- This topic has 62 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
The Ten Commandments attributed to Judeo-Christianity are a basically sound ethical and moral code, but one does not have to be a Christian to believe or practice them, for they are really no more than what would be expected of a civilised person.
The Ten Commandments attributed to Judeo-Christianity are a basically sound ethical and moral code, but one does not have to be a Christian to believe or practice them, for they are really no more than what would be expected of a civilised person.
Well nine of them are – I don’t have much time for No 7 personally
grayson, as a former Lutheran you should be sufficiently familiar with scripture to know that there is a strong dimensiion of pantheism in Christianity.
"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, etc. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."
What’s more, if you are as good as you believe yourself to be, you confirm my point namely that a religious upbringing leaves its mark on people of good will. My older brother was an agnostic, and I worship his memory for the example of compassin goodness he set me. Not that he wore his heart on his sleeve. He wasn’t good in the conventional, "respectable" sense, he drove a ready-mix concrete truck and was perfectly at home in "hard" circles. He was stolid, quiet and good-natured, quite small, about 5′ 7", like me, but very unlike me, he was a fearless street-fighter, when the occasion called for it.
I’m sure I posted an article on here, written to Joe Bageant (joebageant.com) pointing out that, although he claimed to have no religious belief, he absolutely personified the spirit of the Gospels. I’ll try and dig it up again because it’s brilliant on many levels and hilarious, too.
Anyway, no offence intended to you or graysonscolumn, but I won’t be arguing with you or anyone else. You obviously think, you and your brother know the score, and that’s your privilege. But it’s also my privilege to tell you I’m not telling you what I believe. I’m telling you the way it is. Like it or lump it. But I expect you will like it — unless you don’t care about other people’s physical welfare. Faith doesn’t mean credulity or even conscious belief, but, rather, commitment to selfless love and compassion towards our fellows.
There is only one description of the Last Judgment in the whole of scripture, in Matthew, and it it, Christ says that not everyone who calls him, "Lord! Lord!" will be saved. But often it will be the ones who claim they never knew him, yet went to the help of their brothers and sisters in their need.
Paul, you ask, "but what gives anyone the right to say their particular "moral code" is superior to any other and that is the one that should be imposed."
First of all, the duty of evangelisation incumbent on Christians a requirement imparted by infused knowledge. Like it or lump it. Men women and children have died a martyr’s death because of their obduracy on that point.
If you had read my post properly, you would know that I was talking about the benefit of having an overarching national religion, but that no-one should or even could be forced to believe in anything, at least in terms of religious precepts. God could have made us like the animals without free will, but he chose not to.
You also say that Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on morality. Well, as I pointed out to you, the more atheistic our society has become the more lawless it has become (as must be clear to anyone who lived through the fifties), because religon is derived from the latin stem of the verb "to bind", and atheists obviously believe they can make up their own morality, and must feel free to modify it as they choose.
So all of my article was addressed, not at individuals, some of whom may be more Christian in spirit than many formal believers, who, like the Pharisees were actually atheists.
The church is said to be a church of sinners, and that has wide application, because we all sin without exception. But I;ve seen all too many old biddies who thnk that by taking Holy Communion every day, it will be viewed by God as a suitable substitute for caring for other people less fortunate than themselves.
you should be sufficiently familiar with scripture to know that there is a strong dimensiion of pantheism in Christianity.
It’s a subtle difference Grimes, but Christianity has Panentheistic traits: ‘the whole is in God’ rather then Pantheistic: ‘God is the whole’ i.e the former states the universe/nature forms part of God, therefore God is greater than it; whereas the latter states the universe/nature is God, therefore nothing is greater than it.
Hence, like GC I’m a pantheist and, personally, certainly not a panentheist.
The ‘spirituality’ mother nature generates compared to the ‘religiosity’ generated by a God created in man’s image, which is far too selfishly anthropocentric in my view.
this speck in space
Well you know other people have noticed that (Mother) Nature is "red in tooth and claw". Maybe you don’t find Orcas flipping seals in the air, or animals being torn to bits while alive by predators uncomfartable to watch.
How can you possibly imagine that Nature created itself? Evolution is a process, not a prime mover, a divinity which creates and guides itself. Much to the chagrin of atheists, it was proved to most physicists’ satisfaction that our cosmos emanated from the Big Bang, in the form of a stream of sub-atomic particles. Outside of space-time! So, BEFORE TIME BEGAN – which is clearly a paradox beyond our mind’s comprehension. Our time had a beginning; which even spoilt the idea that the universe always existed.
