Hi!
Our local parish magazine sports the following in its editorial:
QuoteI begin to explain, "I think the problem is with the word TRUTH. Not all faiths or 'non faiths' can be true. Either one is true or none is true. They all contradict each other". The teacher did not get it. Then the head of the unit seemed to have a 'light bulb' moment and declared, "You mean an absolute truth." I did and I do. Atheism, Agnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity etc, cannot all be true. They all disagree. Only one is true or none is true but it is impossible that more than one is true.
I believe that Christianity is true. That Jesus is THE TRUTH, in fact I have staked my life on it. If I am wrong then I have nothing to loose. If I am right I have everything to gain, not just now but forever.
To read this saddens me greatly as it is responsible for so many of the ills of the world. It is separatism, unloving and leads to pride and hate. Buddhism teaches us that where "Love thy neighbour as thyself" has not yet penetrated. Krishna teaches us something else too: God is One -
(http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/421598_2738856991687_1434838602_n.jpg)
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2738856991687&l=fbd72826ae
The fact is that all the religions share a fundamental root and wisdom more powerful than their differences and in discovering this we find world peace, understanding, humanity and divinity.
The God of Genesis 1 is so crucial to the understanding of God. It is the definition of all. At the deepest and most superficial level alike, the word describes that mysterious force that brings all matter into existence in the permutations necessary to find the most useful, constructive, purposeful forms. Nothing we experience arises out of unconstruction, materially nor spiritually and the religions reflect different aspects of this.
Jesus taught about how to handle the forces of construction and how these bring purpose to life. Those forces of construction require us not to jibe at differences which are so easy to perceive but to know our neighbours so well that we can understand how they are similar to us, find how those similarities lead us to be able to work together, and even love our neighbours as ourselves.
Best wishes,
David P
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
Hi
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree on this one David. Jesus said "I Am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes gto the Father except by me." Not much wriggle room there! if you start discarding parts of the Bible, where do you stop? The finalo verses of Revelation might also be relevant in this context.
I agree that other religions and philosophies contain elements of the "truth" - but all miss out on the real distinctive of Christianity, which is not a religion, it's a relationship with God.
Every Blessing
Tony
I'm sorry, but I'm with Tony on this one.
The respective scriptures or holy books of many religions make claims of exclusivity of truth. Islam has another complexity in approaching Christianity, in that the Quran makes claim to infalibility and specifically describes Jesus in some detail and that although if virgin birth, was not crucified. To sweep irreconcilable differences under the carpet is to deny the truth in any faith, not to celebrate the commonality of belief shared by some.
There is already a place for doubt within Christian theology. This is the difference between faith and certainty. In a post modern world, all is faith as there is no certainty. 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.
At the end of the day, one must evaluate all the available religious options (including atheism) and settle on the one whose claims are appear most likely and which minimises the risk of damnation or torment if one's choice is proved wrong. There is certainly an assymetry here. Christianity fulfils most of the requirements for some Eastern religions, but the converse does not hold. Following one master does not mean one has followed THE master. If there is an afterlife, I will let you know if my gamble paid off.
Simon.
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.
The point about Genesis 1 is that if one looks for the definition of God that is truly universal and harmonious with physics, all that Christ talks about makes sense and indeed other faiths too. Anyone who follows Christ's teachings in that frame of mind will find God, but when we see our brothers and sisters of other faiths affirm that God is One, and when Buddhism shows us in separation how we create barriers of hate, Christ requires us to reassess how better to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Our similarities outweigh our differences. It is beholden unto us to look behind the clothes to find both the common humanity and divinity within.
If there is anything in what Christ says that causes us to be tempted not to love our neighbour, we have to re-examine the context and interpretation of the meaning of what is written.
It was and is not Christ's will to see war and hate between humankind: he gave us the tools to create the reverse, peace, cooperation and love. Understanding the Construction Force inherently described in Genesis 1 and following the teachings of Christ - Love thy God (the force that brings all together to be useful described in Genesis 1) and bring that into the human realm by loving thy neighbour as thyself - provide a way of life, a purpose lacking from many that we see around us, and above all peace and understanding.
