Organ matters - Organs matter!

Quote from: David Pinnegar on August 17, 2012, 12:34:55 AM
Dear Tony and MM

It's great to see both of you expressing both sides of the same coin, and one that is of primary importance.

I have just had the good fortune to be in an organ room with a library of musical books. Among those is an edition of Dr Charles Burney's "History of Music".

The three volumes are extraordinarily comprehensive. What is specifically of interest is his documentation of Ancient traditions including both the Egyptians and ancient Greeks. As far as the latter is concerned, he details rituals beliefs and music attached to worship of both Apollo and Bacchus, the latter deriving directly from Osiris.

Please forgive vagueness on account of cursory reading scanning vast numbers of pages but of one of these deities, musicians were known as "Sons of" in just the same way as Jesus answers "who are my mother brothers and sisters - those who hear my Father's will and do it". This perhaps gives us a clue too to Jesus' own claim to be the Son of God: it was a common currency of belief and idiom to refer to someone doing the will of (a) God as Son of God.

It is in this way and context that Jesus is Divine that does not require an especial biological or spiritual pseudo magical connexion with God. God - Spirit, the idea, the communication of idea, of will of God - Son of God, the one who obeys the will of God.

Referring to earlier belief practices therefore gives us an indication of how our specific and narrower interpretation of Jesus as Divine may have been misunderstood and lost in translation.

History is a foriegn country. In assessing our scriptural texts and doctrines, it's important to be able to try to enter that foreign place with customs, language, concepts and idioms rather different than our own, however similar they appear.

It's in this way that there are ways, if we look for them, in being able to find common ground between apparently opposing points of view whether within Christianity or beyond.

In a parallel section in the thread "A Place for Exploration" I outlined a possibly radically different interpretation of the otherworld, the afterlife leading heaven and hell. Bearing in mind the Egyptians believed the Sun to die every night and be resurrected every morning, as we do when we apparently sleep but exist in a netherworld of dreams, concepts of an afterlife could well refer to this rather than a period when we are buried in the ground or cremated.

In many ways, the body is the empty tomb of Christ. Our bodies do nothing and achieve nothing without animation, animation of the Construction Force, animation of God. In rising from the tomb, Christ asks us to lift our perspectives and to rise with him above the materialism of earthly concerns and to animate our bodies so that they are more than an unliving place. "What do the birds care for what they will wear tomorrow . . . " and Jesus follows that question with an assurance that all who do God's will will be looked after by God. That seems a little optimistic but when one starts to rationalise god in terms of the force of construction of which we read in Genesis 1 and the way in which, if we choose to make circumstances be the circumstances of God's will, the nodes in the network of like-minded decisions makers doing god's will ensure that one travels along a rope of the net rather than falling through the holes. It's in this way that Christianity is a way of life,

Quoteleading to a relationship with God - not just a religion.

as you say.

Best wishes

David P

Dear David,

I recently used the "Son of...." symbolism to describe the people of the Netherlands, when I called them "Sons of the soil and the sea."  Their eternal struggle to keep their feet dry is an epic story in itself. The normally resourceful Romans simply dismissed the Netherlands as "the great bog of Europe."

So it is not just who and what we are, but also where we are which defines us. That applies as much spiritually as it does physically, and to be "The Son of God" (the Creator), is to be creative, benign and inclusive. It is precisely because we are potentially "Sons of...."  that the church can be considered the body of Christ....creative, benign and inclusive.....following in the footsteps of  Jesus and continuing forward in the spirit of creativity.

The thing which I find fascinating, is the fact that this spiritual creativity is neither defined by sect, tribe (race) nor specific belief systems. It is open to all and available to all, and requires no specific faith other than a belief that what Jesus said was "of truth." ("Truly, this was the Son of God") Perhaps of even greater significance is the statement, "No-one comes to the father but through me."

Many would claim that in saying this,  Jesus was declaring himself to be God, but actually, the more interesting prospect is that the statement demolished  the prerequisite  belief that one had to be Jewish.
"I am the way, the truth and the life" also pulled the rug on those who would claim exclusive truth and the idea of God having a "preferred religion."

We must never under-estimate the power of these statements, which effectively questioned theocratic religion of any kind, and even questioned the authority of the Romans, and by implication, the very fabric of the symbiotic relationship which existed between the Romans and Jews. Furthermore, it seems that Jesus was regarded as just another rabble-rouser in a land full of them, and as such, he would be target for the authorities, as we know he was.

When Jesus said "Keep the old laws" and "Render unto Caesar ", he was making the distinction between "truth", politics and religion. The "truth" was in establishing the personal relationship with the creator, as Tony rightly pointed out, and quite simply, it was and is revolutionary.

Perhaps the most challenging proposition is to ask a question.

Is it possible to be a Christian humanist, agnostic or atheist....perhaps even a Christian Jew or Muslim....perhaps even a Christian witch...God forbid, even a Christian organist?

Best,

MM

Quote from: revtonynewnham on August 16, 2012, 07:03:59 PM
Hi

You're missing the point!  Jesus was not, and is not, "just" a human being. He is also Divine.  There are mixed views on the bodily resurrection of believers in the last days - and it's not something I've had cause to look at in detail - suffice to say, the Bible does talk about new bodies, so I don't really see any great problem with that.

The church cannot rid itself of the Bible - one of the basics of the faith is that the Bible is "the Word of God".  Get rid of that, and there's nothing left apart from a few rules and regulations and a lifestyle, which is far from being what it's all about!  And don't make the mistake of thinking that heaven will be like life here - what little the scripture hints at indicates that it will be rather different.

The bottom line is that faith in Christ is a prerequisite - leading to a relationship with God - not just a religion.

I shall pray for you.

