大象传媒

Parrhasios

I have read the Times article. Perhaps you could explain to me what the Archbishop is saying. I have no idea, and it's difficult to disagree when I don't know what I'm disagreeing with. I shall think of you as my interpreter.

As I was listening to the discussion, I felt that the speaker from the Caleb Foundation did possibly exhibit some of the 'insensitive' elements of the approach to evangelisation which Rowan Williams was talking about. And I think that it probably needed a firmer challenge from the presenter.

As I was listening to the discussion, I felt that the speaker from the Caleb Foundation did possibly exhibit some of the 'insensitive' elements of the approach to evangelisation which Rowan Williams was talking about. And I think that it probably needed a firmer challenge from the presenter.

Indeed mg. I Must have a listen to the interview/discussion when I get the chance.

The Caleb foundation is in fact one of the organisations promoting YECism (and other extreme doctrines/ideas) with the church in Northern Ireland. YECism, in my opinion, is quite a good example of theological bullying for the very reason that they can't even agree to differ with other views e,g, OECism, progressive creationism, or theistic evolution. Just take a look at Ken Ham's blog and you'll see what I mean.

Sounds like Rowan would benefit from reading Romans 1-3 and 9-11. The book as a whole might be helpful in fact. I get the impression that he wants to say he believes in God, but without saying anyone else is wrong - the kind of false humility that GK Chesterton was so scathing about. Really, if you're no willing to say that what you believe is right, then why do you believe it at all?

After all that I've still little idea what actually constitutes bullying. Taking his comments one way, if someone was asked about their beliefs and in reply they said that the only way to know God is through Jesus and that everyone should become a follower of Christ, as he commanded, then they would be guilty of bullying.

I'm curious about whether he thinks Christ was a bully, or the early church. Or indeed any of the Anglican martyrs like Latimer, Riddley or Cranmer - they certainly would have espoused such views.

The very idea of missionary zealots moving into other cultures is insulting and reeks of colonialism. How dare this continue? Those who want to help people in need that use religion seem shabby. There are plenty of NGO groups such as Doctors Without Borders that offer altruistic help without proselyting.

LucyQ

I have a good deal of sympathy with your comments in post 5.

And I'll assume that you have similar feelings about the march of the 'Golden Arches'.

There's been a lot of debate lately about bullying in the workplace, and about whether the Prime Minister has been bullying his staff in Downing Street, but what about the bullying that occurs in the home and in the church regarding religion. What about "theological bullying"?
I believe it鈥檚 the right of each & every person to identify with, question, and make a decision to accept or reject any religious belief that does not resonate with that person's soul.
I have an eclectic approach to regligious beliefs; the beliefs that resonate, I keep. The beliefs that don't, I let them go.
No faith is inferior to another; rather, as Joseph Campbell once said, 鈥淕od has a thousand faces.鈥� Each religion sees a different face of God. So, we should be eager to share our beliefs i.e. Help others to see the face of God that we see but also being eager to understand the face of God that they see.
Evangelism goes too far when it pretends to speak for God, know what God is thinking鈥his is just a load of human arrrogance. Any religion that knows God so well that it can decide on your condemnation or what exactly you need to believe in order to find salvation is a mistaken religion, an arrogant religion, a religion from which you should contemplate walking away.
Of course people can dialogue. They can help me to understand the face of God that they see. I am spiritual eclectic. If a belief makes sense to me, if it vibrates in my soul, that's where it stays - in my soul.
There is a huge difference between religion and spirituality. Religion comes from 鈥渞eligio鈥�; it means that which binds. The face of God that I see weeps at religious bonding. The face of God that I see does not need our adoration or our prayers; the God that I see is infinite and needs nothing from me, except that
- I love myself as God loves me and
- I do onto others as I would have done onto me.
How agonizing religion must be to those who cannot accept certain believes. How much better it would be to cut religious bonds, and allow people - all created in God's image - to escape the chrsyallis and fly free.

Rowan said that Sharia law would to some degree inevitabley find its way into the UK's governance. Now he is aiding and abetting it. Next will he justify the Islamic death penalty for the crime of apostacy? Will he also condemn people who try to persuade others of what political views to hold other than their own current ones? What about what brand of toothpaste to use? If he believes what he says, he should close all religious schools and allow people to grow into adulthood when they might be able to think critically for themselves before they make up their mind what religion to believe in. Let's see him put his money where his mouth is. It seems to me that if religious indoctrination of children is not intimidation, then I don't know what is.

BluesBerry, I have a couple of questions about the consistency of your comments about arrogance. You say that it is arrogant to claim to speak for God - what about claiming that God cannot reveal himself? Secondly, after condemning those who 'pretend to speak for God', you go on to say that God weeps at religious bonding and doesn't need the adoration of prayers. When you say that, are you speaking for God? If so, who does that square with your comments about arrogance? If you're not speaking for God, then what are you doing?

In defence of evangelicals (or indeed anyone who proselytises), if you believe that God has revealed himself, surely humility would require honouring whatever he says, whereas arrogance would involve suppressing it? The act of evangelism isn't something that originates from within, but rather is believed to be a command of God - surely in that sense it is submission to the self-revelation of God, rather than arrogantly making something up.

Marcus, you make a good point about persuading others of political views, etc., but I'm curious about how you think children should be brought up if it doesn't involve parents passing on to them what they believe to be good and true.

JB;

" but I'm curious about how you think children should be brought up if it doesn't involve parents passing on to them what they believe to be good and true."

How do children learn anything? They can be told arbitrarily and forcefully what to believe. They may eventually rebel against it at a later stage in life when they find out what they've been told is only part of the truth or when they encounter people who believe differently who can make persuasive arguments for their own case. At that point they begin to hate those who indoctrinated them.