We can’t see love or prove its existence scientifically, but not only do we know that it exists, but that it is the most important thing in the world to man beast and plants. Perhaps you mean by the spirit of pantheism, a love which suffuses the whole of creation/nature. If so, it’s what theists would call God, but God cannot be the things he/it creates, other than by adoption, as in the case of the Mystical Body of Christ.
If not, what DO you posit as the animating force behind the material world, other than the catch-all term, “nature” – which of course, of itself, is self-referential and explains nothing. In the face of the mysteries of the universe, theists are filled with wonder and curiosity. But you seem to feel well, “It’s pantheism. Just Nature being Nature.” Do you have pantheistic rites or do you simply sit looking at sunsets, filled with wonder that Mother Nature should have such a sense of beauty? It’s not a facetious queston. I’m curious.
Light, itself, though it acts in our universe and can even be generated by any us with a torch, for example, is evidently not proper to our world of relativity, since its velocity, whether measured by an observer who is stationary or travelling at a constant speed, is always the same; absolute, not relative to a physical frame of reference. Another paradox which makes the atheist’s or the pantheist’s perspective seem mistakenly limited. But how curious that most, if not all, of the major religions in the world have a special reverence for light as evoking the divinity. Even the sun-worshippers of prehistory.
It has been said that the atheists’ worst nightmare is to reach the montain top, and find that the theists were already there and asking them what took them so long. I believe we’ve already reached that point, but the secularists tend to take a century to catch up. There are STILL brilliant high-shool students who don’t realise that quantum physics has taken man beyond his mechanistic view of the world into an area of ever-proliferating paradoxes.
As ever, a well-wrought post Grimes but as has been the case with many of your longer screeds one that does reek a little of the fervour typical of the evangelising zealot confident his beliefs are uncontestable: mine is the truth, mine is the way, follow you unbelievers.
I was tempted to place ‘religious’ between ‘evangelising’ and ‘zealot’ but I’m not entirely sure you’re actually a practicing Christian (and it’s none of my business anyway) or you simply believe the Scriptures should be universally taught, as they are the sole way to instill a moral and ethical probity into society.
For my part I am not sure about anything, particularly when confronted by existential conundrums, but as a palliative to the suffering caused by the torment of ‘not knowing what it is all about’ I have chosen Pantheism as a belief that rests less uncomfortably than do what can loosely be grouped as western monotheistic religions as an answer of sorts to what is beyond human comprehension.
That is essentially no different to the invoking of a God (in an anthropic sense) to rationalise the unknowable, and I wouldn’t claim otherwise. Whatever brings you peace of mind, a feeling of belonging, a lasting sense of wonder, and a reverence. ‘Nature’ in the broadest sense of the word encompassing our natural world (red in tooth and claw) ‘the universe and everything’ is handsomely fulfilling.
To coin a fashionable phrase ‘there probably is no god’; a sentiment I’d agree with hence agnosticism not atheism would be my view of theist/deist religions. Being uncertain I most certainly wouldn’t burden non-believers with Pantheistic evangelising. Internalising my beliefs is reward enough.
How can you possibly imagine that Nature created itself? Evolution is a process, not a prime mover, a divinity which creates and guides itself.
I can’t ‘imagine’ it, I accept it as the least unlikely answer
Much to the chagrin of atheists, it was proved to most physicists’ satisfaction that our cosmos emanated from the Big Bang, in the form of a stream of sub-atomic particles. Outside of space-time! So, BEFORE TIME BEGAN – which is clearly a paradox beyond our mind’s comprehension. Our time had a beginning; which even spoilt the idea that the universe always existed.
It’s wise be very wary regarding claims of proof in the nebulous field of astrophysics, as it is in its microscopic relation, sub-atomic physics. So many theories have been postulated, debunked and replaced with ever-more novel and in many cases paradoxical theories (String Theory anyone?) that while the grandaddy – the Big Bang – seems plausible, I for one will not accept it as truth. For what it’s worth I’m rather taken with the expanding/contracting universe-type theories and the concomitant ‘eternal’ series of big-bangs: a happy meeting between the once polar opposite factions of ‘big bang’ and ‘steady state’
We can’t see love or prove its existence scientifically, but not only do we know that it exists, but that it is the most important thing in the world to man beast and plants.
