Each to their own God, if they believe they have need for one.
Society is not advanced with assumptions made, by one religion or sect, of their superiority over another while accompanied by public lobbying.
Fortunately, Australian society is constituted with no preferment in relation to particular belief in the matter of religion.
Let us keep it that way.
The Talmud, the Bible, the Koran will continue to have relevance to some individuals. As will spiritual philosophies such as Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Shinto, or whatever. But the progress of society should be based on the reality of human social needs and benefits - in the way it has continued to develope over the past two centuries. That development has taken place often with the assistance of people using the banner of religion. But possibly even more often it has been in spite of religious dictates.
Whatever religious persuasions underlie social lobbying groups, they should not be in denial of reality of our social development: That development which is part of our evolutionary heritage since mammals first came onto the scene a hundred million years or so ago. Such reality as encompassed within Mary White's book "Earth Alive"

Hi all

Colinset (post 10:18:03 AM 7/3/06)

You're entitled to your anti-god stance. I once thought as you do - until providence saw everything which I treasured stripped away. That was in 1999 & subsequently.

Humanists, as you appear to be, are self-survivalists until a mammoth calamity strikes. Then the fallibility of mankind becomes clearly visible.

I am always amazed at how eager individuals are to accept the hypothesis of Evolution based upon the claims of other humans. Just as with all science, there becomes a time when it refutes itself - the earth is no onger flat, Thalidamide isn't beneficial, mankind can actually overcome gravity, etc

A genuine study of the relativity of C14/C12 & the diminishing properties of C14 - called Carbon Dating - places all earth's living fossils & fauna discoveries at 10s of thousands of years.

I wonder what we'll discover within the next century to prove &/or disprove mankind's erronious beliefs?
(7/3/06)

To: Peter & all

It is interesting to reflect over the utterances of others about certain traumatic events. Such events might include a "natural disaster", but will be better-revealed in the paradoxical emotions & passions following a well-publicised crime. I give as an example, such cases as theEbony SIMPSON, Anita COBBY, Janine BALDING, Michael MARSLEW, "Granny Killings" & the "Backpacker Murders" tragedies. Undoubtedly, the killings of Azaria CHAMBERLAIN & Virginia MORSE could be added to the list - as could many others.

I have an affinity with all those cases because my mum was killed in 1990 by a then 17-year old drug addict whose background was a pathway of 'alleged' abuse by those whom he once trusted - both 'allegedly' relatives & friends, & most certainly government instrumentalities - & a series of wrong choices made by him.

His crime has not gone unpunished, but in the broader context it can be understood. His perceived choices were clouded by minimal education, & the brutality metred against him by those who surrounded him from when he was 8-years old. Nonetheless, what he did is not to be excused. ...

...(t.b.c.)
(7/3/06)

Cheers all

Hey Little...,

I wonder if you read what you wrote. You accuse Colinset of beleiving in something that you say cannot be proven. I agree.

I must also state though that the belief in a God or other power controlling the earth etc is, bluntly, beyond belief. At least evolution has sciencitific evidence albeit not conclusive. I couldn't compare one with the other though as science is one of our only truth's and religion is the biggest human deceit.

Peter unfortunately continues to write about the world's greatest fraud as if it were reality. It is for those who simply accept what is not sustainable but the existence of a God is based solely on Neanderthal thinking. Extremely primitive and based on fear.

Religion is, and has always been, a political tool. Read Henry the 8th's history for clear evidence of such. If you can create a new religion simply to support your desire for a divorced woman it is a false religion, as they all are. Lust was his religion, plain and simple.

To take the text of genesis 1-11 seriously, you should interpret according to the style of writing, which is historical narrative. Ignoring this is merely placing your own desires and views into a text was intended to mean something different.

In this same way you can also take a single verse and use it whilst ingoring many other verses to get a shallow and myopic view of christian theology

tldr

Pegasus

I belief in God, I belief Jesus is the son of God, and it is not based on Neanderthal thinking.

I try my hardest not to judge people, however this does not mean I will agree with all of the people all of the time.

Joseph
7th March 2006

One thought that is true no matter your belief system, "You are shaped by your experience."

A belief in a God is a personal belief.

How you behave in the world will determine how you are received. If you proclaim a belief in Christianity, Islam, or any other religion, you shape the opinion of that belief system. You're belief system is judged by others based on how you present yourself and that belief to the world.

Any other argument for or against religion and its legitimacy or illegitimacy is ultimately irrelevant.

I'm content to let people believe what they need to, to survive this life, and be comforted when bad things happen to them.

Once again at the risk of repeating myself, personal responsibility is all that matters. Be accountable, and everything else will take care of itself.

The puzzle for me is how apparently normal intelligent beings can bring themselves to write a sentence such as this:

>>While the secular order can only rely on our desire for peace, Christians point to an historical event whose power reaches down through the ages and is active in our midst.<<

The "historical event", as far as I can tell from the densely packed prose that precedes it, is the story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise.

In what universe can this parable possibly be considered to be an historical event? It is a story, told by elders to the next generation, to reinforce the need for obedience.

If this is a belief held by a particularly narrow-minded Christian sect, so be it. Everyone has to have some form of emotional crutch to get them through the day, and religion is "mother's little helper" to many.

But in talking to the rest of the world, it is customary to recognize that not everyone shares your credulity. Taking a moral fable, dressing it up as "historical fact", and using that to remonstrate other peace-loving people, is an act of aggression.