Every Blessing

Tony

Dear Tony,

I am not missing the point at all, I am merely approaching religion and Christianity from a completely different angle, for the simple reason that the task of theology is to reinvigorate traditional truth in the light of contemporary knowledge and sensibilities. As I stated previously, perhaps the most eloquent comment about Jesus came from the Centurion, (*Truly, this is the Son of God"), for make no mistake, the age in which Jesus lived was full of religious nut-cases who claimed to be the Messiah.  The world is still full of religious nut-cases who claim all sorts of things. The Centurion's comment is eloquent because there was no hidden agenda...no claim to fame...no good, sensible reason why a Roman soldier should demonstrate belief in a "foreign" God. Faith is the ONLY justification for calling anything or anyone "divine." How interesting that the Centurion chose the word "truly" (of truth) rather than say, "The fact is, this is the Son of God."

Heaven is an appalling prospect to me...all your worst fears confirmed.  Everyone knows that God will be wearing Gieves & Hawk, speak only English in a BBC accent, moan about the weather and play cricket. Hell, if it exists, would be far more interesting; full of miscreants, rebels and intellectuals. I think I would be unable to resist setting-up a spiritual  "escape committee" based on the Alpha Course.

"Old Nick's been kicking off again...bless him."

I didn't suggest getting rid of the Bible, but the "word of God" formula is not without its critics. What I meant by "Bible bound" is the belief that the Bible is the answer to everything and that all enlightenment is contained therein. If I may say so, it is also a very protestant idea.  Indeed, one of the foundation-stones of the reformation was the belief that the ordinary man in the pew should have full and open access to the Bible in its entirety. Prior to that, Bibles were very much the preserve of educated clergy, and copies of the Bible were both rare and inaccessible to the majority. In fact, the Bible was considered quite dangerous unless it was read and interpreted correctly, which is actually quite true, for it is not one book but many, all drawn together at a quite late stage in the development of Christianity.

Not only that, the Bible is wholly inadequate in explaining the origins of life on Earth and the cosmology of creation. You may believe that God created it all, (which saves a lot of time and energy), but then you have to define your God accordingly, in the vaguest of terms. The simple fact is, whoever wrote Genesis hadn't a clue, but they made a very good guess at certain things.

The ultimate perversion of religion, is to vainly attempt to make all knowledge, all science and all discovery fit in with pre-conceived belief, and conversely, science frees us for the shackles of ignorance and idle-speculation. If that means that I am a "secular" being, then so be it. At least I am not delusional!

When the church of God stops pretending to have all the right answers, perhaps it can start to ask the right questions. If and when it does, perhaps it will once more connect with people and deserve to be taken seriously.

Are we really to believe that everything comes down to the duality of heaven and hell or good and evil?

I think I prefer...nay....relish a three dimensional God, who occupies all creation and the real world, and which, (rather than who), is at the ground of all being, to quote Paul Tillich.

Thank you for your prayers;  I probably need them.

Best,

MM


PS: Since writing the above, I realise that I didn't say what I actually meant concerning the God of Creation. I am referring to the idea that a man with a white beard created everything with a sweep of his arm, and "saw that it was good." It's the simple answer to a question of staggering complexity; the journey of discovery really in its infancy even now.

Quote from: revtonynewnham on August 14, 2012, 06:05:51 PM
Hi

I think you're missing the point of Jesus' Resurrection.  As Paul says, it's the "first fruits" - and a confirmation for believers of their future.  Many people have investigated the accounts (and don't forget that Jewish historian Josephus also makes mention of Jesus' resurrection - and he's not exactly "pro Christian"!)  Starting with the book "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank morrison (a lawyer who looks at the accounts from the perspective of a lawyer in terms of evidence) and with other later examinations, many have come to the conclusion that the balance of probability (at the very least) is that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a fact.  That's aside from any faith aspects - which is perhaps a more powerful argument anyway.

Then there's the Christian martyrs - many thousands who died to uphold the reality of the resurrection.

The split between Christianity & Judaism is also rather earlier than you suggest - being all but complete by AD70 or so and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.    The Biblical (& extra-Biblical) accounts from the period show that the church rapidly became primarily Gentile (although Messianic Jews were still around).  Why else would the Romans identify & persecute Christians once they realised that Christianity wasn't really an offshoot of Judaism.

As Matthew's gospel in particular shows, the Jews of Jesus' day had largely mis-read the Messianic prophecies - or perhaps had re-interpreted them in the light of daydreaming - after all, the nation was occupied by the Romans.  Jesus' refusal to take on this role was one reason for their condemnation of Him.

For me, the humanity, as well as the deity, of Jesus are equally important, as is the resurrection.  I quoted Paul earlier - that quote is still relevant.

Every Blessing

Tony

Dear Tony,

I have a bit of a problem in that I'm no Biblical scholar, and most of my reading goes back a long time and I'm not even certain of the source of the reading material.

I'm not sure that I miss the point of the Resurrection; quite the contrary. I certainly do not believe in physical resurrection of any kind, because it is in the nature of human matter to age, decay and die. The prospect of all the same aches and pains, ailments, bruises, cuts, toothache all over again, is not exactly an unqualified heaven. In any event, one lifetime is enough for me and I do not see the need to linger around for all time. I am reminded of that delightful Stephen Fry moment, when he joined a tour of the Mormon Tabernacle at Salt Lake City, and the guide said, "We believe that we will once again united with our families in heaven."

Stephen Fry replied, "What happens if you're good?"

I think that any re-union with my entire family would not be an unqualified delight, and to some people, it would be anathema.

I feel a bit the same about non-family members, who have come and gone in a wide variety of styles....some delightful, others definitely not...from doves to serpents in fact.

St Paul, of all people, would know that the Greeks certainly did not believe in physical resurrection; the physical body liable to corruption. Unfortunately, I forget where I stumbled across the information, but I seem to recall that St Paul may well have been reviving an earlier belief in resurrection and blending it with Greek philosophy.

As for the "evidence" of the Resurrection, it may be consistent, but is it fact?  I'm afraid it is just not enough to suggest that "the evidence points towards" something by a process of hearsay or circumstantial evidence contained within fragmented documents. The originators are not alive, the documents copies of the originals, and in legal terms, none of it would stand up to expert cross-examination.

There are many fine Jewish scholars who would dispute the "fulfilment of prophecy" and even the exact meaning of what those prophecies actually were in linguistic terms.