Or they can be told the facts and left to make up their own minds about life. That's how we teach them right from wrong. You don't hit someone because if it were right for you to hit them, it would be right for them to hit you back. And then there is the law, if you hit someone you may be arrested and go to jail. They get the message.

When you teach them about the "them" and the "us" this becomes a basis for lifelong irrational hatred. We're Protestants so we hate Catholics. We're Christians so we hate Jews and Moslems. We're white so we hate blacks. The result is a society of Northern Irelands, Nazi Germanys, Apartheid South Africas. That's the world we live in. And when you teach them that they are born into sin and are going to hell unless they go to Church, follow the Churche's teachings, confess to the Priest, they hate themselves even when they are the victims of sexual abuse by Priests.

When I was a small child, I was brought up in my father's religion, I believed in the Brooklyn Dodgers. And then one day when I was nine years old, they got up and left New York City for Los Angeles to make more money. That's when I became a cynic about not only professional sports but all sports, at least as a fan. Sports fans root for one corporation or another, that's what it boils down too. Being a sports fan is not much different from having a religion.

My parents were horrified that I didn't share their political beliefs. There was nothing they could do about it. They were rabid left wingers and voted for Democrats too. I'd have none of it. I think they were just happy that I didn't volunteer to fight in Vietnam. But then that was not my take on life. I've said it before "neither a follower nor a leader be, and it must follow as the night the day that thou cans't be false to yourself." That is far more important IMO than whether or not you can be false to others because the most dangerous deception is self deception and the most dangerous thing you can deceive yourself about is your own true nature. Take a long hard look at yourself for what you are. If you don't like what you see, change it if you can. If you can't, learn to accept it and live with it. That IMO is the first step to happiness. And don't worry about what others think about you. When you don't, they have no power over you, they cannot affect your self esteem, the most important asset you have.

What do you expect! coming from the Archbishop of "DRUID" canterbury, just some more canterbury tales.

If that's your issue Marcus, then I don't think that's much indoctrination going on in the CoE, certainly not by anyone who agrees with Rowan - you need to have some doctrine before you can indoctrinate. As for the whole "them" and "us" issue, you've been around here long enough to know that that's wrapped up in politics and identity as much as religion and there's actually no great love for God among many of those perpetuating such attitudes.

JB #13

Love of god has nothing to do with it. Hatred people have for each other does. Nobody is born hating anyone, it has to be taught to them. And it is by their parents, their schools, their ministers, their neighbors, their government. That the civil authorities can't prevent it and can't or won't deal with it for "political" reasons demonstrates the breakdown of civil society. It is a nation at war with itself. News reports notwithstanding, that war is far from over. Not when there are dozens of barriers still in Belfast that keep people from walking across the street to greet each other. They are there to keep the them away from the us.

Dear Jonathan Boyd
Thanks for your questions.
Did I say that God cannot reveal himself, herself, or both-self? God is revealed in everything. It鈥檚 like William Blake says in his poem:
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
I try to conceive of God鈥檚 revelation in this foregoing manner.

I condemned those who 'pretend to speak for God', but I go on to say: 鈥淭he face of God that I see weeps at religious bonding. The face of God that I see does not need our adoration or our prayers; the God that I see is infinite and needs nothing from me鈥︹�� In other words, all of this refers to the face of God that I see. I might be right; I might be wrong. God has so many faces. What face do you see, or do you see a face at all?
The God I perceive does not speak directly in words; he does not proselytise. He reveals himself in everything. If we open ourselves to this type of revelation, it raises more questions than answers, but it always leads to deep thinking. E.g. The seasons come and the seasons go, what does this tell us about life, death and the possibly of reincarnation?
I don鈥檛 suppress what I鈥檝e come to believe; rather, I am prepared at any time to listen, learn, let go and move on. As Maya Angelou says: 鈥淚 do the best I can with what I know, but when I know better, I will do better.鈥� For the most part I tell people: 鈥淚 don't know God. That鈥檚 too much infinity for me, but I know that God is within me 鈥� the divine spark. And God is within everyone 鈥� more divine sparks. So of all the prayer-like sayings, the prayer-like saying I like best is: Namaste: 鈥淭he God in me recognizes the God in you.鈥�
When I hold this thought, greet with this thought: it鈥檚 hard not to love others (and me) as I love myself.

BB

Thanks for that. What I know, just broadened.

Didnt Paul address all these questions pretty clearly?

In Romans 1&2 he makes it clear that every human being has got the created world and our conscience to guide us; that none of us will be judged unfairly by God.

To be fair I dont know that I have heard any preacher arguing the points Williams is challenging though such views would make me cringe if I heard them.

But I think the sadder point is that Christ seems to be an embarrassment.

CS Lewis said that the man who asked was it possible to live a good life without Christ is more like a rabbit than a man; that he understood here is a door behind which all the mysteries of the universe were claimed to be hiding and he was too scared to try the door.



In Acts 17 Paul expands on many of the issues Williams raises;-


16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. 17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. 18 Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, 鈥淲hat does this babbler want to say?鈥�
Others said, 鈥淗e seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,鈥� because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.

19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, 鈥淢ay we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak? 20 For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean.鈥� 21 For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing.

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, 鈥淢en of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men鈥檚 hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 鈥楩or we are also His offspring.鈥� 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man鈥檚 devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.鈥�
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, 鈥淲e will hear you again on this matter.鈥� 33 So Paul departed from among them. 34 However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

--------------------------------------------------

Furthermore in Acts 10 we also see an example of a gentile, Cornmelius, sincerely searching for God and the Lord reaches out to him supernaturally;-

Peter - # 1. "I am not worthy" ;-)

I shall try to scavenge a copy of the Times tomorrow and try my best!

