One under God, re' your reply to my OLO, going by your OLO moniker, I was surprised that you should regard Thomas Aquinas as just another famous Christian Preacher.

Aquinas, in fact, is regarded by most academics as not only a Doctor of the Christian Church but also a Doctor of Philosophy.

It is so interesting that while he maintained his faith in the Christian Church he was prepared still to study and accept the concepts of Hellenistic Reasoning.

Thus being not over-spiritual with his feet on the ground he was able to merge both religion and earthly idealism creating the forunner of our present universities.

In fact many modern scholars believe he was given his Sainthood for not only lifting Christianity out of the Dark Ages, but starting to Break the Way for the fair and decent world we still all hope for.

Regards, BB, WA

The Blue Cross,
>>it really doesn't matter 'why' we are here, here we are. Dogs know the answer that eludes us. ... <<
I am not an atheist but I think - if I understood you properly - some atheists might be offended by comparing their attitude to existence, or their possible answer to the existential “why”, to that of a dog.

George... if you are not an atheist, then I doubt you could possibly know the mind of one.

As for 'the existential why', why would an atheist, not that you would know one way or another from what you say, be the least bit concerned to hear that 'the journey' was all, if, indeed, it is?

But you did say 'some atheists'; quite so, and I am sure some might be. But what of it?

However, I also suspect that most atheists do not suffer too much existential angst at all, which is perhaps why they are happy to be atheists.

But, I could be wrong on this.

Let's resolve this by asking 'some' OLO atheists, shall we?

And, if you can be bothered, a few OLO dogs too.

Woof woof.

Sells,
As I’ve acknowledged, theology is important and I’ll put some weight on one of the foremost theologians this century:

“We stand at a moment in history in which the openness of the situation is due to its urgency. Christianity is at present not narrow, but has become open to interpretation except in particular groups. And I believe openness is so much an element of Christianity itself, of its original meaning, that this may be the way in which it can be reinterpreted to make it fully alive. But I would not dare to prophesy the outcome.” Naturally, what preceded Tillich’s remark was that classical, traditional Christianity has lived in symbols — Creation, Fall, reconciliation, salvation, Kingdom of God, Trinity, are all great symbols, and he didn’t do wish to lose them. But the times are radically different, hence the urgency. Let people find ‘truth’ in the old symbols or, if able, to find new and better ones, but as with Tillich, I would not merely discard the ‘old’ at a whim.

I believe you should be perhaps a little more like Tillich, and not stifle the conversation, after all if you’re going to title a piece, “Is God the cause of the world? : Comments” - it’s open to interpretation. Perhaps, “Is the ‘Trinity’ the cause of the world: Comments”, may have been more appropriate to your need – but certainly far more obscure and less tempting for a genuine dialogue (a bit of a rarity here). You would perhaps merely tempt just a little more abuse, presumably.

Dear david f,
“Much of my identity has nothing to do with being Jewish. What is your Christian identity?” To answer your question – what I’ve posted here relates basically to how I identify: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#12521

The Blue Cross,
>>if you are not an atheist, then I doubt you could possibly know the mind of one. <<
You are right, I cannot know the mind of anybody - atheist or not - I just thought some might not like having it compared to that of a dog, because that unfairly demeans them, their world-view, in the eye of a non-atheist. However, you are also right that it is rather for them to say if they like the comparison.

I like the Blue cross analogy; the journey's the thing, or ought to be.

An interesting "Encounter" on RN this morning on race relations, church history and antisemitism.

David F,
I can assure you that Eagleton is well versed in "bloody" religious history.
For others, he's not a fundi, and not even a Christian in any sense Dawkins would understand. He's an unreconstructed Marxist first and foremost, and actually values the teachings of Jesus pre-eminently for their radical content.

While the carnage of religious history is spectacular, it is by no means clear that religion, per se, is responsible. It's much more plausible that human beings are essentially murderous fiends, regardless of the ideology they outwardly profess. A quote from the Eagleton article:
"Dawkins quite rightly detests fundamentalists; but as far as I know his anti-religious diatribes have never been matched in his work by a critique of the global capitalism that generates the hatred, anxiety, insecurity and sense of humiliation that breed fundamentalism. Instead, as the obtuse media chatter has it, it’s all down to religion."

Let's not forget too that what Eagleton calls "bloodless rationalism" has also presided, in recent centuries, over various purges and holocausts---via design, production, planning and execution.
There's nothing like a scientific stance for getting some objective distance between a brilliant new innovation and its unspeakable consequences.

Sorry, Sells; how about you initiate something on the trinity?