Even the separation of the Jewish faith from that of the Christian church is far from cut and dried, or specifically dates from 70AD. In fact, the parting of the ways was both regional and historically staggered, but most scholars would agree that the final break occurred in 311AD. (The Emperor Constantine had good political reason to adopt Christianity as the one true faith).

It seems to me, that the historical quest is, at best, fraught with difficulties, and I wonder if it actually benefits anyone.

Surely, it is the here and now which should matter to us, and unless the church rids itself of being Bible-bound and religion-bound, faith stands little chance of usurping science and secular philosophy.

Best,

MM

Please do NOT complain. The programme is pre-recorded, and already there has been a communication from one of the Organist Entertains team on the Carlo Curley memorial site just set up on Facebook, suggesting that there will be a full tribute programme to Carlo.

When people die unexpectedly, at a relatively young age, it can catch people out.  When someone like Sir Bernard Lovell dies, as he did last week, everyone has had time to prepare the obituries and biographies long before the event, because at 98 (almost 99), his end was predictably imminent.

Carlo died suddenly during the climax of the Olympics, and journalistic and editorial resources will have been stretched to the limit, with last minute headlines and a scramble to get the layout done on time. It couldn't have happened at a worse time, but I'm quite sure the relevant people will catch up with events.

Best,

MM

Quote from: revtonynewnham on August 09, 2012, 11:03:58 AM
Hi

Not much time today (as usual) so just a brief comment (again).

The empty tomb is the ultimate sign - the one that Jesus strongly hinted at to the Pharisees, etc.  And to paraphrase St paul, "if Christ has not been raised from the dead we might just as well all pack up and go home - there's no hope left!".

Christianity is the only religion that is based on a relationship with God rather than on rules and religions.  It IS unique (and I believe, right).

every Blessing

Tony

=====================


Dear Tony,

My great problem with any and all religions, is the fact that those who claim one thing or another, are merely saying what they believe to be the truth, rather than what can be proven to be truthful. The important word here is "proven"....that which is beyond all reasonable doubt and could stand up in a court of law.

Now I would be the first to conclude that, as far as evidence is concerned, the account of the resurrection is consistent across the four synoptic gospels, whereas something like the virgin birth is not. However, what evidence is there to suggest that the gospels as we know them, are precisely as first written or that they are contemporary accounts?

The historical/archeological quest is fraught with difficulty...a fragment here and  a fragment there; amounting perhaps to nothing more than circumstantial evidences of uncertain date.

If we consider a contentious issue to-day such a "global warming," scientists and quasi-scientists set out to prove things on the basis of history, real time observation, scientific measurements, computer models of CO2 build-up: even wild speculation and warnings of a doomsday scenario.  No doubt, somewhere along the way there is and will be truth.

One of the great issues during and after the life of Jesus, was that of bodily resurrection, which occupied the minds of the Jews and actually defined the schism between the Pharisees and Sadducees ; the belief of the Pharisees the "Rabbinic" belief in physical resurrection at the end of time. That stated, neither the Pharisees nor Sadducees believed in individual resurrection;  they merely argued about  the resurrection of all mankind.

It would be a big mistake, I think, to assume that the resurrection of Christ was a great stumbling block and a source of schism between Jews and Christians. The separation of the Jewish and Christian faiths probably didn't occur for about 300 years. (311 AD, I think, to be precise). As a further point, there were distinct advantages in being Jewish, for the Jews enjoyed special privileges within the Roman Empire, as a matter of pragmatic co-existence. Thus, it was convenient to be a sect within a sect within an occupying Empire.

The further point is that of Messianic belief in a "deliverer", who would free the people of Israel from their historic shackles and from Roman occupation. It would have been utterly inconceivable and a huge source of contention that a great Messiah could be executed by the Romans, especially one who was regarded as The Son of God.  It would also be contentious to believe that one individual could be resurrected. The same belief is written into the Q'uran, and by implication, within the Christian faith itself....God the all powerful, ever present and indestructible .  Hence, the Prophet Muhammad gets around the problem by suggesting that Jesus, (the great prophet), only appeared to die on the cross, but it was not really so . In other words, he takes the death and resurrection into an altogether more spiritual realm, but not terribly eloquently  I would suggest.

As  I've probably written before, I just do not see the point of an immediate physical resurrection, either as a sign or as a physical entity. In my book, that would demote spirituality into the realm of magic tricks. As a spiritual fact, the resurrection is indisputable, for death made not the slightest difference, if the intention was to kill off a young man who was a thoroughgoing nuiscance and rebel-rouser , who threatened to destabilise what was the status quo of a working relationship between the Jews and the Romans. The rest, as they say, is history, (as well as modernity).

Where I absolutely agree with Tony is the nature of the relationship between the Creator, (or the force of creation), and the individual, because to be Jewish, one had to be part of a tribe with a definite heritage leading back to the House of David. By implication, that leads back to Jewish law and the ten commandments; notwithstanding the fact that some of the kindest people I have ever met are Jewish, who place morality above statute. The Muslim faith is similar, in that keeping true to the laws of God is the way to the eternal. Christianity is exactly that relationship which is open to all, of any faith and none....perhaps even the humanist, the atheist and the agnostic.

I don't have to believe in a physical resurrection to acknowledge that Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God, and equally, I don't feel compelled to regard him divine, either as a foregone conclusion or as an article of faith. Even if Jesus had been nothing more than an idea, the idea  would have a very hallowed place, as indeed it does across many faiths and none.

Best,

MM

Dear David,

I know you are making a number of serious points, but I just have to share my observations about my cat "Freckle". (He has a black spot on his nose).

Many is the time he curls up and goes to sleep on the floor, and suddenly, he will start to twitch, miaow, whimper and appear very distressed. Most times, he reverts to peaceful slumber, but from time to time, he will wake and look around with mad, staring eyes, like he's just emerged from the worst horror film imaginable.

I wonder what he dreams about that could be so terrible?

