of God.

We live in a world that has been intelligently designed, and not in a progression of mutated accidents. There is but one God uniting the whole happening of the universe, not many accidental forces as atheistic evolution would have us believe. The latest scientific thought has debunked random mutation and replaced it with intelligent design. There is a Designer Creator and he wants to relate to our purpose and role in His Creation.

Christianity is not knowledge of a historical Jesus; i.e. you read a book and understood its message. No it is focused in relationships with God, others within Church, neighbours, brothers, wife, and children, State. Knowing the history of Jesus does not make one a follower of Jesus. Devotion to God in the heart expressed by the living of our lives through full reconciliation and humility to the Spirit of Christ is Christianity. Christianity is action based not the intellectual accumulation of ideas.

With regard to Jesus conception it was the council of Priests including Zacharias [father of John the Baptist} who searched a precedent for Marys life dedication to Temple. She could not stay at Temple because her menstruation was against temple law. The example given for her role was found in Isaiah, so Mary was to fulfil that by giving birth to a son in the lineage of David, who would be rejected, killed for the sins of the Nation [Isa 53]. Isaiah set the role Jesus was to fulfil, Jesus clearly understood that purpose. His natural father is unknown among sperm donations from several youth called up from the lineage of David. The messenger given the encounter to artificially impregnate Mary when recalled following her pubity was known to her from the Temple staff. Gabriel means the messenger appointed to protect and retain the throne appointed of God in Israel.

The original child mentioned in Isaiah didn't fulfil the role as Almighty God to the nation or die rejected for the sins of the people. That child is obscure of no note. Compare the scenes set by the Minor Prophets that influenced the Essenes that had close contact with John's father Zacharias. Note it was to the caves of the Essenes that Elizabeth fled with baby John after the death of her husband Zacharias in the Temple court by Herod’s henchmen after Herod heard of his intent to raise a son that was to assume power in Judah. Jesus from his conception was known as the child born to be King. Mary had lived under the schooling of the Temple from age three and had cared for the sacrificial doves, so was known to the Temple shepherds who initially feared the messenger bearing tidings of the birth of the child - Jesus.

Jesus had a purpose to be King in Judah but relinquished that for the savant role of Isaiah. Of the whole Messianic scene, Zacharias was murdered with a dagger, John was beheaded from prison, and Jesus was crucified for blasphemy.

Vynnie.. re 'spin' you're correct..and I apologise :) I was mixing Xena's post with yours.. sorry about that.

Now..to the issue of 'virgin birth'.

From Luke... but context and authors intent first

Luke 1
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, ... since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,

Now.. verse 34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" (Parthenos) In this context, the specific word is intended to have its plain meaning. It is not using Isaiah 7 for inspirtation, it is a conversation between Mary and the angel.

Matthew.

The use of 'parthenos' in quoting Isaiah came from the Septuagint (greek version of hebew bible) which indeed MIStranslated the hebrew word used in Isaiah. (almah=young woman, not virgin)

The context of Isaiah, was not intending to emphasise the 'clinical condition' of the young woman, but its safe to say it would be assuming she was not 'fooling around'. The point being the child was to be called 'Mighty God' among other names. Hardly fuel for illegitemate birth with a human father.

Matthew is also supporting the virgin birth in no uncertain terms

Ch 1
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

This is in CONTRAST to Josephs opinion that she has been humanly impregnated.

It would not matter if verse Matthew 1: 23 was translated 'young woman' or 'virgin' the cumulative evidence is clearly on the side of 'virgin'.

So, pretty much all of your case crumbles on the basis of context, content and common sense.

P.S. I appreciate your own passion in the debate... its all helpful

Sells,

Re our different approaches to the Bible - I guess your type of faith and my type of curiosity don't have much to say to each other. But you also seem to want to use the continuing existence of the Judeo-Christian tradition as some type of proof of its unique claim to truth. That tradition is part of (let's not forget the Greeks etc) the foundation of western 'civilisation'.

Indian and Chinese civilisations are also ancient and continuing. Take Jainism - it's also been going for 2,500 years and contributed it's ideas and traditions to Indian civilisation. There's must be dozens and dozens of similar instances. Looking for 'data' on which to base a faith sort of ties in with the need to say "I'm certain my beliefs are the only true way" - I prefer that kind of faith that is a gamble because nothing is certain.