All other faiths apart from Christianity are false that is what the churches teach and that is what the Bible teaches... to say they are inferior is an understantement, whilst i do feel that the gospel is a gift to be offered rather than forced upon people i can't help but feel that the way the gospel is presented now is very different from even just a few years ago when people were told of Hell's fires and eternal damnation whereas now people are emotionally blackmailed into accepting Christ which in my eyes just isn't right...we need to take a long hard look at how we evangelise to people especially those of other non reformed faiths.

Guys, it's all quite simple. There is no god. It's *all* cabbage. But even if there *were* a god, the various books that we now call the "bible" are no more god's revelation to humankind than the Argos catalogue.

Any questions?

BluesBerry, I can see why what you say would be an appealing philosophy, but I struggle to see why it would have any force for anyone other than yourself. How did you come to the conclusion that God is in everything?

I鈥檓 also curious about why you think that God doesn鈥檛 speak with words and what you mean by 鈥榟e doesn鈥檛 proselytise鈥� - do you mean that he doesn鈥檛 seek followers? How did you come to these conclusions? Why do you embrace God鈥檚 revelation in Blake, but reject his self-revelation in the Bible?

I ask because what you perceive about God and what I perceive are complete opposites, therefore they cannot both be correct perceptions. Either my view of God is wrong and I should discard it, or else yours is (and of course some would point out that there is the possibility of both being wrong). I this sense, if your belief is correct and mine is wrong, isn't mine inferior? How can something false not be inferior to something that is true? The only way that no faith could be inferior to any other, as far as I can see, is if they were all wrong - but if they were all wrong, why would you claim to have any faith at all unless you want to wrong?

CC
Religious faith is almost invariably an accident of birth, seldom the result of detached intellectual enquiry.
Had CC as an infant been removed from the bosom of family and community and deposited in a Hindu society, CC would be telling us of the truth of reincarnation, rather than Calvinism.
If perhaps, CC had announced that he was a Buddhist, I would have been more impressed, that would have at least shown an unusual curiosity and endeavour, but I suspect what we have here, is just the regurgitation of what has been inculcated.

Helio,

I have a question.

Savoy, red, purple, spring...?

You should write a tract, you know (another famous NI 'not a preacher' has written some of his own); it could be a kind of 'wordless book' with a picture of cabbage on every page. You could leave them in hotels and pews and buses and the like...

I already have the back-of-the-bus copy done. "Consider Cabbage". Depending on interest, I may launch the Alfalfa course in the summer.

I think we are missing the point here. The problem is not with evangelism as such, but with our society's propensity to take offence. We have drifted from the genuinely liberal concept of toleration in the public sphere to the deeply illiberal concept of respect.

There's not much anyone can say in any public space these days without someone demanding an apology or a prosecution or a new set of laws to protect them from being offended.

rochcarlie I was brought up Presbyterian and have since left that church and joined another after much prayer and soul searching... i am th eonly one in my family to attend the reformed, i made my own choice just as i could have chose to become a hindu or buddhist, i agree that far to many people are simply Christian because they are born into a "Christian Area" as though a persons geographical region is somehow a factor in their faith... but to say that i am simply regurgatating someone else's views is quite strange because your post is basically plagarisim of a part of the second half of Richard Dawkins God Delusion......

Dear Jonathan Boyd,
I don鈥檛 鈥渃onclude鈥�. I am 鈥渙pen鈥�.
I just walk along, doing the best I can with the eclectic bits & pieces of philosophy that resonate within my soul. I have no concern whether my eclectic pieces resonate with your soul, or with or anyone else's. I have a divine spark and so do you. We are both part of God. The divine spark within you will guide your spiritual course...IF you are not constantly shutting it out with religious ritual.
I don鈥榯 conclude that God is in everything; rather, this is a belief that resonates within me; it lifts my soul. It鈥檚 my belief for now; either it will remain with me until I die, or somewhere along the way, it will stop resonating and I will let it go. Right now, I doubt that this belief will ever cease resonating within me. In fact, it is one of my "key" beliefs. It invigorates my divine spark.
Oh, I almost forgot, this eclectic piece got gently dropped into my soul as I read (many books) and talked to many Eastern scholars about the oneness of all things. This concept felt right for me. If all things are one, then we are one with God. We cannot separate from God; we can only make ourselves darn miserable trying.
God doesn鈥檛 need words to speak; yet, God speaks to us always. Look under a rock and God is there. Look to the Heavens and God is there. What does God say to you in a snowflake 鈥� that no two are alike; they come and they go quite quickly. Gentle and precious as they are, some folk use them to make round, hard balls and throw them at other people. What is God saying to us 鈥� 24 hours a day, even as we sleep, about creation, its purpose, its beginning and its end? How we interpret the world will be unique to each one of us, and that鈥檚 okay, as long you keep searching, keep learning, and keep depositing those precious pieces of eclectic wisdom that resonate with your soul. Shakespeare said, 鈥淭o your own self be true.鈥�, and that was a mouthful!
Why would God need followers? God doesn鈥檛 鈥渘eed鈥�. I believe that God has created millions of universes 鈥� innumerable universes, and God is waiting for Homo sapiens to finish the creation of this earth, as in put all the divine sparks together. Oh, how beautiful that would be!
How well to you think Homo sapiens is doing?
I don't believe the Bible was inspired: I believe it was written by men - several men. The Bible is full of murder, spying, deceit, rules, and other mandates that have stopped spiritual thinking dead in its tracks. If the God revealed in the Bible is the true God, I want no part of this God and I will not follow him. I won鈥檛 belabour my point, except to say what kind of God chooses a special people, and therefore relegates all other people inferior before his chosen people. You are human. Are you a father? Would you do this sort of thing with your children?

