A United Christian Church Future
Posted by: DAVOhorn on 20 February 2007
Dear All,
Is this really possible after 400 years of independence from Rome?
Would all Non Catholic branches rejoin to form a united Christian Church?
Or would religious bigotry vested interest etc etc get in the way of the potential reunification of Christianity.
I feel some of the more esoteric churches would baulk at their loss of finance to Rome as many of these are multi million dollar businesses first and faith second.
Interesting to see what the head Of The Church Of England thinks of this.
Oh yeah and the Monarch too.
Blair would be up for it as his Wife would tell him to reunite the Anglican Church with Rome under the leadership of the Papacy.
Should be a fun debate .
regards David
Is this really possible after 400 years of independence from Rome?
Would all Non Catholic branches rejoin to form a united Christian Church?
Or would religious bigotry vested interest etc etc get in the way of the potential reunification of Christianity.
I feel some of the more esoteric churches would baulk at their loss of finance to Rome as many of these are multi million dollar businesses first and faith second.
Interesting to see what the head Of The Church Of England thinks of this.
Oh yeah and the Monarch too.
Blair would be up for it as his Wife would tell him to reunite the Anglican Church with Rome under the leadership of the Papacy.
Should be a fun debate .
regards David
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
James,
quote:
This argument has no force whatsoever! The inability to totally describe God is, by its very essence, entirely intelligible!
I'm not sure what that sentence means but I know I did not use the word 'totally'. Even a partial universally agreed definition would be nice. In fact there seems little consensus on any of God's alleged characteristics which is strange seeing as so many people claim an intimate relationship.
I have no problem with 'God is love'(I should have said other than the fact it is a vague phrase) because the term is harmless and may actually help people to focus on unconditional love because the phrase 'God is love' is not qualified in favour of any group or any religious practice, Church, baptism or membership and should apply to all sentient beings not just a sub-set who have paid their dues to an organisation that preaches exclusivity.
Acad
1) To clarify, it is entirely intelligible to say that God - in God's fullness - is, by very essence, not completely 'definable', therefore it is little surpise that people have not come down to a single, narrow 'definition'. "God is love" is a pretty astounding observation.
2) You make bold assertions based on little evidence, apart from personal opinion (which, in reasoned debate, you must allow is capable of being as flawed or biased as you would claim of my opinion). I am not quite sure what you mean by "so little consensus" I think there is quite a lot of concensus - more than, say, secular political philosophical affliation or active soccer support. "God is love", is I think, a pretty big point of consensus. It is only vague if you have no sense of what love is.
2) It's the 'pays their dues and preaches exclusivity' business (which charcterises so much of what you say reagrding faith) that I can't get my head round.
I'm not quite sure where this comes from, certainly not from any faith group I have met. From a Christian perspective, for example, we have St Paul saying 'What I have come to realise is God has no favourites', and of course, on a number of occasions Jesus himself looks beyond his own birth faith community for exaples of faithfulness over an above than odf his own birth faith community (Samaritans, Romans, prostitutes etc.).
You maintain a very high counsel of perfection for people of faith, do you maintain such a high standard of perfection for yourself and those without religious faith? Are you ever allowed to make mistakes - and learn from them?
3) The thing that makes it so difficult to have a decent conversation with you (though I sense there is one in there trying to get out
) is that your premise about faith seems entirely unrelated to the reality of ordinary, loving, caring faith communities, who (in this country certainly) are statistically very much the mainstay of voluntary and charitable work - all done very quietly and without fuss, but simply prompted by their religious faith, and the desire to reflect the God of love.It is not enough to constantly point out the occasions of falling short or misunderstanding, and saying 'there you are then' faith is damned. Historically, secular ideologies (eg Stalinism, Nazism, Communism, Fascism etc) have reeked far more havoc than any religion in the worst excesses of misinterpretating.
As a Christian myself, I fully recognise that I fall short for the simple reason that I am a fallible human being. And I admit to my mistakes, even when it cause me embarrassment to do so. And I try not to look at the spec in my neighbiour's eye whilst ignoring the plank in my own. But - I believe with the grace of the God of love - I can learn from my mistakes and over course of time grow towards my full potential/stature as a human person, which I believe is foundin loving relationship with God, and with people (and I meet all sorts, believe you me).
I don't quite get the 'religion is bollocks because the adherents aren't very good' line. If one is fallible, trying to emulate a paradigm there are bound to be mistakes, misunderstandings, misinterpretations. That doesn't nullify the paradigm.