"Encounter" on RN yesterday had a theologian who was asked why altruism doesn't need a religious foundation, and he said something like "People just know that they belong to each other - faith helps them to understand why that is so". Which takes me back to where I came in on this tired thread : in every type of society you find good people, with good values, who don't need religion to tell them what to do.

I enjoyed being reminded of Desiderata and John Lennon's great song "Imagine" so I'll offer another memory from those hopeful times: that fabulous photograph of the earth from space. The way most of us felt when we saw our little blue grey planet out there in the darkness is also a foundation for universalism - we're all one community, the barriers we set up between each other belong to the past.

Solomon,
Relativism is a fine way to dodge the issue. It is easy and cheap, when someone makes a stand for the truth of a particular tradition, to demur and point to all of the other traditions. It is like saying, “but that is just your opinion”. This is a distraction from the main business that we are involved in, a discussion about how God is present to us. I say He is present to us in an alternative history that appears strange to us but speaks to us of our true humanity. I have no interest in what the other religions think but I do have an interest in speech about God that is not just speech about ourselves. I think we can do this with all intellectual honesty. Sure, when we go along this path we close other paths. Our determination to hang lose and keep our options open looks enlightened but in the end where does it place us? When people bring up the old relativistic argument I wonder what they are afraid of. It is the perfect deflection.

Think again, Peter.

>>It is like saying, “but that is just your opinion”<<

No, it IS saying, that is just your opinion.

>>"Relativism is a fine way to dodge the issue."<<

No, relativism is addressing the issue, not dodging it. By rejecting this approach as "easy and cheap" you are insulting the intelligence of all those who choose to disagree with your belief system.

>>"I have no interest in what the other religions think"<<

Pretty much says it all, really. You cannot even be bothered to expose your mind to the ideas that you reject.

You try to label any form of comparison as "relativism". As a result, your arguments can only ever be uni-dimensional, in much the same way as a pet hamster sees its world only in terms of the contents of its cage.

Pericles
Under your rules of engagement we could not have a discussion about anything. Just try sitting in a university tute of any subject of your choosing and use the kind of arguments you have put up. You would have us wafting about generalities without coming to terms about any specific subject. I am specifically discussing Christian theology and nothing else. That does not mean that I am narrow minded just that I want to say a particular thing. This is the typical liberal rubbish that freezes all debate before it even gets off the ground.

To the contrary, Peter.

>>"Under your rules of engagement we could not have a discussion about anything"<<

Under 'my rules of engagement', we could have a discussion about Christian theology that doesn't involve rejecting a valid question.

In Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, the world is flat, and rides through space on the backs of four elephants, Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon, and Jerakeen, who are in turn carried by a giant turtle, the Great A'Tuin. Under 'my rules of engagement' it would be permissable to ask questions about the thesis itself, which – as you can imagine – has a few holes in it. It is a world that is, after all, only held together by magic.

Under yours, Peter, we would be permitted only to discuss matters such as the relationship between Brutha and Om, or the nature of the eighth colour, Octarine. A somewhat limited discourse, I am sure you will agree, and one that can only be useful, I would submit, to an audience already steeped in Discworld folklore.

How much more interesting those university tutorials might be if you opened a window occasionally to let in some light.

Sells,

" we are involved in a discussion about how God is present to us." well, no, it seems you are involved in preaching about how God is present to you. If others have been led by experience to other beliefs you dismiss them as "easy and cheap".

That's why I came in on the discussion - you can believe what you like, but to insist that only your beliefs are valid, that others are living in error, can't be proved and is unnecessarily offensive. Your remarks about being not interested in other religions implies that your faith may be based in ignorance.

It's interesting that you say people with other beliefs have something to be afraid of, and are dodging the issue because to me it seems that you might be afraid to face the variety and uncertainty of life and have wrapped yourself up in the security of a dogmatic faith. The irony there is that that kind of thinking often seems to end up being profoundly exclusive and anti-Christian.

