Hi!
Two things happened yesterday which crystallised thoughts which have been in solution for some time.
I went to a funeral and the grand-daughter's boyfriend was very newly born again, possibly a trainee priest. He was unable to accept that Christianity and Islam share the same God. He focussed on the mantra: "There is no way other than through me . . . ." and I explained that this was actually in a way a parable and that "through me" could be interpreted as "the way I show" as in "what I teach". He could not see a way in which this could be perceived through the perspective of his being boxed in by the literal authority of the text that brought him comfort through absolute and unquestioning belief. Whilst Deists might believe that we were created by god in His image and Atheists might believe that we descended through a process of wonderously unique evolution, one wonders whether this trainee priest's God was an invention made in his image for his own comfort. Any challenge to such a safety zone becomes a threat to his own persona as a result, and cannot be contemplated.
When happening to be talking to a lady about the root of the Renaissance being the discovery by the Crusaders moving into Toledo in 1180 and discovering that the Arabs had preserved the Greek myths and that they corresponded with the story of Genesis resulting in aspects of the Authorised Version of the bible, the young man challenged me as to whether I should be discussing such heresies in Church. To many, God is an invention of man in man's image for their own comfort.
I explained that all religions say "Follow me, this is the only way", and therefore are mutually exclusive, this exclusivity being an invention of mankind to promote and retain power in appointed lines of men. This process promotes the religion, and arguably is a route to God, but is not an injunction by God himself. He could not understand that there is only one God and that the God of Islam is the God of Christianity, nor could he understand the concept that the seed of God rests in each one of us, leading to the process of finding God through interior meditation.
He was disturbed by the analogy that he had known the lady who had died by way of her daughters but that there were many there who had known her themselves.
We do not take enough notice of the story of Babel. We know that before Babel humankind was united, afterwards being scattered to all parts of the world and having disparate languages.
These languages create great cause for argument - "Our Father which Art in Heaven" is in French "Notre Pere qui est dans le ciel" - which comes back into English "Our Father who is in the Sky". It's not a surprise therefore that Claude Vohrillon Rael wrote a book entitled "Let's welcome our Fathers from Space".
Having come away from Babel with different slices of cake, we are persuaded that our cake is the whole cake. People then argue as to whether strawberry cake is the true cake rather than chocolate or coffee. Personally I prefer a few nuts to make me chew, or even better, Fruit Cake. But in fact the original cake was Vanilla.
The reality is that Christ gave instructions to do two things
- :Love thy God with all thy heart.
Of course this causes argument in literality but at a deeper level, it works, and we ignore the spirit of the injunction at our peril. It depends on our perspective and definition of God. To a Big Bang theorist, to anyone who believes that our universe, planet, life and environment were created in some way by an Invisible, All Powerful and Sentient force (All forces are sentient - Newton's law - all force produces an equal and opposite force - so all forces know the nature of opposing forces), then this injunction to love our God translates into loving our environment. To an Atheist who appreciates the uniqueness of our evolution, in effect, the processes or forces of evolution are their god, and we end up simply arguing about the same thing from different sides of the mirror. To love thy God therefore is translated into loving all that surrounds us and in particular all that has arisen out of the process of natural forces. - (2) Love thy neighbour as thyself - this equates to the human form of the relationship between masses, which without Gravitation, would otherwise fall apart.
Christ was teaching the fundamental laws of the universe.
God teaches Unity. Man teaches Division - Divide and Rule.
The curse of Babel was to put obstacles in our way to getting too close to Heaven and finding God. Divide them and make them argue was the curse.
So in the interpretation of texts, if we see any reason for division or discord in texts, we should bear in mind that if we see a textual cause to lean to division or discord, either our texts conveyed through the eyes of men and translated through the tongues of men carry the underlying curse of Babel or our interpretation is wrong. The divisions are simply a structure to keep lines of authority in men in power.
Alice Bailey went as a missionary to India. She came to realise that there is no fundamental conflict between Christianity and Buddhism, Buddhism giving us the injunction to exclude "Deceit, Desire and Hate" from one's heart in order to achieve Nirvana, Heaven, Enlightenment. This accords so much with the Christian view of sins which prevent our entry to Heaven.
Many people see the needless arguments between the Factions of God as reason not to believe in God. God tests us as to whether we pay lip-service to the words that come out of mens' lips or whether we obey God's laws of universal harmony in our actions.
So when we read yesterday that Anglicans have allowed women to be Bishops in the Church ministering unto humankind and then we read that the Pope's Church has equated the ordination of Women as being as sinful as Child Abuse, we have to observe an organisation self promoted by men rather than anything to do with God.