:)

Best,

MM

It isn't just Carlo the musician that I will miss, but Carlo the comedian.

I well remember, and still smile about the time when my former partner Mark, (who also knew Carlo quite well), and myself, were sitting in the audience at the old Leeds Grammar School, while Carlo put a new Allen organ through its paces. Of course, one of his party tricks was to get off the organ and leave it playing itself, which on this occasion was the Jeremiah Clarke 'Trumpet Tune."

Seeing us grinning as he walked among the audience, he looped around and approached silently from behind, whispering in our ears, "I could just see you two marching down the aisle to this!"

Then there was the priceless moment when I was taking him home to Hammersmith, (where he then lived in St Paul's Vicarage). Due to Carlo's considerable bulk, it was virtually impossible to see traffic approaching from the left as we entered a filter system. Everytime I inched forward, Carlo said, "Hold it!"

The brakes went on and off, and we inched and stopped repeatedly.

"Honey," said Carlo, "listen to my instructions. I'll tell you when to go, because I don't think you'd appreciate it if I was pushed on top of you."

The he immediately followed this with, "Besides precious, I'm an American, and we sue for every penny!"

Another gem was at a atheatre organ concert, when the perfomer got off the organ and kept mopping his brow and flicking his hair about.

"I think it must be warm on stage," I suggested.

"No, he's not warm,"  Carlo announced. "It's just that he's spent so much time down theatre-organ pits, he has to scrape the mold from his face!"

Wonderful memories!


MM

The shocking news has emerged of the death of Carlo Curley at around 5pm to-day; apparently a sudden and unexpected death at his home in Melton Mowbray.

I'm sure there will be many who will pay tribute and share special memories of him.

RIP Carlo

Best

MM

Quote from: revtonynewnham on August 09, 2012, 11:03:58 AM
Hi

Not much time today (as usual) so just a brief comment (again).

The empty tomb is the ultimate sign - the one that Jesus strongly hinted at to the Pharisees, etc.  And to paraphrase St paul, "if Christ has not been raised from the dead we might just as well all pack up and go home - there's no hope left!".

Christianity is the only religion that is based on a relationship with God rather than on rules and religions.  It IS unique (and I believe, right).

every Blessing

Tony

"If you don't believe it's me, stick your fingers in the scar!"

Now that is another miracle to contemplate: human tissue which heals itself when someone has died. I suspect that a Roman spear did not leave a surface flesh-wound, because it was the way that the Romans would finish people off when they lingered between life and death and everyone had gone home.

What exactly was the point of the physical resurrection?

"Hi guys, it's me, but I haven't time to linger, I have a cloud to catch."

Ideas and faith are vastly more important, surely?

They have a habit of surviving; even things like "Meine Kampf" and white supremacy movements. It's not all good news by any means.

The fact that a faith was founded, and a church took on the mantle of Christ's body against all the odds, is the REAL miracle of the resurrection.

I shall expound further when I can get around to it.

Best,

MM

I have to accept whatever comes when I wander into a veritable hornet's nest!

A few observations if I may. Firstly, when different religions make mutually, logically contradictory claims, they can't all be right. If Jesus is the Son of God (Christianity), He can't also not be (Islam says that's impossible). If He was crucified (Bible), He can't also not have been (Qur'an says He categorically wasn't).

Secondly, one of the sins of our present age is relativism. "Everything is relative" we are told. Well, the person who said that by definition said something absolute since they said everything, EVERYTHING is relative. It's a fundamental and well-recognised contradiction within relativism.

The theory of relativity demonstrates that all things are relative to the speed of light, which is an absolute.


I rather like the analogy of dfferent seekrs of religion being people searching on a mountain for the one true God who is actually at the top of the mountain looking down at them all.

This reminds me of the joke about workforces being like monkeys climbing a tree. The dominant monkey looks down and sees a sea of smiling faces. The lesser monkeys look up and all they see is........

The Christian faith ultimately comes down to one thing: was it, or was it not, empty? Everything else stems from the historical question was the tomb empty on the first Easter Sunday.

Perhaps the empty tomb was but a metaphor. I find it perfectly simple to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead; empty tomb or no empty tomb withstanding. It would have been out of character anyway......."Give us a sign"...."Get down from the cross and save yourself."
Easter is not about an empty tomb, but about the resurrection of a spiritual body in the form of the church. Succinctly, I suppose it amounts to "You can't keep a good man down."

"You will perform far greater miracles than I."

As for the question, did Jesus actually ever claim to be God, well, yes, several times.

Again, metaphor and visual imagery played an important part in middle eastern religion, and they still do. It is quite true, for instance, to state that the people of the Netherlands are sons of the soil and the sea. They are who and what they are because of where they are, and if Jesus was true to the idea of a benign, loving and creative force, (God), then he was and is, (in the body of his church), the Son of God. That's as liberal as it comes, but you try knocking it down as a belief!

Perhaps an equally compelling question to that of Christ's divinity or otherwise, is to ask whether he ever intended to start a new religion, because NOT ONE of his followers was ever born a Christian. His ministry was therefore inclusive of all, and did not require any special lineage of birth, religion or tribal alliance.

Best,

MM

Quote from: David Pinnegar on August 05, 2012, 01:52:03 AM
Dear MM

Thank you for your thought provoking extensions of thought.

Perhaps there is another line of contemplation which may be of value.

I think one of the difficulties inherent to find a direction of belief in order to find faith and indeed faiths is that of the concept of plurality. As quantum physicists we have to look at the path of a photon through two slits revealing an unexpected pattern projected forward as the wave from one slit spacially interferes in a diffraction pattern. We have to ask "where did the photon go?". Did it go through this slit or that slit. One particle, two slits, and the wave resulting appears to suggest that the one particle went through both at once. In the Rutherford model of an atom we try to start wondering where the electron is . . . but we cannot know. It appears often to be both here and there at the same time. And then just when we find the electron we discover that it has properties not only of electric charge but spin too. Conceptually it throws us a curve and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle helped us to define the scales of space and or time within which we are allowed to say "We don't know!".