Following on what Solomon said above, I get the impression that religious fundamentalists are treating their religious texts as if they were idols. Think about it. Who are these fundamentalist, or anyone else for that matter, to tell us what God's will is. The world in wonderfully unpredictable and unknowable in practice - in the lived experience. Fundamentalist of all stripes seem to cling desperately to their books as a way to hide and reject the world, and dare I say, the wonder of God [to use their language]...

BOAZ_David,

Regarding your statement…"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

As far as I know, not one Greek text of Luke 1:34 contains the word ‘parthenos’ (virgin). All agree that the verse reads: “How shall this be seeing I know (ginosko) not a man?"

Also your…”The context of Isaiah, was not intending to emphasise the 'clinical condition' of the young woman, but its safe to say it would be assuming she was not 'fooling around'. The point being the child was to be called 'Mighty God' among other names. Hardly fuel for illegitemate birth with a human father.”…

I don’t know why you’ve referred to two different passages of Isaiah here but the “mighty god” reference comes from Isaiah 9:6-7

The Hebrew words of this passage read “And his name is called ‘wonderful in counsel is god the mighty, the everlasting father, the ruler of peace’… Even if the words refer to the child himself, Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34 confirm that those to whom the word of god came were themselves regarded as ‘gods’.

The really significant part of this passage comes at the end of verse 7 when it says: “the zeal of the ‘Lord of Hosts’ will perform this.”

The preceding “god the mighty (el gibbor)” is actually distinguished from, and can bear no comparison with “the Lord of Hosts (YHVH Tzvaoth)”, regarded by the Jews as the sacred and unutterable name of God.

As to Matthew 1:20, I’ll just refer to the birth of Jeremiah the prophet. It demonstrates how the prophets considered all men to be formed in the womb by god. …”Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jer 1:5

Whew…

As someone who tends to agree substantially with what Sells wrote in the article, I hesitate to enter the debate because I find it hard to grasp the motivation for the intense opposition. While there is some value in taking an overview of various religions and belief systems, making comparisons and drawing contrasts, to find the truth we seek means eventually taking a path. The view of the beautiful one-world from space is fine, but we don’t live and grow up there. In the end each person needs to take a stand on a particular patch of ground, within a particular story, right here and now on earth.

I suppose we can only take the paths-and-patches metaphor so far. Suffice to say that by advocating concentration on particularities Sells is not expressing ill-feeling towards other religions and civilisations. To reach the universal we must proceed through the particular. God can only be present to me in my particular body, my particular relationships, my particular place on earth. To develop my human potential I need to place myself within a particular story and then confront the accounts of that story that may seem unacceptable in the light of today’s knowledge and experience.

My Muslim, Buddhist and Taoist friends are still my good friends and as entitled to tread their paths as I am my Christian path. While I have interesting discussions with them about their religions and mine, in the end my own spiritual growth comes through my experience in my own religion. And I’m sure it is the same for them.

I have been following the discussion on 'virgin birth'and it seems to me that "Vinnie" has added a marked degree of sanity into the discussion. She has obviously studied the subject matter diligently but the impressive thing has been her refusal to get involved in dogmatic or doctrinal discussion but has stuck to what I would call rigourous scholarship.
I looked up her refernces and found them to be accurate and without the overlay of Christian dogma and doctrine. One can then relate to Jesus as a fellow human being without the accretion of pagan concepts attributed to him as a means of making him acceptable to those whose mental constructs were of a different nature than that of the Hebrews. In other words Jesus "Christ" had to conform to popular beliefs eg Mithraism from categories with which they were familiar Paganism.
Papias 60-130CE reports matter-of-factly that "Matthew collected the oracles [literally; words] in THE HEBREW LANGUAGE (Emphasis mine) and each interpreted them as best he can. Papias realised that some ancient translations of Matthew's gospel were none too accutate and this is why he says 'each translated them as best he could. Matthew wrote to the circumsised to convince them that a dead man fulfilled messianic expectations and to change Isaiah 7-14 from "this young woman is pregnant" to "virgin would conceive" is incomprehensible. To do so would make him the laughing stock of those he was trying to convince - and rightfully so.
Vinnie displays a profound knowledge of the Hebrew language and we would all learn a lesson to make sure of our facts, particularly when referring to the Tanakh so that we do not reveal our ignorance as exampled by the references to 'el gibbor' and "YHVH Tzvaoth".
Vinnie has done us all a favour so keep up the good work and don't accept second rate scholarship from those who are more inclined to hold on fast to falsehood rather than "search out the truth and the truth will make you free".
Regards SAS