Anyone working towards divisive separations is unconstructing, contrary to the process revealed in Genesis 1. The first chapter of the scriptures defines the action of God as an entity to which Christ and all religions are subordinate.
Best wishes
David P
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
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
Dear Tony
We have in science to look for the key that unlocks the code, the lowest common denominator that makes sense of all derivatives.
As the Son of God, Christ is a derivative of God. If we take out the anthropomorphisation and personification of God, although helpful in its analogy as far as it goes, God is some_thing_ "_which_ art in heaven", and if we look at that definition so beautifully painted in Genesis 1, "It" which behaves as if a Father but which is more fundamental than a "being" is that process by which all matter comes together out of energy to find the solutions by which all in all its multiplicity of permutation to create what and all that exists and surrounds us.
Matthew 12:50:
QuoteAnyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!
This defines then Jesus' relationship with his Father, his relationship with God, and ours too as anyone who hears the message of God and who does the will of God, the construction force that brings all together.
Jesus' relationship with God is symbolic. Furthermore, because he teaches and does the will of God, he becomes God, God exists through him and through his agency, and as he explained in relation to his brothers, sister and mother, all can become like him.
Many of Jesus's teachings are common to teachings of other teachers about God, other religions and faiths, and people of other faiths hear the word and will of God and do it. God is one: none is separate. Divisions are only made by men for the rule of men and the assertion of their authority.
Anyone buying The Times today will find a Rabbi writing in the Credo section about heaven in ways of which Christianity could be proud and nowhere have I found any writings of the Delai Lama that contradict nor detract from my faith as a Christian.
I would rather attend a synagogue with Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain preaching "When we see two people quarreling with each other, we make peace between them" than the priestess in the local church who expresses a simplicity that excludes the outsider.
When our technology allows us to operate drones half way across the world away to kill and maim we no longer have the option of localism and exclusivity, hating our neighbours close enough for us to kill them and they us too. We have to open up our minds and the foundations of scriptures to see where the opportunities have arisen for them to be misunderstood, misinterpreted, to find where exists the spirit of God that is in all things and all people.
We have to strip away the clothes to find the human, all derived from God, and so the divine within.
Similarly we have to strip away the clothes of the texts, the scriptures, the assumptions and misunderstandings, to find the core of God within.
When we have done this, and only then, will the power of Christ's teachings shine. As it is, the world is as dark as our summer.
Best wishes
David P
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
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
Hi!
Whilst researching Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Romain I found
http://news.reformjudaism.org.uk/assembly-of-rabbis/religious-jokes-are-changing.html
which is particularly relevant in the story of the progress of mutual understanding.
I'm wondering if Jesus might today say that Judaism led by such Rabbis has taken on board the spirit of what Jesus was about. I regard Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Romain as being more Christian than my local priest.
Best wishes
David P
QuoteOne of the great religious success stories of our time has been the leap forward in interfaith dialogue. The extent to which regular meetings of rabbis, vicars and imams is no longer newsworthy proves the point — but it also masks the fact that it is a surprisingly novel development.
Not so long ago the different faiths saw each other as rivals or vied to convert each other's members.
Preachers warned their flocks of the perils of contact with unbelievers and highlighted religious differences; now they regard each other as allies in a common fight against religious indifference.
A milestone in this change — and later a catalyst for progress between other faiths — was in 1942 when the Council of Christians and Jews (CCJ) was founded and the first nervous attempts were made to bridge what, for centuries, had been a hostile and bloody divide.
Three short religious stories in common currency in Jewish circles in the decades since then reveal the rapid journey from deep suspicion to mutual trust between the two faiths.
The first is from the 1950s. An elderly religious Jew is dying. It is the middle of the night, he lives in a cottage far from the nearest town and a fierce storm is raging. He turns to his wife and says, "My end is coming; please fetch the vicar."
