The rationality of lack of faith is the one of the best proofs of rationality for faith. The pathetic attempts by corrupt humans to discredit the Son of God and His miracles are incredible. The lack of faith by many is purely an excuse to continue their ungodly lifestyles and to think throwing in a good work here or there somehow justifies themselves. Their reasoning is foolishness. So true when Jesus spoke of the Light coming to the world but men loving their darkness more than light. Thankfully God is merciful up to a man's dying day wishing that none would perish but that all would come to everlasting life.

Thomas Aquinas saw the true light when prompted by Peter Abelard he took the message from early Moslems about religous faith needing to be tempered by Socratic Reasoning - commonsense being possibly the main intellectual gain from it.

Thus Aquinas has been declared not only the only true doctor of the Church, but was also declared a Saint, as well as beginning what is now our Schools of Humanities et al.

It is also so strange that many of our OLO contributors will not accept the above history, making them similar to Bush Dubya who some say would never have had the brains to be a Uni' gaduate anyhow?

Sells,

I find it odd how so many Christians like yourself completely miss the 'Good Word' that Christ preached. Jesus' message was one of liberation and obligation. By absolving humanity's sins through his death he liberated us from the obligations we had to God, his earthly representatives and the old laws they preached. It was a message of freedom and free will. But just as the saying "With great power, comes great responsibility", Jesus' message was also about the obligation this freedom imposed on us not to god but to each other, those who could be affect by our choices. It was a message that given God is everywhere and talks to all of us, we must listen to him (through ourselves) to judge right from wrong. In effect, it's up to us as individuals to determine our own morality, and not let it be based on some rules in an old tome written by a human.

I don't personally believe that Jesus was of divine nature, but rather just a great philosopher. I think that his references to immortality and eternal life, and the duality of his humanity are about how he as a person would die but his teachings would live on forever through others.

If there's some form of universal truth in his teachings then that his philosophies allow one to lead a life that is morally right, socially responsibly and individually beneficial. Which is aptly summarised by the words "Love thy neighbour". His teachings were that our morality should be based on the very real impact we have on our neighbours and no based on some abstract notion of absolutes. However, whether there is a universal truth to his teachings has no affect on his divinity.

Essentially I find a certain truth in Ghandi's words: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.". Does that make him a God too?

Thomas Aquinas saw the true light when prompted by Peter Abelard he took the message from early Moslems about religous faith needing to be tempered by Socratic Reasoning - commonsense being possibly the main intellectual gain from it. - BB

Is not Aquinas more doctrinaire than Abelard. Sic? Non? Sic!

That is, the Christain churches seem to have build much doctine on the thoughts of Aquinas. The Church is the Master of the knowledge handed [preached] down to the lay. Alternatively, Abelard stood in opposition to Greek dialogues, wherein the Master led the other [ignorant] party to the difinitive ah-ha conclusion/solution.

Albelard, I posit, was less inclined to accept authority [and paid dearly for it, preventing from sitting on ecclesiastical council] and did not have he same affinity towards a high degree of closure regrading the finality of understanding, as did Aquinas [and the Christian churches].

[p.s. Sells: I am on the mend. Still at least six months treatment.]

"Our focus can no longer be on the survival of the Church, but on how the Church, weak as it is, can work towards the survival of society."

HELL'S BELLS: PELL FELL

Peter, I once pressed Cardinal Pell very hard to pressure ony Tony Abbott for not responding/releasing details of a report [July, 2007] into the purchase of more PET scanners as Abbott promised he would. Several medical oncolgists said the findings were of significant importance. Some medical doctors have even blocked by Government to finding out the recommendations via FOI. Pell, so often ready to open his trap on matters of breaching Church and State, would not give his pal, Tony, a quick call on a less contentious of the temporal survival of members of society.

SOCIETAL ACHIEVEMENTS

Democratision of society is at a different pole to institutionisation via Churches and Monarchy. The People must administer themselves, rather than be ruled. In recent centuries we have come to learn the People represent the dog and not the tail: But the People have to resist great powers to protect our individualism and our enlightenment.

The CERN particle accelerator is about to collide two particles each travelling at greater than 0.99 c. So, soon, we mightlearn more about the early universe. In one hundred years might we create one [a universe]? The society posited by a Luther or Aquinas could not support such an accompliment

Sells

What a strange article!

The Church is not a 'system of rationality' precisely because its members are committed to a 'belief' in its basic premises. For a system to be truly rational the dubiety of its premises must be acknowledged.

To expound, for example, the rationality of 'Love thy Neighbour' is to miss the point.

As you point out liberalism is what you get when you allow the Church's premises to be doubted. You obviously regard this as a bad thing. I simply cannot but question those premises and therefore I am liberal and not ashamed of it. If theology is faith seeking understanding then how can it be anything but liberal. It must question that faith which it seeks to understand. If, in being questioned, that faith is transformed or even lost then so be it. Some forms of faith are best discarded.