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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why Christianity’s particularity is better than John Lennon's universalism > Comments

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

By Peter Sellick, published 18/8/2005

Peter Sellick outlines the differences between particular and universal belief.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All
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
Posted by SAS, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 8:40:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Rowdy, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 10:16:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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 ...
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 11:09:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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)
Posted by MJB, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 11:25:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by MJB, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 11:27:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Rowdy, Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:10:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All

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