An absolutely brilliant article for demonstrating the absurdity of all religion.

Sells
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to believe
With apologies to Sir Walter Scott

The Black Adder summed all of this in his classic exclamation: utter crap!

Mono-theism is actually very simple.

It is always an extension of the collective ego of a tribalistic cult, whether that tribalistic cult numbers only 100 or 2 billion.

It is also a mistake of language, or rather a form of pernicious IDOLATRY wherein the Indivisible Divine Conscious Light gets reduced to the scale and purpose(s) of the collective tribal ego.

This idolatrous "god" is thus made the slave of the tribal ego, and by extension is used to justify all of the inevitable slaughters done in the name of the power seeking cult in its INEVITABLE attempts to conquer everyone else. This is particularly true of Islam(ISM) and ChristianISM, but also to a lesser degree, of JudaISM.

Meanwhile Sells presumes to talk about God altogether, or rather Truth and Reality and yet he never ever writes about the two irreducible Primal aspects of Reality altogether. Namely Consciousness and Energy or Light---let alone Conscious Light.

He is in effect both a purveyor of self-serving impenetrable cultic idolatries and a naive realist who is thoroughly convicted of the myth of "matter" as described here: http://www.dabase.org/broken.htm

Plus for a more expanded window into Truth, Reality and The Beautiful, and the nature of the times in which we live, please check out this reference---which is about Real Intelligence.

http://theenlightenedworld.org/home/2009/03/02/the-ancient-walk-about-way-of-adi-da-samraj

Here we go again with the old bait-and-switch:

"However, a closer inspection of the God of the Bible reveals something much deeper and more interesting than a human projection... He is more accurately described with the use of an analogy of relationship, of presence. Whereas classical theism relies on an ontology of substance, Christian theology relies on an ontology of relation. God is as he is in relation... This means that he does not exist as other beings exist, but he is defined by his being in relation."

In other words, "I would never say anything so silly as that God exists, but he's still REEEELY important!"

Do you really think that the vast majority of Catholics and Protestants -- now mostly to be found in the undereducated developing world -- believe anything so vague or subtle? And do you really think that Muslim and Jewish theologians can't be just as vague and evasive when it suits them to be? (Look up 'pilpul', for instance). This kind of not-MY-Goddism is as old as the hills, but as far as I know it hasn't stopped one person from being burned at the stake, raped or slaughtered by the proponents of the more prevalent belief that religion is actually ABOUT something.

Does God really exist, Peter? Yes or no? And if not, why on earth do you bother?

Good article Peter. I think you have made a thoughtful analysis of the Christian concept of God.
I am amazed at the first four posts. I can understand why humans can be so distructive to each other when I read the shallow, dismissive and insulting things that are written. I have noticed this before with your articles - why do these same people keep reading Sells when they disagree with him? Is it just to be nasty? I wonder ...

Peter M,
I for one am not trying to insult Peter S. (although I may do so). Peter invites us to read his articles and we respond. Is this not a good thing? Peter likes us responding in the way we do because refuting our comments either to himself or in public gives him confidence in his own world view. I worry about Peter's level of doubt sometimes, for he does have some. We are working on it.

Yes, Peter,
They are inanely nasty - just a bunch of crackers filled with vicious hate avoiding any reasonable analysis.

What is hilarous is the nasty posters explanation of the universe. Their pseudo science takes so much faith to believe and yet they speak with such 'authority'. Looking at the sites Ho Hum has inserted says it all really. The pathetic attempts of man to explain away their Creator knows no bound. The puny little fists and mouths they wave at the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob is nothing short of pathetic. The apostle Paul put it so nicely when he spoke of the foolishness of those who denied what is so obvious to even children. I wonder how many of these posters will pay someone to say nice things about them at their funeral and pretend they have gone to a 'better' place.

An apalling serve of garbled crapola.

Only Judaism and Islam qualify as monotheistic. Christianity is better described as polytheistic.