Mr Sellick states as much in his article - "we are also subject to judgment from others and this brings enmity between men" - but proceeds to judgement himself without a second thought.

>>So peace for Christians is no ideology but an established historical entity that exists with or without our consent. This may be contrasted to all of the good intentions of the peace movement who think that all we need to do is to desire peace and peace will break out all over the world.<<

Once again, I have absolutely no problem with anyone who believes that they need a religion in order to give their lives some meaning that it would otherwise lack. But I do detest being lectured by them for not accepting Adam and Eve as real characters from history.

Where is BOAZ David ?

Coyote, I was wondering the same thing about the silence from our old friend Boaz. I thought that he would be in there with all his biblical quotes, poring over the minutiae of the article. Here's hoping you are well, Boaz.

Pericles - great demolition job of the article's central premise. The rest of us non-believers can hang fire when you are on the job.

Pericles, the historical event was the cross, not the expulsion of adam and eve.

Peter, I have a question regarding judgement. You speak of the moral wilderness, but I am not quite sure weather you are saying we should not judge ideologies, or just not to judge actual believers (who will generally differ from the ideology).

Thanks for you article, it is a pity that many refuse to come to spiritual/religious ideas with an open mind. Christians on this forum are often called out for arguing with Islam (after doing at least some research). The atheist contributors declare that the christians are being closed minded, yet when a Christian article (or conversation in the forum) comes up they are quick to disparage our beliefs as offensive to the intellect. strange world.

Dear Coyote :) *here I am*

I guess there are some comments which could be made here.
Sells has actually articulated very well the problem of original sin.
The fracture of the relationship between the created and the creator.

One might even suggest an almost inevitable consequence of being given 'choice'.
But the important thing in regard to what is theologically described as 'The Fall', is that it is followed up immediately with a promise of redemption, and reconciliation.

Sells said:

"The proclamation that Jesus is the judge of the world is good news that sets us free and breaks the cycle of violence between men."

Indeed he is "Judge", but first and foremost he is Redeemer and Saviour,- Sin bearer and forgiver to those who wish to fully apprehend the reconciliation offered by our Creator.
This dual theme was preached by Peter to Cornelius the Roman Centurion (Acts 10)

Pericles in inimitable style dismisses the whole concept at 'a crutch', but I've yet to meet anyone who did not in some way 'limp' :)
They just use different crutches.

I worry a tad when Sells seems a bit wishy washy on the Resurrection, I always gain the impression he thinks is doesn't matter so much if Jesus really did rise bodily, or that the idea of such a thing is the important point. For me and on any reading of the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15 in particular) without a real historical resurrection there is no 'Faith', only stupidity.

I have to draw Pericles attention to this issue as well. Paul knew very well what a 'crutch' was and went to great lengths to show that without a true resurrrection, that is exactly what faith in Christ is, a crutch, but with the real actual resurrection, the Gospel is that transforming, renewing redeeming power from the Real God who 'is' there.

Boaz: suppose I am born to poor peasants in a Muslim country, raised as a Muslim with poor education. Suppose I lead a blameless, hard working life. I practice as a devout Muslim. I know little or nothing about the teachings of Christ or other religions. I know little of anything outside my family & village. When I die, I find that the Christians were right, even though I had no prior knowledge of what the teachings were. How will I fare on judgement day?

Pericles:

As you noted, Peter Sellick’s prose is “densely packed”. We must read it rather slowly, perhaps more than once, and take time to digest it.

In that particular paragraph the “historical event” Sells is referring to is the story of the cross and resurrection, not the expulsion. But he also points out that both the expulsion story and the event of the resurrection must be considered as "historical legend", not as empirical fact, even though they should be taken seriously. Please refer to paragraph 5.

You accuse Sells of an “act of aggression”. Did we read the same article? I cannot for the life of me find anything in the language or the content of the article that hints at “remonstration” of “other peace-loving people”. Peter simply draws a clear contrast between, on the one hand, the nature of peace as seen by the secular peace-movement, and, on the other, what peace means to Christians in the light of the cross and resurrection. He does not even imply judgement in doing so.

BOAZ-David:

I don’t share your worry about Sells’ treatment of the resurrection. Nothing “wishy-washy” about it. For me and many others as Christians, Jesus is a real, abiding presence and therefore the resurrection is undeniable. Logic and the five senses are not the only means of encountering reality. Lived inner experience is at least as powerful. In this instance we don’t need the body.

PK (thanx for the concern for my welfare.. just flat stick at the mo)

"What of the blameless non Christians"?

fair question, though most difficult to answer in a satisfying manner to our 2006 intellectual framework.
Actually, behind this question is another I think: "Is our Creator 'just' and is He "Loving" ?

This is one of those 'hard' questions when examples such as you posed are brought up. Personally, though I've had to struggle with this and other issues, my conclusion is as follows:

1/ We are called to proclaim reconciliation in and through Christ to the world.
2/ The fate of the unreached is not for me to judge.
3/ I have confidence that the God of all the earth will do right.
(Solomon concluded this)

Recommended reading if you have some time, is a careful examination of Pauls letter to the Romans Chapter 1 verse 16, up to the end of Chapter 5 at least, but by all means continue to chapter 12. Its a systematically developed treatise on the condition and solution of man.