She is aghast: "You have been a pious Jew all your life. Why are you suddenly switching faiths at the last minute?" "Don't worry," he replies, "I'm not — it's just that I wouldn't dream of calling the rabbi out on a night like this. Get the vicar instead."
The story indicates that Jewish-Christian relations are non-existent; an us-and-them attitude prevails.
The second story comes from the 1970s: a Jew crossing the road is knocked over by a car; he is badly injured; a crowd gathers round and a nearby priest rushes to help.
Bending over the man, he gives the Last Rites, saying: "Do you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?", to which the Jew exclaims: "I'm dying and he asks me riddles!"
Whatever the quality of the story, it shows that Jews are aware of Christian practices and theology. They may reckon it is incomprehensible, but there has been a significant advance in knowledge. They now know what is going on in each other's traditions.
The third is much more recent: a Catholic priest and a rabbi are enjoying a meal and swopping stories about religious lapses. The priest says: "Tell me, have you ever tasted pork?" The rabbi pauses and then confesses that he did do so once. "Nice, isn't it," beams the priest.
The rabbi thinks, then says: "OK, so let me ask you, have you ever gone out with a girl?" The priest blushes but eventually admits to it. "Ah," says the rabbi, "nicer than pork, isn't it."
What is significant is not so much the humour as the context: the priest and rabbi are old friends, are socialising over a meal and trust each other with personal experiences.
Jokes reflect realities that listeners recognise and often have a serious point behind them. These particular stories depict the interfaith revolution that has occurred.
The benefits have been enormous, not only breaking down barriers between different communities but also enriching them with insights concerning their own faiths.
Christians, for instance, have appreciated new aspects of the Last Supper through learning about the Jewish Passover upon which it was based. Likewise, Jews have realised how some medieval Jewish pietism was influenced by the Islamic mysticism of the period.
Such exchanges may be taken for granted nowadays, but the courage of the pioneers 70 years ago, both to step outside their religious comfort zone and to admit that the voice of God can be heard in other traditions, deserves to be recognised and celebrated.
This piece first appeared in The Times
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
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. Most people swallow it though, and some apply secular values with a fundamentalist zeal that the most evangelical Christian fanatic would envy! Hence the banning of wearing a cross at work for instance in case if "offends people of other faiths" or the banning of any reference to religion that is somhow supposed to be compatible with the organisation's "equality and diversity policy". Jesus commanded His followers to go and make disciples of all nations; you cannot in one sentence tell me that I have the right to religious freedom and then forbid me from sharing my faith with others, since if you forbid me from sharing my faith, you are preventing me from practising something that my religious founder commanded me to do, and you are no longer respecting my freedom of religion. Indeed, you are imposing your beliefs about what I should believe, or what I should take out of my belief system.
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. They can't see Him, but He can see them as they all struggle up the mountain side, oblivious to one another, in their search for universal truth. In fact I'm sure plenty of people people like that analogy and can identify with it. However, there is a sting in the tail. The only person who is actually at the top of the mountain looking down on everyone, is God, so if you like the metaphor you are unwittingly puttting yourself in the position of God, high above all the other seekers!
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. If it was, it forces us to ask searching questions about Jesus - if He has the authority to overcome even death, then who is He, if not who He says He is? And if we believe that He is risen from the dead, we have to deal with all the "baggage" surrounding his various claims - that He is the gate, the way and the truth and the life, the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God.
As for the question, did Jesus actually ever claim to be God, well, yes, several times. Most notably John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" - the context being a reference to the divine name of God in Exodus, when God tells Moses His name is I am; Jesus takes that same divine name and applies it to Himself and almost gets stoned for blasphemy. And Matthew 26:63-64, The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." In this case Jesus applies to Himself the two divine titles Son of God and Son of Man (from Daniel 7:13-14 - In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.) It was that utterance that passed on him the death sentence from the High Priest.