Ice Cream is wonderful. Flavour is a luxury and a matter of personal choice. Flavour is wonderful for enabling people to develop a liking for Ice Cream. But Flavour itself is not Ice Cream. And Flavour cannot exist alone without the substrate of Ice Cream to carry it.
Perhaps saying that Fundamentalism is evil is a little strong - Fundamentalists carry the seeds of the teachings of God - but in ignoring the convolution of texts with the parable of Babel, they simply miss the point, simply going into orbit in constant danger of collision with other satellites.
The closing organ voluntary to this lady's funeral was Wachet Auf.
Sleepers, Wake!
Best wishes
David P
Earlier this evening whilst cruising the vast wasteland of over-the-air broadcast television programming I stumbled upon a segment during the ABC late-night news magazine "Nightline" about,
well, I suppose the best way to describe this individual as an "atheist minister"... who even performs
"un-baptisms" (with a hair dryer :o )
I bring this item up as the title of the post for which I am replying seems to be the basis for the
work of this, for lack of a better term, "atheist priest" if you will...
And you couldn't have paid or prayed for better timing ;)
Eric
KB7DQH
Quote from: KB7DQH on July 17, 2010, 12:18:57 PMan "atheist minister"... who even performs "un-baptisms" (with a hair dryer :o )
Hi!
Brilliant!
But doesn't this sound like an unreligious fundamentalist rather than a religious unfundamentalist or is he simply religiously atheist and equally fundamentalist?
Best wishes
Forum Admin
Hmmmm....... A Fundamentally Religious Atheist ??? ??? ??? Yeah, I think that fits...
Eric
Hi
Whilst it is pretty clear from the Bible - and not just from the text David mentions "No one comes to the Father except by me" - which is pretty clear - but the whole tenor of the Bible is that God makes the rules, and if we want His free gift of eternal life, we have to accept His terms (i.e. faith in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ). Quite frankly, the divisions of the church are a problem - although we in the West sometimes don't realise that Islam is just as divided into factions, "denominations" and sects! Fundamentally, though, the church is one - we may have different emphases and interpretations, but the bottom line is than anyone who can truly say "Jesus is Lord" (the earliest Christian Creed) - and mean it (think of the implications of saying that someone is "Lord" - i.e. that you are willing to submit to their control) is a Christian. Personally, I'm a fundamentalist, in that I believe what the Bible says - but it's pretty clear that some parts of the Scripture are not literal descriptions - some of Jesus' parables for example are obviously fiction - teaching devices (and none the worse for that). I'm quite happy to "agree to differ" on many church doctrines. Some of my former colleagues would be horrified to know that I have preached in a Catholic church. These divisions are exactly what Satan wants - if he can get the church arguing about internal matters, then the prime work of "making disciples" tends to be ignored.
However, non-Christian religions are a different matter. Yes, Judaism, Christianity and Islam spring from the same root - at least to some degree - and for the priest that David mentions to claim that "Allah" in Islam is not the same person as the Christian God is sheer ignorance! "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God" - no more and no less. And the same word appears in other Eastern languages such as urdu. It's the term that my friends who are Asian Christians use in worshiping God in church! Granted, the Muslim's view of God is not the same as the Christians. Indeed, Christianity is unique in allowing believers instant, direct access to God Himself in prayer. For the Christian, God is not some remote, judgmental figure, but a Father - Abba (Daddy) even.
I have severe reservations about "multi-faith worship". At best it's bound to degenerate into a politically correct "lowest common denominator" mish-mash. The closest I get to participating in a multi-faith event is the annual Holocaust Memorial event here in Bradford, where I've represented the free churches for a few years. This is not a specifically religious event - but a memorial. It is deliberately held on neutral ground - and althoug representatives of many faiths are involved, the whole event is a reminder of man's inhumanity to man, and the need to ensure that such things don't happen again than any specifically religious reasons.
I'm beginning to ramble, so I'd better leave things there for now and go and do some proper work!
Every Blessing
Tony
[quote link=topic=150.msg439#msg439 date=1279533062]
These divisions are exactly what Satan wants - if he can get the church arguing about internal matters, then the prime work of "making disciples" tends to be ignored.
I have severe reservations about "multi-faith worship". At best it's bound to degenerate into a politically correct "lowest common denominator" mish-mash. . . .
I'm beginning to ramble, so I'd better leave things there for now and go and do some proper work![/quote]
Hi!
Far from rambling, you make important points.
Whilst I have a wide inter-faith respect and urge others likewise, I agee with you about the degeneration into a mish-mash. Perhaps one might regard as each religion being a different lens through which we can see God, but of course if we cut two different focal length lenses in half and apply them at the same time to the camera, we end up with something that is neither one thing nor the other and an indeterminate image which is out of focus.