Crabby

nice to know you classify yourself as Christian. I didn't mean my comments about Sells treatment of the resurrection to be taken as a put down, and I appreciate the resurrection is a reality in your life.
My only point, is that as per 1 Corinthians 15, without an 'actual' bodily resurrection "We of all men, are most to be pitied" (just ask Bishop Pericles :)
I trust that each day you and I will seek to know and honor and glorify Him in our lives. Debating here, on issues such as Islam and role of Women, Gender, Sexuality etc, definitely place before us a challenge to 'sound' Christlike, and while we are often accused of 'not' being so, I think Jesus was quite prepared to address evil and error as any reading of the gospels will reveal.

Well here we have a teddy (god) cheerleader in Peter Sellick spinning off stuff about one of these playpen fairy-tales and for myself it is a journey into a tragic, psychotic, twisted, imprisoned world.

This is belief not from a literal account of actual events but a scheming expression perceived to be truths from a deeper or more symbolic level where the psychological effect and primary message of this playpen fairy-tale is redemptive. Every phase of the narrative serves to reinforce the ideology of the status quo and convince us to perpetuate a particular ruling power structure. Creation myths may provide us with a window into the mindset and context of an earlier understanding of the natural state of the universe but will always be artificial control systems in some shape or form. But how can people in all seriousness continue to want closed mythical narratives with assumptions of imposed guilt cloaked as overflowing benevolence, control masquerading as friendship, intimacy with and all other things deriving from a self-existent entity that cannot exist whilst asking the flock to offer up the praises to this all powerful teddy?

Cheerleader, Peter Sellick, twists this evolving mythical narrative into " an historical event whose power reaches down through the ages". Where is the material evidence that this is an "historical event" other than the residual perpetuation of a teddy mind virus?

Thanks for the explanation Crabby, but it still doesn't excuse the flimsy connections or the dubious premises that Mr Selleck employs.

I assume you are drawing my attention to this:

>>[These texts] are historical in that they point to the real circumstances of human living not in that they are a description of the origin of the world.<<

I can accept that legends are "historical", in that man has historically provided education in the form of metaphor and allegory, but not that we then proceed to treat them as identical in nature and substance to historical facts, such as "William invaded England in 1066".

Mr Selleck tends to declare his own rules, and then demand that the conclusions drawn using these rules be accepted as self-evident and incontrovertible.

They are not.

The resurrection is part of the same mythology as the expulsion. The sources that describe it are inconsistent, from a purely record-keeping point of view, and also form an unrepresentative sample, statistically speaking. As a result, the event cannot be placed in the "William defeated Harold at Hastings on 14th October 1066" category of history.

I have no problem at all that some people believe in the "reality" of the resurrection. I simply have a problem that they use it as fact, to differentiate their faith from others, and to place themselves on some form of higher moral plane.

>>Christians point to an historical event whose power reaches down through the ages and is active in our midst.

So peace for Christians is no ideology but an established historical entity that exists with or without our consent. This may be contrasted to all of the good intentions of the peace movement...<<

Only by conflating the two meanings of historical - history-as-legend, and history-as-recorded - can Mr Selleck make this hang together. But they are clearly as different as fiction and non-fiction.

The implication of “[t]his may be contrasted” is that the position of the non-christian peacenik is somehow inferior. That is an act of aggression. “I'm right, you're wrong” is the original warlike posture.

Boaz-David,it's nice to hear that you 'have confidence that the God of all the earth will do right.' However, it sounds like blind faith to me and although you have avoided explicitly saying so, I think the example I have raised has exposed the limits of your faith and a weakness in your position. I wasn't asking you to judge non-believers, just to explain what you think the teachings of Christ tell us about how blameless non-believers will be dealt with. Now, I am far from a biblical scholar, but isn't it the case that the Bible contains several passages that demonstrate anything but tolerance for non-believers and adherants of other faiths? In fact, the Bible would tend to say that we non-believers will be cast into deep, dark, hell, with ignorance being no excuse, isn't that the case? If so, how can there be a 'reconciliation'?

Interesting article.
Sounded like a good painting so i checked it out. You can actually see it at www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au (in Australian Art category).

Gotta love art that inspires deep thought.

Personally, i never liked the Adam and Eve expulsion scandal. To me it was unfair. By denying Adam and Eve knowledge, God set them up for the fall because without the knowledge of good and evil, Eve and then Adam were unable to tell that Mr Snake the devil was evil so they quite easily fell into his trap. Knowledge is the way to freedom. Ignorance only leads to slavery.
The life of Frederick Douglass is testimony to that fact.

As for the resurrection, I don't see how a Christian would not hold to the belief that it was a historical fact.
The tendency of those that dispute it is to apply a 20th/21st century mentality to something that allegedly occurred 2000 years ago. This assumes that the current view of the world, which is exceedingly materialistic, can be applied to the world as it was then. So because they do not see resurrections occuring today, they therefore assume that it was impossible 2000 years ago.

