relda,
let me repeat, I (and the Pope) do not necessarily object to political programs (involving Marxism or not) aimed at improving the lot of the ”poverini” but to the mixing of theology with a political program. Andrew Greeley, a sociologist and priest, certainly not a conservative, formulated thus the difference in the seventies (when liberation theology was a still novelty):

“Religious symbols may create a context in which humans can work for a better social order, but the symbols do not and cannot dictate specific social policies and strategies. To identify strategies or programs with religious symbols is both naïveté and idolatry. It is naïve because religious symbols have nothing to say about concrete issues of international economics, and it is idolatrous because such identification absolutizes the relative — and every program of strategy is relative... But if religious symbols do not provide practical programs, if they are no substitute for political, economic and social competence and sophistication, they do provide the motivation, the goals and the ideals for social reconstruction.” (The New Agenda, 1973)

I think this explains also the difference between the practitioners of Christianity (like Mother Theresa and many priests in South America who work with the “poverini”), and the theoreticians of liberation theology.

Also, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness” sounds to me like a chicken and egg statement, a position that reminds me of the “social constructivists” of science drawing far reaching conclusions from the obvious fact that scientists work in a social environment.

However, I have to admit that as far as Marx and social revolutions brought about by social engineers in the name of the proletariat or “poverini” are concerned I am biased, growing up in a Stalinist country where these theories - their Marx-Leninist version, admittedly a distorted version of Marxism - were brought into praxis. A bias perhaps not unlike that of somebody raped by a priest towards all clergy.

Dan
In an earler post, after you had given us a short version of your life history thus far, I asked you if you could give me some explanation as to why you switched to christianity and a belief in "creationism". I am really quite disappointed that you have not responded, because it is of great interest to me. Can you identify what caused you to switch? Did it happen "overnight" or did it happen over a few years. Was there something that made you start believing in god, or was there something that stopped you believing in a world without god? Was there a sudden conversion, or (do I dare?), did it just evolve?

I do hope we hear from you.
HarryG

George,
I didn’t think what I’d expressed had implied the integration of theology and politics which, I grant, is likely to grow into something more of an expressed ideology rather than something of the more poetic, philosophical or metaphysical. But, as Reinhold Neibhur suggests, “A religion of detachment from the world may persuade the soul to find both happiness and virtue in defiance of physical and social circumstances and thus to regard all social problems as irrelevant to its main purpose”. Niebuhr has helped many to see that political understanding and inquiry cannot be divorced from a clear understanding of human nature – which therefore will draw us also into the realm of religion. He also rightly said that a religion of social amelioration easily becomes a beautiful romance which obscures the unlovely realities of life.

The Christian faith has been so deeply involved in the religious sanctification of historic structures of injustice, that to a considerable degree a struggle for justice has been borne by "secular" forces. On must also come to realise that secular philosophy erroneously estimates human nature, it understands neither the height nor the depth of man, neither his grandeur nor his misery; and when consistently employed it reveals dangerous tendencies toward totalitarianism.

Niebuhr had a favourite saying, "Sometimes new truth rides into history upon the back of an error." This can apply to both the religious and the secular – both can be bearers of important truths. The fact is, both the errors and truths have been used so often to undermine religious absolutism where this twofold attack will result in the obscuration of Christian insight as well as the undermining of ecclesiastical pretension. This certainly serves to indicate the complexity of the cultural and intellectual foundations of modern democracy. This mixture of ideas and forces, operating so strongly in the development of our western culture, is surely allied to a sense of justice and social right – but, yes, ambiguous it remains.

Sancho,
Nothing is 100% predictive. Unless, of course, you’re working within a predetermined world view. For example, if you perceive all evidence within the framework or paradigm of evolution, then all the evidence will naturally fit that paradigm. If you go looking for evidence of evolution, then guess what you’re likely to find.

You can never scientifically disprove Darwinism or any other theory of history (explanation for how things came to be). For example, in the Azaria Chamberlain saga, scientific evidence was involved, but they didn’t bother putting 12 scientists on the jury, for it was an issue of interpreting historical events. Even today some remain unconvinced over the judicial outcome.

Waterboy,
You claim that the Hebrew language is metaphorical to the core. Does this mean that Hebrew is incapable of describing a sequence of historical events using straight forward narrative, so that the order of the events are clear and without danger of misinterpretation from different levels of meaning? Can’t they tell their history in a straight forward manner, and aren’t we capable of recognising such passages and relating to them?

AJ,
You’re asking me to make comparisons between a creationist article and several others from pro-evolution websites. Yet, you recently advised us that Creationism relies entirely on dishonesty. So why should anyone expect to find anything of value from the creationist article? Furthermore, for those who say that all life evolved from non living chemicals, on what grounds do they justify honesty or truth telling (beyond some sort of expediency in that it may confer some survival advantage)? I’m not sure what reasons you give to motivate me to go to the trouble.

HarryG,
You speak of indoctrination of the young. From my view, our young have been totally captured by evolutionary philosophy. Ever seen a book from a children’s library on dinosaurs or other animals or a TV wildlife documentary that doesn’t contain imagery and commentary of our supposed evolutionary history? From Play School to Lateline, you can’t get a job at the ABC without first showing a quiet antagonism towards things Christian.

HarryG,
I’ve never pondered long over the question can God create a rock so big, etc? There are numerous things that God can’t do: God cannot construct square triangles, he cannot deny himself, and he cannot lie, among other things.

But there are issues you raise that I have puzzled over for quite a while, such as determinism and free will, especially in regard to myself becoming a Christian. Was that my decision (free will) or someone else’s (determined)?

Definitely, I had two devout and hard praying grandmothers. I don’t begrudge this. It is good for parents to pass on a spiritual heritage to their children. God demands this. I don’t look down on those whose faith has been nurtured all their lives by a godly tradition. But I’d like to think my decisions are my own.

My Dad taught me the religion of sport. Its two main manifestations, cricket and football, were determined by the weather. But as season after season continually passed, cricket to football and back again, I wondered about the orderliness of it all, and thought there must be something guiding it. As a teenager with the usual social needs and insecurities, I felt in a position to make comparison between two paths, the natural, as portrayed by our cricket club (biggest by player numbers in Australia), and the spiritual, as portrayed by our local church. (I’ve always felt the two path approach was somehow kind of logical.)

Acknowledging that the cricket club could well continue without metaphysical intervention, I was drawn to the church by certain things, including: the appealing personality of Christ (as preached), some good role models, a sense of uplifting, purposeful, and caring community, not felt outside the church, which at the time I interpreted as God’s Spirit.

As for sudden loss or tragedy, in my experience, people come to faith drawn by as many felt needs and via as many paths as there are individuals. Conversion comes after encountering God’s Spirit, having sensed him as real enough, and seeing the Christ that he came to reveal.

Dan:
Thanks for your response. I am not going to comment on it - not because it is not worthy of comment, but because I don't want to get into a protracted discussion going over issues again.

But you comment about not being able to get a job at the ABC does deserve a comment (it was directed to me, though not in the post I referred to in my previous paragraph).

Can I let you know, quite categorically, that it was not until I had been formally offered a position at the ABC and I was formally accepting that I "affirmed" rather than swear on the bible my allegiance to the Commonwealth of Australia or whatever. Up until then. the ABC had no knowledge of where I stood. And in my many years at that organisation, I met a broad cross-section of society (it is a broadcasting organisation!)

Throwaway lines like yours do nothing for constructive comment. That is why I don't say things like "you have to be a paedophile to become a priest". It belittles the person making the comment.

May your god go with you.