On the other hand, we all come into this world naked and we all go out of this world naked. There are many roads in between.
The driving force that takes us long distances might be compared to the combustion of fuel inside an internal combustion engine. It doesn't matter whether the fuel is diesel or petrol as long as one is fired by high compression and the other by a high voltage spark. Some engines might be one cylinder whilst others might need a dozen to move. All are carried upon a framework upon which is mounted bodywork in which many people take great pride washing their cars visibly on weekend mornings whilst others let the rain do the washing. People might argue that their car is better than the next man's or that their colour paint is better than that horrible colour over there. . . . But the colour nor the paint have any meaning without the substrate of the frame carrying the engine within. When we drive our car on the road, the road exists because we are not the only car that drives.
At Albi Cathedral in France, Chaldon Church in Surrey and numerous other places, we see imagery of the Last Judgement, sorting out those who had been good enough and those who hadn't. At the Parthenon in Greece, we walked into the temple celebrating the creation of the First Woman, (the image of the event being upon the podium supporting the statue above) under a frieze which appears to be the first Judgment - in biblical terms of Genesis 6 and Job Chapter 1, the Sons of God appearing to ask "Is it a good idea to make them in our image?", there being a debate between those responsible for human civilisation and those representatives of temptations resulting in sins which are intended to destroy us. Whether it be the First or the Last, the concept remains the same and contemplation of either leads to the same result.
However, I believe that each faction of religion, and indeed each religion, like a lens to which is applied a lens-hood to reduce the glare that dazzles and obscures the image, can focus its texts and teachings through the lens of "Does the way I interpret the meaning of this cause me not to love my God and or to love my neighbour as myself". It's the equivalent of putting on a wide-angle converter to see the bigger picture and thereafter a telephoto attachment or telescope to zoom in to the far view.
It's a challenge, and not an easy one.
I hope that others may continue to pose challenges in this thread, possibly from other religions too, and also in other threads of this section of the forum. A cosy, comfortable concensus merely leads to the self-satisfied invention of a god in our image whereas God the Creator is always challenging, always asking us to ask questions. Qui la Cerca la Troba
Best wishes
David P
Hi
I'm far from convinced by the "many roads lead to God" theory. It's clearly not what the Bible teaches. Also, the Bible says "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" - so there's no way that any human being can, by their own efforts, be "good enough" for heaven. If you don't believe me, just take a look at the first commandment - "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all Thy heart....". Who can honestly say that they have consistently done that and all that it implies through their entire life from the age of responsibility (whatever that may be)?
That said, God gives us all free will, so I have no argument with adherents to other faiths, nor atheists - the church is here to "make disciples" - to try and introduce them to Jesus. It's interesting that these days there have been several accounts of Jesus appearing to practicing Muslims in dreams, leading to their conversion - and for a Muslim, converting to another religion is a big step.
The real problem with religious fundamentalism is when people stop listening and debating with others, and then often go beyond what their faith teaches. The Christian church isn't immune from this. One of the challenges to the 21st century church is to strip away the traditions and reveal what the Bible really says. (I don't by this mean that every church must ditch their traditional forms of worship - that's another matter entirely). One example is marriage - our views are coloured by UK law - but how does the Bible define Christian marriage?
Every Blessing
Tony
Quote from: revtonynewnham on July 20, 2010, 09:58:08 AM- the church is here to "make disciples" - to try and introduce them to Jesus. . . .
Hi!
Yes - just so - inspired by the Divine but run by humans for humans. And that is how other religions are also: they have to be. But there is a stage of understanding beyond the mere words of the religion. The words are a necessary introduction but through living them, one can grow through and beyond them. That does not mean superior to them, merely squeezed out through the other side of the lens or the pinhole of a pinhole camera. The words don't always directly say what they mean or what we think they mean: the words are always a perception of thought, a perspective which often has a different angle, and they therefore have to be interpreted through the reverse mathematical function which transformed them out of thought into words.
The image projected on the ground-glass screen beyond the lens is upside down and reversed left to right, depending upon which side of the glass you are looking.
The lens projects the image of the reconstituted light which has been reflected off the original object, but is not the object itself and nor is the light that object. It is simply perceived in the way in which the object has an impact upon the light. The light-rays describe the object and provide a better representation when captured by two lenses to attempt to capture the third dimension.
There are many who say that because a religion can only see one-eyed and that the image perceived is only two dimensional, then God is not real because they see only a flat image as a child's drawing on paper.
But there are many who, seeing the two dimensional image say that that is the real God, and that anyone else's two dimensional image is not pure. They fear that their Grade I listed heritage building would be impure if looked at from a different angle and that there would be calls for it to be de-listed. The great builder would not be visible and recognisable.