Fide mae
I wrote this article to sort out what “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” means. One meaning could be that in the creation God saw that everything that he created was good and thus to call something evil was to deny the goodness of creation. My interpretation, which may not be the only one, takes this forbidden knowledge to take the form of judgment of others. This seems to be correct when you look at how the creation narrative unfolds in the killing of Abel. Certainly ideologies, religions, should be placed under critical examination. This has been suffocated by the notion that all culture is good and all religious culture is beyond criticism. This followed from the pathetic notion that all religion was a personal affair and we all have the right to believe any damn thing we want. You may like to look at an essay on my home page on this: http://petersellick.nationalforum.com.au/articles45.html

My my, I seem to have hit a nerve with this one. It is usual for the secularists to insist that they and they alone have the only true story of the world. This story is more mythological than the Christian story because it relies on entirely unhistorical presuppositions: that of the nobility of the self created individual, endless material progress and radical cynicism to name a few. These are indeed playpen fairy tales. But the worst fairy tale of all is that we must each become human without any insight from previous generations of experience. “I did it my way” must be the slogan of this deranged movement.

We really must think more deeply about judgment and salvation. The connection between judgment and death is that at death a life is ended and we may see the whole of it. Salvation is about getting the theology right so that we are held in life against the powers of death. See my article above.

Sells, you are incorrigible.

You had me scrabbling around my dictionary of rhetorical devices in order to find the one that said:

"Sellophony: a device used to discredit another's position by stating it as the exact opposite to that which it is"

Strangely, it wasn't there.

Which is a pity, because it would have been extremely useful in handling this little throwaway line:

>>It is usual for the secularists to insist that they and they alone have the only true story of the world.<<

How little you know, and how much less you appear to wish to discover, about us secularists, Sells.

A quick glance through the responses to any religious pontificator on this thread will show you that we actually claim to be certain about very little. But we consistently refuse to accept the simplistic churnings of those who have "found the light".

It could almost be said that we are united in one aspect only: our acceptance that there can be no single, "true story of the world".

Sometimes it may seem that we take aim specifically at yours, but we don't. It is just that you represent a group of people who think they are singularly gifted with the true insight into life, the universe and everything, and rarely tire of telling us so.

Some folk envy the appearance of certitude that you religious people display. However, I find it very sad that you deny yourself the constant delight of exercising the brain at a broader level than simply counting those angels on pinheads. By any definition, drawing conclusions from the "existence" of Adam and Eve comes into this category. An utter waste of time, except to those who have already set themselves the same task.

It spills over into the real world at the point where you use these fallacious arguments to insult perfectly nice "peace-lovers". We have feelings too, you know.

I simply cannot imagine how stultifying it might be to have such a narrow outlook on life that you use ancient mythology to define and circumscribe the parameters of your thought processes.

Pericles, Christianity - though one would say that Catholicism has been the greatest driver - has created the greatest works of art that our world has. A religious faith has inspired artists, thinkers and authors to create paintings, buildings, poems, plays, musical works, novels, rituals and ceremonies that are rightly seen as the foundation-stone of our culture. Christianity acted like a sieve to sift out the worst of the pagan Greek and Roman cultures, to resist Barbaranianism, and made Europe the most peaceful continent of all (though, of course, not as peaceful as we would have liked it - but discounting the worst of the killers: Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and so forth (none Christian) - but still an admirable achievement), and also the most prosperous and happy. We are forunate now that the spiritual capital we have inherited in tradition, philosophy, law and culture from Christian Europe, to soften the blows we are landing against our own tradition.

Christianity has suprisingly little to its message. That's not saying that it's simplistic, or unsubstantial. What I mean is that, having described how we should strive to be better people, we are asked to do our best and to wonder at the mystery of cretion. The scope offered by this is simply incredible, and it explains why - of all the places of secondary education in Australia - it has been the Christian schools, and those grammar schools deeply in a Christian tradition - that have sought to maintain higher learning and studies, as opposed to a secular, public sector which seeks to place boudaries on thought in the form of critical theories, and ideologies. The irony is, the small amount "freedom" removed by belief in God actually gives to the flock a true Freedom which the man-forged manicles of the mind seek to control in other situations. That is not to say that there are not closed-minded Christians for whom the mystery is only explained in that book that was finalised in the 5th century AD, but a visit to Rome would show their smallness.

Peter, there is an obvious directness in my response to your genuine but tragic examination of this playpen fairy-tale. There is no radical cynicism, nor nobility nor some self created individualism nor an ignorance of previous generations of experience. Just look at what IS, and you'll find that it already is far more uplifting than anything you could imagine needing.

If I may indulge myself in some small way it may provide an explanation of sorts. e.g. When I was eight years old I decided to leave Sunday School much to my mother's displeasure, because I found it unpleasant to be rote learning in wrong order little pieces of the biblical story and to receive a pretty colored stamp to put in a book as a reward. What I wanted to do on a Sunday, and with my time, was to play in the bush, gullies and hills that surrounded our home. My parents trusted my motives and in some ways it echoes the Arthur Boyd painting. These experiences in the bush aroused great curiosity about life that could be beautiful and chaotic, ancient and new, peaceful and cruel in the extreme as well as forever changing. It is not surprising that I believe that the universe is infinite, was never created and far from anthropocentric.

Rather than a selfish and ignorant preoccupation with saving one's "soul" on what some call judgment day there resides in many people a will to truth driven by a curiosity as well as an altruism. This is the true spirit that vested interests like religious playpens and others do their best to poison. e.g. Teddy cheerleaders think nothing of belief stamping babies.

On another level, can anyone believe that we still have the majority of scientists promoting the "Big Bang" origin of the universe? This is a complete nonsense but demonstrates how religious notions can influence science.