The struggle among the people of Israel expressed in Genesis to establish monotheism, and the commandments of Yahweh, have obviously failed, since if you flick 300 pages later into the Bible, we now have three deities: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity."
Thomas Jefferson

Peter S,
For what it is worth, here is a quote relevant to what you seem to be saying:

“The atemporal God of classical theology has the whole of history present to simultaneous view in a way that has no analogue in human experience. ... The (temporal) God of both the Old and New Testaments seems to have a deep engagement with historical process, with the becommings of the world. .... The God of the atemporal view knows all history and interacts with it in a unified, if mysterious, fashion. The God of temporal process does not yet know the unformed future and interacts with history as it unfolds, responding to its development in the way so often described anthropomorphically in the Bible. The One is the Composer of the whole cosmic score; the Other is the Great Improviser of unsurpassed ingenuity (in Arthur Peacocke’s striking phrase) of the cosmic performance. It is clear that the God of temporal process is the more vulnerable in relation to creation than is the atemporal God of classical theism. The converse of that is that it seems that the atemporal God presents greater difficulties for theodicy than does the God of temporality. ... While the former ... is the one endorsed by much of the classical Christian traditions, it is the latter ... which I believe accords best with late twentieth-century thought, both scientific and theological.” [John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science, YUP 1998, pp. 72-74].

richard dawkins in the wall street journal:

Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: "Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn't matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism."

Well, if that's what floats your canoe, you'll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world's peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right.

I have recently spent an enjoyable time conversing on another thread with davidf and others about Genesis.

During that time we had occasion to compare Gilgamesh (A Sumerian fable written long before the Hebrew Bible and the source of the flood narrative) with the Genesis God.

The Gods in the Gilgamesh tale were just as capable of capricious behaviour toward human as the one in Genesis but the attitude from the writer was less than fawning.

“Even the Gods were terrified at the flood, they fled to the highest heaven, the firmament of Anu; they crouched against the walls, cowering like curs.”

Utnapishtim’s sacrifice after the Flood drew the Gods “like flies“.

One got the very real sense that the adulation demanded by monotheistic religion just was not there and one also felt that this might have been a good thing. The array of gods reflected traits within us all and man’s identification with them as a collective and individuals may well have been stronger.

Possibly there was also a hint of democracy and healthy cynicism about the motives of the deities. Certainly the motivation to kill or die for one deity among the many must have been less that in monotheistic structure.

An example might well be the Australian parliament compared to the cult of the personality that exists in North Korea. We tolerate our politicians, even admire a few, but know we can't trust them to have our best interests always at heart. Kim however enjoys a God-like status with unquestioning obedience delivered to him from his worshippers.

Seen in that light any out of work deities should be encouraged to apply.

Monotheism - not as nice as you think.

George.
Thanks for the quotation. My reading of the scientists turned theologians of Polkinghorne's and Peacocke's genre is that they have not shaken off the influence of natural theology and that the God that they arrive at is really a version of the intelligent supernatural being that set the planets in their orbits. Of course they update the activity of God to fit in with recent scientific discoveries, but the pattern in the same. If you look closely you will find that Polkinghorne may concede that God is involved in history and as such is not a deus absconditus but his transcendence is the same matter/spirit duality that continues to trouble scientists. I may be wrong about this as I have not made a detailed study of these men, but I suspect my suspicions are correct.

In the 20th C only Karl Barth has escaped from an initial decision about the existence of God based on philosophy and nature and has arrived at a truly biblical understanding of God. Other theologians have walked in the path that he took and I think that these really hold the key to the controversy about God in modernity.
There has been an unfortunate tradition in theology, beginning with Aquinas, to establish the existence of God and only then say how this god relates to the triune god of the bible. The result is always agonized. Barth relied on Anselm to tell him that the God who is the Father of Jesus Christ reveals himself to us and this revelation can only come to those who have faith (knowledge seeking understanding). This means that there is no road from our side to God, only God’s gracious path to us. So building constructs from nature to God is worthless.
I realize that I have gone on a bit and much of what I say is beside the point, please excuse.

Bushbasher.
True Christian theology is not based entirely on the subjective, it has its own object that requires its own langage.

Peter Sellick

Peter

I think I understand how deeply your theology is influenced by Barth, but to me his flat refusal to allow any human capability – reason, empirical observation or subjective experience – as a basis for knowledge of God is exasperating and unfruitful.

Karen Armstrong said this of Barth’s theology, and I mostly agree with her on this (though I guess Barth would say that Jesus Christ, not the bible, is the ultimate revelation):

[Karl Barth] … set his face against the Liberal Protestantism of Schleiermacher with its emphasis on religious experience. Barth was also a leading opponent of natural theology. It was, he thought a radical error to seek to explain God in rational terms not simply because of the limitations of the human mind but also because humanity has been corrupted by the Fall. Any rational idea we form about God is bound to be flawed, therefore, to worship such a God was idolatry. The only valid source of God-knowledge was the Bible. This seems to have been the worst of all worlds: experience is out; natural reason is out; the human mind is corrupt and untrustworthy; and there is no possibility of learning from other faiths, since the Bible is the only valid revelation. It seems unhealthy to combine such radical scepticism in the powers of the intellect with such an uncritical acceptance of the truths of scripture.