But, even if we see through two eyes so that we have the illusion of the third dimension, then the object blocks the light reflected from the other side so that we cannot see it. We cannot know all of the object all at the same time. And even were we to be able to whizz fast around the object, so that we could experience the whole of the object in the flash of a memory so as to perceive the whole seemingly all at once, we would not know the object from the inside. God is thus.
(http://www.hammerwood.mistral.co.uk/latrobelecture/1369.jpg)
If we are lucky, we might get a glimpse of the inside through the glass of the window.
Only the thought is pure whereas the words are the language of man.
Whether lit by the moon or the sun
(http://www.hammerwood.mistral.co.uk/latrobelecture/1392.jpg) (http://www.hammerwood.mistral.co.uk/latrobelecture/1389.jpg)
the Great Building is the same. The thought is unchanged no matter the light reflected from it, even if there is no light. Indeed if the light is too strong, we are blinded.
And that is what so many fundamentalists do to others, turning away even the curious, with a light that is too strong and casting illusory shadows of darkness which merely move with the light.
All portrait photographers prefer a softer light to better show the modelling of the whole subject, less visually understood in the light and darkness of a strong light, making even the subject squint. I have half a feeling that even God squints with the ferocity of light shone upon him. (But of course one should not personalise or sexualise the infinite.)
Perhaps travelling to India is interesting - a place where there is great indifference by the materialists (who, as in all religions, often pay lipservice to some sort of religion) towards the poor, but where basic human kindnesses can be very apparent especially towards strangers, indeed often moreso than we often see in the so-called Christian west. One finds Muslims, Parsees, Jains, Hindus, Brahmins and Buddhists who can look towards as no lesser men of God than others who profess to know God through Christ.
Best wishes
David P
Hi!
A member remarked yesterday on the illustrations that I have used.
My idea of a lens comes through having tried to make sense of the Parthenon Frieze arriving to the monotheistic from the polytheistic and the Iliad in which all characters take no decisions for themselves but are animated by "the Gods".
In fact this animation is representational of the fundamental forces of the psyche, illustrated through the lens of each of the "Gods" inserting a component into Pandora which, we being descended from Pandora or Eve, we carry in our head and we carry the balance depicted by the debate on the Frieze as opposing forces in our mind, between doing the good thing and falling for temptation, these forces being controlled by the casting vote of our inner Chairman, the spirit of God inside us.
Each of the Greek gods provide thereby the focus, as a lens into each characteristic which has a part to play within our psyche. In such a mechanical examination of the psychological balance, this is capable of being viewed as an atheist philosophy.
But the components can lead to a better understanding of ourselves and, "as above so below", perhaps even of the Chairman Himself. So perhaps the view is of God inside out. Is such an atheist approach a view of God inside out?
In my youth I had contact with a rather strange lady on the Parochial Church Council. Later in life I repaired computers for her and we have remained friends. In her old age I look to her as a lady of God. She talks much of the influence on her life of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen) St Hildegard of Bingen and also of the idea of Subud - http://www.subuh.com/subud.html (http://www.subuh.com/subud.html)
In not being able to admit the seed of God within us, we being born of pure unmitigated sin according to the young born again trainee priest, looking within to find without becomes a process disallowed. As a result the seed is prevent from growing roots and twigs within and then capable of erupting in branches beyond our frame, perhaps a description of Subud and a process capable of comprehension to all religions.
Two day Lectures at Oxford might be of interest - 15th January 2011 "The Study of Atheism" - "The new atheism - Why here? Why now?", "Non-religion in contemporary Britain", "The Psychology of Atheism" and on 4th December 2010 "Approaching Mysticism" - "Approaches to Hindu Mysticism" "Approaches to Christian Mysticism: The hermit tradition" "Approaches to Sufi mysticism" "Approaches to Buddhist mysticism: devotion and meditation".
Best wishes
David P
Another perspective from which the subject can be viewed... Do give it a read and see what we make of it...
http://heresyofthemonth.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/is-indifference-the-devils-playground.html#tp (http://heresyofthemonth.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/is-indifference-the-devils-playground.html#tp)
Eric
KB7DQH
Quote from: KB7DQH on July 21, 2010, 05:50:09 PM
Another perspective from which the subject can be viewed... Do give it a read and see what we make of it...
http://heresyofthemonth.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/is-indifference-the-devils-playground.html#tp (http://heresyofthemonth.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/is-indifference-the-devils-playground.html#tp)
Eric
KB7DQH
Dear Eric
How the . . . . (unmentionable) did you find and come up with that one?