Keiran
Alas, negative experiences of the church are common and regrettable. My church school experience made me an atheist, a crusader against religion and the desire to be a scientist. It is a natural response to turn to nature when disillusioned with poor religious culture. My curiosity about nature still abides. I agree that the idea that God created the material world is absurd. As I have said many times in these pages, God did not create a thing but a history. Like you I reject the idea of an anthropocentric universe, see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2907

The challenge is to look past the common understandings of Christianity. You may discover that we have more in common than you think.

Boaz David.
I am not wishy washy about the resurrection. The proclamation that God raised Jesus from the dead is central and irreducible. However, to make the resurrection a resuscitation does reduces its significance. Resurrection also means vindication, the turning of the tables on humanity as I pointed out in the article. It is the event that projects the presence of Jesus into the future as a living presence at each Eucharist and in each sermon. It can never be just a conjuring trick with bones.

"Peter, there is an obvious directness in my response to your genuine but tragic examination of this playpen fairy-tale. There is no radical cynicism, nor nobility nor some self created individualism nor an ignorance of previous generations of experience"

how can you say that Christian ideas are 'playpen fairy tales' and then follow this statement with 'there is no radical cynicism' etc.

I note that there is a similar sense of beuty in the study of nature, could I ask your view on why humans are drawn to complexity as beauty?

Why do you see the big bang as erroneous? why is everything moving away from a centre?

What scientific evidence do you have for the infinite universe, as opposed to the continually expanding universe that we could never reach the end of (it is expanding faster than light)?

And why would these points make it unlikely for there to be a God?

And why is it that so many physisits are turning to religion after seeing the nothingness of the secular/atheist position?

Doesn't the secular position lead logically to total selfishness and nihilism? If not then why are such large numbers of western secularists ENJOYING the sex industry (workers and clients), and why so many divorcees leaving there kids with one parent (realistically), why do people kill their own children? Why do secularists associate being australian with not caring about anything at all (dave hughes, glass house)? what is reletivism, a secular concept, but nihilism?

fide mae, for myself, spirit is inseparable from the body, therefore the expression "radical cynicism" is for the virtuous which I am not. I am just a bluddy nobody. If nobody is perfect ...... then I am perfect .... but certainly not virtuous.

Your questions are well received. Nothing more beautiful than a question and that is my answer for beauty. (My attempts to answer your many questions may run over a few posts.... please bare with me.)

My thoughts on an infinite universe go back fifty years to when one day I picked up a rock from one of the gullies in my bush playground. Dad collected interesting rocks and this one had what appeared to be a fossil of a plant. He said I was holding a rock that was probably 400 million years old and that I was but ten years old. He said "Think about it." Well this seemed to have registered and as I grew up I asked many questions about time, beginnings and endings, and infinity. Don't believe that this is meant to be anything extraordinary because for a curious kid it is quite the norm.

Some years later in a library I read some things that Aristotle said which has stuck in my mind since. e.g. He said words to the effect that empty space is an impossibility, time is motion, if motion in the universe didn't exist then there would be no time and he argued that space and time are potentially divisible ad infinitum.

The point of this being is that if empty space is an impossibility then the NON-existence of the universe is an impossibility. When scientists try to create an absolute vacuum for some inexplicable reason particles appear from nowhere and it proves impossible. Likewise to produce an absolute solid is impossible because it could always be more solid. Just seems that an absolute solid and an absolute vacuum are human idealisations with reality existing somewhere between. This then draws attention to anthropocentric issues...... i.e. our human built in bias and mode of conceptualisation.

fide mae, TBC

Fide mae, the "big bang" origin, an expanding universe, multiple and parallel universes, black holes and "the nothingness of the secular/atheist position" are all strange fruit indeed. There is no evidence but also are illogical.

The "big bang" origin can have no scientific basis because there is no way everything can be created from nothing .... and as if "nothing" could exist too.

An expanding universe is illogical ......... is it expanding into itself? What a nonsense.

Multiple and parallel universes are illogical by definition ... you can only have the one or these ........ sorry about that.

Black holes cannot exist unless the universe is symmetrical which is impossible. i.e. a giant collapsing body under pressure will spin and can only redistribute matter elsewhere...... sorry about that one too.

Your "the nothingness of the secular/atheist position" has no merit. Whilst it must be terrifying for some to leave the cosy artifical confines of a religious playpen, the secular world is NOT based on an ignorance of the natural world, superstition, myths, folklore, fables, and any number of confused historical and geological events. Most secular people support democracy, intellectual freedoms, take responsibility for personal development, free speech, and promote science and art as a means of human development towards an altruistic society. If people need something more in their lives than just the material world then just study what is, and you'll find that it already is far more uplifting than anything you could imagine needing.

Fide mae, an infinite universe makes far more sense than an imaginary created one with a beginning and an end. e.g. Till kingdom come just consider that there are maniacal Christians even in our Australian Parliament, who are praying for the end of time and want for the end of the world.

Kierin - "The point of this being is that if empty space is an impossibility then the NON-existence of the universe is an impossibility. When scientists try to create an absolute vacuum for some inexplicable reason particles appear from nowhere and it proves impossible. "

I am quite disapointed with this answer, it is clear you have no scientific training in this area, empty space is not nothingness. Space and time are things in themselves (an absolute vacuum is not analagous to non-existence or nothingness). space and time were both created (or both evolved) AFTER the bib bang.

"Nothing more beautiful than a question and that is my answer for beauty." - obviously thought out over a long period of time. doesn't really answer the question - "why humans are drawn to complexity as beauty?" maybe my question was too complex for you, thus you found it beautiful?

