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 > Putting God back in the church > Comments

Putting God back in the church : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 13/6/2006

Is postmodernism just more radical scepticism - or could it be the saviour of God?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Trouble here is that Christianity makes some very worldly claims about God that can be tested and are found to be false. All your attempting to do is refight the battle on different grounds, While the supernatural maybe viewed as beyond natural means of scrutiny and testability christianity however is not. This is the cause of the rise in agnostic belief.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 9:49:32 AM
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
Kenny is right.

Where is the "God" that wandered around the "Garden of Eden" and, in a fit of rage, expelled the two he had just created from stuff and not from words. This is a worldly god.

Where is the "God" of Abraham that appeared to him. The "God" of Moses that appeared as a burning bush and inscribed the tablets with his own hand (yeah right!) that were later thrown down and destroyed. These are worldly gods.

Each successive god is described differently by the authors of the Bible. The god they describe is a tool to influence the superstitious into servitude and compliance. Each god differs depending upon differing social and political circumstances or the delusions of the author.

Perhaps students would be better deconstructing the Bible to determine the motives of the authors.
Posted by Narcissist, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 10:39:25 AM
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
Another great article from Peter.
I couldn't believe my luck when Peter quoted that great Gnostic Paul "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. (1 Cor 13:12). A beautiflul piece of pure Platonic philosophy (Plato wrote that we only see reality "through a glass dimly").
When reading Peter Sellick I often feel I am reading his material "....through a glass dimly". At first I thought that my inabiltiy to comprehend what he was talking about was due to my self confessed ignorance and base stupidity. Now I realise that Peter is a Gnostic himself. A Pauline Gnostic who understands the pnuematic mysteries and will only impart the things he thinks we might understand. I am overjoyed because I've been looking for one of these people for a long time. In doing so I've had to wade through the Psychic ravings of BOAZ_David and his ilk.
I have always wondered why Peter never seemed to be too concerned with the life of Jesus and has always dwelt in the Greek and Post Modern philosophies. Why is Peter so obsessed with modern philosophy and not on scripture? Peter knows something that I (we) don't.
Buggered if I know what it is...
Posted by Priscillian, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 1:26:22 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
Priscillian, Peter is just shifting ground as his earlier positions proved untenable. Now God is not personified but becomes "the Word". Unfortunately, all words we hear are mediated by fallible human beings. We have to depend on our own direct experience, something which Peter with his intellectual mindset is, sadly, unable to grasp.
Posted by Faustino, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 1:50:22 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
The comments so far demonstrate that it is impossible to prove God to those who don't or won't believe.

It is as if I read another article.

Yes I agree with Peter it's time we stop explaining our position and relationship with God, and His love (unscientific word) for His people - His Church. We don't have to follow the schemes of the world and pretend they will undrstand by modern or posmodern association.

To know God is to get to know Him on His terms. He revealed himself in many ways throughout mankind history. It is not by re-inventing Him that we will define Him.

How can one measure love, faith, eternity,... but by abiding in Him through His Word becoming flesh for us all : Jesus - God eternal ?
Posted by coach, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 2:08:25 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
I very nice and thought-provoking piece. Pity some of the respondants above so totally fail to understand it.
Posted by mhar, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 4:01:14 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
That’s the rub I do understand, But I can see past it. Where you find an explanation, a end, I see a poor attempt, a unsatisfactory beginning. That's my view on religion. This piece however is about Christianity, and I say go back and read the posts. The God described within the Bible is a physical chap as well as a spiritual one. The bible makes some specific demands on this Christian God. When we look at these he is found wanting. Christians are then forced down two paths either f-mental one i.e. Bible can't be wrong idea, means if we find evidence against the reality painted in the bible then it is us that is wrong not the "word". Or you can go down the author path were all that stuff in the bible is just window dressing don't think release yourself of the bonds of reality and embrace your faith in the lord it's the concept that's important not the technicalities.
Peter’s method may seem more acceptable to many compared to the lunacy of the other path but you soon find it’s just as silly in the end. You how can you hang onto the idea of a Christian God if you give up on most or all of the stories about him. It’s belief for it’s own sake then if we used this approach to the rest of our lives when would be in dire straights. There are only two reasonable rational world views suitable for a reality based world view and that is agnostic or atheist
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 5:29:34 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
The point about postmodernism in a theological context is that it disables the metanarrative of modernism. The modernist metanarrative is, as Peter describes, about a literalist and scientistic approach to knowledge. It is also about the 'inevitable' triumph of secularism and the death of God. Hence all the rather simple minded critiques of Peter are locked into a modernist view of the world. To be postmodernist is to be post secular, in which the idea of the 'secular' is up for re-examination. This should come as no surprise as 'secularism' has clearly failed to conquer the world. We live in a religious age in case those observing the Islamic world haven't noticed. My one worry about postmodern theology is that in restating the Christian story as a story as worthy of respect as any other story (this is my understanding of the Milbank argument)it may also imply that the Christian story is as false as any other story. Or is that just me being a modernist?
Posted by GregM, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 8:44:21 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
GregM
Great comment! You are right to worry that postmodernism easily tips over into a yet more radical skepticism which denies all metanarratives. This is my concern with how it is taught in schools, the students know how to demolish everything, leaving them with nothing. Although we may examine the gospels in terms of their intended audience and the theology of the evangelist and come to some useful understanding, it seems to me that the figure of Christ is un-deconstructable. Christ is not a construction but an event in history. While we may examine the leanings of the witnesses to him (the writers of the NT) we do catch a glimpse of the event of Him nevertheless. We can excuse Paul his polemic against women speaking in church and Matthew’s concern for unbelievers being thrown into outer darkness and John’s realized eschatology. In short we can examine all of the different points of view but still see Him “as in a glass darkly”.