Yes, I think perhaps it resonates with what I have been saying . . . that the fundamentalists in love with infallible interpretations of infallible texts are simply in love with a god made in the image of themselves in a comfortable mirror rather than anything close to understanding the God who made creation in his image and challenges at every turn.
Yes - the closed comfortable consensus - everything is fine as "we" believe it and nothing more than that needs to be done and "we" are happy with god made in our image, according to fundamentalists, born out of pure sin. If that logic is right . . . then that indifference arising of the comfortable consensus really is "Satan's Playground" in the spirit of that link.
Is this a thread common to all religions?
As far as I understand it, this is the true meaning of Jihad, the Struggle, the struggle within oneself to break out of the apathy induced by comfort and self satisfaction and the response to God who challenges. The God who challenges us to love one another places a lens through which this Struggle should be viewed and not interpreted in ways which lead to Hate and War, elements of the Greek Ares, and in Buddhism, one of the features of emotion to be excluded from life to achieve Nirvana.
So perhaps is this an area in which followers of four religions (including the Panathenaic worship of Athena documented by the frieze of the Parthenon), can agree?
That the Sufic view of Jihad can exist out of the interpretations of infallible texts is testimony and example to Christians to their ability to be able to do likewise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) is interesting in its mention of the Holy Grail and in particular Enoch, who's book the Freemasons were particularly keen to discover in the 18th century and, sending out James Bruce to Egypt, found among the Coptic texts.
If the reason for Atheism is that all the religions and factions of religion are seemingly at odds with each other and disprove each other, then perhaps they are not . . .
Best wishes
David P
David--
That link found me ;) Remember, I have a Google Alert set to dump anything it finds with the words
"pipe organ" into my inbox 8) 8) 8) so all I had to do was save the link (after reading through to see if
the item is of any relevance to anything and/or particularly interesting) into my bookmarks file and then paste it into a post.
Some may argue "That's Cheating"... but I am merely taking advantage of available technology to further the mission of this forum without having to devote an extreme amount of time to the task...
Yes it does amount to finding a needle in a haystack but I am using a BIG magnet... Nonferrous needles just take longer...
Most significant is the timing of both the blog for which we are currently discussing and the recent TV item I mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't believe these to be random events nor coincidences...
Eric
KB7DQH
Hi
The link was interesting reading. Yes - I remember "teaching tapes" - I used to do freelance work for a company that produces them (these days it tends to be CD's or mp3 downloads - and a very much smaller market). I also remember the furore about "backwards masking" and "new age" - both typical evangelical knee-jerk reactions to something that many in the church failed to understand.
I agree with the writer that apathy (and the failure to recognise both Satan and God at work) is a major threat to the church. I currently look after 2 churches in Bradford - the current state of both is, at least to some extent, due to apathy and a failure to react to changes in society. One of them some 40 years ago had a membership of 300+ - today it's 7! From what I observe of Isalm, they too have issues of apathy - our local community is probably 40-50% Muslim, but I see very few of them going to the Mosque on Fridays (but that's not the case in other less affluent parts of the city).
There are no easy answers.
Every Blessing
Tony
Hi!
Quote
I am a Christian, and I know some here aren't. I accept their views about the existence of God and his son Jesus Christ, but I believe I have been 'saved' by him.
I'm always worried that sort of statement might be a thermometer of religious fundamentalism. Often such statements are accompanied by an intolerance.
Knowing the person concerned here, I know that intolerence simply isn't the case in this instance by any far fetched stretch of the imagination but really these words become a matter of perspective.
We "see through a glass darkly, then face to face" - how I loathe the translation of dark glass as a mirror as a mirror is not the veiled difficult to discern image produced by a glass - but really perhaps what we are saying by "saved" is that Jesus has led us through the dark glass image to help us to see in the light, face to face. No more, no less, and this does not preclude other ways of seeing the reflection of the light around the corner - to argue otherwise would be like an astronomer saying that a refracting telescope is the only way to see the heavens and that reflecting telescopes don't work, are impossible or aren't allowed.
Galileo only knew about lensed telescopes, refractors, and thanks to reflectors, our searches of the heavens have been opened up so much by the Hubble reflector. Or perhaps it's like only searching the heavens with visible light, ignoring x-rays, infra red, or the radio frequency spectrum. In this analogy, religious fundamentalists would tell us that Jodrell Bank is the work of the devil. Indeed, the prohibition of knowledge, such as the acknowledgement that the earth is round, occurs often because the prohibitor of ideas knows full well that the knowledge or alternative viewpoint exposes an assumption and is threatening to the inadequate worldview that the prohibitor of knowledge holds fast to for his self justification or other vested interests.