It doesn鈥檛 matter if your beliefs and mine are exact opposites; yes, we can both be correct. All that is necessary is for you keep adding beliefs that resonate with your soul and keep dropping those that don鈥檛. That鈥檚 the whole of it!
No one can tell me or you whether your view of God is wrong or right; if it is right for you, who the Heck am I to want to impinge my view of God when I know I am evolving. I鈥檓 not perfect. Nobody鈥檚 belief is superior or inferior; some are just more right than others, and these more right pieces are what I seek; I absorb them. They become part of what I 鈥渒now鈥� today, but heh, tomorrow is another day.
How can something false not be inferior to something that is true? Better question, who is to judge? YOU are to judge. Does a belief resonate within you? Does it inflame your divine spark & enlighten your world, or does it weigh you down, make you drag? When you answer that question, you will know whether to accept or discard. All faiths at this moment are incomplete; we are all evolving. And here a truth applies: You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. As long as you are searching, picking up those eclectic pieces, nurturing your divine spark, you鈥檙e doing fine. What more can you do?
If 鈥渢hey鈥� were all wrong, why would you claim to have any faith at all unless you want to wrong? Because, my friend, you are on a spiritual quest. You are searching. You want to be part of the spiritual solution.

When I became a Christian, I came to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour because of a very clear message that is central to what the Bible teaches. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus happened for a purpose and with it a challenge.There are many who go round it and over it, simply because it demands a response.I have listened to many who pick and chose what they believe and they argue over many doctrines but the message of the Bible is very clear and fundamental to the Christian faith.

听

Peter - # 1 again - the office of the Archbishop publishes all his major speeches on-line at www.archbishopofcanterbury.org. I note you said you had read the article, have you read the speech?

I am seriously going to have to consider anger-management classes - I have been doing a lot of seetheing lately! The article infuriates me: it is an utter travesty of what Rowan says. This is not a shoddy piece of hack journalism it is an actively malicious inversion of the thrust of the Archbishop's speech. It grossly misrepresents him, it selects without context, and it glosses untruthfully. This article is a disgrace to journalism.

I think, if you were to read the original at the Archbishop's website not only would you have no need of an interpreter, you would, unless I have consistently misjudged and misunderstood you, be in substantial agreement with Rowan.听

#28

True people do argue over doctrines but the crucifixion and resurrction whilst a major part of Christianity is just that... a part... and it takes other parts in order to be able to make any sense of our faith, it's like a jigsaw and quite often people don't know anything about Christianity other than that Jesus died and rose again and that is where false doctrines enter in and false teacers find a home

BluesBerry, you're quibbling over semantics a little. Conclusions are not necessarily closed and my point was that you currently hold certain things to be true, as far as you can tell.

I've got a more importance distinction for you: do you distinguish between objective and subjective truths? If I call a tree beautiful and someone else calls it ugly, then neither of us has a superior or inferior view. However if I say that the tree is a pine and someone else says that it's an oak, then at least one of us is wrong and if one is right, then they have the superior view.

If you say that God doesn't speak to us and I say that he does, which category does that fall into? Surely it is the objective kind? And if God speaks, why would you want to ignore him? You say that you are 'open', yet you also say that if the God of the Bible is the true God, you would reject him. This seems like a very closed attitude and quite frankly, a rather daft one. Why would you reject God if you know him to be true? In what way could the possibly be a good thing?

There are various problems with being subjective about everything and saying it's okay for everyone to have their own unique view. There are ways in which people interpret the world which I would hope we would be both condemn - people who justify ethnic cleansing, rape, child abuse, etc. Are view of the world of the divine which justify such things inferior, or are you okay with them?

As I read your post, I can't help but wonder if your knowledge of eastern religion is significantly greater than your knowledge of Christianity - it seems that you have a few misunderstandings about it. To highlight one, you object to the idea that God 'needs' followers. Nowhere in the Bible is it suggested that he does. What it does tell us is that he desires them - partly because it is right for him to do so as the being of infinite worth and partly so that they might be in close communion with him and that they might receive the benefits of that.

CC
Thanks for the explanation. As a non believing outsider the change/choice looks more purist pedantry, than a great leap.
Few born Muslims become Christians and few Christians convert to Hinduism. Belief is an inherited prejudice, not something arrived at in any rational manner.
BTW I am not a plagiarist, just a mean man. I usually borrow my books from the Public Library, rather than buy. Every time I have searched for Dawkin's God Delusion it has been unavailable, so I ain't read it yet. Must be very popular, or those dastardly book burning Theists have been at it.

Parrhasios, thanks for posting that link, it was helpful to read the whole text. It does however make me even firmer in my opinion about Rowan Williams. I get the impression that he has decided in his own mind what is right and wrong, fair and unfair, just and unjust and stands in judgement over the Bible, reinterpreting it in accordance with his own framework, rather than having the Bible modifying his views. Mush of what he says falls apart if you read the book of Romans (and much of the rest of the Bible, but I think that Romans best brings the relevant issues to the fore).

A particular problem in what he says is that he seems to have an anthropocentric theology. It's all about being what we were made to be, the problem of being caught in a trap of our own making, the need to get ourselves free, knowledge of God resting on the chance of a human stumbling upon him, etc. He seems to ignore what the Bible says about everyone knowing the truth about God, but having rejected him and now being under sin as a consequence and punishment. Our foremost need is to be reconciled to God and the only way to do that is through Jesus Christ. No-one deserves to be reconciled and the only 'unfairness' is in the mercy of God sovereignly choosing to save anyone at all.