I am flying a bit blind in this because I do not know enough about the various kinds of postmodernism. Can anyone help?
Posted by Sells, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 9:31:33 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
Peter,
Christ is easily deconstructable. A Postmodern Christ starts looking looks like a Jewish-Pagan god. I repeat myself, I know, but Paul never mentions an historical Jesus. He receives revelation from a "Jesus" but this is after the crucifiction and resurrection. Paul's ideas come first, the Gospels follow. The ones that don't fit Paul's view are turfed.
Paul had a low opinion of women so Jesus is portrayed as a kind of asexual type in keeping with Paul's views.
You are right that Christ is an event. He is an event in Paul's mind.
You are also right in saying we see him "through a glass darkly". We can't possibly see him clearly like we see Paul. Can't you see what Paul was doing here? You mention Matthew..who was Matthew? as for John of the Revelation then, yes, he did have eschalological views and here we have a real person like we have a real Paul. Jesus was part Jew, part Hellenistic Pagan .. so was Paul. Jesus preached Pharasaic teachings. Paul was steeped in this stuff. Everything Jesus was is what Paul was familiar with.
Deconstruct Jesus... you bet you can and when you do you get everything our Jewish-Pagan friend Paul beleived in.
Posted by Priscillian, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 10:09:24 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
Priscillian,
The gospels were composed from scripts written by eyewitnesses to the events, that included Mary mother of Jesus, James brother of Jesus, Peter and John the disciples of Jesus, Matthew a converted tax collector and Roman official who did not speak highly of the Pharisees. James had great influence in the Jerusalem church, and his practical expositions reflect in similar style to the sayings of Jesus. They shared the same upbringing and heritage.

If you note Paul is addressing Gentile believers and so reflects much of the culture and language familiar to Gentiles. Your claim that the gospel accounts that: "The ones that don't fit Paul's view are turfed." Absolute nonsense!

The relationship of Jesus with his mother and to his women supporters indicates Jesus places women in higher esteem than was practised in his contemporary society.

It is sloven on your part that you cannot be honest about the NT text. To claim Jesus preached Pharasaic teachings indicates you have not intelligently understood Jesus relationship to the Pharisees and their anomosity toward him. Christianity is not a rehash of Pharisee doctrine, they taught salvation by observing the law. Jesus taught law breakers could be saved by repentance of sin.

Quote, "Jesus preached Pharasaic teachings. Paul was steeped in this stuff. Everything Jesus was is what Paul was familiar with."

The big test of any teaching is: does it enhance personal dynamic, human life and community? Flourishing stable, secure and caring societies; what do they believe that has enhanced their life?
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 11:48:35 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
Dear Peter,
Our newspeak is always renewing itself, by all and sundry. New is old and vice versa, when we talk about a book which is so revered, yet the history of, for profit, greed and man's inhumanity, never alters.
Lets face it, the human is very flawed and the revered book is not going to change this.
The revered book is about the human's superstitions, beliefs without fact, and fears. It is true today as it ever was in history.
The facination with efficient tools for killing others, and exploitation of others whether it be for profit or cheap labour, continues ad infinitem.
In the modern world of today, those hanging on to the revered book, are the slayers, exploiters, punishers, predators and male as usual.
It is my thinking that the word "paranoia" is the sum of superstition,
fear and delusional beliefs.
Posted by Sarah10, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 7:50:01 AM
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
Wow...Sarah10...that was a mouthful.

If I may, I'd like to take issue with your comment:

"The revered book is about the human's superstitions, beliefs without fact"

Ok.. that is mildly true, in the sense that superstitions are indeed 'reported' in the Bible. (i.e. the superstitions of pagans)

But 'Beliefs without fact'.....if u are referring to beliefs about Jesus, well the nicest way I can put it is this -"you might want to reflect on that"

-Which beliefs ?
-Which facts ?

I suspect you said that as 'inherited opinion' rather than from original research.

Let me show by example how much effort Luke placed on connecting the reality of Jesus to real and contemporary world events.

Luke 3:1-2

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar
-when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea,
-Herod tetrarch of Galilee,
-his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and
-Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene
-during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,

.... the word of God came to John.

He could have easily began simply with 'The word of God came to John'....but no, he specifically ties this reality to a host of other verifiable ones.