The story of the Garden of Eden is fundamental. The religious fundamentalist clings to any excuse to stay within the garden and avoids the apple like the plague, and does not experience, and does not grow nor escapes the garden to go out into the world and populate the earth. Eating of the apple of the Tree of Knowledge shakes are safe and secure position in the Garden, but through doing so we are better equipped to go out and do good in this world.
Perhaps in saying "we are saved" we are actually given a telephone line to the garden so that we can ring up for advice in how to plant other gardens, and those gardens may exist even in our own hearts.
Best wishes
David P
Hi!
It's worth looking at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tw1tl
"Is this the end of God?"
One of the most interesting findings is that the brain processes of Nuns in prayer and Buddhist priests in meditation are the same . . . so why in the search of God do the religions fight about it and say "this is the only way"?
Best wishes
David P
Hi All
The problem with religious fundamentalism is that with all ideological systems, the end result is always the same: people who don't agree wind up dead, the prime examples being National Socialism and Communism, neither of which at its source has anything to do with the culmination of both ideologies as they're told in history. The problem is always the IMPLEMENTATION. Involve a human and too much of a good thing always winds up the same way.
Religion != Spirituality. Religion is CONTROL, Spirituality is FREEDOM. With respect to the members of the Clergy frequenting this site, I don't need someone in a silly hat to tell me right from wrong or act as a spiritual conduit, it's frankly pathetic. If we're constantly treated like children, how are we supposed to learn and grow? I KNOW that we see through a glass darkly, that this "reality" we inhabit is really conscious co-creation and I don't want to be limited by the closed-minds of those still inhabiting the 7th century. Oh, you think I'm just talking about the POLITICAL system that is Islam? Had a look at what's going on in Christian Africa lately? The Witch Children ring a bell? It certainly isn't comforting to me to think that all the eye rolling, ullulation and writhing around on the ground casting out demons is probably more like the original Christianity than anything we know in this country.
I've sung in church since the age of 9, was an assistant organist at 16 in a very "high" Anglican church singing choral evensong twice a month but frankly, I tired of everything but the music and the architecture (culture != religion) by the time I was 17 and when I was "outed" as an agnostic by the utterly uncharismatic Vicar who did absolutely nothing to try to help me spiritually, I was more than happy to sling my hook.
Oh, and I look up from my computer as I hear the dulcit tones of the insufferable idealogue Richard Dawkins. Why is it not possible for God to have thought to himself one day, "Hmm...Evolution, this could be a lot of fun." ???
God give me freedom from Religion! (and Atheism's one of them)
Neil
As an agnostic I'd like to remark that the christian god and the islamic alah are not one and the same. Alah is muhammad's puppet creation, he constantly abbrogated verses over his entire prophetic career with violent ones superceeding the peaceful ones to suit his political strategies and to coveniently justify any of his actions. Now really, what kind of god needs to abbrogate verses and can't make up his/her/its mind on one single set of commandments? How many of you have studied the qur'an and the hadiths? Have you even seen that islam had only one prophet who served nothing but his own interests?
http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2008/12/islam-what-west-needs-to-know.html
If you've watched that documentary, then let me say the following: There is no such thing as radical islam, moderate islam or political islam. Those terms are inventions by politically correct cowards who give no proper appreciation towards the situation. Islam is islam. And this is the real face of it, as muhammad left it. Irony being there are many Muslims who would rather reform than let the sickening tyranny from some contriver from over 1400 years ago carry on. However since there was only "one true prophet" that will never ever happen. (And please don't get worked up and all angry of my opinion until you've actually watched that video). The purpose of my remark is not to offend anybody, but to inform of a very serious issue that almost no government pays any true attention to.
Hi
First - God is God - Allah is no more (and no less) than the Arabic term used for God - and it's used by Arabic & other Asian language Christians. It's certainly not even an Islamic invention for His name. To say otherwise is nonsense. Yes, the perception ofGod in the 2 religions is very different - but that's another matter.
Secondly - how many Muslims do you know? I live & work in an area that is around 50% Asian (mainly Pakistani) population, and they are predominantly Muslim. I have yet to come across a radical. The vast majority are ordinary, peace loving people who just want to get on with their lives. Some don't even attend Mosque regularly - just like many so-called "Christians".
I don't doubt that there are radicals around - just as there are white radicals (BNP etc) but they are a minority. Let's stop demonizing Islam - by all means challenge those of any faith or none who are out to sidrupt society, but generallisations don't help anybody.
every Blessing
Tony
Hear, hear, Tony! Sounds like both the agnostics on this thread have an axe to grind...
