Celivia,

Good post. Michael Polanyi, physical scientist turned philosopher, would add an artistic or religious performance requires the audience "indwell" in goings-on. A church service is experiential and doctrinaire: The deep purpose is not to exchange or even provide information.

Moreover, theologians do not adopt a null hypthesis [i.e., my belief is wrong and I will test for this.] and do not act forsensically. Their methodologies [deliberately so] are pre-nineteen century. Their creed is largely fourth century and only loosely related to the Jesus house groups of the first century.

In this way, the earlier, very human organisations, churches [cum temples] and priesthoods, in a way sort of kidnapped Christianity and expanded it [Paul & Nicaea], institutionalised it[Nicaea], and, further interpreted it [Augustine and Trent and the Reformation generally].

So, what we have in a mass or church-place performace is people indwelling in theocratic constructionism based not fully on the life of one person, who may or may not have lived. The accretions are too large in number. Moreover, the churches have fractionalised and have different accretions representing different interpretations.

[Given there were plenty of Jewish Messiahs around at the time, going back to the Geeks even. So, I believe a human person called Jesus [aka Joshua or Ieous] may have lived.].

Thanks for your comments.

Hang on a minute, this thread has somehow gone haywire, now we are using geeks, christians, mormons, jews and catholics and the rest, in the same sentence, surely this has to turn the light on to see through the murky water? This is what it's all about, belief, what the individual, as a human being has become. I mean, look ol'cruise, Scientology? come on, give me a break, his money and fame has lead him to do strange things but there again, it's up to the individual, luckily, Nicole got out of that one quickly!

Y'know... the world would be a much better place if we didn't care what defines religion.

Ok, say you call yourself a Christian, Muslim, Hindu whatever... that's cool, but really - can't we just leave it at that?

Why this need to define categories and 'stick with the team?' Why this ritualism? Why this need to reinforce belief ad nauseum?

Truly, it isn't necessarily religion that generates conflict - it's this need to shout it from the rooftops.

I find Christians who walk the walk without the need to talk the talk, to be much more admirable.

I have no problems with Redding’s stance persé, as an individual. To me, all faith is made of the same kind of fairy dust and there’s no particular religion that can be proven right or wrong. I’d be happy to see the appearance of a ‘one fits all’ Church, but I doubt that the Episcopalian Church will claim that opportunity as its mission just because one of their priests is praying around.
I can’t see how this could be done as long as all denominations and religions insist that their faith is the correct one and all the other ones are simply wrong.

Correct me if I’m misinformed but I think that there is already a religion that accepts all world religions: The Baha’is are monotheists who believe that God sent not one but many messengers- as manifestations of God- to earth, including Jesus AND Mohammed.
So, for a different angle, if all religions would accept that Mohammed was a manifestation of God just like Jesus, then what rev. Redding does is not so odd after all.

But the reality is different.
Unfortunately, for most Christians and Muslims, the Jesus and Mohammed issues are not negotiable.
When Redding preaches to a Muslim community, isn’t she saying, in the eyes of the Anglican community: “Ignore that Jesus said that he is the son of God.” Does she imply that Jesus was lying or that the Bible is wrong? That’s a big thing in the eyes of most Christian leaders.

When the Episcopalian church decided to accept marriage of same sex couples and homosexual priests, it was seen as a crisis by the Anglican community although it didn’t cause a split (unless I’ve missed something). Will the Anglican Church expel the Episcopalian Church this time? It’s always more difficult for larger religious institutions to change their beliefs as they have to admit that what they have been saying for centuries was wrong or that their holy texts had previously been wrongly interpreted. For example, the denominations who accept homosexuality had to admit that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon.

The primary teaching of Christ is rooted in generous forgivness.

No matter how badly one has behaved in the past, God forgives the one who forsakes their sin.

No matter how badly another has treated you in the past - an attitude of forgivness identifies one as a follower of Christ, who forgave even his murderers. Yes Christ Jesus was condemned guilty by Jewish law as a blasphemer for claiming God as his Father [missunderstood]. He was put to death by Roman soldiers putting down a Jewish rebellion against the Romans occupying the Temple. The money changers were charging extortinate prices on purchases for Temple sacrifices too raise money for the Romans to build a viaduct to the city. The State was controlling the practise of their Religion.

Natural law demands equality of justice, "eye for eye" etc, but Jesus requests us to follow him which calls for a constant attitude of forgivness. "Hold no grudges!" Forgive those that do wrong even though they have not given an apology. The attitude of forgivness toward wrong doers is essential in changing society to a more tolerant and caring society. Behaving in anti-social ways is a sign of immaturity.

Christ calls us to follow him the epitome of divine maturity. However when one becomes a follower of Christ they live to ensure they owe no one anything justly owed. That is why they should constantly pray "we reconcile our debts even as You [Lord]have reconciled us". We do not excuse bad behaviour, but we accept the person without prejudice, even as God has forgiven us. Christ calls us to be more generous than expected, If someone requires your coat give him also your cloak. This is the principle of generosity beyond natural justice.

I am neither an aethiest nor a follower, just a person looking in from the outside, I have a problem with the following: When things go right, its the lords willing, when things go wrong, the lord works in mysterious ways, you win money in the sweepstakes, its "praise the lord" you suffer an illness its "what have I done to deserve this?"
Whenever there is no answer, one tries his/her best to fathom out whatever their situation is, to the best of their ability and it's only their own doing, out of pure unadulterated drive and persistance, that they achieve the answers or their best, the big guy upstairs has nothing to do with it, so why make excuses for him when things go wrong or right? Its plain human input in these instances, no one else.
I was brought up with "god took your brother because he was such a kind person" Give me a break!