In my opinion ‘love’ is a consequence of ‘consciousness’ and as such restricted to those organisms we – rightly or wrongly- determine as having a sense of conciousness. To say ‘love’ exists in plants is stretching things a bit, though I’m prepared to admit: who knows?
Perhaps you mean by the spirit of pantheism, a love which suffuses the whole of creation/nature.
I’d rather turn that around by saying that followers of pantheism have a love for the whole of creation/nature. A ‘conscious’ emotion we are privileged to possess that I have difficulty believing can be attributed to an ‘unconscious’ universe. To believe otherwise would be to accept the existence of a deist-like conscious ‘supreme being’.
what DO you posit as the animating force behind the material world, other than the catch-all term, "nature" – which of course, of itself, is self-referential and explains nothing. In the face of the mysteries of the universe, theists are filled with wonder and curiosity. But you seem to feel well, "It’s pantheism. Just Nature being Nature." Do you have pantheistic rites or do you simply sit looking at sunsets, filled with wonder that Mother Nature should have such a sense of beauty?
Don’t see why invoking nature as an explanation of an ‘animating force’ is wholly unsatisafctory. It isn’t wholly satisfactory either, but in its guise as the Gaia Hypothesis has something to commend it
I certainly don’t practice pantheistic rites; that is essentially Paganism and while it and Pantheism are not mutually exclusive, there is a clear distinction. I’m aware of the seasons, weather, solstices, equinoxes, when Jupiter is high in the night sky etc etc; and relish all, but other than the aforementioned sense of wonder et al (which is most definitely not the preserve of theists) don’t don sackcloth and sing mantras, light fires or bang drums.
Light, itself, though it acts in our universe and can even be generated by any us with a torch, for example, is evidently not proper to our world of relativity, since its velocity, whether measured by an observer who is stationary or travelling at a constant speed, is always the same; absolute, not relative to a physical frame of reference. Another paradox which makes the atheist’s or the pantheist’s perspective seem mistakenly limited.
General Relativity is a concept I have failed to master or even feel comfortable with, along with its offspring space-time, space-curvature and black holes to name but three. But I fail to see why the paradox you cite is a failing of pantheism/atheism; it’s surely just an example of an area that we, as yet, have failed to adequately explain.
But how curious that most, if not all, of the major religions in the world have a special reverence for light as evoking the divinity. Even the sun-worshippers of prehistory.
I’d contend that the pre-eminent reverence given to light in the diverse religions since antiquity in its earthly form of sunlight is rather more to do with the realisation that without it the crops wouldn’t grow than necessarily any sense of especial wonderment, notwithstanding that I can indeed empathise with wonderment at the sun.
The invoking of spirits/gods into the inanimate (sun, rain, rivers, mountains) and animate (beasts, plants, forests) – is characteristic of the supposedly ‘primitive’ polytheistic religions, for little other reason than they revere and respect them as life-givers without which they wouldn’t exist.
There are STILL brilliant high-shool students who don’t realise that quantum physics has taken man beyond his mechanistic view of the world into an area of ever-proliferating paradoxes.
To quote that great mechanist Isaac Newton:
I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me
That ocean is still great and though a few more pebbles have been found we still know little of what is really ‘out there’ or ‘in there’. My mind is open, wonderful innit?
Enjoyed that Grimes
May your God go with you
fin.
As ever, a well-wrought post Grimes but as has been the case with many of your longer screeds one that does reek a little of the fervour typical of the evangelising zealot confident his beliefs are uncontestable: mine is the truth, mine is the way, follow you unbelievers.
I was tempted to place ‘religious’ between ‘evangelising’ and ‘zealot’ but I’m not entirely sure you’re actually a practicing Christian (and it’s none of my business anyway) or you simply believe the Scriptures should be universally taught, as they are the sole way to instill a moral and ethical probity into society.
For my part I am not sure about anything, particularly when confronted by existential conundrums, but as a palliative to the suffering caused by the torment of ‘not knowing what it is all about’ I have chosen Pantheism as a belief that rests less uncomfortably than do what can loosely be grouped as western monotheistic religions as an answer of sorts to what is beyond human comprehension.