"is it expanding into itself?" you really are ignorant of this topic. space and time are expanding into nothingness (or are just expanding - creating more space and time) matter is expanding into space and time.

"giant collapsing body under pressure will spin and can only redistribute matter elsewhere" - not so. If it is giant enough then its gravity (you do agree there is such a thing as gravity?) will pull everything spun off back into itself, including light (thus a black hole - no light escapes)

"Your "the nothingness of the secular/atheist position" has no merit. Whilst it must be terrifying for some to leave the cosy artifical confines of a religious playpen, the secular world is NOT based on an ignorance of the natural world, superstition, myths, folklore, fables, and any number of confused historical and geological events."

strange, I found it preposterous, just a few years ago studying philosophy, to continue a secular life, it simply does not make sense. I chose Christianity, precisely because it (the form I have found in Academia) is totally averse to (this is from your statement above) ignorance of the natural world (ecological theology), superstition (pagans are superstitious, Christianity is based on reason, Christ is the Logos (reason)), myths (scientific theories can be classed as myths, the myth of ether etc, progress is through changing myths, see philosophy of science), folklore (this is the beginning of all law including secular, surely you are not suggesting throwing out all laws because they are based on folk-lore), fables (by fables I assume you mean no analogical truth can be gained from fairytales, but this is strange, because people started writing fairy tales as moral lessons), and any number of confused historical (I think you would be surprised at how history is taught in theology, distinctions are clearly made between the theological, resurection, and the historical, crucifiction etc) and geological (the flood is a moral fairy tale) events.

I notice you do not address the perverse nature of secular society, preferring to say "Most secular people support democracy, intellectual freedoms, take responsibility for personal development, free speech, and promote science and art as a means of human development towards an altruistic society" - which I completely disagree with. Most secular people are too ignorant and uncaring to support any of the above. Take a look at the numbers of volunteers broken down by demographics, predominantly christians are doing this work. Science and art have historically been the interests of Christianity, not filthy secularists, just look at the crap buildings the money hungry secularist puts up compared to the times when christianity was honoured by whole societies. Secularists take responsibility for absolutely nothing, particularly personal development. democracy, intellectual freedoms and freespeech are all traditions developed in the reformation by CHRISTIANS, not secularists.

I had wondered over your statements, now I can see why they are baseless

Fide mae, are you saying that you discontinued a secular life for a form of Christianity you found in academia precisely because it is totally averse to ignorance of the natural world? Well in this case I have no doubt that my thoughts may have offended but one minute you are a "filthy secularist" and the next a radical cynic. Seems like academia has separated your spirit from your physical body and you have caught a potent teddy (god) mind virus. Gosh, I'm still trying to isolate Peter's strain of the virus.

One of my responsibilities as a secularist is to spray liberal doses of disinfectant over your "natural world" understandings by starting with your belief in these nasty black holes. (..... although we could start anywhere with the beautiful questions you have raised)

In the physical material world these awful black holes cannot exist as some supposed scientists, like for example Hawking, have claimed, because the universe is not entirely and absolutely symmetrical. If that were the case then such a universe would be completely empty. Think about that one. But collapsing bodies under intense pressure will spin or explode. There is no sucking in because gravity is a push although few supposed scientists can think this way. The universe is just full of material constituents pushing each other. Unless the intense pressure pushing in on the collapsing body is applied evenly in all directions it will spin only to spiral or jet out its contents redistributing matter elsewhere. Even now NASA is coming round to the fact that these so called "black holes" are neither holes nor black. Hawking now says much the same although he hasn't grasped the full picture because he still mentions a radiating redistribution. He'll get there in the end I suppose although there will always be people dramatising what they imagine is the universe.

Colinset I agree with much of your post

I am concerned when the author of the article write “Boyd’s painting and the story to which it refers expresses this brokenness at the centre of our lives.”

There is a presumption by the author that we share a common “brokenness”,

Why do I not share that sense of “brokenness”?

Could it be that only by instilling a sense of emptiness or brokenness or incompleteness in me can the Church offer to market to me the means of fulfilment, repaired-ness (?), completeness?
Such a strategy would develop the co-dependence which the religiously manipulative need to make them important in the lives of ordinary folk.
This co-dependence is recognised by psychiatrists.

Type “co-dependence” into Google and read what you see. Words like “mental disease”, “addiction”. One link even ascribes a cause as child abuse. Organised religion has been known to pursue that course in the past.

I guess, in this secular age, the Church of any denomination has moved from its original set of values to a set which sees perpetuation of its own institutional existence as the goal.

Little-agreeable-buddy seems to believe he has seen the “light” and is preaching to Colinset on the wonders of his discovery, like someone who has just discovered snake-oil.

Alan grey “To take the text of genesis 1-11 seriously”

You would need access to the original text, not something which has been translated, edited, construed and re-construed to suit the particular goals and objectives of the Clergy over time.

PK “…How will I fare on judgement day? “

good point PK.

I personally believe we all are judged as individuals and on how we live our life. Not on which deity we ascribe fealty to.

For me, I believe there is a God. I do not believe any religious order has the monopoly on intercession with him.

I do not believe any religious order, or its self–appointed officials are sufficiently meritorious to qualify to represent God.