*think* and do some serious research next time b4 speaking :)

To gain more insight on just how accurate this is.. do some research on why Luke mentions the "Hight priesthood of Annas AND....Caiaphas"
rather than just mentioning one name.

blessings.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 8:18:28 AM
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
Philoe
Quote "The gospels were composed from scripts written by eyewitnesses to the events." Totally wrong! The bibles are anonymous documents written decades after the events they portray by UNKNOWN writers.
Couldn't these unknown writers be using eye witness accounts you ask? Nope. Because they have so many glaring errors that an eye witness wouldn't make. Let's look at them:
Luke got most of his information from Paul & has far too many errors to be rated even a competant historian. Example Luke declares that Jesus was born when Quirinus was govenor of Syria [6 CE] & Heros was king (4 BCE). That's a ten year difference Philo. Did Mary experience the world's first 10 year pregnancy?

That's only one of many examples where Luke got it wrong. If he was writing history he rarely if ever checked his facts no matter what he claimed.

Now let's look at the other gospels. If Matthew wrote the gospel that bares his name why did he need to borrow so much of his material from Mark who wasn't one of the 12?

If Mark was really written by John Mark why didn't he know more about the country, the people & the language?

If John was written by the apostle John why does he leave out EVERY event at which the others claim he was an eye witness? He even start of his gospel with a quote from an ancient Greek philosophical work "Parmenides' the way of truth" Did John study Greek philosophy while he was waiting to pull in the nets?

Face it philo. NONE of these writers are who the church says they are!
Posted by Bosk, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 10:21:08 AM
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
Bosk has it right. Most reputable biblical scholars will agree. Which leads me to the point of my article, we cannot judge these documents in terms of modernism, they may be based on historical event but they are much much more. They are more preaching than history and any attempt to dissect out what actually happened will fail as the recent Jesus seminar must show. Paul is the only writer whose identity we are sure of. We know that Luke wrote his gospel as well as Acts and that John wrote the Johanine letters. Even all of the Pauline letters cannot be attributed to Paul. The synoptic theory, that Mark was first and that Luke and Matthew drew on him and added material of his own holds. As for John, it is very late in the piece and the least historical. But this does not discredit it. It is the most theologically developed and in some ways the most profound. Proximity to the event does not equate to truth.

Priscillian.
What have you been reading! You really should take more effort in your research because what you have asserted is shear foolishness. Paul had no role in selecting the gospels, that came much later and he certainly was no gnostic. Seems to me you have gotten hold of some cranky book about Christianity and swallowed it whole.
Posted by Sells, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 10:41:20 AM
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
Ah sells
No less an authority than Elaine Pagels argues that Paul WAS a Gnostic.

"Much of what passes for "historical" interpretation of Paul & for objective analysis of his letters can be traced to the 2nd-century heresiologists. If the apostle were so unequivocally anti-Gnostic, how could the Gnostics claim him as their great Pneumatic teacher? How could they say they are following his examples when they offer secret teaching of wisdom & Gnosis "to the innitiates"? How could they claim his resurrection theology as the source for their own, citing his words as decisive evidence AGAINST the ecclesiastical doctrines of bodily resurrection?" From the Gnostic Paul by Elain Pagels.

Hardly a light-weight authority sells. As for myself I am indifferent on the matter.
Posted by Bosk, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 11:53:56 AM
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
So Peter,

We have then the Christ of theology and the historical Christ. As you have admitted, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written many years after the fact (actually Mark, the earliest, dates to about 35AD and John as late as 120 AD. Luke was certainly after the Jerusalem Uprising of 66AD).

There is no doubt that the figure of the historical Christ is sadly lacking in facts, both in geography and time-line, and there are numerous examples, some listed above but many many more which I won't list here. There is the ever present vail of "Secrecy" that Mark refers to - How can you keep a secret of raising someone from the dead - surely such a miracle would have made the local headlines!

However as you have said, despite the obvious errors in the writtings there is also plenty of evidence to suggest, and I'm sure that most Bible Scholars would agree, that a man, latter to be known as Jesus, wandered around 1st Century Palestine preaching a view of Judaism. It is probable that this man was crucified for crimes against Rome.

In the end, Christians are left with the Christ of Faith. You either believe in a divine Christ or you don't. Much the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy or not.
Posted by Narcissist, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 12:01:52 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
Bosk, It's simply not true to say that the Gospels contain so many errors they could not be written by eyewitnesses. What can be said is that at a distance of 2000 years there are some statements which are difficult to reconcile with our current knowledge of the times. While Luke's dating of the birth of Jesus is difficult to understand at this point, there may be a simple answer which we cannot see from this distance. It was once commonplace to reject the existence of Pontius Pilate or the town of Nazareth on the basis that there was 'no historical evidence'. New discoveries have proven both these to have existed.

