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