(History of God, p.380)

Sells,

Muslims would have difficulty in accepting a “reciprocal” loving relationship between God and Man because of God’s transcendental omnipotence. The parties’ ranks are not bi-lateral and equal as in human friendships, between a Man and Women or in familial relationships.

Likewise, in the OT, the Archaic Judeo-Christian god declares, “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14), predating “Nothing is like Him” (Surah, 42:11). In both instances, God is removed and mysterious.

Later, in the Christian faith, God was made Man (Jesus). As such, the presence of this Actor was not merely to replace the old covenants, but to have God present as Man. While, a transcendental god could not die as substitutionary ransom, Jesus the Man could. Here, The Christian crucifixion binds Human-kind and God-kind in a new way. In a sense the alleged events allows for a special relationship between non-equivalents.

But don’t sell the Islamic god short. Al-lah is alleged to be “compassionate” and “merciful” (Surah, 7:156).

The Islamic concept of God is Eastern in that amplifies the distance between God and Man (power distance). What you have missed is Islam does offer a relationship only said relationship is more deferential than with the Christian NT God. As the Academic Director of a university, I had occasion to do business in Indonesia and clearly recall a Muslim with whom I was meeting excusing himself, saying he needed to leave, “to commune with my God”. Those words would signify a (perceived) relationship, methinks. An Islamic call to prayer is a call to a (perceived) relationship.

p.s. A god changing Its mind would have all sorts of epistemological, theological and ontological implications.

p.p.s. In philosophy, the Unmoved Mover as the (ongoing) Prime Mover can be untidy, as the Unmoved Mover exists only as the motionless first cause and the goal for rest for (created) motion.

sellick, a few points:

i) "true christian theology" is for christians to fight about, but it looks to me like you're leading with your chin.

ii) whatever TCT might be, and whatever its worth, dawkins' point is that you're in the minority. christianity as a political and social force seems overwhelmingly wrapped up with an objective god, from whose existence spring objective truths.

iii) nonetheless, you have every right and maybe good reason to promote TCT.

iv) in this promotion, you should avoid being precious. it is probably true that general discussion of religion "simplifies and smooths over the gaping differences". but given your own habit of making sweeping, usually insulting, generalizations, i'm not sure you're the Mr. Clean to whine about this.

v) finally, i'll just say that i can't make head nor tails of your god. i read and reread your posts, and all i can think is "where's the beef"?

if it amounts to simply a message of love, the golden rule, then fine, but it would suggest that you'd be better of without the religious and god-guy baggage.

but then you actually do seem to wish to extract some finer social and moral messages. these concretizations are always poorly argued: viz, your bizarre discussion of abortion.

sellick, i think you're caught. i think you want to escape real evaluation and criticism, by dealing with a semi-subjective "god", you want to claim this "god" has meaning for the real world, and still have this purported meaning free of criticism, free of the charge of making objective claims.

you want your cake and to eat it, too. seems to me, you get neither.

"That this idea has currency today is born out by Christians, who, no doubt in the peacemaking mode, declare that we all believe in the one God. This assumption also allows the persecutors of “religion” to drop them all in the same rubbish bin."

There is probably some truth in that comment in terms of lumping religion into the same basket. To a non-believer the foundations, origins and purpose of religion is much the same although there is usually some distinction between sects and mainstream religion.

I would not argue, however, that Atheists or Agnostics are persecutors. Unless one defines persecution as disagreeing.

Peter's use of the word 'persecutors' in the context of his article diminishes real persecution which involves systemic mistreatment of an individual or group based on their religious affiliation (Wikipedia). Using 'persecution' in this context is very much to portray a matyr stance - the poor misunderstood. I am sure the Christians being truly persecuted in Iraq or Pakistan would find the intent offensive.

The real persecutors of religion, monotheistic or otherwise, are usually the religious - those of opposing faiths in the continued uponemanship demonstrated even in our more tolerant modern world.

Jews persecuting Muslims, Muslims persecuting Jews and Christians, Christians persecuting Muslims, Christians persecuting other Christians of a different ilk and so it goes on.

Oliver,

Al-lah is “alleged” to be compassionate and merciful (oh yes, the Koran seems to be full of inconsistencies). Please look at the life Mohammad lead, will you?