He reminds me of a Richard Neibuhr quote: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

Helio ref alfalfa course

Have you been saving that one up?

:)

OT

Dear Jonathan Boyd,
I hold nothing to be absolutely true. I hold many thoughts as right for me at this time of my life.
Q. Do you distinguish between objective and subjective truths? This is a really good question, and I had to think about it carefully before answering. If you say the tree is a pine and I say that it's an oak, yes, in this objective, concrete world in which we live, the tree has to be either a pine or an oak. Let鈥檚 assume you鈥檙e right and the tree is a pine. I am mistaken, so I change my response. Isn鈥檛 that what I鈥檝e been trying to tell you? If you come along and convince me that something I believe is wrong, I'm more than willing to drop my mistake and adopt the correction.
Q. If you say that God doesn't speak to us and I say that he does, which category does that fall into? Well, you say this is the objective kind; but I say that it鈥檚 subjective. God does not speak to us with words, but God speaks to us through his creation, and if we ponder creation we will come closer to what God is saying. I don鈥檛 ignore God. Believe me, if I believed that God (tomorrow) whispered in my ear, I would listen. Brother, would I pay attention! But thus far, God has not spoken to me; so, I鈥檓 not ignoring His direct speech; I'm just not privileged. I think if God speaks to you, you are most blessed, but how can you be so sure that it is God speaking?
Maybe my rejection of the God of the Bible, if I believed He was the true God, would be a daft decision on my part; at least a decision that would find me burning in the pit of Hell (in which by the way, I don't believe either). But I don鈥檛 believe the God of the Bible is the true God; therefore, it鈥檚 not hard for me to reject Him.
I don鈥檛 know for certain whether the God of the Bible is true; I only know that this type of God 鈥� true or not 鈥� and maybe due to my own lack of evolution, is not a God that would cause my soul to dance. Rather, "fear of the Lord" comes to mind. Do you think God wants us to be afraid?
Scholars say that the Old Testament was written during the seventh-century BCE reign of King Josiah. An anonymous source, now known as the Deuteronomist, collected the earlier writings known as the Yahwist and the Elohist, added new material and began the Pentateuch. The Priestly source amended the work of the Deuteronomist & added further new material. Then the Redactor created the Pentateuch. Gradually, over the centuries (up until the third century BCE), other books were written and added to the collection. At the Council of Jamnia, in about 90 CE, selected books were consolidated into the Hebrew Bible, or Old testament. Why would I need to believe that the God presented in these writings - any of them - was the true God?
In what have I written that I believe that ethnic cleansing, rape, child abuse, etc. are correct actions. These are actions carried out by human beings. In my opinion, they are wrong actions; they bring neither victim nor perpetrator closer to God. Any action that puts more distance between you and the divine spark is an action that you should not take.
Where in the Bible does it suggest that God desirers followers?
Please, don鈥檛 feel that you need to find ther quotation because personally I don鈥檛 think it exists, though you will find many people assuming that God wants us to be in communion with him.
Tell me truly, would you want to be close in communion with the God of the Bible?

Parrhasios

Thanks for the link, the following may be of interest to you.


Jonathan

Just for the record I鈥檓 Presbyterian and Reformed.

I鈥檓 not so sure though that the Archbishop in this speech is as wide of the mark as you say. First of all you say he has reinterpreted the bible according to his own framework, don鈥檛 we all? Second, I鈥檓 not so sure that for him to say that the life of Jesus calls us to be what we were made to be is that much of a problem, isn鈥檛 re-creation what we mean by salvation?

You also say, 鈥淥ur foremost need is to be reconciled to God and the only way to do that is through Jesus Christ.鈥� I agree, but I鈥檓 not so sure that Williams wasn鈥檛 saying that. Perhaps he was just saying it differently, and, in the context of asking what the finality and uniqueness of Jesus means to those who do not and cannot have known him, to respond by saying, 鈥渉ow those who don't encounter that mystery explicitly and directly, are related to Jesus and the Father, we can't know and we'd better not pretend that we do鈥�, seems to me to be not only reasonable but also seems to recognise that God, and he alone, is judge.

Surely the point is not only, as you say, that we are all, 鈥渦nder sin鈥�, but also that God will judge us fairly. A point OT made in #17.

But if anyone is interested in this, then please read the speech and make up your own mind, the linked article is a bit, emmm, ...

And alfalfa, yes, very funny.

Wallace Thompson's comment that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not 'saved' reminded me of William Blake's comment, 'Both read the Bible Day and night,But thou reads't black where I read white'.The distinction between Williams and Thompson is that the ignorant are cocksure whilst the intelligent are reflective. Arguably if one insists that the totality of the Bible is to be taken literally, a case might be with difficulty cobbled together to justify Thompson's assertion about the Archbishop. A literal reading of the Bible however requires an extraordinary leap of a faith which could be defined as the effort to believe something that commonsense tells you is nonsense.I was grateful to be reminded why I put the stupidity and wickedness of Christian fundamentalism in the dustbin many years ago.

Peter

There is certainly much he says that any reformed believer should be able to agree with, but that is true of much that moral atheists say as well. My big problem with what he says is that he seems to stand in judgement over God, restricting what God could do on the basis of his own morals, rather than conforming his morality to what God declares and does. When interpreting the Bible we do of course bring our own framework of beliefs and that interacts with the text, but the framework should be a malleable one that is constantly reshaped in the light of renewed understanding of the Bible; the impression I get from what the Archbishop wrote is that his moral framework is firmly established and squeezes out bits of the Bible (such as the book of Romans) which don't conform to it.

