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.