That is essentially no different to the invoking of a God (in an anthropic sense) to rationalise the unknowable, and I wouldn’t claim otherwise. Whatever brings you peace of mind, a feeling of belonging, a lasting sense of wonder, and a reverence. ‘Nature’ in the broadest sense of the word encompassing our natural world (red in tooth and claw) ‘the universe and everything’ is handsomely fulfilling.
To coin a fashionable phrase ‘there probably is no god’; a sentiment I’d agree with hence agnosticism not atheism would be my view of theist/deist religions. Being uncertain I most certainly wouldn’t burden non-believers with Pantheistic evangelising. Internalising my beliefs is reward enough.
How can you possibly imagine that Nature created itself? Evolution is a process, not a prime mover, a divinity which creates and guides itself.
I can’t ‘imagine’ it, I accept it as the least unlikely answer
Much to the chagrin of atheists, it was proved to most physicists’ satisfaction that our cosmos emanated from the Big Bang, in the form of a stream of sub-atomic particles. Outside of space-time! So, BEFORE TIME BEGAN – which is clearly a paradox beyond our mind’s comprehension. Our time had a beginning; which even spoilt the idea that the universe always existed.
It’s wise be very wary regarding claims of proof in the nebulous field of astrophysics, as it is in its microscopic relation, sub-atomic physics. So many theories have been postulated, debunked and replaced with ever-more novel and in many cases paradoxical theories (String Theory anyone?) that while the grandaddy – the Big Bang – seems plausible, I for one will not accept it as truth. For what it’s worth I’m rather taken with the expanding/contracting universe-type theories and the concomitant ‘eternal’ series of big-bangs: a happy meeting between the once polar opposite factions of ‘big bang’ and ‘steady state’
We can’t see love or prove its existence scientifically, but not only do we know that it exists, but that it is the most important thing in the world to man beast and plants.
In my opinion ‘love’ is a consequence of ‘consciousness’ and as such restricted to those organisms we – rightly or wrongly- determine as having a sense of conciousness. To say ‘love’ exists in plants is stretching things a bit, though I’m prepared to admit: who knows?
Perhaps you mean by the spirit of pantheism, a love which suffuses the whole of creation/nature.
I’d rather turn that around by saying that followers of pantheism have a love for the whole of creation/nature. A ‘conscious’ emotion we are privileged to possess that I have difficulty believing can be attributed to an ‘unconscious’ universe. To believe otherwise would be to accept the existence of a deist-like conscious ‘supreme being’.
what DO you posit as the animating force behind the material world, other than the catch-all term, "nature" – which of course, of itself, is self-referential and explains nothing. In the face of the mysteries of the universe, theists are filled with wonder and curiosity. But you seem to feel well, "It’s pantheism. Just Nature being Nature." Do you have pantheistic rites or do you simply sit looking at sunsets, filled with wonder that Mother Nature should have such a sense of beauty?
Don’t see why invoking nature as an explanation of an ‘animating force’ is wholly unsatisafctory. It isn’t wholly satisfactory either, but in its guise as the Gaia Hypothesis has something to commend it
I certainly don’t practice pantheistic rites; that is essentially Paganism and while it and Pantheism are not mutually exclusive, there is a clear distinction. I’m aware of the seasons, weather, solstices, equinoxes, when Jupiter is high in the night sky etc etc; and relish all, but other than the aforementioned sense of wonder et al (which is most definitely not the preserve of theists) don’t don sackcloth and sing mantras, light fires or bang drums.
Light, itself, though it acts in our universe and can even be generated by any us with a torch, for example, is evidently not proper to our world of relativity, since its velocity, whether measured by an observer who is stationary or travelling at a constant speed, is always the same; absolute, not relative to a physical frame of reference. Another paradox which makes the atheist’s or the pantheist’s perspective seem mistakenly limited.
General Relativity is a concept I have failed to master or even feel comfortable with, along with its offspring space-time, space-curvature and black holes to name but three. But I fail to see why the paradox you cite is a failing of pantheism/atheism; it’s surely just an example of an area that we, as yet, have failed to adequately explain.
But how curious that most, if not all, of the major religions in the world have a special reverence for light as evoking the divinity. Even the sun-worshippers of prehistory.
I’d contend that the pre-eminent reverence given to light in the diverse religions since antiquity in its earthly form of sunlight is rather more to do with the realisation that without it the crops wouldn’t grow than necessarily any sense of especial wonderment, notwithstanding that I can indeed empathise with wonderment at the sun.