The documentary hypothesis is not inconsistent with eyewitness input. Neither is a gap of 20-40 years between events and writing - in ancient history terms this is miniscule. It is quite possible that Matthew Mark and Luke all used a common body of material (Q) because they knew that this material had been gathered from eywitnesses and was accurate. Clearly they each had a particular group they wanted to address with different emphases on parts of Jesus life and character, but this doesn't make them innacurate - different newspaper reports often do the same thing. It is false to draw a distinction between the Jesus of History and the Christ of faith. The two are too intimately linked to separate - which is what the Jesus seminar have really demonstrated.
Posted by richo, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 1:19:42 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
Sells: What have you been reading!
Priscillian : Mostly the Bible but I agree I have come to my opinion from a number of sources as I assume you do also.
Sells: You really should take more effort in your research because what you have asserted is shear foolishness.
Priscillian: I will take your advice. Maybe I am foolish to place radical ideas before religious believers. Superstitious believers are on shaky ground calling others foolish
Sells: Paul had no role in selecting the gospels, that came much later....
Priscillian: Sorry If I gave the wrong impression. Paul did not “select” himself but gathered many followers and wrote. His influence on many of the original gospels must have been enormous. Many gospels were rejected because they contradicted Paul's earlier teaching…fact.
Sells: ...and he certainly was no gnostic.
Priscillian: Hmm, A contentious point but from the 6 or 7 pieces of genuine Paul writings we have in the NT it seems he has a Gnostic bent. He came from Tarsus (Mithra?), hung around Ephesus (Dionysus?), Roman citizen (Pagan?) taught by Pharisees (Jewish?), well travelled (wordly?)…hardly a kosher Jew.
1. Jesus came not as a person but in the "likeness of human flesh".....Gnostic illusionism
2. Paul claimed to ascended to the "third heaven"........The Gnostic seven heavens linked to the seven heavenly bodies.
3. Paul criticises ceremonies, holy days etc.........like Gnostics did
4. Teaches that Christians become like Christ....."transfigured into his likeness".........pure Gnosticism
5. Romans 1: 9-14 "I would like to see you, so that I may share a certain Pneumatic charisma"....pure Gnostic terminology (translated “spiritual gift”),
aka 1 Corinthians 2:6-9, Colossians 2 :3 etc.
I have run out of space for further evidence on this…
Posted by Priscillian, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 1:40:29 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
"However as you have said, despite the obvious errors in the writtings there is also plenty of evidence to suggest, and I'm sure that most Bible Scholars would agree, that a man, latter to be known as Jesus, wandered around 1st Century Palestine preaching a view of Judaism. It is probable that this man was crucified for crimes against Rome."

Actually there were lot's of them some of them with life stories along the same lines as JC but predating him by many years.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 1:50:17 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
Kenny,

The man is question is believed to be Benjamin Pandira - yeah I know, Ben is Hebrew and Pandira is Roman...

Yes there were quite a few "prophets" wandering around Palestine at this time. Some are mentioned in the Xian scripts - John the Baptist springs to mind.

Richo,

There are quite a few documents that could be a common denominator. The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Philip are good candidates. Equally interesting is the Gospel of Mary, that has Jesus' elder brothers guarding the entrance to the cave that she gave birth to Jesus in. Unfortunately most of the recovered Gnostic Gospels (discovered at Qumran) were in a bad state of repair when found, so many are only fragments.

Thomas (as in Doubting) is probably the most accurate of these. It is complete and contains sayings rather than sayings later placed into an incorrect context. Thomas, as with the other Gnostic Gospels and unlike the Cannonised versions, is an actual eyewitness account recorded later.
Posted by Narcissist, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 2:16:34 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
Narcissist,
I'm a bit confused by how you judge what is original. It seems contradictory to suggest that the Gnostic Gospels, written in the 2nd century or later, are the source material for the Biblical Gospels written in the 1st century.

You also make some unfounded assumptions regarding the way the Gospels were put together. As historical narrative, the sayings and settings are simply not separable in the way you suggest - one without the other does not make sense. The reason that the Gnostic Gospels tend to contain more teaching is that Gnostic belief is all about esoteric religious teachings, with very little place for the physical world.

Finally, it is a common misconception (fuelled no doubt by Dan Brown) that the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran have anything to say about Jesus. The Qumrani documents are all from before the time of Jesus and to do with the Old Testament. The Gnostic Gospels you refer to were discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt.
Posted by richo, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 3:03:06 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
and..putting God back into our communities and Parliaments.

In the year 30, the Word of God came to John the Baptist
In the year 2006, the Word of God came to Pastor Joe Wright in Kansas.

When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:

"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, “Woe to those who call evil good”, but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

We have killed our unborn and called it choice.

We have shot anti-abortionists and called it justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.

We have abused power and called it politics.

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Amen!"


The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest.

In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively.

The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.

Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, "The Rest of the Story," and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired.

"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for everything."

BOAZ comment:
All I can say is....way to go Joe!
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 15 June 2006 5:34:53 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
Thank you BOAZ_David for reminding us of what it means to be an American.

May I suggest some more for the good preacher.

"We have invaded a country, killed innocents and call it bringing freedom."

"We have imprisoned and tortured the uncharged and unconvicted and called it security."

"We have lied to the people and called it truth."

"We have coveted goods, possessions and raw materials and called it progress"

"We have filled the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses and caused global warming. We have called this being a good world citizen."