NT God? You’re getting obscure again. Yes, it seems some Muslims will suddenly excuse themselves to pray to Allah – was it something you said at the meeting? If only they could be more modest/private about their ideology, oops, religion. I recall one Muslim guy in my workplace who interrupted my work when he had a habit of using a filing room on various occasions for his place of prayer, with no warnings and to my embarrassment upon entering. I don’t think he cared. It’s no wonder that Muslim countries are not operating as well as they could be.

Oliver, you cannot see the forest from the trees.

Constance,

<<...the Koran seems to be full of inconsistencies>>

Ever read the Bible?

<<It’s no wonder that Muslim countries are not operating as well as they could be.>>

The reason Western countries operate better than Islamic countries, is because Christianity is a few hundred years older than Islam, and has therefore had a lot more time to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages and into modernity by Secularism.

Go back a few hundred years and Christianity was exactly where Islam is today - experiencing it's Dark Ages.

"Judaism and Christianity emphasise God as Presence, the God of Islam is more a distant lawmaker".

I think that both Islam and Judaism are law-giving religions.

Nothing mentioned either about the various versions of Christianity that exist nor the concept and importance of of the Trinity by some groups - which is not quite so monotheistic.

Peter S,
I thought you might have appreciated that in the quote I gave Polkinghorne also seems to prefer the “temporal God” of Revelation to the “atemporal God” of classical (natural) theology.

On the other hand, I know he sees both these approaches as two perspectives of the same God, who - in Galileo’s words - is the author of the Book of Revelation, (that you seem to prefer), as well as of the Book of Nature (that is closer to the heart of those who prefer to see Him through philosophy and pre-20th century science). As said before, I think the right attitude is through seeing both these approaches or perspectives as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. In particular, Karen Armstrong - as quoted by Rhian - has a point.

'Go back a few hundred years and Christianity was exactly where Islam is today - experiencing it's Dark Ages.'

Yea and that is exactly where secularism is now. Murder the unborn, promote perversion, corrupt leaders and self righteous pseudo science high priests.

Constance,

Intolerance of others was also known to early Christians:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=70760
What Christians need to learn is compassion and understanding not only for themselves but towards others. We should love our fellow humans and embrace peaceful diversity.

I was not advocating Islam, yet I was saying that the Faith does mention that Al-Lah is “compassion” and “merciful”.

Perhaps, the Muslims would have committed as many atrocities as the Christians, if they had the resources. I don’t deny this possibility. On the other hand, Islam does recognize the legitimacy of the “People of the Book” and that all peoples receive prophesy in their own way.
I have no problem with Muslims having prayer mats or Catholics wearing scapulars. Sectarian humanism allows for personal faith for all, in Jesus or Al-Lah or Zeus or the Man in the Moon. If spirituality is a characteristic of our species, it is hard to disallow the fact religiosities will emerge.

In early times, polytheism (Classical World) and quasi-religions (East) allowed civil peoples to live in harmony. Alternatively, monotheism is confrontational. “The other side is always wrong and I am always right,” mentality pervades actions.

Vague? The OT God was the God of the Hebrews. That God may have had Urgatic roots: Latter known as Elohim and Jehovah, depending on the scriptural writer. The NT God grew out of Nicaea and various Synods and Councils. Moreover, the Latin, Eastern and various Protestant churches have different interpretations. In between, we have the Jewish-Christ sects. Recall, the first fifteen bishops of the early Christian Church were Jews.

Whoa there, runner.

Perhaps check under the couch for those meds my friend.

Can you possibly hate anything or anyone anymore than you do already?

Do you have a comment, or just need to unload your hatred of other ontological expressions? If you bother to educate yourself, or attend the many, many lectures and events held by Secular/Christian organisations working together, you will indeed find your "enemies" are in your mind.

As for 95% of your piffle dragging up the USA Creationism movement, I'm at a loss. Pseudoscience? You wear your 'white trash' reactionism like a badge of honour.

Ignorance, hatred and projection of your social/sexual oppression, utterly void of the sagacity you aim for reveals your verisimilitude to be not even humurous, but disturbing in the extreme.

How many parents must read your "us and them" bridge burning and decide on the spot that Christianity might not be for whack-jobs, but it sure creates the soap-box upon which they sway from dimension to dimension.

Steady on there chap, steady on.

bushranger doth spake:

"If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again... Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right."

Ah, pretenders. So easy to spot. "Synagogue" is the word you can't remember or are you just disrespectful to the point of antisemitism? Simple manners - please!

Um, latent hatred of logical thought aside - all Muslims and Christians are atheists. You reject more gods than you accept. Christianity is both divine and textual attrition advanced to swipe the tops off disparate polytheistic beliefs that threatened an empire. You are aware history is documented I presume?