The invoking of spirits/gods into the inanimate (sun, rain, rivers, mountains) and animate (beasts, plants, forests) – is characteristic of the supposedly ‘primitive’ polytheistic religions, for little other reason than they revere and respect them as life-givers without which they wouldn’t exist.
There are STILL brilliant high-shool students who don’t realise that quantum physics has taken man beyond his mechanistic view of the world into an area of ever-proliferating paradoxes.
To quote that great mechanist Isaac Newton:
I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me
That ocean is still great and though a few more pebbles have been found we still know little of what is really ‘out there’ or ‘in there’. My mind is open, wonderful innit?
Enjoyed that Grimes
May your God go with you
fin.
Drone, as my good friend Jeremy Grayson will tell you, I claim to be a practicising Christian. (I am actually preaching two weeks today and also the Sunday of the Open Meeting- It will be a short service so as I can get home for the first televised race).
On the subject of Creation, I will probably get hung by my more Calvinist former Bible College friends, but I have this view of God up in Heaven taking various chemical elements and mixing them together to great a great hot ball, leaving it to cool for several thousand millenia and then working on it now and again like a great artist (a Hockney or Lionel Edwards or Carravagio) until he is happy with the finished work and finally taking his time on the important bits like Scotland (especially the area around Langholm), the Cotswolds especially around Cheltenham and the Lake District especially, Patterdale, Borrowdale and of course, the area around Cartmel.
bbobbel, you’re getting to sound like the nun who declared, "Our congregation’s special charism is humility" (a joke told me by a Redemptorist brother). I envy you. I’d be tempted to feel pretty smug about it, myself, if I just believed what I, in fact, know, and could say so to someone who seemed just a mite bombastic. Ordinarily, such humility is normal and the only healthy attitude, of course. PARTICULARLY, with regard to one’s religious beliefs. I accept that absolutely unreservedly. Ordinarily. But the virtue of humility is the proper acceptance of one’s limitations, not false modesty.
However, if I were to be coy about what I do actually know with irrefragible certainty – and I’m well aware how loony this sounds – I should be a liar – just as you would be if you claimed to know what you do not know. Life would be so much easier in some regards if I could pretend that I didn’t know what I know, and just go with the flow. "I believe/suspect the truth is this" – "I believe/suspect the truth is that" and so on.
It’s a lonely row I have to hoe, and I would have to be a megalomaniac or psychotic in some other way (not inconceivable to many, no doubt) to have chosen to do so. I did try to "quench the spirit" and run away from it at one time, but it was borne in upon me very forcefully that it was not an option, but a duty, the Christian duty that had been allotted to me, like it or lump it.
Writing is very labour-intensive, but if I can find some of the connections I believe I’ve made between religion, science and epistemology that I think might interest you, I’ll post them.
First of all, the duty of evangelisation incumbent on Christians a requirement imparted by infused knowledge.
Absolute rubbish – the "duty of evangelisation" came from the leaders of the church who merely wanted to increase their hold on power and get as many followers as possible subjugated..
The actions and motives of religious leaders are no different than those of politicians – there is no difference between the indoctrination of children with Christian (or any other religious) dogma in this country and the indoctrination of children in socialist beliefs by communist regimes.
Neither is right.
What gives anyone the right to invade my space, to take my time to try and convert me to believe in what I view as superstitious twaddle.
In the days when the Christian door knockers used to visit my house – strange they don’t seem to visit any more, they are obviously more selective in who they try to evangelise nowadays – they used to ask me if they could discuss the bible with me and my stock reply was, "yes, as long as I can discuss Snow White with you." When I received the inevitable quizzical look – I would respond that both were no more than moralistic fairy tales with equal credence.
What does make me smile is I often find the more evangelical people are, the more intolerant they tend to be. One of the most intolerant, arrogant exponents of Christian evangelism is Stephen Green whose web site "Christian Voice" is a shining example of bigotry and intolerance.
Although I have cited Christianity here this is not a diatribe against Christianity per se, the same observations can be applied to many beliefs.
If you had read my post properly, you would know that I was talking about the benefit of having an overarching national religion, but that no-one should or even could be forced to believe in anything, at least in terms of religious precepts. God could have made us like the animals without free will, but he chose not to.
I did read your post properly Grimes and fully understood what you were saying – I happen not to agree with you.