I join SAS in praise of Vinnie she has obviously done her homework and these areas are outside of my speciality. However I would like to comment on the slur that SAS places on dogmatic discussion as not being sound scholarship. The early church found itself in the position of laying down the truth about Jesus in opposition to the many heresies that were collecting around him. But aside from correcting heresy it had to formulate what it thought about Jesus. To do so it had to work with the completed canon of the Old and New Testaments so as to sum up the church’s belief. This is where doctrine came into existence. I know the word dogma has bad connotations in our day but it is necessary and legitimate to speak of church dogmatics (the title of Karl Barth’s systematic theology) Far from being a dishonest and closed overlay upon an original understanding of Israel and of Jesus it is a necessary development that attempts to encapsulate our belief about Jesus. It is noteworthy that saying one of the creeds is a feature of much Christian worship and rightly so.

Dear Sells
Jesus of Nazareth would neither approve of, nor endorse, the nonsense that is the creation of organised Christian religion.
Jesus was not the founder of Christianity. His scriptures were the Tanakh. His hymnal was the Psalms, his “eucharist” was the Passover festival and his moral standards came from the prophets.
It was Paul who was the founder of Christianity!
It was Rome that made it the State religion!
It was the Americans who turned it into a business!
It was this Roman religion that turned Jesus of Nazareth into the pagan replica –”Jesus Christ”! The religion of modern churchianity has absorbed and adopted numerous doctrines that have no basis in the scriptures that Jesus of Nazareth used but are rooted in mystic pagan religions.
“Put false ways far from me: and graciously teach me thy law ..."
Christianity is truly what I say about it, a paganised, gentile spin-off from a Jewish sect that perverts what Jesus of Nazareth said and did.
Whatever evaluation be placed on the writer’s intentions, it must be stated authoritivly that there is profound disagreement with official Christian doctrine, its interpretation of scripture, its worship of a man or belief in a God-man.
I don’t accept such doctrines as Miraculous Incarnation, Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, Trinity, and Transubstantiation or Marion theology, as having any validity to living a “Christian” life, if we consider Christian to be what Jesus attests to and endorses not what the Churches sanction. I consider them to be unnecessary impositions, absolutely preposterous and lack any validation from Jesus, his disciples or the Bible. These unsubstantiated beliefs and others like them justified Christian persecution of “heretics”.
I differentiate two religious stances, and I will defend my position just as you might. This state exists and that it is sometimes confrontational or offensive to you - I regret.
I don't know you personally, so please do not assume that any criticism of Christendom and its dogmas and doctrines are directed toward you personally or a personal and purposeful attack on you.
But “For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent…”
SAS

Crabby,
I just reread Sells' article and like in your comment I don't have much of a problem with his emphasis on the particular. I see the problem as being the idea that particularity and the abstract modern individual can not coexist at the same time. The valueless individual in the modern state, as a universal concept with rights, enables a real person to hold their unique beliefs and live as a particular person in society without being subject to undue coercion from the state. They are actually a perfect fit, rather than alternatives to choose between.
I think that one problem with the article is that it compares two different things that can not really be compared, and the title begs the question that we have to choose one over the other. This is a misunderstanding of liberalism, in my opinion.

This article falls at a time of intense debate about 'values' in the modern state. The article tries to place both Liberalism and Christianity on the same level as a pick one or the other choice, thus relativising Liberal Institutions. The Christian Right in the US has been attacking the modern state and now with so-called Intelligent Design is also attacking science and knowledge that is based on reason and evidence. The Howard Government, apart from a few noteworthy dissenters, has swallowed this kind of relativist mush wholesale and is licking the spoon dry.
In this context the perceived attack on liberal democracy has predictably attracted strong criticism. But as I said before, I think that the problem is that liberalism is misunderstood and that Liberalism and Christianity are different and can also coexist.