We will only find him within each of us and not in a pulpit

Interesting Fide Mae and a good point from a scientific perspective: I will not jibber, so you can read about it here: and remember these events occurred near 12 billion years ago, and we are witnessing them today.
Ancient Quasars: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/42/
There is no paradox between Science and Religion. For all intensive purposes for the argument, they are as one. Faith is the key issue and learn from it.

Sells no one said it was 'just' a resucitation. Use the word 'and'. The Gospels are clear about Christ's bodily resurrection. Our understanding of this event increases as we reflect more on it. But the event is still the event.

Do you deny the bodily resurrection of Our Lord. Just want to be clear where you are at theologically.

I'm not saying this is you but
It is common for those who have reached certain heights in life to disdain the climbing completely while talking about the view. To get any Christian reflections on society, humanity etc requires Jesus' body resurrected. (fairy tales ppl say, but in the next breath demand God perform a miracle then they'll believe - poor God can't win)

So the higher stands on the lower. The whole thing falls if you forget how you are able to see what you see.

Martin..
The resurrection was an event but what sort of an event? My hunch is that people who insist on the resuscitation model want to use that as a proof of God as supernatural agent. This is a modern view that relies on the method of natural science and is quite alien to the biblical view. There are two things here. The first is the triumph of scientific materialism that has removed the possibility of the existence of the supernatural. The second is that the biblical accounts are themselves contradictory. The appearance of the risen Christ in the upper room in John both confirms that the risen one is the crucified one but then he vanishes from them, confirming that the risen one is not a physical presence. The problem with using the miraculous as proof of the supernatural is fraught with many problems. The main one being that such a proof makes God a subject in nature, again an unbiblical notion when we consider the creation accounts. When God is a subject or agent in nature his existence can be easily disproved, as the scientists say to us. We end up with superstition, Unitarianism, and an unnatural nature. We also have to deal with the problem of the further death of this resuscitated man.

Notwithstanding that I am, according to many of the uncharitable types who haunt Peter's contributions, an emotional/intellectual/mental and/or physical cripple requiring a crutch, , I feel emboldened to take up St Paul's marvellous statement along the lines that anything offered without love is empty, foolish (lacks wisdom) and self serving.

The paucity of argument on the actual content of Peter Sellick's work is worrying, from both the narky non believers and the comfortable, self-assured believers.

I propose that the unfolding and pressing question of Western societies is whether we are "of God", or not.

An answer in the negative will see us "progress" into further social deterioration, into the "kingdom of nothingness" talked of by the late Manning Clark. Any dialogue with the emerging global forces will be as empty as a clash of symbols. We will have nothing to say other than baseless "imagineerings" that every truth that has underpinned the work of human development can be imagined away to create peace ( as in safety). Or worse still there is the armory attached to the self righteous twaddle of the perverse Texan christians and fundamentalist cohorts that exist in every suburb.

The affirmative will enliven debate on our social advancement. With an aware social consciousness of our Judeo/Christian cultural foundation, without the social compulsion to "believe", there can be a freedom to know our Western societies' story in God's revelation across (or as) history, with an ability to focus on a goal of human existence that is expressed in our story's eschatology that sees us at the fork of oblivion or completedness. It will promote the presence of an understanding of "Imago Dei" ( man as the image of God) , a priori, again in the mind of the ordinary person, for true humanism to further flourish.

Just as Peter expressed the act of judgement breaks the intimacy that is at the centre of all love, love itself, expressed as acceptance and availability to the other, works towards the mitigation of this unloving judgement.

Of course this is the healing love of the bloke from Nazareth, Jesus.

646 Christ's Resurrection was not a return to earthly life, as was the case with the raisings from the dead that he had performed before Easter: Jairus' daughter, the young man of Naim, Lazarus. These actions were miraculous events, but the persons miraculously raised returned by Jesus' power to ordinary earthly life. At some particular moment they would die again. Christ's Resurrection is essentially different. In his risen body he passes from the state of death to another life beyond time and space. At Jesus' Resurrection his body is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit: he shares the divine life in his glorious state, so that St. Paul can say that Christ is "the man of heaven".

648 Christ's Resurrection is an object of faith in that it is a transcendent intervention of God himself in creation and history. In it the three divine persons act together as one, and manifest their own proper characteristics. The Father's power "raised up" Christ his Son and by doing so perfectly introduced his Son's humanity, including his body, into the Trinity. Jesus is conclusively revealed as "Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his Resurrection from the dead". St. Paul insists on the manifestation of God's power through the working of the Spirit who gave life to Jesus' dead humanity and called it to the glorious state of Lordship.

650 The Fathers contemplate the Resurrection from the perspective of the divine person of Christ who remained united to his soul and body, even when these were separated from each other by death: "By the unity of the divine nature, which remains present in each of the two components of man, these are reunited. For as death is produced by the separation of the human components, so Resurrection is achieved by the union of the two."

Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Union of the two are the key words I think.

Do we agree or disagree?

Martin

That is about as good as you can get with the limitations of words in a book.

Nevertheless it begs the questions any genuine enquirer needs to ask:

What was it that turned an amazingly diverse group of frightened, disillusioned and scattered people into a body of persons, women and men, emboldened to come together after Jesus' death to reflect on and respond to their extraordinary earthly experience with Him.

What is it that has kept together, over millennia, a now worldwide group of people who each week profess a common creed in worship; notwithstanding the scandal of historical division, so human is the Church in some of its ways, that can only be accepted as a work in human progress.

This is a phenomenon that cannot be explained away as a remnant of an age gone by.