At least we do agree no-one should be forced into believing anything.
You happen to believe there is a God, I don’t – that does not make either of us right or wrong.
I accept and fully respect your right to hold the view that you do, however in return I fully expect, in return, the right to hold a contrary view.
Likewise I have absolutely no intention of trying to persuade anyone what I believe is right and what they believe is wrong. Conversely I do not want people evangelising to me, trying to inflict their beliefs on me.
It works both ways.
You happen to believe there is a God, I don’t – that does not make either of us right or wrong.
One of you is right, and the other is wrong – it’s just that neither of you have the means to conclusively prove you are right.
God (if he does exist) is a tosser, imo.
What kind of individual lets the many suffer, because of the failings of the few?
What type of person with the power to stop all pain and torment, refuses to intervene?
This God (if he does exist) sounds like a Grade-A sociopath to me, and we should all be very wary should he ever choose to manifest himself in a mysterious way.
PS. Should I cark it unexpectedly in the near future, please do not read too much into this post.
"There are 5 major religions in the world, so 4 of them have to be wrong.
Imagine how you’d feel if you died, and saw the leaders of those religions lined up.
You’ve chosen your god, you’re happy with your choice. Then your god comes forward and opens a card which reads, ‘BLUFF’.
That’s going to hurt, isn’t it!!"
– Andy Parsons
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
First of all, the duty of evangelisation incumbent on Christians a requirement imparted by infused knowledge.
Absolute rubbish – the "duty of evangelisation" came from the leaders of the church who merely wanted to increase their hold on power and get as many followers as possible subjugated..
The actions and motives of religious leaders are no different than those of politicians – there is no difference between the indoctrination of children with Christian (or any other religious) dogma in this country and the indoctrination of children in socialist beliefs by communist regimes.
Neither is right.
What gives anyone the right to invade my space, to take my time to try and convert me to believe in what I view as superstitious twaddle.
In the days when the Christian door knockers used to visit my house – strange they don’t seem to visit any more, they are obviously more selective in who they try to evangelise nowadays – they used to ask me if they could discuss the bible with me and my stock reply was, "yes, as long as I can discuss Snow White with you." When I received the inevitable quizzical look – I would respond that both were no more than moralistic fairy tales with equal credence.
What does make me smile is I often find the more evangelical people are, the more intolerant they tend to be. One of the most intolerant, arrogant exponents of Christian evangelism is Stephen Green whose web site "Christian Voice" is a shining example of bigotry and intolerance.
Although I have cited Christianity here this is not a diatribe against Christianity per se, the same observations can be applied to many beliefs.
If you had read my post properly, you would know that I was talking about the benefit of having an overarching national religion, but that no-one should or even could be forced to believe in anything, at least in terms of religious precepts. God could have made us like the animals without free will, but he chose not to.
I did read your post properly Grimes and fully understood what you were saying – I happen not to agree with you.
At least we do agree no-one should be forced into believing anything.
You happen to believe there is a God, I don’t – that does not make either of us right or wrong.
I accept and fully respect your right to hold the view that you do, however in return I fully expect, in return, the right to hold a contrary view.
Likewise I have absolutely no intention of trying to persuade anyone what I believe is right and what they believe is wrong. Conversely I do not want people evangelising to me, trying to inflict their beliefs on me.
It works both ways.
Paul, the duty of evangelisation is found in the Bible at the end of Matthews Gospel in what is called by some the Great Commision.
Paul, the duty of evangelisation is found in the Bible at the end of Matthews Gospel in what is called by some the Great Commision.
Which is generally accepted as being written 70 – 100 years after the events supposedly depicted and it therefore the view(s) of the early followers of the Christian church, who would be keen to establish a following, as opposed to it being any contemporaneous edict.
Also, with the utmost respect to your views, the duty of evangelisation quoted in your post makes the assumption that what is contained in the Gospel has a factual basis – which I clearly do not accept, well not to the extent that Jesus was a supernatural being.
Paul, the duty of evangelisation is found in the Bible at the end of Matthews Gospel in what is called by some the Great Commision.
Which is generally accepted as being written 70 – 100 years after the events supposedly depicted and it therefore the view(s) of the early followers of the Christian church, who would be keen to establish a following, as opposed to it being any contemporaneous edict.
Also, with the utmost respect to your views, the duty of evangelisation quoted in your post makes the assumption that what is contained in the Gospel has a factual basis – which I clearly do not accept, well not to the extent that Jesus was a supernatural being.