In the 19th century science held certainties and this was a period of great discovery in science resulting in triumphs of monumental engineering. These certainties fought through uncertainties about God as evolution appeared to deny God the Being WHO. The human, requiring metaphors on which to fix and understanding the behaviour of people rather than physics, searched and looked for God. Is HE here or is HE there . . . and as HE the Being WHO set out for instance with the documented intention to create Eve, being told that HE WHO was said to have done so didn't and had not, looked about and had to forget WHO god was finding that HE wasn't, now more than ever before found that Jesus was the obvious candidate to BE god. This led to an exclusivity because God could not be seen to be both Christ and Allah and Shiva all at the same time.

Either one was true or none were true and all were false. The resulting conflicts are the reason why most in Christendom have simply said "hang it all, God doesn't exist, there are more important things to argue about" and simply thrown God away out of their lives, deleterously and unnecessarily so.

The exclusivity of there being only one God, as personified and named as our favourite Daddy, is a cornerstone of belief that is difficult to overcome.

The reality, however is deeper and more magical than any personification of God can reach. The trick is to find the truth in all, all being expressions of the truth, and all being true, God being everywhere.

The plurality of the expression of God permissable in true Christian thought is expressed by John in the beginning, recounting that in the beginning there was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God.

So we are allowed to say that God is not only and exclusivley Christ as also God is The Word as well. We are allowed to say that God is here, and there, and there also. What is The Word? What is a word? An expression of an idea.

An idea is not always a word: upon even the brink of consciousness we see in the higher animals the ability to dream, indicating the super fundamental pictorial level upon which and within which we think, a realm of visions and deep consciousness that is difficult to describe to those who only know words. An idea is a concept which can even exist beyond the capacity of words.

What is The Idea which is The Word which is God? Genesis 1 defines it, painting that picture of the way in which all that we experience results from that Idea that matter wants to come together to find the most constructive solution to the problem of what to do with it all in the universe, a construction force. This is a concept at the deepest level, deeper than that of the metaphor of The Father WHO and instead WHICH . . .

So as we look the result of The Idea, we ask "Where is God?" . . . translating through John in the beginning to "Where is The Idea?" . . . to which the answer is Everywhere. All powerful and eternal, this force of construction pervades the whole universe, here, there and everywhere and in every thing. This natural desire of matter to want to come together to BE something defines the existence of everything and without which nothing exists nor can enure.

Jesus' teachings tell us how to handle that force and bring it within the human realm in terms of how we behave as humans, one to another, loving our neighbours as ourselves.

This defines us as Christians, what we do - "by their deeds shall ye know them".

It's tempting to take Christ's teachings and say that these define us as Christians who believe them and that they tell us how to behave as Christians, one to another, leaving aside different standards to be applied between us as Christians and non-Christians, pagans, non-believers, gentiles or as Muslims and Infidels, and leading us to all the wars of the world.

Instead, recognising that God is here and there and everywhere and in Christ and in The Word, the Idea, that recognition of being that occurs through the forces that urge all to come together in mutual cooperation and usefulness defined in Genesis, and understanding that all who hear the word of The Father and do it are sons and daughters and mothers of Christ thereby contain God, and by definition are like Christ and therefore like God become the Body of God. We therefore look and ask "where is God?" and find that God is everywhere and in all people who, through whatever route to understanding they may have come, acknowlege that the source of all being and all existence is God, the force that brings all into being, and that this force is universal and that God therefore is One.

So when I meet my taxi driver in Mount Abu in India with the posters above his mirror referring to the path of Lord Krishna adjacent to the image of lines leading to a point and all lines leading from that point referring to Siva entitled "GOD IS ONE", I recognise that I sit next to my brother in God.

God is many, and God is one, just as the one photon is at two places at once.

Best wishes,

David P

Dear David,

The thought occurs to me that the idea of a construction force  has already   been described by  theologians   in their use of the terms omniscient, omnipotent, omniquiescent and omnipresent; the only issue being that of omniscience or all knowledge, which we might consider to be the preserve of a conscious entity in the form of a ‘big daddy’. However, even in the chaotic sequence of events  of the big bang, there was clearly an instantaneous relationship in the way that matter and energy interact, even at the sub-atomic level, which dictated, and continues to dictate,  the how and why of evolutionary events.

I often wish that I knew more about life sciences and biology, (as well as a lot of other things), but life is too short.  However, I know enough to realise that even the best religious thinking falls well short of perfection. From the moment of birth, we are vulnerable to things which would can kill us, live on us, infect us or disable us, and these things are often quite nebulous. We like to think that evolution is a constant process of improved development, yet the double helix of DNA is quite capable of going awry, and often does. Is there ever a satisfactory religious answer to autism, psychopathy, childhood cancer, mental impairment, disability and all the other things we come face to face with on a daily basis?

Clearly, the force of construction often fails spectacularly, and when we fail to accommodate the chaotic elements in life and evolution, yet remain steadfast in our beliefs, we have no other option but to create sub-categories of humanity, animals and even vegetation to explain them. The usual method was to create categories of sin and sinners, which was never anything more than a convenient cop-out for ignorance.  The more positive, yet equally absurd belief, is to create, (as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have), a concept of heaven where all living things will co-exist in peace and harmony...”The lion and lamb symbolism.”

It may well be that the selfish gene is just too selfish, for in the bonds of tribal and national interests, there is to be found strength and the potential for continuing survival in a hostile world. Adorning myself with the prophets headgear, (whatever that is), is the new tribalism of an increasingly globalised world fast becoming the clash of titans in the form of multi-national corporations, where the battlegrounds are the world stock-exchanges ?

God spare us from the force of wealth creation!

Best,

MM

Quote from: revtonynewnham on August 04, 2012, 09:48:30 AM

Quote from: David Pinnegar on August 04, 2012, 01:21:55 AM
Dear Simon and Tony

Jesus was telling us about how to find God but I'm not sure that I'm alone in thinking that he would revile being mistaken for God.