Rowdy,
I note your claim that Intelligent Design in your opinion is an attack on science and reason. Just because it undermines Darwin's theory of evolution you dismiss it as unscientific. The fact is leading geneticists like atheist Anthony Flew researching the genetic code is now at the forefront of promoting Intelligent Design. Also Philip Johnson a Harvard-educated Law professor at the University of California, Berkeley; Michael Behe a biochemistry professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University; William Dembski a mathematician with two PhDs who directs an information theory research group at Baylor University; and Steve Meyer, a philosopher of science at Whitford College in Washington state lead the research.

I assume you believe these leading professors in their field are not true scientists simply because they do not follow Darwins theory?

Your words, "The Christian Right in the US has been attacking the modern state and now with so-called Intelligent Design is also attacking science and knowledge that is based on reason and evidence. The Howard Government, apart from a few noteworthy dissenters, has swallowed this kind of relativist mush wholesale ...

Hey SAS. It is good to see a pugnacious post. It is a pity you went soft in the end.

This is serious stuff, and in the tradition of St Paul we should get stuck into the debate.

Now for a simple fact. Please push through the necessary small pieces of religious terminology.

The Immanent God, the Word amongst us, is in Jesus. This Incarnation, God as man, is what stands Christianity apart from being a religion only of the book and nice sayings. Too often it is expressed as piety in the sky but in reality, it is God in the dust, grit and muck of life; in the here and now of each human instance throughout history. Is this Incarnation a proven fact? Of course not. It is a proclamation, commanded by God, and lived by real people.

A consequence of this is the reality of the Church; and the inevitability of institutions, doctrine and dogma. We are a fractious race, we humans. I have been engaged in civic affairs for over 25 years and time and time again I have observed people pull their organisations apart through division. It seems to be our human way.

Notwithstanding the scandal of schism within the Church over the last 500 years, the undeniable fact is that there is little deviation from core efficacious beliefs held and proclaimed in churches from Rome's Basilicas to a Bible Church in Roma. A unity in place now for 2000 years, and now a mature unity that differentiates the united elements.

I challenge anyone to refute that the Christian Church continues to be the greatest force of good across the world. And, please do not insult my intelligence with the obvious retorts. We are here talking of aggregated outcomes of goodness for man in all his/her conditions across the globe. As in, for every pervert, or US neo-con or money maker from the Southern US Bible belt, there are millions of faithful life healers and servants to mankind working in the institutions talked accusingly of by SAS et al.

(continued next post)

At this short moment in time of the last few centuries across the 4000 years of God revealing himself through his people, we are moving out of a 500 year age of religious schism, human progress and secular development, into a new era. The Church is grinding its way to come to a new understanding of itself in its presence and role in the affairs of humanity. There is need for, and it will come, of a new language and story that will again pick up the radical message of Jesus.

Peter Sellick's contributions are but a glimpses of what is happening. I have the view that they offer energy to light the path we are to take through this awakening.

To all you relativists, and babes of the universe, "imagineers" who have hope in your convictions, and long for things you think about within the restraints of reason limited to what is measurable and evidenced, the best of luck. Keep bouncing in the air - there is no rest for you.

Let me remind you, or inform you perhaps, of what Christian faith is in the words of St Paul - the assurance of things hoped for; the convictions of things not seen. These "things" are as much in the here and now of our human existence than any heavenly homecoming. These "things" of the hear and now are the gifts of real joy and peace within one whilst in the dust, grit and muck of life, whether dumped on you or taken up in service. These "things" are the stuff of Jesus; unearthed, revealed and protected within the Church with her Doctrine and Dogma, and underpinned by the love expressed in the simple living of her members. This may sound romantic, but it is real to me, as in particular, yet universal in its availability and application.

And it frees the imagination to unveil things more real and attainable as a precursor to action.

What a waste for imagination ala John Lennon to feed delusion and lead to eventual despair.

Hey MJB,
Read the title of the article and tell me who the relativists are:

Why Christianity’s particularity is better than John Lennon's universalism

What makes you think that Christianity can not exist in a liberal democracy?