Non-theists reject notions of anthropomorphised beings. Theists realise they must also, or fade away. Only yesterday, I heard 2 distinguished theologians and authors in a debate argue that God as we claim he existed surely doesn't. His effects may be seen in 'good and evil' but the "inexplicable" aspect of both his nature and his apathy is more important than his claimed existence.

Indeed, one claimed to say otherwise is to miss the entire Christian viewpoint. I think what he meant was only the very stupid continue on with 'the biblical god'.

Sorry matey, you're both demonstrably wrong and in for a lonely paddle up Pretender Creek.

AJ Phillips,

As I have said on another post, heck, don’t ask me anything about the bible, I’ve learnt more about Catholicism through symbolism, mysticism and social justice teachings. AJ, the western world has basically developed under much Christian influence. Believe it, or not?

Oliver,

Oliver saaiiid: “What Christians need to learn is compassion and understanding not only for themselves but towards others. We should love our fellow humans and embrace peaceful diversity.” Tell that to the Muslims, PLEASE. Eg. Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.etc... What are you talking about? Do not you think Pope Benedict is speaking of peace and compassion?

I have also become recently aware that there are Pakistani birth certificates without their mother documented. Can you believe that? Fact,it is. You see, when a Muslim marriage splits up, the mother has no rights over the children. Are you a misogynist, Oliver? Otherwise, I recommend you listen to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Dutch/Somali ex-Muslim – now living in BIG BAD USA); Wafa Sultan – Syrian American ex Muslim and Irshad Manji Canadian Pakistani – feminist and Sufi . They all have plenty to say on Islam. You should also read the ex-muslim sites - just google.

What planet are you living on, Oliver? In a time warp, methinks. You sound like a blind PC Pollyanna to me. You talk about compassion lacking in Christianity? Have you ever heard of Christian charity? Who do you think is likely to be doing most charity work in TODAY’s world to fellow Christians and EVEN non Christians, as it does not matter to them, as their vocation demands to go to those in need (particularly the nuns). I’ve said it before to deaf ears. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve met sane Muslims from abroad who had a Catholic education. The only charity for disabled people in Jordan it seems is run by nuns. Ooh, wah! Just an example that our friend George from Cologne had posted but not for the purpose of my current example, just happened to be.

You just want me to love/like everyone without any sense of moral judgement? Who are you kiding? I’m not daft. My critical faculties are in tact, thank God. Cont'd........

Your argument, Constance, seems to be "I don't like Muslims, therefore the Christian god is real".

Forgive me if it doesn't prompt me to run to the nearest church and teeeeestifah.

As for runner, it's reasonable to assume that he also rejects medicine, surgery, vehicular travel, television, the internet, and all other benefits of secular society that religion not only failed to deliver, but actively fights. Good luck with the leeches and self-flagellation, mate.

Constance,

Please go back read my post again. I said that I could not deny that the Muslims would have been as bloodied as the Christians, if they had the resources. Did you read through the link outlining the early centuries of Nicaean Christianity? Notably, Christians targeted the brilliant female mathematician Hypanthia:

http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Mathematicians/Hypatia.htmls

All this happened before we can even start on Mohammed.

The Christian witch hunts focused on women.

Also,

- “If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.” - Leviticus 12: 1 [I have been to a Christian baptism, where the Russian mother was not allowed attend the sacrament.]

- “ And he [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart” - 1 Kings 11:3

- “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” – 1 Timothy 2 11:15

- “Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” – Numbers 31 16:18

“You just want me to love/like everyone without any sense of moral judgement?* Who are you kiding? I’m not daft. My critical faculties are in tact, thank God”–Constance

- If you do not love Muslims, do you hate them?

I have said before that I admire the good works of nuns and some priests, notably the Jesuits in history

Constance,

<<AJ, the western world has basically developed under much Christian influence.>>

The Western world has developed under the influence of a lot of things. But that doesn’t invalidate what I said, nor does it invalidate my more indirect point that your comment: “It’s no wonder that Muslim countries are not operating as well as they could be”, was very ignorant.

My point still stands.

Bueno, Sancho! Gracias por eso. Pienso que tu eres un mucho hombre MACHO. Que es su problemo? Tu tambian no tegustas las chicas?

You are all just a bunch of blokes who don’t care much about women - that’s all I seem to see. It’s all honky dory in the male Muslim world – perhaps you should join them. All I am reacting to is human suffering and inequality. What is wrong? Am I really being unreasonable to have concerns? You are all just cracking up about some Christian stances I’ve made as I’ve realised that some kind of defence is now required.