Belief in a genteel big white-bearded grandfather in the sky, however much Richard Dawkins lampoons Christians, is precisely that: a straw man. Strictly optional in Christian belief! As for the original premise, I have no idea why organs in churchs whose vicars believe in the uniqueness of Christ should be any more at risk than organs in churches with dwindling congregations led by liberal clergy...In fact they quite possibly have a better chance in churches that believe in something!
Hi
I despair! Firstly, the stupid concept of everything being relative is a recent fallacy - an excuse to feel better about sinning, I sometimes suspect. Secondly, the fallacy of "all roads lead to heaven" is just that, a fallacy. Why do people seem to think that the Koran is right & the Bible wrong?
Tony
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
Ooooh err!
Sometimes I'm glad to be simple (high) Church of England, other times I'm not. On this one lads I'm sorry to say you've definitely lost me but Contrebombarde's last one hits it on the head for me I think (and is certainly more like the general situation that WE come across):
« Last Edit: August 07, 2012, 06:26:31 PM by Contrabombarde »
Belief in a genteel big white-bearded grandfather in the sky, however much Richard Dawkins lampoons Christians, is precisely that: a straw man. Strictly optional in Christian belief! As for the original premise, I have no idea why organs in churchs whose vicars believe in the uniqueness of Christ should be any more at risk than organs in churches with dwindling congregations led by liberal clergy...In fact they quite possibly have a better chance in churches that believe in something!
Perhaps the late (and to me, much lamented) Gore Vidal had the best answer to being questioned as to his religion?
"I'm a born again Atheist".
But I'm not!
DW.
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
Sorry for putting the cat among the pigeons - I am the serpent in the Garden of Eden and very naughty . . .
But the reality is that what happens in the place of organs needs to be seen to be more generally relevant to _everyone_ and if it's not worthy of debate and ideas about what it all means, then it's not worthy of greater attention from people who don't see its relevance . . . and it's therefore a great pleasure to see people joining in here.
The empty tomb. Yes - Christ asks us to arise with him and to rise above the materialism of earth-bound thought. He says "have faith" (in the power of the Construction Force) and "it will carry you through" - "what do the birds worry about in what they will be clothed tomorrow?" - {the Construction Force} "knows your needs" etc etc so "seek first the priority of {the construction force}" and it will look after you . . .
Within the Construction Force there is always movement - just as all the symbols of Genesis 1 are moving - the sun, the earth rotates, the wind moves as also do the waters and it's this movement that allows new life to grow. There is always the process of growing crops or, if they are not good enough, being put on the compost heap to feed better crops next time. This is symbolised in the parable of the talents where the man who buries his talent in the ground has his talent taken away from him and given to the man who can use it most.
So it is with people - we can choose either to grow our crops, be good crops of God as the Construction Force, or ignore the Construction Force, be unconstruction, lead unconstructive lives, and be mere compost off which others can feed. Christ himself used these images in the parables relating to wheat, the wheat and the tares, and relating to the number of sheaths of wheat.
It is in these ways that the Church has a practical role to play through the teachings of Jesus in teaching people how to find power in their lives, a driving force useful and a joy in finding it.
These teachings provide a driving force behind each and all who live them. In contrast the "Big Daddy loves you" approach can have the effect of keeping the children within the garden of Eden expecting all to be done for them as children, rather than enabling them to break the bounds of the Garden and themselves go out and grow God's crops.
Perhaps may Pussy Riot be an inspiration to us all, and if appropriate perhaps we might start a thread in their support. In the support of Putin by the Russian Orthodox Church, the Church is clearly bowing to fear of suppression. Whether the Church's support for Putin resulted from a form of intellectual corruption or merely survival tactic, Pussy Riot found the Achilles' Heel of the Russian system through the mechanism of the Body of Christ on Earth.
Church has a function and a wider place in society than the British perspective of dwindling congregations suggests.
Best wishes
David P
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
Hi!
Perhaps there is another perspective which may be further food for thought. As we look at different variations or interpretations of the same theology even within this thread, perhaps we can see that they all come from God, in just the same way as perhaps even different religions can be perceived to derived from the same theology.