"We have filled our jails with Blacks and Hispanics and call that justice."

"We have shown intolerance and hatred and call that Christian"

I think you get the message.

Peace and Love
Posted by Priscillian, Thursday, 15 June 2006 5:53:14 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
It seems BOAZ_David that this particular urban legend has been floating around for 10 years.
How about giving us some more of your own theological gems instead of the 'ol cut and paste?

From:- http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_pastor_joe_wright.htm
"While not word-for-word accurate, this is a fair transcription of an actual prayer delivered before the Kansas House of Representatives by Central Christian Church Pastor Joe Wright on January 23, 1996. It has circulated continuously on the Internet ever since.
Posted by Priscillian, Thursday, 15 June 2006 6:25:17 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
It is good to see that that Pastor Joe could recognise the sins of the American people and ask for forgivness. I only wonder if the perfect judge of the American way has ever confessed her sin? We well recognise what she does not believe, however we wonder what are the foundation principles of her life?
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 15 June 2006 7:09:55 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
When John Kerry walked away from an obviously rigged election and left more than 50% of the voters without hope and without a voice, he sealed the fate of his country for decades to come. Kerry being a Democrat who doesn't stand for democracy, ...... work that out?. How these fools can ever call themselves Democrats when the US of A has such a corrupt electoral system is a monumental fraud.

There is no way of knowing that your very own vote was recorded properly or switched, the system can be easily hacked, there is no means of recounting tight results, there is obvious discrimination and no paper trail therefore no accountability ...... which all means NO democracy. They could all learn from their neighbour Canada that uses a simple and reliable pencil and paper ballot system...... but no and WHY?

The reality is that without accurate elections, the US of A is not a democracy and nor is it a constitutional republic because each person's vote counts for nothing. When it comes to recounts and checking we see that this cannot be achieved ............. so "counting" is abandoned in favor of "analyzing" with even more room for shenanigans.

So much freedom but no discipline....... so this is just a country run by the mob or by crims or carpetbaggers or religious nuts on a crusade. In the land of the free they just love primitive gun laws, the worst health care, loonie religious creationists, pre-emptive wars,,,,, which all just shows how the more religiosity invades a country the worse it gets and in the process say goodbye to democracy and welcome high rates of societal dysfunction. None of these teddies do democracy ....... ask Peter.

How this US of A can illegally invade a country and say they want to create a democracy there is a serious sign of madness.
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 15 June 2006 8:38:11 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
Keiran,
I suggest you ask the Iraqi people democratically elected if America invaded their country or attempted to release them from despotism and bring freedom. We well recognise you are a sympathiser of radical Islam and its world domination agenda; Hence your distain for America.

Quote, "How this US of A can illegally invade a country and say they want to create a democracy there is a serious sign of madness.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 15 June 2006 8:48:54 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
Dear Priscillian
I don't usually cut and paste, and while that one might have been circulating for some time, its message is indeed timeless, timely, and appropriate wouldn't u say ?

It focuses on the blight of both left and right, and .. dare I say it..'rightly' so :)

That little prayer is in harmony with II Chronicles 7.13

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray... and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and forgive their sin,and heal their land"

How we need this as a nation and as individuals.

I heard one major reason for this in question time yesterday.
Minchin was asked by the opposition "Will ASIC investigate why petrol prices were 1.45 in Sydney during the long weekend, but 1.35 in WA where there was NOT a long weekend "? fair question.....
Minchin 'evaded, deflected, blamed labor, ....EVerything but answer the question. SHAME SHAME SHAME ! or.. "SIN" X3

"Lord, we lie avoid our responsibilities,... and call it politics"

Regarding your own "list" I quite agree by and large, though the issues you raised do have another side to them. You presented things which are more half truths than fully true.
"Tolerance" is probably my favorite target.. if you mean they should tolerate literally 1000s of Mexicans coming across the border, who then raise MEXican flags and claim territorial rights... then you may wish to review that understanding of 'tolerance' :)

No government can claim a clean slate or unblemished record. There are tooooo many issues of territory, resources, and human racial/cultural conflict for that.
"All peace is based on a war, and the present peace contains the seeds of the next war" (BOAZ:)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 16 June 2006 6:17:08 AM
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
Philo, what you have is a teddy mind virus that manifests as a serious psychotic disorder capable of being strenuously defended with some deluded teddy "proofs", however it always operates from an irrational distrust of others, has a disorder of perception, has delusions with a Jesusolatry focus, is highly manipulative and troubled. Other teddy mind viruses come with wild apocalyptic and messianic visions, have particularly virulent forms, even a realestate focus or a Muhammedolatry focus, but in effect are no different. What you say from your playpen is not much different to a fundamentalist Sayyid Qutb or a Jerry Falwell or a Pat Robertson with their belief in a vengeful jack-in-the-box teddy.

When you say "We well recognise you (i.e. Keiran) are a sympathiser of radical Islam and its world domination agenda; Hence your distain for America." I observe your limited comprehension and your other idolatry ............ Americanism or worshipping the US of A. This is a pretense, Philo. I read this as you offering a jellybean verification of wishful thinking in the form of "proofs" of your teddy and so you seem completely immune to any insight into your illness. No wonder we have teddy wars.