Also, David, that quote about believing one's self to be saved is, I think, covered in R. C. doctrine as "committing the sin of presumption"... and before the religion=control hotheads start jumping up and down, it seems pretty logical to me. We are not all saved automatically by Christ's death and resurrection. That merely attempts to shrug off responsibility for one's own actions, and, in extremis, can be used as a cover for committing horrendous abuses. No-one is automatically saved - we shape our own destiny.
Hi
Salvation is only through Christ - it's simple, but also profound. But salvation is only the start of one's Christian walk. The Bible quite clearly teaches that "all have sinned" - taking the step of faith to commit to Christ doesn't take away the temptation to sin. That's why there's a need for confession (not necessarily to a priest, or even another person, but direct to God) is important. (Note the Bible does encourage confession to each other). Then there's all the lifestyle issues - trying (and usually failing) to live up to Jesus' example.
I find what is probably the earliest Christian creed interesting - simple, yet profound. It's "Jesus is Lord" - see for example Romans 10:9 and 1 Corinthians 12:3. Simple - yet consider what it means to accept someone as your Lord. Incidentally, it IS possible to be sure of salvation - Rom. 10:9 again:-
"That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Couple that with the other things I've said above. Obviously, there is a danger of becoming "comfortable" and slipping away from the high standards that we are called to - hence the need for confession & repentance, which is (or should be) part of every communion service.
Every Blessing
Tony
Karen Armstrong in more than one of her books has a lot to say about the dangers of fundamentalsm, including atheistic fundamentalism. I strongly recommend her writings.
And anyone who reads Richard Dawkins (that arch-atheistic fundamentalist) should also read counter arguments by such people as Keith Ward. Don't you think that Dawkins writes so cleverly but lacks any wisdom?
Does anyone share my belief that it's about time we considered reincarnation? Reincarnation forms part of the deeper understanding of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and even Christianity (although it is officially denied by the church, of course - but that's a subject for another discussion) and it makes so much sense of those difficult issues that the Christian Church tries in vain to grapple with. David, you said somewhere that we come naked to this world and leave in the same way; in one sense I agree with you but I also believe that we bring much with us in terms of karma (or baggage) from past lives and we take any more baggage with us to be sorted out hopefully in the next incarnation - our job is to try to get rid of our existing baggage and not to acquire any more. I'm sure this all sounds heretical, but perhaps the Church could benefit form heretics rather than condemning them.
Quote from: David Pinnegar on July 16, 2010, 01:05:42 PMSo when we read yesterday that Anglicans have allowed women to be Bishops in the Church ministering unto humankind and then we read that the Pope's Church has equated the ordination of Women as being as sinful as Child Abuse, we have to observe an organisation self promoted by men rather than anything to do with God.
The Vatican's response does seem somewhat disproportionate - but, on the other hand, the ordination of women has no Scriptural precedent. Read the Bible. It's full of incredible women, compassionate and strong. Christ knew some personally - his mother, his mother's cousin Elizabeth, Mary Magdalene, the sisters Mary and Martha... yet he saw fit to ordain none of them to his ministry. Some people have dismissed this as merely a product of circumstance, the world then being very much male-dominated, but I really don't believe that the Eternal Saviour would have been so stupid and blinkered.
This does not mean that women are in any way inferior to or less valuable than men: far from it. You will be familiar with the saying "behind every great man is a woman greater still"... women are incredibly valuable to the Christian ministry, and they do much valuable work. However, priestly ministry is not one of them... I have encountered a good many female clerics in the Church of England, and I am sad to report that only one of them was worth her salt. The rest left much to be desired in the way of spirituality, and were pushing an agenda of dumbing-down, political correctness and feminism. Seeing the news coverage a couple of years ago when the Synod in York voted to consecrate women as bishops, and the Alternative Episcopal Oversight was removed, a South-East London Archdeacon was called upon to commentate and discuss with one of the traditionalist wing. She was full of prejudice and vitriol, was the archetypal androgynous, butch lesbian, cared nothing for any cause or views but her own. A sad day for the CofE...
Quote from: Michael H on November 08, 2010, 08:22:37 PMDoes anyone share my belief that it's about time we considered reincarnation? Reincarnation forms part of the deeper understanding of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and even Christianity (although it is officially denied by the church, of course - but that's a subject for another discussion) and it makes so much sense of those difficult issues that the Christian Church tries in vain to grapple with. David, you said somewhere that we come naked to this world and leave in the same way; in one sense I agree with you but I also believe that we bring much with us in terms of karma (or baggage) from past lives and we take any more baggage with us to be sorted out hopefully in the next incarnation - our job is to try to get rid of our existing baggage and not to acquire any more.
Hi!