Oliver, I just cannot tolerate anything resembling totalitarianism or fascism - that’s it basically. It just scares me. Do you ever read any type of contemporary factual information in TODAY’S WORLD and not just dwell into historical obscurities? I cannot see the purpose of this. I note you only acknowledged my post with male(?)Jesuits.

Just wish to say a little about myself so you get some sort of picture of where I’m coming from. I’m no holy Joe, more of an offbeat unconventional type and have travelled broadly intermittently (particularly in developing countries)totally several years because of my insatiable curiosity. As I have told Oliver before, I have also hitched a ride with a Muslim truckie and stayed overnight in his family home – no problemo. I like individuals more than gangs with herd mentalities and who follow fashionable thoughts just to be accepted. Unfortunately, Kashmir is now not as it was then. It is the growing fundies and extremists (not just Muslims and not just religious). I have never been a religious type at all, just really a bit of a soul searching free-wheeling nomadic bum trying to stay sane. As a Liberatarian it can be difficult. I have not sat in any academic institution playing conformist and fascist PC games. I query everything. I do wonder about today’s uni students – are they taught what to think instead of how to think? Con't...

.. It appears educational institutions are dumbing down these days and free speech fading, with the humanities and arts shrinking and being taken over by business type courses for the sake of money.

I have never even thought much about my upbringing much until lately, because the world has now changed and I only wish for a better world as I’m sure most people would. As much of some past fury I may have had with my father at times, I now realise all the Christian good he did, ongoing energetic charity work with large family and changeing challenging careers and was always there for my lousy netball games etc, and everyone else. Don’t know how he did it. He also assisted Muslims EVEN– wah! - My older sister just happened to mention recently that he had remarked once about it being quite trying for him at times when he was giving assistance to the several wives/families of the one bloke. My father was no Holy Joe, who he too like me just dismiss. He just had the sense of charity and social justice as a Christian, you see. Charities did not have origins in the secular world.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, ACTIONS speak louder than words.

Impassiveness/passivity, indifference, violence and ignorance is basically what I am now rebelling against. I do feel the natives are getting restless. Deep analysis is needed for prevention of detriment. Positive freedom, please.

Dear Constance,

This is a Forum where we discuss rant-free issues and exchange ideas.
I am unsure how misogamy entered into the discourse, except your introduction of the topic, presumably to criticise the Muslims. Herein, I would agree with you, only adding the same applies to Christianity and Christianity’s scriptures. Assuming Pope Joan is fiction, there have been no female Popes. It would be hard to build a case for the monotheist religions being egalitarian, rather than misogynist. Those citations from the Bible were not exhaustive, Egalitarianism and recognition based on merit is more likely find its proper place among secular humanists.

As for nuns, their life was especially cloistered before Vatican II. Secular values in Western societies acted to liberate them somewhat. If you need to be reminder, try and find a copy of the film classic, “Nun’s Story”. Even today, Catholic male clergy administer over females nuns. That religion has a bullet-poof glass ceiling.
In sum, I am all for equality of the sexes and find Islam and Christianity in opposition to that ideal, despite religious platitudes of, equal but different. The ancient polytheistic religions were more balanced with goddesses, muses and female oracles.

To be fair, Lot-like, I tried checked on the seventh century, to see if Christians behaved themselves between the Nicean atrocities and Crusades. I discovered there were some earlier crusades and that there were conflicts between the iconoclasts and those whom did not wish to have Jesus depicted in art. As a result, we had the usual blood-shed and the destruction of art.

The Bible teaches love your enemies and don’t judge others. Good values, for sure. Many significant teachings which are attributed to Jesus have high worth for secular humanists and embittered religionists. I truly wonder what Jesus would have thought about the Pauline-Constantinian aberration which grew-up in his name.

Oliver,
The “ Pauline-Constantinian aberration which grew-up in his name” was as much a reaction against asceticism as atrocity and injustice. Paul was a zealous advocate of ‘evangelical’ freedom and was in opposition to all legal bondage and anxious asceticism. His one marriage of the clergy was ‘the rule’, not-withstanding his personal and relative preference for celibacy.

It should be remembered that in the company of his disciples, of both sexes, with family and friends, in Cana and Bethany, dining with publicans and sinners, Jesus had social intercourse with all classes of people. His poverty and celibacy have nothing to do with asceticism, but represent an ideal uniqueness and absolutely peculiar relation to the church. Paul, despite his faults, embodied this spirit and was not secluded.