To repeat, without accurate elections and this is fact, the US of A is NOT a democracy. It can have no claims for invading Iraq to establish a democracy because it is implementing imperialist policies that are extraordinarily hypocritical and contradictory to democratic values. If they truly believed in democracy, they would support world democracy instead of US of A hegemony.
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 16 June 2006 8:51:37 AM
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
Richo,

Yes you are right. Nag Hammadi was the place. From memory (which is getting much worse these day) two herders came across some buried clay jars buried in the caves.

I must disagree with your assertion that Thomas is not older than the Cannonised books. I believe Thomas was actually there, literate and wrote the collection of sayings before leaving for India.

As we all know, Peter went to Rome, and quickly realised a market in two areas. Women and death. Women, according to Peter, were allowed access to the Church and rich Roman Women, previously denied participation in Roman rites, donated considerably to the second, which was a burial for any person.

Paul, on the other hand, had no personal experience with JC. Paul was neurotic and misogynistic. In Paul's version there was no place at all in the church for women. Paul introduced weird idea's, such as self-flagilation.

By Nicea, there were about 13 or 14 Gospels, as well as the various epistles, only those that favoured the Paulean view were selected 4 Gospels, Acts and the Paulean Epistles.
Posted by Narcissist, Friday, 16 June 2006 1:35:12 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
Narcissist,
It is obvious you have no intelligent knowledge of the the NT or its writers but prefer to present bigoted imagined nonsense.

Remember Paul was born about the same time as Jesus the Christ and he had authority to put followers of Jesus to death only weeks after Jesus death. To say he had no knowledge of Jesus is mere speculation. That he was present and influened by the Jewish leaders that actually put Jesus to death would indicate he was present when they discussed Jesus in their conversations. Just that at the time he listened to the debates from both sides and switched sides when he realised there was more to Jesus than a radical teacher.

1. Please give references indicating Paul saw no place in the Church for women.
2. Please give references for Paul's ideas of self-fladulation.
3. Please give authority to the claim that Paul had no personal experience with the Lord Jesus Christ.

The fact is in all these claims of yours there are none.

Quote, "Paul... had no personal experience with JC. Paul was neurotic and misogynistic. In Paul's version there was no place at all in the church for women. Paul introduced weird idea's, such as self-flagilation."
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 17 June 2006 4:52:48 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
Good work Philo -

What non-Christians won't understand is that God lives IN us - we are His Temple, His Church, the Holy Spirit's residence.

Paul had a face-to-face encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Jesus resided with Paul and remained "in-him" until Paul expired his last...

As He promised, God Jesus never left His Church, and He never will.

The challenge postmodernist have is to believe God's claims without first entering His UNDECONSTRACTABLE domain of faith, grace, hope and love.
Posted by coach, Saturday, 17 June 2006 5:57:45 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
Hang on Mr Coach us non-Christians have always known that your god lives "in" you. In your head. No argument with that at all.

Paul certainly have some kind of experience but what kind is unknown, there if far too much confusion in the account and no modern doctor was present. If Jesus wanted to present himself to Paul then why didn't he just "meet" him like he met the disciples. Too much sun more likely or perhaps an epileptic fit.

The term "God Jesus" has me confused. Do you mean god or Jesus. Aren't they different entities? I have never understood this Trinity thing that Constantine dreamt up. Jesus seemed to think of his god as his father "abba" or "daddy". I know you won't answer this as any explanation of the Trinity in modern terms just looks plain silly and embarrassing.

You are right that you can't desconstruct faith until the faithful demonstrate the claims they make are reflected in reality. It would be like trying to deconstruct a fairy or a little green man from Mars.
Posted by Priscillian, Saturday, 17 June 2006 6:14:52 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
Priscillian,
May I state from the outset I am not a trinitarian; such is not taught in the Scripture. God is one, one spirit manifest in character, attitudes, actions and wisdom. God is manifest in the character, attitudes, action and wisdom of those that manifest the spirit of God.

As man, Christ Jesus manifest the very purity of the spirit of God to humanity. We proclaim him Lord as he is the exhalted one in whom we believe manifest purity of character, attitudes, the nature of God in action and the wisdom of God in human relationships. We do not worship the creature, but we worship the eternal character, attitudes, actions and wisdom revealed in him a creature, which such eternal character transcends the transient physical creation.

It is as we reflect upon his character we recognise our failures, and plead the forgivness of God and endeavour to live according to the life he manifest. We each are held accountable for our living and where we have failed we seek forgivness and reconciliation. The wisdom of that living will bless others, even enemies, while sin will cause injury to our relationships with others, even friends.

