Sells

At the heart of every proselytising religion is the belief that it is right and everyone else is wrong. This is the foundation of arrogance and intolerance. The language of exclusivity encourages this attitude and I dont think I am 'missing the point' at all.
When we spend a large part of our time immersed in our faith community and the language of that community we tend to accept the conventions of that particular discourse. In effect we cease to criticise ourselves and our language because we are constantly being rewarded for our conformance to the conventions.
The use of that language in forums like this exposes all sorts of problems that exist within the dicourse of the faith community. Like you, I have used the langage of 'fullness of humanity' in sermons and Bible studies where it seems to make sense. In reality it doesn't make sense at all but this only becomes obvious when we position ourselves differently in relation to the Biblical text and to the discourse of our community and hear ourselves with different ears.

To the extent that Church is an exclusive community (club) it is just a waste of time. Perhaps it is better to talk about a 'faithful community' than a 'faith community'. It might be easier to understand that a faithful community is oriented towards the world in an inclusive way (consistent with Gods self-revelation in Jesus) rather than thinking of a faith community which is most easily interpreted as an enclave of like-faithed individuals.

Trav,

I said that theism and atheism play with infallibility. Even Richard Dawkins admits an atheist holds infallible knowledge. Neither, Dawkins nor I are atheists.

Choices made are not between Chistianity and non-Christianity, rather between commitment and non-commitment. I choose not to be long to MAFIA, KKK, Catholic Church or Stalinism. Christians to choose to belong. You choose Jesus not Zeus. There would be religions in Africa, the Island nations and South America that would not be in your consideration set.

Non-Catholics have been pretty savage too. General Monk under Cromwell destroyed Catholic artefacts throughout Scotland. Marx had words to the effect of, "the only difference between the Catholics and the Protestants is how long they roast their victims".

I agree typical parish priests, patsors and ministers, do not act the ways of their Masters.The enlightenment and secular power was clipped their wings.

In the 1920-30s, US orgainised crime would provide Christmas aide packages to the poor. Bad organisations can do good things.

Besides, as I have recently posted, the early Jesus followers were interested in martydom, virginity and the end time. Modern Christians, at best, are practising Paulne and Nicaean creeds, not genuine Christainity.

May be you should not call yourself a Christian or by your domination, just a member of your congregation.

Yes, Jesus is “the way, the truth, the light” – for me. But I am impelled to say that, in some other times, places and cultures, God may well become truly known through different human faces and names and narratives and metaphors. Sells seems to be opposed to this view.

To acknowledge that another person may be drawing closer to God by following another path or another leader does not mean I am wavering from the path of Jesus.

In his last post Sells points to some of the metaphorical polarities from the New Testament as support for his position. I suggest that, in the present context, they are not be helpful in showing the way Jesus would have us regard those on a different route. A person who accepts the label “Muslim”, for instance, is not ipso facto “sinful”, or spiritually “dead”, or even “lost”. It is for that person alone to decide if such adjectives apply.

We need to examine our language rigorously and continually in religious discourse. Shorthand labels like “liberal”, “Muslim”, “Christian” and “atheist” can be barriers to real communication. I concur with Waterboy’s intention when he suggests that we use the term “faithful community” rather than “faith community”, but I’m not sure whether it would seem any more inclusive to those who feel shunned.

Regarding comments by Waterboy.

The Church is not exclusive. All are free to enter its membership via the waters of Baptism. My parish church comprises people from over sixty ethnic origins across multiple levels of social wealth levels.

Regarding the semantics of "faith community" or "faithful community".

I see that there is a valid differentiation between "believers" and "the faithful" in all faiths, including the secular movements.

The former adhere to rule, law, custom, cultural expression, formal position in the name of goodness as defined by the group.

The latter seek to live the faith from a deep trust and love that is goodness personally experienced through a faithful life informed by the great teaching heritage of the Church. ( St. Augustine - "Love God and do what you will.." ) or holy book or manifesto. I have known some very loving Marxists. People who placed the interests of others before their own ambitions.

No one can judge, or should judge, who is who. It is seen and beneficially experienced in their living witness to life as good.

Sells' contributions are if anything challenging to both the faithful of Jesus Christ and those of other belief or non belief. To be challenged does not mean there is ill-will in its delivery. As such I see the protestation expressed in the "sub-human" accusation of Sells by contributors as lacking in goodwill. It is a terrible accusation of him : with goodwill at work in the reader he/she would see it is a claim Sells would not infer, let alone make.

There is plenty of definition of what being " fully human, fully alive" is in the Scriptures as elsewhere. Any of it without love is as empty of clashing gongs as St Paul exclaims. And as Scripture informs the people of the world : God is love and is the source of love and the final destination of love.

"Sells' contributions are if anything challenging to both the faithful of Jesus Christ ..."

if you say so.

"and those of other belief"

if they say so

"or non belief."

no, they're not. they're simply boring or irritating or, quite miraculously, both.

Oliver,

So, Richard Dawkins is not an atheist....and I am not a Christian?

I think it's time I stopped taking your posts seriously.