Hi David

But Jesus DID claim to be God - several times!  Not only explicitly during the later period of His earthly life, but implicitly throughout, as exemplified by the "I am" quotations.  ("I am" is a form of the name Yaweh (Jehovah) used by the Jews for God).  The very terms "Son of Man" and "Son of God" both have divine connotations.

It was this claim to divinity that was one of the reasons that the Jewish hierarchy tried to do away with Him.

Every Blessing

Tony

===================

I'm inclined to side with David on this one, because I can't really see that it makes any difference whether Jesus was  or was not "The Son of God."

Does it actually matter?

The New Testament was built on the foundation of the Old Testament and the Jewish faith in particular, and like many religions, it had more than its fair share of prophets. In order to bestow authority on Jesus as a divine religious figure, his existence needed to tie-in with a whole belief system.....the virgin birth, Jewish ancestry, the prophecies of Isaiah (etc).  This was to be "the King of the Jews" who would lead them out of submission and Roman occupation; except it didn't happen. Consequently,  we must assume that Jesus was a big disappointment to the Jews, and a figure of fun to the Romans.....yet another religious nutter in a land full of them.

Prophecy is not unusual, even to-day, and having predicted to economic crash and world financial turmoil ten years ago, there are people who think I'm a bit of a prophet. This is not the case, for all I was doing was being observant, abreast of developments and aware of imbalances. I suppose that's what prophets do, like good journalists and political commentators. It's not especially mysterious or even that remarkable. However, prophecy can also be used to stir people up and inspire them....some day we will be free, and a great deliverance will occur, for there will come among us a great leader, a great liberator who will be sent by God.

This is wishful thinking and the politics of liberation theology in action, and it doesn't really matter whether it is political, military or religious in origin if it serves the purpose of uniting a tribe, maintaining an identity and giving people hope.

If Jesus was at all divine, it derives from the fact that he turned everything on its head.

He didn't say, as the psalmists did, "God shall arise and scatter his enemies."

He said, "Love your enemy. Love each other. Love the stranger. Care for the sick etc etc."

This does not sit easily with the liberation theology of Jews, (or anyone else), living under brutal occupation, and neither does it sit easily with the methodology of Roman subjugation and the rule of fear. It is actually very difficult to oppress and brutalise people who love you for who you are rather than what you are.

The question of divinity is far better served by the utterance of the Roman centurion, "Surely, this is the Son of God."

That's quite a statement from someone who was part of the oppressive army of occupation, and one which could easily, (and may have), landed him in big trouble.

After all, the world was full of religious nutters who claimed to be God, and it still is to-day.

If we cut to the chase and consider the ascension, (or rather the process of ascendency), we touch upon something of fundamental importance. The image of Jesus hovering like a Harrier Jump Jet and then ascending to heaven on a cloud is all well and good, but it doesn't cut much ice to-day. However, across 2,000 years, it is still perfectly possible to hear and re-hear the centurion's plaint whenever someone "sees the light" and arrives at the same conclusion. That is the ascendency of the faithful: that which elevates the man and places him alongside the highest, and it happens to-day just as it did then.

Perhaps the more challenging part is to somehow equate all this with the idea of a "Creator God" who made all things, and people in his own image. It's a nice idea, but one which science has great difficulty with, and more importantly, was quite beyond the rudimentary science of the ancients.

Best

MM

Quote from: ComptonNewbie on August 04, 2012, 12:11:04 AM


I'm confused by MM's assertion that science has much to say about existence.  My experience of undergraduate chemistry was that there was no attainable absolute truth, and that all is governed by uncertainties and probabilities.

========================

You have answered your own question; perhaps without realising it.  Science is perfect "doubt material" which permits a neutral space where people of different faiths can throw ideas around without it becoming specifically religious or sectarian.


MM

Dear David,

When people profess faith, they are only telling you what they believe; shared faith being the essence of religion, and therefroe inclusive of those who agree with and do not question certain "truthes." (This is precisely why I will never utter the words of the creeds, and it actually makes me an "outsider" looking in).

"Truthes" often make inter-faith dialogue difficult if not impossible, for the simple reason that truthes provide answers rather than raise questions.
Hence the old saying that faith divides and doubt unites!

The great thing about science and especially cosmology, is that traditional believers are thrown off guard, for they cannot answer the important questions of existence except in the vaguest of terms. Thus, in opening up the possibility of doubt and the limitations of faith, one opens up the dialogue of spiritual search and any common ground which may exist.

Of course, there are those who would be willing to kill you on the basis of their faith and your own reluctance to accept their particular version of the truth, and outreach has its limitations.

Would you really want to introduce a tribe of cannibals to a new savoury sauce, bear gifts of fruit and vegetables or ask if they had enough to eat?

The selfless approach of giving oneself is not without dangers.

Best,

MM

Quote from: Contrabombarde on July 24, 2012, 11:23:06 PM


I suppose the onus is on me to defend my "ill-considered, absurd and prejudiced response", in which case I must appeal to historical records to see what evidence we can find for such a "golden era" around the time of Mohammed. By virtue of choosing to comment on the destruction of the literary material and culture of Mali I completely accept the later achievements of Islamic scholars, astronomers, doctors and scientists writing in what we would know as the early medieval period of Western history. I have walked the streets of Samarkand in Uzbekistan and observed the many glorious mosques, the astronomical observatory and in Tashkent I visited a library in order to view one of the earliest manuscripts of the Quran, written in the Kufic script which dates it to the mid-eighth century. The phrase "golden age of Islam" is surely appropriate to be used to describe this period.

However, I was not applying that phrase to the thugs of Mali; instead I was describing their aspiration for their own "golden age of Islam", stripped of modern distractions and as close a recreation of the world of Mohammed as can practically be copied nowadays. The Taliban have a similar zeal. The point of irony is that their "golden age of Islam" - certainly not to be confused with the world of the Samarkand scholars - is but a figment of their imagination and they are destroying valuable later Islamic culture and ways of life to create a society modelled on something that never existed.