Now you will admire character, actions, and wisdom - it might not have the same manifestation as we see demonstrated in the life of Jesus Christ - this to you is your god. Examine your values and attitudes this is how you view your god. How you live in attitudes, actions is what you really believe about the spiritual values of your life. This reflects the very nature of the god you believe in. True worshippers of the God Christ revealed will truly endeavour to reflect the spirit as manifest in Jesus Christ. This is our God.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 17 June 2006 11:15:15 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
Well said Philo.
I don't know if you are are a cleric but if not, you certainly should consider it as your vocation.
Posted by Priscillian, Sunday, 18 June 2006 11:10:24 AM
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
Well done Philo

You have displayed all the pride and arrogance of modernism.

You have God all boxed up and perfectly presentable to fit your idea of him.

I don't think you have any idea of what Peter is writing about.
Posted by boxgum, Sunday, 18 June 2006 3:09:24 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
I join with Priscillian in recognising that the Christian God, Zeus, Mithra and all the others is and were ideas existing in the human brain. They have all been credited with desirable human qualities such as those listed by Philo: love, purity, wisdom, etc.

Ideas only become real when they lead to action outside the brain, and in this the believers constantly use the image of God and His promise of a life after death to encourage us to be good. In real life that call to goodness has manifestly failed in the face of quite different pressures in human society. Only when the physical relations between humans are recognised as the source of their problems will there be a chance of fixing them. Belief in the supernatural is a fog which prevents people seeing problems and solutions clearly.

The scientific problem is to study how those particular ideas formed in the brain.
Posted by John Warren, Sunday, 18 June 2006 4:02:20 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
Perhaps we should go back a few hundred years to what grew to be called the Enlightenment and realise that it was a struggle in the name of reason, against tyranny, superstition and inequity. It is pretty easy to oversimplify the faculty of the human mind that creates and operates with abstract concepts, described as a type of thought or aspect of thought we call reason. Its heritage in the Greek word "logos" gives us three separate words logic, rationality and reason. All three words are associated with the ability of the human mind to predict purposeful effects based upon presumed causes.

However, the Enlightenment, it can be seen, left open a crucial question ....... i.e. How does reason justify itself? Well, Modernism of the early 20th century is highly problematic because it presents as mechanical and seemingly a period of unreason flirting seriously with irrationalism. e.g. the connection of fascism to capitalism, and the tyranny of Stalinism. However, in the midst of Modernism already is the theme of Postmodernism with Duchamp and DADA where we first see that there is nothing to prevent reason from challenging reason.

I suspect that we humans share many unconscious yearnings and that the freedom to follow our intellectual curiosities is one of the greatest. We need to actively find true diversity which includes an ability to adopt a framework of perspectives that can be inquiring, analytical, critical and evaluative. This is still a struggle in the name of reason, against tyranny, superstition and inequity, but why not challenge minds with reason, free inquiry, dignity, participation and imagination. Why not understand fragmentation, provisionality, chaos, ambiguity, skepticism, conflict, vastness, disorientation, questions, confusion, incoherence and coax out of chaos the rudiments of a civility without borders.

From 1995, with the birth proper of the www it now makes sense that "postmodern" has mutated into a hyperlink to the 360 degrees of an infinite meta-narrative with its global network of moderators and always connected (neither a system but an environment) and where to say that the "word" was with teddy is to say that teddy is meaningless.
Posted by Keiran, Sunday, 18 June 2006 4:03:17 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
Keiran all the internet has done in that regard is give us more channels of crap. It has made information more accessible but more importantly it has made a great deal of misinformation for truth to hide in. Now more then ever do we need to teach kids how to separate fact form fiction with reality based rational thought. That also means you can't isolate one part of your world view from that process. The belief in the supernatural must have the full force of evidence based reasoning put on it. It's like saying there is no such thing as sprits however the fairies told me....
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 19 June 2006 6:14:44 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
I think it is too easy today to slip from discussing religion into phsychology, philosophy, modernism, post-modernism etc. This is the mistake I think Peter makes. The facts are these.
1. Religion exists.
2. We live in a (developing) secular state.
The problem is how to maintain social harmony and work with our differences. Both points of view have come some way for the common good. Whether the churches admit it or not they practice relativism and work within modernist (if not completely post-modernist) practice. Whether rational secularists admit it or not religion pervades our society. God is not dead, humans will always make gods. Christianity has moved at a glacial pace towards the new world. Things are getting better. Now Islam........
Posted by Priscillian, Monday, 19 June 2006 6:41:51 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
The above commentaries are possibly enlightening, but do they prove more of escape from earthly reality than possibly an answer to the problems we are having today.

Though a professed Christian, but as one who has become more interested in philosophy than religion in his old age, looks to reason for answers as a balance to faith. It was what St Thomas Aquinas became partly convinced about, as a remedy to get Christians out of the Dark Ages, which proclaimed overmuch about the next life being better than the first life.

So it is with the Moslem Mullahs today, who mainly through intrusion and injustice from the former barbarian West, do preach that the next life grants rewards that the first life can never give.

But while residing on this earth, as well as faith is it not better to use the faith that the Nazarene Jesus taught mixed with the reasoning to make us think deeply about the Good Samaritan, and to put ourselves in the position of our enemies and wonder whether it might be our fault rather than theirs?