Philo,
If you want to believe Creationism literally, go for your life. I have no problem with people living in a world of narratives that give meaning to our lives. If, however, you want to pretend that Creationism can be artificially dressed up as a science, and then passed off as a credible scientific theory, then I think that you don't quite understand what science is. After a quick read of the Wikipedia entry on ID I was not in any way convinced that ID is credible as a science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
The complexity arguments sound to me, and I have studied sciences at uni, fanciful. Biological reality is so much more complex than anything that can be designed. Even with large and complex human engineering projects the scale becomes one where no one person could control the way that the design procedes. The designs would not work if they were not thoughly tested - ie if they did not go through the repeated trials and failures that evolution is all about.
We may not even have a complete understanding of all the physical aspects of complexity and the natural formation of complex structures at this moment - take a look at Constructal Theory
http://www.mems.duke.edu/faculty/bejan/const_theory.php
Fields like Chaos Theory and non-linear mathematics, dynamics etc are still quite new and emerging at this time in history. There is just so much going on...
ID which is an ideological attempt to place God in science is just so out of place...

I have no problems with religious beliefs and the idea that people understand their lives and the social world through narratives. Science, however, is not a narrative in the same way as stories are. There are different rules in science. It has to be understood by people but it is not about people - it is about the physical world.

Hey Philo
A small correction about ID. It has no research going on, not at any time. You disagree? Fine! Show me an accredited peer reviewed journal that produces the latest ID research & I'll be more than happy to read it. But you won't find any.
Point 2: I would have thought a good christian lad such as yourself would have recognised the danger inherent in ID theory. Science is concerned with the natural world ie that which can be observed. God is NOT part of this natural world & therefore is NOT a proper subject of scientific investigation. By bringing God into a theory, that claims to be scientific, ID makes God a proper subject of scientific investigation. In other words God is merely to be an observable phenomena like any other. Not exactly in line with scripture is it?
But if you claim that God is NOT subject to scientific study then you undercut ID theory since any theory MUST be able to be examined through the scientific investigation otherwise it is NOT science.
Conclusion: ID is NOT science & is a danger to the Christian faith. But push it if you like.

My goodness, new life in a dying thread! SAS your post is certainly challenging, I am not sure where to start. I think there is no such thing as undeveloped Christianity that goes back to the pure and simple source of the actions and sayings of Jesus. Right from the earliest writings of Paul we have very sophisticated and developed theology. That development took different forms in the gospels but they all point to the one reality. Of course Jesus was a Jew, as was Paul and maybe Matthew. Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as if he invented a new religion, his life and work were interpreted in the light of the OT but pushed beyond it. This is why I always emphasis the importance of Israel and Jesus. The historical development of Christianity took off among the Jews and then the gentiles, Jesus would never have envisioned this, the movement became greater than the man would ever have thought. This is evidence of its inherent vitality.

As for Intelligent Design, what this space.

Bosk & Rowdy,
When leading genetic scientists like atheist Anthony Flew is at the forefront of promoting Intelligent Design, I hardly think it is a construct of religion. To date he has not stated he has accepted a religious faith.

By the way I do not believe in a six day creationism, which seems to colour your conclusions about ID.

Dear MJB,
Being new to this forum my original post was around 900 words, so to comform to policy I had to do some severe editing. I'm not complaining, it's just the way things are and I have no problem with that.
SAS

Vynnie

I'm almost sniffing a 'JW' at your end :) ?

Back to Luke 1:34 "how can this be, etc " does not use the word 'parthenos' Virgin. Correct.

Now look at 2 things:

1/ Lukes insistence on his producing a very accurate record of the events.

2/ Verse 26 etc

26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin (Parthenos) pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's(Parthenos) name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

So, just as with real estate they say its 'location x3'.. with Biblical interpretation its 'context context context'.

Luke is reporting this as a factual event.

How about we accept his version, as he was closer to the events than us.

Bosky... I think you've been reading too much of 'chariots of the gods' :) c'mon mate.. do some real research and put something credible up for us. It just ain't worth rebutting the incredulous.

I think you mentioned something about 'Show me a peer reviewed paper on ID" Well thats hard... want to know why ? Simple. 'entrenched' establishment science becomes very emotional and suddenly subjective when one of them 'breaks ranks'... they also become very anti social to the guy who steps outside the orthodox loop....check this out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

<<Richard Sternberg, evolutionary biologist: "They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there.">>

So, that's why u don't see many !