Take Mecca and Mohammed for instance. The earliest non-Muslim reference to Mecca comes from a mid-eighth century document. The earliest account of Muhammed's life was that of Ibn Ishaq who lived more than a hundred years after Mohammed's death, and other biographers wrote later still (and are even less credible). The Hadith, or sayings of Mohammed, date from two centuries after his death. If Mecca was the centre of Middle Eastern trade, the Dubai of the ancient Orient, one would have expected rather more to have been written about it at the time than what survives. And despite the claim in the Quran that the direction of prayer for Muslims was focussed on Mecca from soon after the time of the Hijra (AD 624), it is uncertain why early mosques continued to point themeslves vaguely in the direction of Jerusalem for a further two centuries. The first reference we have to anyone called Mohammed dates from a coin struck in Damascus around 690AD, the year before the Dome of the Rock was built in Jerusalem.

It's certainly true that the Quran has its origins in Judaism and Christianity, but it's pushing it to conclude that it is written in but one hand. Textual criticism of the Quran is most revealing since it shows how a bizarre concoction of Jewish and Christian apocryphal writings (more so than Biblical writings), musings on war and peace in the context of Muhammed's followers, plus a bit of ancient Greek medicine has been thrown together and it is certainly not all written by a single hand. On the one hand we have stories about Jesus' childhood, but not those of the Gospels: instead, Jesus picks up lumps of clay, models them into birds and breathes life into them, whereupon they fly off (taken straight from the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas); we read how the Queen of Sheba came to meet Solomon and on entering his court mistook the glass polished floor for a lake and pulled up her skirt so as not to get it wet (a story which first appeared in the second-century AD Jewish writings known as the Second Targum of Esther). And the stages of embryonic development taught by the second century Roman doctor Galen have also found their way into the Quran, which is perhaps not surprising given that Islamic tradition maintains that one of Mohammed's companions was a doctor who had studied medicine in present-day Iraq, where a century earlier the works of Galen were first translated from the original Greek.

The musings on war and peace follow a chronology too, though the Quran is not complied chronologically and it was later Muslims who determined the historical order in which events happen. Interestingly when Mohammed was first beginning his "ministry" and building alliances the messages are about peace and harmony; as he became stronger militarily and eventually conquered the lands around Mecca the Quranic verses become much more menacing towards non-Muslims, including Christians and Jews.

The legacy of his successors leaves much to be desired. Writings of terrified Christian and other historians from Syria and Palestine when invading Arab armies conquered those lands in the decades after Mohammed's death suggest that the "golden age of Islam" that the Mali militants seek to recreate was very much more "sword" than "ploughshare". But there is no historical evidence for the existence of a single entity, a book, written by one hand and called the Quran, during the period of the early Arab conquests. There is however a sea of apocryphal literature, much of it used and preserved by the various Jewish and Christian sects that lived in the Arabian peninsular in the seventh century, some of whom would have experienced persecution for their deviation from more orthodox beliefs. Thus there was no shortage of material from which to draw a narrative, a unifying book or history for a newly emergent group of conquering Arabs needing to forge a new cultural identity. From these early Muslims developed a whole mythology around Mecca as the greatest city on earth, the city Abraham visited, some would say a city Moses brought the Israelites during the wilderness years of the Exodus, and this period around Mohammed's life was the greatest period in human history. Alas, the reality is that Mecca was barely on the map until a hundred years after his death and far from any of the known trade routes, and far from being dictated in perfect Arabic, the immutable and inimical word of God, the Quran was merely a compilation of many local texts and manuscripts of dubious probity.

That is why I submit that the particular "golden age of Islam" that the Mali militants seek to impose on the people of Timbuktu, never actually existed to begin with as a model for their assault, and they are trying to impose something that never happened, so never worked then, and inevitably will not work now. And lest I stand accused of being judgemental or prejudiced, I can only say that I think the historical (lack of) evidence for their panacea speaks for itself rather more loudly than I can speak.

=======================

Dear Contrabombarde and all,



I am genuinely delighted to stand corrected, and havng re-read what you actually wrote, (rather than what I thought you wrote), I can see how I made the error of assumption. Quite obviously, you are very aware of the remarkable achievements of what I, and undoubtedly you, would consider the true Islamic golden-age. Such was the brevity, (and accuracy), of your post, I had misread it is being in denial about Islamic achievements.

I'm also grateful about the sources of the Quran. Mine came rather second-hand I'm afraid, but at least the source was an obviously misinformed or ill-informed Archbishop, thus demonstrating that at least some of them are overpaid and overvalued! :)  I must confess that I was always a little scepticle of this claim, but deferred to a certain other. I had always thought it more likely that it would all have been cobbled together from tribal sources and folkelore, and now I feel slightly vindicated.


On the subject of "swords" perhaps it is highly significant that the most prized were those made from "Damascus Steel", far in advance of aything else at the time. In the west, we were still trying to hack people down with heavy iron swords in medieval times, which crushed bones better than they cut off limbs.

I think we are both in complete agreement about the radical Islam of the Taliban, which like all fundamentalism, serves no-one except those who propose and prosecute it. I feel exactly the same way about Christian fundamentalism, and in both instances, there is almost always a hidden agenda with more than a hint of the political.

All that remains, in the best tradition of gutter journalism and potential libel cases, is for me to unreservedly reatract my accusations and apolgise for any distress which may have been caused to you, your family, your tribe and your religion, as well as any pet cats, dogs and even the fleas which may jumpeth upon thy person.

Best,

MM

Quote from: ComptonNewbie on July 24, 2012, 02:40:36 PM
Sometimes.

And sometimes not.

I have close experience on an autistic child.  Prior to this, I held strong beliefs that this was an excuse for poor parenting, lack of discipline and many other shortcomings.   I have changed my mind.  Whilst there are many who who use this label as an excuse for poor behaviour (by parent and child), there is a minority who have really do appear to have this condition.  Shouting doesn't help.  Long explanations don't help.  Occasionally, a diagram or comic-strip cartoon might help, but not often.  Sometimes he is stuck in a bubble, very lonely and unable to find or communcate with planet earth.  If it is due to parenting, I am sure his parents would dearly listen to any sincere advice of experience.