My pesonal understanding of the Resurrection is in my experience of residual love from deceased love ones; my grandmother, mother and late wife. Each of them are with me in my heart and memories. This is a common human experience. However, the miracle of the Resurrection is that that presence and knowledge of love can be experienced, as a reality, in me of a man who died 2000 years ago. I understand that such is a gift in response to a seeking faith.

Oh but what a burden it is to share that gift in service to others. It would be so much easier to set my own agenda, own it and take my pride through it. That would be so wonderfully self-autonomous. But it would be a betrayal to those who have gone before us to populate the Abrahamic promise and fulfill the Lord's cry of hope and trust with the anguished opening words of Psalm 21 that concludes : " I will speak of the Lord to the coming generation, and they shall declare his justice to a people, yet to be born: 'these things has the Lord done' ".

Good words Boxgum!

Martin has me going to my own copy of the Roman Catechism and reading the whole section on that part of the creed that “He descended into hell and on the third day he rose again.” There is much that I agree with in all of these statements, particularly 647. However, there is a hint of double entry book keeping as there is in much of what the Holy Office publishes. This is because they refuse to abandon the idea of a supernatural realm existing in parallel with this one and by refusing to abandon natural theology. They continue to mix up Greek concepts of body and soul with the concept of Israel of the resurrection of the dead. So as we read through the catechism we get quite confused as to what is actually meant.

I repeat that the biblical witness is itself contradictory with regards to the nature of the resurrection. What is sure is that the risen one is the crucified one and no other. That the risen one is no ghost, that neither is He just the same Jesus restored to life. The catechism attempts to explain all of this by mixing and matching Greek and Hebrew thought. I am not convinced.

What I am convinced of is the absolute centrality of the resurrection without which we are without hope. Paul tells us that we live in the resurrection. Church celebrates the presence of the risen one each Sunday. What I am wary of is that belief in the resuscitation of Jesus is used as a kind of mini creed that is used to divide the real Christians from the pretend ones.

According to classic black hole theory the matter from giant collapsing bodies gets permanently reduced to a tiny amount, a mere pinpoint, and creates a mind-boggling gravitational field so powerful that nothing can ever escape, not even light. This I find quite problematic. Super massive black holes populating the centre of galaxies is an assumption that also just doesn’t make sense. Although photons and any other material constituents can be distorted in this extreme blast furnace environment, if this was a classic black hole then stars should be falling in instead of explosively moving away from the centre. ........... Of course there is great mystery and we have but minds to wonder why?

Maybe it's an imaginary teddy (god) that creates black holes in the minds of people. e.g. If a man today killed his only son to show how much he loved other people, he would be considered mad and earn society's contempt. Yet many infected people hide underneath the comforting grasp of their teddy cheer leaders who have concocted their web of circular logic making one believe this is some sort of noble loving act by a teddy (god).

If "intimacy ... is at the centre of all love" then a good place to start would be with honesty and a desire for material truth. Ask some beautiful questions.

Did Jesus learn the arts of meditation, yoga, healing, and magic from India during his "wilderness years" and then return to Israel as a healer with enormous powers? (e.g. as an exorcist, to demonstrate necromancy, to practise long periods of fasting and meditation, (40 days in the desert), to perform "miracles".)

Then did he survive the Crucifixion with these "supernatural" powers?

When a sympathetic Jospeh of Arimathea takes Jesus to the tomb he goes with healing herbs rather than embalming herbs. Why would he have done this?

Surviving crucifiction what did Jesus do next? Head back to India to live to a ripe old age in Kashmir?

Would Jesus, as he was going away, simply have said he would come back and pay his friends a visit?

Hi all

To: Peter & all (cont) [my post 2:09:11 PM 7/3/06]

Some time ago I attended a coffee shop & was talking with some people whom I hadn't seen for ages. They asked me how I was coping, & when another individual overheard the conversation, that person said: "I bet you wish that he'd (the offender) been executed?!" My response was an emphatic "No!", to which the individual said: "Well, you couldn't have loved your mum very much!"

That comment from a female pensioner was indicative of what one hears following a tragedy which has been media-hyped. That this person knew none of the facts of the case was not important to her. She had made her judgemental decision without reference to statistics & with very little understanding of my feelings - a direct victim of the crime - or an understanding of the offender.

Sadly, she doesn't stand in isolation. Her method for handling fear & ignorance is to vent bitterness, anger & vengeance. She doesn't understand the consequences of this attitude.

We must not condone the anti-social behaviour of some members in society. And in the wake of that statement, we need to isolate the wrong-doers from the law-abiders. But to judge one flawed part of human's character as indicative of their whole demeanour is also a travesty of justice. The wrong-doer deserves a second chance under a controlled environment. They also deserve the dignity of being re-programmed & re-trained.
(7/3/06)

pegasus (post 2:37:42 PM 7/3/06)

There are two types of sciences - laboratory/test-tube & hypothetical historical.

Evolution is an hypothesis, unable to be proven - just like history. However, evolution-adherents never discuss the theories of Carbon Dating whereby anything which still has C14 in it cannot exceed approximately 50,000-years.

There goes your 70,000-trillion-billion hypothesis!

Einstein & many of the great minds of modern science would be most impressed to hear you regard them as Neanderthals. Some were non-believers until either an event changed their thinking, or they studied (& I mean 'studied') the Holy Bible.
(14/3/06)

Cheers all