If we take the example of the fate of those who have not heard of Christ, it's very clear from Romans that that isn't an excuse for anyone because God has revealed himself. Neither would hell be an unfair fate because all have sinned and deserve that, so all his handwringing over the morality of the situation is rather needless.

The real issue of concern is what do those who have heard of Jesus do about it? Paul's response in Romans was urge people to share the gospel and say that he would cut off his right arm if it would save the Jews. It's somewhat ironic that in worrying about the morality of God's sovereign judgement, the Archbishop has given the impression to the media that he doesn't want people addressing the real moral issue - the necessity of Christians sharing their faith.

There are just too many times over the past decade or so that it鈥檚 looked like he either doesn鈥檛 get it or denies it with regard to central points of Christianity. Here it鈥檚 God鈥檚 sovereignty and goodness that are in question.



BluesBerry

Thanks for the thoroughness of your replies so far.

God speaking: perhaps I should have clarified myself here. I meant the idea that God has spoken and continues to speak through the Bible. Is this not something that is either true or false, rather than a matter of interpretation and subjectivity?

Fearing God: I agree to an extent that the God of the Old Testament is to be feared. I agree in the sense that one should have a holy awe and reverence of him and an awareness of our smallness and powerlessness before him. However for the believer that is accompanied by rejoicing over his love and mercy. My understanding of the cross is that there we see both the reason to fear and the reason to rejoice in God: his wrath is on display, yet so too is his mercy, with Jesus bearing that wrath in our place.

Scholarship: Academics rarely speak with one voice. The view you mention is held by a large number of scholars, but there is also a significant number who disagree. Ultimately, I鈥檓 not too bothered about which view happens to be correct because my faith rests on the historicity of the resurrection. If it happened, then I trust Jesus and he says to trust the Old Testament. If it didn鈥檛 happen, then I need to start from scratch.

Wrong action: I鈥檓 not sure if something went wrong in typing your post if I鈥檓 just not understanding, but could you clarify what you mean by ethnic cleansing etc. being 鈥榗orrect鈥� actions, yet also 鈥榳rong鈥�?

God desiring followers: This is one of the major themes of the whole Bible. A good place to look in the New Testament would be Deuteronomy 6:4 onwards. This is known as the 鈥楽hema鈥� and is the heart of the law. God spells out the covenant between himself and the Israelites and this includes them following him as their one and only God. In the New Testament, you could look at texts like the Great Commission or the work of the Spirit in Acts, guiding the apostles to places where they could found churches.

Close communion with God: It鈥檚 most certainly what I desire and what I would encourage others to desire as well. how could I not desire communion with the God who gave his son for me and promises to make me an heir with him of his glory?



Mackey

鈥楾he distinction between Williams and Thompson is that the ignorant are cocksure whilst the intelligent are reflective 鈥� I was grateful to be reminded why I put the stupidity and wickedness of Christian fundamentalism in the dustbin many years ago鈥�

I鈥檓 curious about whether that comment goes down as cocksure or reflective in your book?

The Archbishop of Canterbury could be deemed as being a bully himself because of his stance against many different issues, except for the DRUIDS, who he has more incommon with, rather than the Evangelicals who make up part of the union.