I think one needs to reflect, it is not monasticism, as such, which has proved a blessing to the church and the world; for the monasticism of India, which for three thousand years has pushed the practice of mortification to all the excesses of delirium, has never saved a single ‘soul’, nor produced a single benefit to the race – one could well argue it is from within the spirit of Christianity, that proved a blessing to any form of monasticism; while separated from it, it degenerated and became at fruitful source of ‘evil’.

Indifference for the family life, the civil and military service of the state, and all public practical operations turned the channels of religion from the world into the desert, hastening the decline of Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and the whole Roman empire. It nourished religious fanaticism, often raised storms of popular agitation, and rushed passionately into the controversies of theological parties generally, it is true, on the side of orthodoxy, but often, in favor of heresy, and especially in behalf of the crudest superstition

Dear Oliver,

I purely reacted to your statement (and did not want you to get away with it): “What Christians need to learn is compassion and understanding not only for themselves but towards others. We should love our fellow humans and embrace peaceful diversity.” Love thy neighbour? They have been doing that, and as for understanding, can be a bit trying but nonetheless they try. All very empty feel good sentiment – you must feel very fluffy inside, Oliver. It cannot be a one way street. Do not preach to the Christians (especially liberal) please. I find you confusing. Hadiths of intolerance of non-muslims does not help things. Yes, I have become a bit of a raving ranter, but just getting tired of misguided platitudes of appeasement.
It seems you are not living in today and I am, and that is why we clash. I reacted to the misogyny issue because it appears you condone my points regarding the plight of women living under totalitarianism - you have completely lost me. And no, there seems to be various nun orders, Mary MacKillop for eg. who may have had some challenges with the hierarchy, but still overcame and operated autonomously, like other orders of today. A female pope, yes, would be unique, but with my experience working under most female managers, give me the males, oops! Queen Elizabeth for eg was unique; Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Patin – no way. Angela Merkel, she seems to be doing fine. Rigaberta Manchu looks like she is in the race for presidency in Guatemala, last I read – a nobel prize winner for human rights who I met briefly – she comes across as sincere and genuine and without neurosis. Whatever!

.. Cont’d

Oliver,

this is now becoming a rather private dialogue. Apologies. But Oliver and I have done this before in another article or two where the posts have been flogged to death and have found ourselves in the dark bottom corners where no one else is listening, thank goodness, and come to dead ends. But I just have this propensity to react to mistruths and distortions. Oliver, I live in today and just want solutions – issues must be addressed, please do not overlook this. Pretensions of feelgood do not go anywhere. There is plenty of crap in the western and non western world, but freedom from oppression is my foremost prerogative. I do see Sellick’s point: “Monotheism is taken here (by the Media) as the one thing they have in common that allows us to sweep them up together as though they were slightly different versions of the same thing.” And this is the reason why I am arguing with you. Sellick: “The declaration that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are monotheistic blurs a crucial distinction between them. While Christianity and Judaism share central tenants about God, Islam is quite different. At the risk of misrepresenting Islam, I think it is right to say that while Judaism and Christianity emphasise God as Presence, the God of Islam is more a distant lawmaker.” This is the relevant point, lawmaker of ideology. Sellick: “This assumption also allows the persecutors of “religion” to drop them all in the same rubbish bin.” Yes, you’ve been missing the point, Oliver. Sellick : “In true monotheism, such as I think Islam is, a transcendent God gives his law and the response of the people is simply to obey that law. God does not take the side of humanity, he does not accompany them.” True, I’m afraid the laws of Islam seem simply inhumane.

Appeasement only encourages the problem. It's not respect that's being demonstrated, but fawning. Other religions have enough maturity and security to ignore slights. In an advanced society we don't need to restrict the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Constanze,
During the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 the unarmed people did not face the invading Russian tanks with anti-Communist or anti-Russian slogans, because they knew it would be counterproductive to attack the soldiers’ fundamental beliefs and adherence. Instead, people carried slogans that translated meant something like “Lenin wake up, Brezhnev lost his marbles”. This, allegedly, had a psychologically disruptive effect on the soldiers.

Maybe something like “Mohammed wake up, XY lost his marbles” (where XY stands for islamists in general or one particular islamist) would be more helpful to bring about changes in the tacit support extremists among them get from their masses, than direct attacks on what 1.5 billion Muslims believe Islam is all about.

Well, it turned out that there was no such thing as “Communism with a human face” but maybe there might arise something like “Islam with a more human face (especially towards their women)” for the sake of, among others, the 1.5 billion Muslims themselves.

Constance,

You make some highly interesting comments.