In this thread, we perceive a difference between the "Big Daddy loves you" theology, which can lead to to a self satisfied "Jesus loves me - I'm saved" which I regard as psychologically dangerous and a deeper acknowledgement of God in all things, the creator from which all is and are created, deeper still a "construction force", of which, being made in the image of god, in the image of the construction force, we all partake and of therefore the Church made up of such people being the body of Christ incarnate, individually and collectively being the body of God, the force of God, the arms and legs of the construction force within the human realm on earth.
If we acknowledge a construction force, we wake up to a consciousness beyond that of the Garden of Eden, and have to grow our own crops of God. That consciousness can take the form of acknowledging that our circumstances arise from each and every decision that we and everybody else have made leading each and all of us to the place where we are now, and can carry us through to whatever we have the faith to build in our lives. Or otherwise, leading unconstructive lives, bumbling about tossed by the waves of circumstances that engulf us.
The two approaches of theology result in behaviour that can differ with profound results.
Quote
"Big Daddy loves me" - I can exist in a cotton wool comfort zone. Provided I say the right prayers and acknowledge that He is my Daddy and that I love my Daddy, He will look after me and make everything better. When I fall he'll kiss me better and tell me that all will be all right. I can have faith in Him to do so. I promise to be good, yes really. I am a child of God . . . I am a child. This is good - out of the mouths of children . . . :-)
QuoteGod created all. There is this force that makes all want to be created. Nothing is uncreated, unconstructed. Jesus teaches us how to handle it, how to use it. Jesus is the Son of God. His brothers and sisters and mother are those who hear God's words and do them. We are the arms and legs of the creation force. God created us to be his daughters and his sons. Construction is right and unconstruction is wrong and unworthy of God having given me breath. The force of God is within us and we have a duty to carry out our father's wishes. These contribute to the confluence of circumstances as a river or a sea and we can have faith that they will join with us to do the work of God
No doubt there are variations to these ideas which perhaps I have expressed in the very crudest terms just to demonstrate a thrust.
The resulting behaviour is placed under a spotlight focussed in the public eye in politics or quasi public offices.
Some regard corruption in any form as a cancer that erodes and destroys and degrades the corporate body. They act to root it out and protect the body from destruction. These are people who follow the call of the Construction Force and bring into living being the words and instruction of God.
Others consider scandal to be worse than corruption. So they cover up and hope it will go away. They allow the unconstruction of corruption to continue and don't root it out and eliminate it. This is bad. They can have been misled by "Jesus lives and he loves me and if I am kind to my friends He will look after me and bad will go away." But it doesn't.
Were Jonathan A*tken simply to have admitted that his hotel bill was paid for by a close friend as a matter of familiar hospitality, the fact would have caused a minor ripple but not have led to have him having ended up in prison.
Were Jeffery Arch*r to have admitted to a temporarily scandalous deviation he would not have ended up in prison for perjury.
Were Gove to have accepted the inconvenience of the small error of ways at the time he would not be in the midst of questions about his behaviour.
In contrast to the behaviour of the LSE immediately acting upon knowledge of a connexion with Gaddafi, leading members of Oxford University are at the moment scratching their heads about what to do with having let in a son of a middle eastern politician himself with convictions against him of torture for the purpose of studies for a DPhil to be written in the English language when the "student" concerned needs an interpreter in all English communications. The admissions procedures were bent, a student having admitted receiving a five figure sum in reward for writing the academic proposal.
A background of no god at all, nor that of "Big Daddy loves me and will look after me" do not provide the most useful tools for those in positions of leadership in civilised society. They do not produce the moral fibre necessary to run government, seats of learning nor the banking and financial institutions. For all these reason that phrase comes to mind that a house built without God is one on which builders waste their efforts.
The two philosophies are the two sides of the same coin - but the Big Daddy loves me approach without the wider sense of duty, adult responsibility to do the work of God and not merely to be a childish child of God, is the side of the coin without the monarch's head . . . :-)
Best wishes
David P
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
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
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
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 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
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: 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