I have a lot of sympathy with this and am influenced by Alice Bailey, a descendant of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, who went to India and found that Christianity and Buddhism were not in conflict and were mutually compatible. Another influence has also been the Parthenon Frieze which appears to show the First Judgment, entirely compatible with the Christian Last Judgment, and shows monotheism deriving from polytheism and identifying qualities which have to be eliminated from one's heart in order to achieve Nirvana, compatible with Buddhism.
What to achieve Nirvana? Elimination of desire, deceipt and hate from one's heart. Hardly anti-christian.
Best wishes
David P
Quote from: Michael H on November 08, 2010, 08:22:37 PM
Does anyone share my belief that it's about time we considered reincarnation?
Hi
Absolutely no evidence that it exists, and it's certainly not part of Christianity.
Every Blessing
Tony
Quote from: NonPlayingAnorak on November 08, 2010, 08:36:08 PM
Quote from: David Pinnegar on July 16, 2010, 01:05:42 PMSo when we read yesterday that Anglicans have allowed women to be Bishops in the Church ministering unto humankind and then we read that the Pope's Church has equated the ordination of Women as being as sinful as Child Abuse, we have to observe an organisation self promoted by men rather than anything to do with God.
The Vatican's response does seem somewhat disproportionate - but, on the other hand, the ordination of women has no Scriptural precedent. Read the Bible.
Hi
I suggest you also read your Bible! Firstly, all Christian believers are priests "and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father" Rev 1:6! Agreed, God does call specific peolple to fulfil leadership roles in His church - but it's not necessarily exclusive.
Secondly, one of the roles of a church leader is to proclaim the word of God - i.e. to prophecy. (Philip the evangelist) "had four unmarried daughters who prophesied." (Acts 21:9)
Thirdly, there's a female Apostle! Rom 16:7 says "Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." Now, if you check the original Greek, you'll find that Junia" is actually "Junias" and that's a female name!
Fourthly, Philemon 1:1-3 hints that Apphia was possibly a church leader. There is alos at least one similar possibility mentioned in Acts.
Finally, don't some sections of the Catholic church call Mary Magdalene "the apostle to the apostles"? Certainly, that term is used in early Christian writings. She is these days regarded by some as the patron of women preaching & ministry.
Hence, even in the Bible and church tradition there is plenty of evidence for women's ministry. After all, human beings (both male & female) are made in God's image.
Every Blessing
Tony
Hi!
A friend visited and discussion moved to current religious issues. She came around to the commonly held view that we have to "defend" Christianity by promoting it to protect it from being outnumbered by immigrant religions.
I feel that this so much leads us into dangerous ground and causes the divisions, which certain men and groups of men have a vested interest in maintaining in terms of divide and rule . . . , to be increased and entrenched rather than broken down in the peace of God's vision.
Last night I had a parallel conversation with a lady at a village quiz night . . . in which I had to express how dangerous it is to personalise the Almighty. To regard God as a person is so very dangerous, God might give the illusion of behaving as a person, but the true God is not a person. Therefore to give God a name is so very dangerous - and it was for this reason that the name of God was unuttered.
It was this afternoon's conversation that led me to look up the group that was active and rather impressed me whilst at college many years ago . . . http://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai3.htm
Indeed it's for the reason of the religious intolerance (and associated hypocrisy in not loving neighbours as ourselves) of the priest responsible for Confirmation at his school that my youngest son refuses to be Confirmed. The priest concerned reduces the complexity of God to a simplicity in evangelisation which does not do justice to the intellect.
I fear that many think this of "fundamentalist" Christianity.
Best wishes
David P
Hi David
As you know, I'm basically an evangelical, and as such, I believe that we do need to promote the Christian faith. However, that doesn't give us license to be derogatory about other faiths. In my sermon last Sunday I mentioned a significant verse in the story of the riot in Ephesus (Acts 19:37). There was no suggestion that Paul and his helpers had said anything negative about the Diana cult - and had certainly not pillaged the temple. God gives us all free will - and that includes freedom to believe that Christianity is wrong. As Christians, we need to emphasise the positives, rather than trying to denigrate other beliefs. Also, we need to start where people are (and go where people are), rather than from where we want them to be.
There is room for a simple approach - as I've said before, salvation through faith in Christ IS simple - yet profound. There is also a need for a more intellectual approach. The basic rule of communication - and one that sadly many preachers seem to ignore, is the answer to the basic question "who am I talking to?" A sermon for my elderly congregation here will be rather different to what I would preach in a university church (if I ever got the opportunity!) That's not to say that my current congregation are "thick" - far from it, and a degree of intellectual challenge is often helpful and appreciated.
Paul also said "I am become all things to all men, so that by all means some might be saved". His preaching, as summarized in Acts, shows clear differences in approach depending on his audience and their prior knowledge of Judaism & Christianity.
Every Blessing
Tony