DB & Philo
Two points. 1) RE: the steinberg alegations. Does he possess documentary evidence for this great conspiracy? NO? All we have is his word you say? Hey I'd like to sell you a bridge I own in that case. I KNOW you'll believe me after all you'll have My word. :)
2) ID have their own research centre. They offer huge grants to anyone who will undertake any research to substantiate ID. So far there are NO takers. Two options to expalin this. 1) their in on the conspiracy too. This is known as paranoia. 2) There are no takers because there is NOTHING to research.
C'mon DB. From Philo I expected unsubstantiated assertions but you should know better. No evidence means no assertion. Rules of evidence apply.

Sells
By the way about the Dan Brown crack. VERY low class. I actually got my information from such lousy authors as Henry Chadwick who says "the Church actively created the canon in response to Marcion & other sectarian leader..." p.29 Oxford History of Christianity.
I can also quote from John Romer in his work "The Bible & History" & Anrdrie B. Du Toit. who writes "It is undeniable that the canon was established as a response to the writings of Marcion & the other Gnostics" p. 103-104 Oxford Companion to the Bible ed Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan.
Needless to add I stand by what I wrote.

BOAZ_David,

Luke certainly does have 'perfect understanding' of the events as he shows knowledge of Mary's intimate physical cycle. You keep talking about 'context' so how about going as far as Chapter 2:21.

"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel BEFORE he was conceived in the womb."

Think about it! I agree that Luke knows far more than most give him credit for and he does say that when the angel visited Mary she was a 'virgin' but...do I need to point out that every girl is a virgin BEFORE the first event? We know that Jesus was conceived AFTER the visitation so what's the problem? Let's indeed study the whole context, not just proof texts.

Oh, and what's a 'JW'? If it's a certain sect then you couldn't be more off the mark! Or perhaps you're referring to something else...

BD
One last note & I'm gone. Many of My fundamentalist friends often ask why it is that everyday people seem so resntful of christianity? If you've ever wondered that yourself there's been two book published, by christians, that gives a few examples of outrageous behaviour.
The first is "Ungodly Fear" by Stephen Parsons. it's about spiritual abuse in the churches. The second is called "Sex, Power & the Clergy" by Muriel Porter. It relates rather shocking stories of sexual abuse of women & children & the Clergy who covered it up. Up to advising women to have abortions so their favourite priest could stay in the parish, or threatening children with hellfire if they reported the sexual abuse they had suffered. I repeat this was not at the hands of the priest that had abused them but at the hands of higher clergy. Corrupt or what? I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just saying if you want to understand people's disappointment & anger with the churches then these books are a good place to start.
Bye for now guys.
Bosk

Nooooooot so fast Bosky :) c'mere u ! now sit down, and learn :)

As to the matters of sexual abuse, I TOTALLY AGREE.. with your point, and I hope you will agree with me when I say there is absolutely no connection between such evil behavior and the teachings and example of Christ and the apostles.

WOOPS...wait, there IS... its where all such behavior is condemned outright and to the uttermost. "Let there not even be a HINT of sexual immorality among you" that's pretty clear. So, the more important question is "What in the world were they thinking" ? (those who do these things) I suggest that while you will see the occasional example among evangelical churches, by far the most are in the large established beurocracy types, and that is an environment where you daily commmittment to Christ can slide and cease to determine your daily behaviour because its a 'job'.

The Cannon, Henry Chadwick. Yes, exactly, they formed the Canon in response to the likes of MARCION who were clearly heretics and if u read about him u will see why they acted when they did.

ID ? and Sternberg ? Its not 'his word' its 'actual events'
1/ He included the article
2/ He was hounded out.

ID is a 'theory' based on observation and induction.

VYNNIE.. I withdraw my JW remark :) no offence. You are making a very BIG assumption. The text also clearly states the relationship between the conception of the Messiah and the Holy Spirit. Yes, context is very important :)
Meet you in Acts chapter 1 and we will observe the dynamism of the Holy Spirit in changing the world by the power of the Word.

"When they saw the boldness of Peter and John they were amazed, and perceived that they had been with Jesus".... lets all seek that same experience of His love and enabling. Pagan Rome crumbled in 300 yrs to that Word without sword or army, what a privilege to share the same dynamic.

From Gospel James elder son of Joseph.