Dear Jonathan Boyd,
Your thoughtfulness has also been appreciated.
You calrify: 鈥淕od has spoken and continues to speak through the Bible. Is this not something that is either true or false, rather than a matter of interpretation and subjectivity?鈥�
Absolutely, but I believe it is false; you believe it is true.
Are you right? Am I right?
It doesn鈥檛 matter as long as you believe with all your mind, heart and soul, as long as the belief invigorates the divine spark within you. I've often said, and continue to believe: No one can force you, or otherwise make you, believe what you don鈥檛 believe. Only you can do that for yourself. Even if you are tortured, maybe to escape the pain, you will say that you beleve something, but your core belief remains.
I can鈥檛 accept that God desires that we fear him. I agree less that he requires holy awe and reverence; these are things that men desire, or perhaps demi-goods. There are not the requirements if a secure and Almighty God.
Where do I find mercy in the "loving" God that sent his only beloved Son to earth to die for our sins? Is this righteouness? Is it even justice? If it鈥檚 "sacrifice", why didn鈥檛 God sacrifice the real sinner 鈥� me? The cross frightens me, but only because there are people that deem this righteous retribution for the sins of manbkind "redemption". Redemption means turning away (from sin), walking a different path...If God made us in his image, if God foresaw everything we would do (because of our free choice), if God allowed us to sin anyway, he also foresaw the poor results of Jesus' dying for our sins. I mean would you want to be in Heaven with some of the folk that are being redeemed? Here come the rapists, the murderers, the Hitlers, and all they have to say at Heaven's Gate is:
"I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I accept Jesus as my redeemer." This is too much for me; I can feel my logic stretching鈥�
BUT I AM NOT SAYING IT IS WRONG. I am simply saying it is to much for me to believe; I cannot accept it.
The historiicity of the reurrection: There is no proof of the resurrectioin. Paul writes about it but never saw it. In John 15:27 and Acts 1:8, Jesus tells His apostles that they were to be witnesses. Peter speaks to the others in Acts 1 of David's prophecy that God swore He would bring forth Christ and raise Him up.
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James were the first (Mark 16). Paul lists several witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Among Jesus' disciples, there were 500 other witnesses. But in my heart, I ask:
Could all this witnessing really be about Jewish Law of Moses that required at least two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6)?
Could it really be an attempt to establish the undeninable authenticity of the resurrection by poluting us with so many winesses? If these were witnesses, shouldn't all of these witnesses have converted on the spot, especially the ones who saw their dead relatives rise from the grave?
Jesus doesn鈥檛 tell us to trust the Old Testament. What jesus says is: 鈥淚 have come not to destore the law, but to fulfill it.鈥�
In other words, Jesus beliefs are 鈥渕ore full鈥� than the laws of the Old Testament, and if you follow through all the way, the New Testament fulfils the old, and God鈥檚 chosen People become Christians because Jesus fulfilled the old law and brought the new.
If 鈥渋t鈥� didn鈥檛 happen, then you need to start from scratch. This is exactly what I said to myself so many years ago, and you know what? That鈥檚 what I did.
I read books about ancient Israel, Egypt, Sumer, Akkadia鈥�.about Moloch, El, Enki鈥nd much more. I became eclectic.
鈥淲rong action: I鈥檓 not sure if something went wrong in typing your post if I鈥檓 just not understanding, but could you clarify what you mean by ethnic cleansing etc. being 鈥榗orrect鈥� actions, yet also 鈥榳rong鈥�?
Here鈥檚 what I actually wrote:
In what have I written that I believe that ethnic cleansing, rape, child abuse, etc. are correct actions (There should have been a question mark here.) These are actions carried out by human beings. In my opinion, they are WRONG actions; they bring neither victim nor perpetrator closer to God. Any action that puts more distance between you and the divine spark is an action that you should NOT take.鈥�
In otherwords, the sort of actions that you bespeak are WRONG actions that should NOT be taken.
鈥淎 good place to look in the New Testament would be Deuteronomy 6:4鈥︹��(which is in the Old Testament).鈥�
The Shema
In the recitation of Deuteronomy 6:4:
4 "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" (Shema Yisrael, Adonai eloheinu, Adonai echad).
5. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.鈥�
As far as God being ONE, I have no problem with this statement; I believe God is ONE. But what鈥檚 with 鈥淗ear O Isreal鈥�? In the Old Testament Israel is the Chosen people; in the New Testament, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament; so Christians become the New Israel鈥�
I don鈥檛 think I want to go into this again, about 鈥淐hosen People鈥� and all that sort of stuff, in which I do NOT believe, and my rationale for same, which I鈥檝e already written to you.
Where in this Smema are we talking about God wanting to 鈥渃ommune鈥� with humankind? It's just not there!
What have all these 鈥淭hou shalts鈥� got to do with free choice and Communion? And is communion without free choice worth anything, except the desire to escape, rebel鈥� or at the very least, have some really serious thought about this God of Israel.
By the way, it is the second part of the Shema that I really cannot accept. You probably know this part. It is called: "Vehayah": the Second Passage Deuteronomy 11:13-21.
Beginning with the word vehaya, it declares the Jew鈥檚 acceptance of the commandments and stresses the blessings that come through obedience to Adonai and the consequences that come through disobedience.
Nope, I cannot accept this insecure God who wants us to fear Him.

Blues, a very thoughtful post. Just to point out - we have precisely ZERO first-hand accounts of the resurrection - just stories. The only exception to this is Saul Paulus's vision (and vision it was) on the R2D. All the other supposed "appearances" of Jesus are clearly very dodgy stories, and have the same ring of truth as some redneck stumbling out of the forests, claiming to have been abducted by aliens. And of course they fundamentally contradict each other. As in so many areas, "Matthew" gives us the most insight into what was going on, because of his embellishments and fibs, specifically to try to counter what seems to have been common knowledge - that the body of Jesus the Nazarene was removed from the tomb by some of Jesus's followers (although probably not the "disciples" - more likely by members of his extended family, OR whoever owned the donkey or the Upper Room, or who had arranged to meet him in Gethsemane before that plan went up the Swannee). This is why I like "Matthew". He tries *too hard*, and unwittingly provides us with evidence as to what the genuine situation may have been like.

mackey (#37)

It is true that not everything in the Bible is intended to be taken literally - however, it seems a fairly safe maxim that 'if the literal sense makes good sense, it's common sense not to turn it into nonsense'. (ie Accept the straightforward meaning of the words, unless there is acompelling reason not to do so.)

Having been involved in evangelism for many years, I know that it involves explaining the Christian Gospel according to Scripture (as summarised, for example, at the start of 1 Corinthians 15)and persuading people of its truth and their need to respond to it.

It is true that that message can be sometimes be communicated in a thoughtless or insensitive way, but it is my observation that most people's objection is to the thrust of the message itself.

Dismiss the approach as 'bullying', and it's easier to avoid facing it.

Has anyone read the gospel of thomas? why is it not included in the new testament ecause it seems to have allot of the same parables and a few new ones...

Jonathan - # 33

I am not sure that I agree that Archbishop Rowan would even consider a personal hermeneutic. He is rather more conservative than I would be and, struggle though it is to admit it, he is much more Anglican. We belong to a Catholic tradition which has always taken a dim view of private interpretation: Scripture is to be understood communally and essentially in terms of historical consensus linking past, present, and future readings in an eternally dynamic communion. The Archbishop has been very clear about this - in another address he states: "The Bible is not just a quarry for individual Christians to fish in and come out with bright ideas. There is such a thing as canonical reading of scripture". Being 'canonical' would be important for Williams.

Then there is the question of anthropocentric theology but I am not sure where the problem lies here because just about all theology, and especially Christian theology, is anthropocentric. When we speak of God, we speak (of necessity) only of what we can know about Him, principally His dealings with mankind. We know of this interaction through the Biblical narratives and their story, unless I am much mistaken, is primarily the story of man's salvation.