One might contemplate as to where Jesus’ own religiosity and attachments were fixed, before his final three years. Obviously, Jesus was a Jew with exceptional knowledge of the Torah. Divine birth aside, Jesus was of the House of David, which would have him minister to the god fearing Gentiles. Were he an Essene, Jesus may have been lived aspects of asceticism and monastic-like community at Qum’ran. Were he a radical Pharisee, he might have been isolated the main body and put on a course towards an independent mission.

Either way, Jesus’ mission laid the foundation for revisionist Judaism, allowing the Religion to be less ethnically-based and more tolerate towards others, who were not strictly under the rites of the followers of Moses. Paul, by buttressing the deification of Jesus, has Jesus’ substitutionary ransom the only way to be saved for the after-life. Were a Buddha to have lived Jesus’ life, said Buddha would not be Paul’s god of salivation. Paul places Jesus as heaven’s only gatekeeper.

If I interpret Robin Lane Fox correctly, very early Christians were what we would call lower working class. Those people higher in the picking-order would have seen belonging to an unorthodox religion ruinous to social mobility, while missions to smaller centres, where the paupers lived, were less assessable, for financial reasons. In the fourth century, Constantine gave the “green light” to being Christian, allowing Christians to have socially mobility.
With Constantine came the codification of Christianity doctrine.
Perhaps, Paul would have seen a personal response to the Word of God, while the Holy Roman Empire (Constantine’s legacy), grew to reinforce, the Church’s“intercession”.

Without Paul, the affirmation of Jesus’ godhood would have been weaker. Without Constantine, Christianity might not survived the Fall of Rome.

Relda,

Sorry, I have replied to you under Constance.

Constance,

Excuse me, for mis-posting above. You are welcome comment, of course.

Where would you have neo-Christianity, without its warts begin, 1970s?

I don't deny that there have been good Christians (and non-Christians) throughout history.

George,

Do believe Jesus would have known advanced physics when on Earth? In the 640s, Emir Amrou Ibn el-Ass askedJohn Philoponus, whether God governed world from Mary's womb? The question has trinitarity under currents. The cry from the cross might suggest Jesus did not have the total picture at that specific moment.

Geometry would have been known to the Romans. A basic model of celestial mechanics would have been understood. Jesus, if knew better than the Romans, he could have presented a simple model.

Alternatively, I guess the lesson for the Churches might be that Christianity is about the Message not Science.

Oliver,
>> Do (you) believe Jesus would have known advanced physics when on Earth?<<
I am not sure what you would call “advanced physics” at the time and location where Jesus lived; he certainly was not what today you would call a scientist.

If you are hinting at the Christian perception of Jesus as God’s incarnation, then you are asking what God knows, which nobody can answer: it is even more futile than asking a three year old about what Einstein meant by his General Relativity.

What our theologians and metaphysician’s are contemplating and speculating about are OUR, human, attempts to understand what He can understand. If God knows “everything”, then he knows about you, and your understanding of physics. However omniscience can easily be made self-contradictory (like the concept of the set of all sets, see Russell’s paradox). So it depends on what one calls “everything”.

See also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9423#150700 or http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151106 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151188.

(I once asked my father: If Aquinas saw a TV programme, would he have thought there were little devils in the box, or real people captured by a devil? He convinced me that that was a silly question to ask. Well, I was 12 at that time.)

Dear George,

I was pondering to theologians, whether or not Jesus would have had knowledge of the fundamentals of the universe, beyond his time period. As a mere man, would his knowledge of the physical universe be only to his own time? If the latter, a distinction would need be drawn between Jesus in time and the Son of God in non-time.

I thought your question to your father had merit. I recall reading somewhere that if Julius Caesar were to appear in our time television would have been more astonishing than seeing our cars and aircraft. When I was twelve I was chided by a teacher for suggesting that a TV cathode ray tube could form the basis of rocket propulsion system in the space. He actually hit me.

Thanks for the links. I will have a look.

George,

Sorry for my tardy response but it can be difficult to keep up with the momentum of these posts when time does not always allow. I understand what you are getting at. Yes, we shall hope that a more human face will appear eventually.

By the way, thanks for the link of St Augustine and your thoughtful insights. I didn't even know of what he was about at all. He is very interesting and must have been a very original thinker for his time. You see, I am not at all theological, just more practical of my upbringing as a tyke (and not really very conscious at that) - and to what I have grasped,is more symbolic and mystical I suppose. I did actually post one of Augustine's thoughts (visa wikepaedia) re fundamentalism to one of our very atheist friends, who did not get it at all, so my post just ended up (predictably) being garbaged. Should I have spelled it out?