2 Mary was in the temple of the Lord ...: she received food from the hand of the teachers of the Lord. ...in those days Herod was King of Judea.
3 ... The high priest made a public order that all the virgins in the temple who had fulfilled their vows return home and according to the custom endeavour to be married. To this command all the virgins who had completed their vows readily obeyed, except Mary who resisted. She stated that she could not comply with this because her parents had made a lifelong vow, and beside she had vowed her virginity to the Lord. Which vow she resolved never to break by having sex with a man. This brought the High Priest into considerable difficulty, because he did not want to violate her vow, nor did he want to introduce a new custom into the temple. ..., that he might have their advice on how he should proceed on such a difficult case. There was assembled a council of the priests, he addressed it saying: Behold Mary is become twelve years old in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her lest she by her menstruation defile the sanctuary of the Lord?
4 And they said unto Zacharias of the division of Abijah the high priest: Thou stand over the altar of the Lord. Enter into the holy sanctuary and pray concerning her: ...
5 And the high priest took the ... judgment with the twelve bells and went in unto the Holy of Holies and prayed concerning her. Immediately the answer came that it could be as the prophet Isaiah said “To whom the virgin shall be given and betrothed, there shall come a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall spring out of its root, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of Wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and Might and Piety, and the Spirit of the fear of the lord shall fill Him.

Cont: A husband chose for Mary

6 And the message from the Lord came saying to him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go forth and assemble them that are widowers of the people, and let them bring every man a rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be.
7 And the heralds went forth over all the country round about Judea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all men came quickly.
8 And Joseph cast down his hatchet and ran to meet them, and when they were gathered together they went to the high priest and took their rods with them.
9 And he took the rods of them all and went into the temple and prayed.
10 And when he had finished the prayer he took the rods and went forth and gave them back to them: and there was no sign upon them.
11 But Joseph received the last rod: and lo, a dove came forth and flew upon the head of Joseph.
12 And the priest said unto Joseph: Unto thee hath it fallen to take the virgin of the Lord and keep her for thyself.
13 And Joseph refused, saying: I have sons, and I am an old man, but she is a girl: lest I became a laughing-stock to the children of Israel.
...16 And Joseph was afraid, and took her to keep her for himself. And Joseph said unto Mary: Lo, I have received thee out of the temple of the Lord: and now do I leave thee in my house, and I go away to build my buildings and I will come again unto thee. The Lord shall watch over thee.

Continued later:

Sells, you wrote "Right from the earliest writings of Paul we have very sophisticated and developed theology".
Yes, all based upon Paul's understanding of the Tanakh.
Paul was the founder of what developed into modern Christianity. We can say with certainty that over the years other influences have permeated the Christian religion, much of it pagan that fused into Christianity through Christian dogma and doctrine, such as virgin birth, original sin, transubstantiation, and trinitarian formulations; these having no basis in scripture.
To ascribe to Paul the title, “founder of Christianity”, paradoxically presents Christians with a dilemma. Paul’s theology frequently contradicts that of Jesus.
This inability to recognise New Testament contradictions of the Old Testament comes from the fact that Christians grew up as “New Testament Christians” instead of “Old Testament Christians” by not recognising the source of Jesus’ scriptural authority – the Old Testament.
Christianity is an amalgam of Jewish, pagan, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Platonic ideas, mixed he majority vote decisions of numerous councils which determined the nature of Jesus, into organised, institutionalised religion falsely claiming to revolve around a Jewish messiah over which they profess exclusive rights.
"The historical development of christianity took off among the Jews and then the gentiles"
'Christianity' never took off amongst the Jews. After his murder a Jesus movement began soon after - as a sect within Judaism - which was eventually overwhelmed by gentile Christians towards the end of the first century CE. The Jewish remnants were excommunicated from the Temple by the Jewish religious establishment, the same religious establishment who Jesus denounced.
The Jewish followers of Jesus were never Christian but members of the Temple congregation until their excommunication. They disappeared from history not long after this.
Over a relatively short period of time the centre of the Jesus movement - Jerusalem - was replaced by Rome, and the message of Jesus, maintained by his close disciples after his death through this Jewish sect, led by James, Peter and John, was replaced by that of Paul.