The one thing in his favour is that he will sit through an organ concert in near silence (classical or light music).  Music appears to be the one path that is open between him and others.

Simon

=======================


Dear Simon,



Prior to Uni, I worked with handicapped children, and that ws over 40 years ago. Later on, I studied psychology as an ancillary, and mental health in some depth subsequently.(I had a friend who was paranoid-schizophrenic, and yet academically brilliant).

Autism was not as recognised at it is to-day, but it did exist and it was known by the professionals. Later research shows that the causes of autism have absolutely nothing to do with inadequate or faulty parenting, but no one knows for certain why the condition occurs. Many theories have been cited, from pre-natal and genetic causes, to  vaccines and even mercury elements, but no specific cause of autism has ever been isolated and it remains the most baffling of conditions.

The further problem concerned with autism, is the fact that autistic traits may also accompany other mental impairments such as schizophrenia, and it is sometimes very difficult to make the distinction. However, with schizophrenia, there tends to be mood swings and varying levels of association and disassociation, whereas pure autism is consistent and repetitive. Autism also covers a wide range of impairment, from mild symptoms to severe symptoms; some totally withdrawn and unable to interreact with others, and some mildly autistic and perhaps just "a little strange" by their behaviour and actions.

I've known two autistic people as well as one ever can; the first an isolatred and totally withdrawn child, who had the most severe symptoms; constantly twisting his hands together, never reacting when spoken to and just locked in a strange and unrecahable world. The second, an adult, is only mildly autistic, holds down a job, lives independently and is just a little strange in a harmless way.

Those with autistic disability may also become very agitated when patterns of behaviour or changes of circumstance occur, and as a consequence, it is easy to mistake this for ADHD (Attention deficit hyperactive disorder). Again, it is easy to diagnose ADHD, when it can simply be a case of parental neglect.

However, sticking with autism, I think it is important to know that it is not something which is caused by others, or what someone catches like a disease. Autistic people just are what they are, and some cope better than others. Above all, we must recognise that it is a recognised syndrome known to the medical profession, and not a funny name for something else.

Best,

MM

It all went wrong when we stopped burning coal. There were so many things to keep them occupied in those days.....chimneys to sweep, coal to be hauled out of the seams, coal scuttles to fill, ashes to be raked out and dispensed with, ranges to be cleaned and carbon-blacked, tinder wood to be chopped.

You want to eat?   Well clean out the range, polsh the brass and light the fire; then we'll think about mutton head stew!

Bless the little darlings.

Best,

MM  :)

Dear all,

I think I can add to this observation, because in the mid-1970's, (1974?) the IAO Congress assembled in Chester, shortly after the release of the Reubke recording mentioned. I think oit would be fair to suggest that this one work established Roger Fisher as one of the truly great performers of the day, because the depth went far beyond the notes.

I had been building myself up to the moment that Roger Fisher played to us, and to discover that the programme would include the Reubke Sonata on the 94th Psalm had me in near palpitations of excitement.

I do not rememebr anything of the recital other than the Reubke, but when started there was total silence in the audience; so sinister and brooding were the first few bars, we were rivetted to our seats. As Roger unleashed the anger and passion of that sonata, (on a truly superb and hugely powerful instrument), I think I can speak for everyone there, when I say that it was absolutely terrifying and electrifying in equal measure.

I cannot recall another recital when, at the end, there was a substantial pause before anyone dared to applaude: it was that shattering an experience. Of course, when we did applaude, it went on for quite some time, but almost tempted to crawl out the cathedral on my knees like a devoted pilgrim, I was soon bumping into people who had been stunned into silence, or who just spoke words, such as "Wow," "My God", "Incredible" and "Devastating".

I think it would be fair to suggest that it is one of only three performances which have absolutely slayed me; the other two being by Dr Francis Jackson and the late Fernando Germani.

It just doesn't get any better than this, and for my money, it is the greatest performance of this extraordinary sonata ever.

MM

Quote from: MusingMuso on July 21, 2012, 01:01:48 AM

I regret to suggest, taking this reply at face value, that it is the most ill-considered, absurd and prejudiced response I have ever read, but peace be with us and to the prophet as we seek a little enlightenment.

Let's start with a few facts concerning "the golden age of Islam," which was by no means restricted to 8th century Arabia, but in fact covers a period from around 750AD to maybe the 11th century AD, with considerable achievements right up to the 18th century.


If you had an enquiring mind in the 10th-12th centuries, your hope of finding great libraries in the Christian world would have been dashed. Were you a scholar in Baghdad, Damascus or even Granada in what was Moorish Spain, you would have found books on art, calligraphy, optometry, medicine, philosophy and dozens of other subjects. In Granada, you would have walked among spectacular architecture, (still to be seen in the Alhambra Palace, Granada, as well as the great Mosque of Cordoba, since converted into a cathedral). You would have walked on pavements, you would have been taught to read, write, understand mathematics (among other things), and you would have had free medical and hospital care. The streets were even lit by oil lamps at night. Meanwhile, the 12th century Christians in the rest of Europe would have gone to their wattle and daub houses, along muddy paths strewn with straw and excrement, and they would be completely illiterate as well as superstitious.

==================

Just to set the record straight, I misquoted the actual dates concerning the Alhambra Palace at Granada and the medieval mosque of Cordoba, both of which belong to the 14th century. This means that the "Golden Age" of Islam covers at least 600 years and more.

Of course, the Taliban are not interested in the Golden Age of Islam, or the remarkable achievements thereof. Their sole interest is in retuning to the fundamental roots of Islam, which they share of course, with other fundamentalists of other faiths. As such, it is a crude political movement, which finds favour in particularly deprived countries and regions.

MM

Dear David,

A heart-warming little story...thank you.

I always maintain that it is not exclusivety which is the problem, but a lack of inclusivity....there is a difference!

She will always feel included forever, no matter how exclusive the circumstances in which she finds herself.

Best,

MM