Paul, all the theologians that I have come across would state fairly emphatically that the last bit of the New Testament was no more than 40-50 years after Jesus life and much of the New Testament especially the letters written by Paul were written directly in the aftermath of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
With the utmost respect to your views, I do accept that Jesus was both supernatural and human – The God Man, if you like and therefore to me and to all other evangelical Christians evanglism is a command of God asmuch as is to love one another.
Bob,
I’m sure we could spend quite a few hours having an interesting discussion about this over an Old Speckled Hen or three.
However rather than bore everyone to tears here it is probably best to agree to differ
The question of personal belief, which so exercises both secular and religious fundamentalists, was not essentially, the purpose of my original post, but rather the positive, beneficial effect of our country having an over-arching Christian culture on our moral standards, generally, irrespective of individuals’ personal beliefs.
An atheist may, of course, question a Christian’s claim of a causal connection between the demise of Christianity as the State religion and the galloping anarchy and degeneracy of the nation. However, you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts, so despite the question of the causal connection, anyone remotely familiar with the fifties and sixties, or who browses through the archives of newspapers of the period, cannot but be struck by the difference in the rates of serious crimes and as well as their very nature in some areas; or, for that matter, who ponders the record rates of teenage (and sub-teenage) pregnancies and abortions, compared to the rest of Europe, the rate of VD among school-children, and so on, while they still tell us that sex-education, even for infants, is the way forward. Any lad who needs an education to perform that, well….
Of course, they claim it’s really about contraception. Well, then why not confine it to that. Throw in "sensitive relationship" , if that’s also an imponderable.The fixation on the formal conscious belief of the individual, helpful though the latter can be, is in part, the result of a misunderstanding. In one of the Epistles we are told that the devils believe, and tremble, so credence, never mind credulity, are certainly not the be-all and end-all of faith. Faith is, more importantly a matter of commitment and loyalty, love.
Knowledge of God by individuals is by no means rare. Is knowledge of love? That it exists and is the sovereign good for every living creature? A poster on an American political forum posted the review she’d read of a book written by an African-American woman about her grandmother (or perhaps great grandmother), who had been a slave. The author said how her Christianity was very African, referring to the way in which her generation, at least, were regularly able to see and converse with deceased relatives. Anyway, she made the point that her grandmother’s faith was as strong as could be, and she would have been the last person to buy into the so-called American Dream. As George Carlin put it, that’s because you have to be asleep to believe it. She didn’t specifically refer to the American Dream, but to her grandmother’s reply to a question she put her, to the effect that no monetary inducement could hold sway over what she believed to be right.
Christ told us that the second commandment, to love our neighbour as ourself, is like the first, to love God, himself, whole-heartedly. But how can we claim to love God then, if we are prepared to ignore the plight of the needy – failing, in a meaningful way to even want to change the economic structure of our world, which has been so disastrously polarising the wealth in the West.
In a recent encycical, Charity in Truth, Pope Benedict lays out what seems to amount to a Sting, which has taken the best part of 2000 years in the preparation, pointing out that neoliberal economics have brought us to the brink of planetary catastrophe on economic and ecological levels. Not that he omit’s the matter of personal morality, but that has been a constant in the Church’s teaching, if not always practice.
Faith is intimately connected with the other two, so-called theological virtues, Hope and Charity or selfless love; The theological virtues are gifts of grace from God, and the object of the virtues—what the practice of the virtue aims at—is God Himself.
But we know from Matthew’s Gospel and from our own personal experience that the very good people are well-represented among non-believers (in terms of conscious belief, although their actions indicate a belief and commitment at the only important level for the individual, not that a religious upbringing or ambience would never be a factor).
As for the truth of our respective positions, bbobbell, as with horse-races, time alone will tell who’s right.
Bob,
I’m sure we could spend quite a few hours having an interesting discussion about this over an Old Speckled Hen or three.
However rather than bore everyone to tears here it is probably best to agree to differ :)
Absolutely Paul and being the good churchman, I know just the place for the Old Speckled Hen.
Mind you even better is the Sheperd Neame Master Brew in the beer tent at Charing point to point. I’ll be at both meetings next year as usual if you fancy the trip. For you, Train to Euston, then Victoria line to Victoria Station from there train direct to Charing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.