A bit of strong historical study rather than swamped with religous faith, does reveal why St Thomas finally resorted to reason after learning how Muslim Moorish scholars after building a university is Spain were inviting all non-Muslims not about a belief in Allah but a belief in Golden Greek Reasoning, which through Aquinas opened the way to the Western Age of Reason, the Age of Enlightenment, and our present democratic age.

Even as the tough-minded Churchill once said, we much need religion, but without a true sense of history we fail to be true to ourselves. Unfortunately, too much religous faith can make us less faithful to the true Christian message, which contains so much compassion and forgiveness we never much hear about it these days.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 19 June 2006 7:10:58 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
Sells says that scholars "know how to demolish everything, leaving them with nothing".

That scholars are left with nothing is questionable because one could argue that they are left with the truth and no delusions. However, post modernists will also recognise the possibility that he/she may, indeed, be left with nothing. Just as an unravelling of our modern lives and attitudes may lead people to realise that Something is missing: that a belief in an extra-systemic identity is meaningless unless that belief is an authentic belief in an authentic God. This is the key problem for any aspiring Christian (or other God-based religions) and one that most of Sells’ writing struggles with.

Of course, we have the bugbear question- which God?

Whatever choice we make, we will always be left with the uncertainty that we may be making the wrong choice (or at least reminded of it). The positive thing we are left with is the certainty that more authentic choices are possible. We are left with the certainty that, even though others choose differently, the choice we make is made freely and without fear or compromise. Having said that, there are plenty of people who choose to be Christian for all the wrong unconscious and conscious reasoning.

The positive thing with post modernism in relation to theology and Christian religion is that it has an uncertain certainty in that others’ choices are, at the same time, both questionable and validated and thus we must have (in theory) all round respect. That said, Christianity has had centuries of force, scaremongering, coercion, romantic nonsense, and modernist authority to impose certainty (fundamentalist, especially, certain Islamics are still in this stage). Now we have post modernism and perhaps the authenticity that one must develop to live in a world of certain uncertainty will see certain people leaning towards a more authentic, less human idea/not idea of a God. We will look to a God that is less a reflection of our earthly thinking and attitudes to a more priestly God “who is above all, and through all, and in you all”
Posted by rancitas, Friday, 23 June 2006 4:31:32 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
Re: the question that post modernism is the saviour of God. God is the Saviour to a true Christian. I am a pagan and I can respect that. Can you respect my paganism? A post modernist could validate/not validate the reasoning behind Rancidas’ Paganism – just as that non either/or thinking could validate/not validate the Christian God. The good news is that God remains a possibility even to the non-believer and to the believer there (in theory ) must be a more authentic understanding or belief.

In the end, for a Christian and other God believers it comes down to the idea that “believing is seeing”.

In the end, for certain philosophers and scientists (and students), it comes down to seeing is believing.

For post modernists, there is always the spectre of the other possibilities; for the atheist in a post modernist world, the spectre of the “glass darkly”; for the God believers there is the spectre of nothingness, of the certainty that in the end there is the haunting possibility that the old Irish piss pots are correct when they sing: “ the worms crawl in, they’re lean and thin, the worms crawl out they’re thick and stout, your brains will come tumbling down your snout - be merry my friends, be merry.

Now kids f … off to bed."
Posted by rancitas, Friday, 23 June 2006 4:38:32 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
Reason is crucial to clear communication. Its very nature is connected to the concept of language and in this respect, if we believe in the importance of the human desire to communicate, we have to believe in reason. When I mentioned "that "postmodern" has mutated into a hyperlink to the 360 degrees of an infinite meta-narrative with its global network of moderators and always connected", we have now a communications medium unlike others that were one to many forms. The internet is communications many to to many. I find this truly significant.

The Enlightenment we understand as a struggle in the name of reason, against tyranny, superstition and inequity, but at its core was the new communications medium with the printing press. Where once there was but the spoken word, and then the beautifully hand written word, now we have the printed word. Next we have the wire which then goes from the wire to the wireless. Wireless is a one to many dictatorship of the loud vioce and hence the modernism of the early twentieth century is reflective of extremes of unreason. It is not surprising that television gave us the postmodern but the internet is interactive, democratic with a deeper realism and our new enlightenment where the word is not with a teddy but with the people.

Over to you Kenny. Cheers.
Posted by Keiran, Monday, 26 June 2006 10:54:52 AM
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
"The [sic. Christian] Church’s long decline during the past few hundred years began when God was taken out of the Church and became an object of scientific speculation." - Sells

Apart from only one interpretation of Peter becoming "the Rock" , there is little evidence Jesus intended a conventional church for his Kingdon of Heaven. People using Church and Priesthod models usurped the teachings, organisation and natters of rite [e.g. the use of an altar.]. There is no reason to believe that a Church has any special right to Administer the Word of [the aledged]God on behalf of God: Especially, before the invention of the printing press the Christian Church was a political body: e.g., Popes raised armies and schicisms often had political undercurrents. The Christian's god may have been taken from the Church under democratic secularism but by what right was that [alledged] entity there in the first place
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 4 June 2007 9:58:17 AM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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