JOHN - # 39. I cannot be absolutely certain as I do not know enough about the subject but I do not believe, in spite of what the papers may say, that Dr Williams actually is a Druid in any religious sense - he is certainly NOT a member of the group which gathers at Stonehenge. He is a Welsh-speaker and an accomplished Welsh-language poet, as such he is a member of the Gorsedd of the Bards of the National Eisteddfod of Wales. The term druid in this context is like "Excellent King" in masonry, an archaic but insubstantial and effectively meaningless title. The Eisteddfod is a literary, cultural and social event (rather like the twelfth of July ;-) but with even less religious significance).

CC - # 43

I have read it and it includes a lot of material found in the synoptics but often with a different slant. I imagine it is not included in the canon because its understanding of Jesus, of what it means to be a Christian, and of the role of the Church are not what would commonly be accepted as orthodox. It belongs to the gnostic tradition which you might suppose someone like me would find attractive with its emphasis on self-discovery, finding the kingdom within, and the idea of hidden knowledge or secret teachings. However, I think the fathers were right to reject it - the gnostic understanding is individualist, it's about self-empowerment and self-discovery. For me Christianity is pre-eminently about community, about the Church. I do not see the Christian path as a solitary journey into oneself in the realisation of some mystic spirituality, I see it as joining in a pilgrimage, walking hand in hand with one's brothers and finding that the further you go you will connect with more not fewer fellow-travellers.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

BluesBerry,

I鈥檓 struggling to see the point of discussion if it doesn鈥檛 matter whether you鈥檙e wrong or right. We both agree that there are objective truths and we both want to get closed to God or invigorate the divine spark as you call it. Surely when it comes to objective truths, we will move closer to God by accepting those truths rather than rejecting them? The alternative, that believing a falsehood can get us closer to God, suggests that he is deceptive and untrustworthy, which makes any hope of progress rather dim and futile. Surely God will work through truth and therefore believing the truth matters?

You seem to associate worship with insecurity, but I think you鈥檙e projecting too much of human frailty onto God. Take this thought experiment for a moment. Imagine a being that is absolutely deserving of worship, has perfect knowledge and is perfectly good. Such a being would know that it is worthy of being worshipped. Such a being would also see the rightness of receiving worship and be compelled to act on that knowledge. God is such a being, with the wondrous blessing that worshipping him fulfils us - everybody who participates wins.

When it comes to mercy and sacrifice, you questioned why God doesn鈥檛 sacrifice the real sinner - the problem with that is that you would be dead in your sins. God鈥檚 desire is to give people eternal life, which is only possible if you don鈥檛 bear the punishment for your sins. Because God is also just and holy, he cannot simply ignore your sins, therefore the solution is to have a substitute. The substitute must be a man so that he can take the place of a man, but he must also be God so that he can bear the punishment from God and reconcile both parties. Hence the necessity of Christ, the God-man.

Some of the theological language used to talk about these things can be confusing and it sounds like you鈥檝e confused redemption and repentance. To redeem someone means to buy them back, whereas repentance is about turning around - turning away from a life of sin and towards a life with God.

So what about the people who would be in heaven - you mentioned Hitler as being someone you would never want to see. The problem with that attitude is that it is one of moral superiority, of saying 鈥業鈥檓 good enough to make it, but they weren鈥檛鈥� which is exactly the kind of attitude the Bible warns against. Time and again we鈥檙e told that works don鈥檛 save, the good living can never be enough and that there will be no place for boasting, because God is the one who does the work f salvation. The moment I start thinking that someone shouldn鈥檛 be allowed into heaven, I鈥檓 spitting in Christ鈥檚 face, saying that I worked my way there and the cross was all for nothing. If I ever met Hitler in heaven (which I doubt I will since there鈥檚 no indication to repented) it would be a wonderful sign of the power of God鈥檚 grace and a reason to give him praise.

Regarding the historicity of the resurrection, I think you hit the nail on the head when you ask if recording these witnesses is supposed to make us think that the event is undeniable. If it happened, then of course there will be witnesses and of course they will be recorded to encourage us to believe. You followed that up by asking why people who saw the dead rise didn鈥檛 convert. There are several answers. It may be that we did - we鈥檙e not told who it was who saw that and what happened to them. It may be that they saw and didn鈥檛 make the connection. Or it may be that they saw, believed that God was involved, but rejected him anyway. There is plenty of precedence for such an attitude in the Bible. Take for example the cities of Canaan when Joshua and the Israelites invaded. They had heard of what God had done for them, of the fate of other kings beyond the Jordan, yet few of them repented. Most continued to oppose God.

Finally, you questioned where the Shema shows God鈥檚 desire to commune with us. The whole premise of the Shema is that God is binding himself to the people of Israel. It goes someway towards defining their relationship with him. They are to love him, to remember him, to obey him, to make him known to their children. At the very least, it shows a desire for intimate followers. If you look at verses 10-19, you鈥檒l see God doing things for his people and reacting to them.

Maybe a clearer place would be the prophets. Take a look at Hosea 11 or Isaiah 49. Consider the language God uses to describe his relationship with Israel. How does he identify himself? How does he identify his people? Is this the language of a cold and distant entity, or the language of one who communes and relates and loves?



Parrhasios,

Rowan may call for a communal interpretation, but he seems to ignore a lot of what has been said in the past by the church about the matters he is discussing. It has certainly been an orthodox Christian view that theology, especially Christian theology, is fundamentally theocentric. The doctrines of grace are a prime example of this where the sovereignty of God is lifted up and he is shown to be the only one responsible for salvation and the one who salvation is ultimately meant to glorify. We may be the ones who are saved, but we are mere creations of God and the work and glory are all his and his alone. Take a look at the classic creeds and confessions of Christianity, including the 39 articles - they are thoroughly God centred.