As far as I can tell from all the contact I have had, the Church is a hospital for sinners (however you choose to define that) rather than a club for saints. And if - as I sincerely believe (and which is not 'disproved' by any science I have come across, and I am not totally ignorant), we are all 'God's works of art', we are presently all works-in-progress, not yet the finsihed article.
This being the case, yes, the Church is indeed full of hypocrites (and you will know the literal meaning from the ancient Greek, I'm sure, so I won't have to tell you). The Church is indeed full of hypocrites, and there's always room for one more, Acad...
With good wishes to you.
James
PS On topic - Christ prayed at the Last Supper, "May they all be one". That is why the journey to full, visible unity is and must be the aspiration of all Christians. That does not presuppose knowing how we will get there, and it means starting from 'where we actually are' rather than where someone else would have us be.
But - like marks & Spencer, who didn't begin with a huge national empire of stores, but a market barrow - it begins in small, local and significant ways, rather than being able to wave some celestial magic wand and the garden is all loveliness again. The unity of Christians (which what this topic is supposed to be about) begins by each Christian trying to imitate Christ.
Hi acad, please see below.
Sure they read the Bible, but the doctrine seems to say "we don't think the Bible and simple worship is enough, we need to go about adding some more rules and trappings" - thus diluting the message and making the worship sterile.
Different. Jesus, through his resurrection has proven he is divine. A statue has yet to do so.
Wrong. God created us with free will, it is our responsibility not to abuse it.
So from this point and the one above, what you are effectively saying is:
If a son is separated from his father (who brought him up well) in a storm, lands on a desert island, lives with the locals but somewhere down the line robs them, gets chased by the locals and comes running back to his father (who happens to have heard what happened and berates him for stealing) and then tells him to "#*$& off" and refuses to be saved from the marauding locals...
A) you reckon it's all the father's fault (re: your previous point)?
B) you reckon the father can do anything if his son is now running away from him and back towards the marauding locals?
God's salvation is unconditional, NO MONEY REQUIRED, the question is can you accept God's offer of salvation or run away from it?
No, Paul went over there to kick their butts... lovingly.
Andrew
Andrew
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:quote:By reading it. The intent of the Bible is eternal salvation, and getting people back in touch with God.
I see. So Catholics don't read the bible then? Who can blame them?
Sure they read the Bible, but the doctrine seems to say "we don't think the Bible and simple worship is enough, we need to go about adding some more rules and trappings" - thus diluting the message and making the worship sterile.
quote:quote:What's better to worship, a clay statue or our creator, another human or our creator? What can be better than giving our creator the thanks he deserves?
Well of course they don't worship the clay statue any more than a Buddhist or Hindu worships their statues - they impute divine upon the statue and regard it as the very essence of divinity as you impute divinity upon Jesus or use the concept of God. Its the same thing.
Different. Jesus, through his resurrection has proven he is divine. A statue has yet to do so.
quote:quote:The perfect creator gave us free will, such is his generosity. The Bible documents a time when spiritual mutiny took place and changed the world into one that tends towards pride, egotism, self-interest and jealousy - effectively through turning away from God and probably thinking they can be better than God.
God can not create anything other than himself as in the beginning all there is is God or he would not be God ergo he also created evil. One can not say that man creates evil if God created man. The bucks stops with the creator methinks.
Wrong. God created us with free will, it is our responsibility not to abuse it.
quote:quote:In terms of unity, all Churches are united under Jesus, the resurrection and notion that God can accept us if we are grateful for what he's done for us.
He can only accept us IF we are grateful? Not much of a loving God then. His love is conditional and although being all-powerful he is powerless to save us unless we sign up and chuck money in the collection pot.
So from this point and the one above, what you are effectively saying is:
If a son is separated from his father (who brought him up well) in a storm, lands on a desert island, lives with the locals but somewhere down the line robs them, gets chased by the locals and comes running back to his father (who happens to have heard what happened and berates him for stealing) and then tells him to "#*$& off" and refuses to be saved from the marauding locals...
A) you reckon it's all the father's fault (re: your previous point)?
B) you reckon the father can do anything if his son is now running away from him and back towards the marauding locals?
God's salvation is unconditional, NO MONEY REQUIRED, the question is can you accept God's offer of salvation or run away from it?
[/QUOTE]quote:quote:You say "My view is the church (any church) is as full of ambitious egoists as any institution" - that's probably because of these imperfect selfish and egotistical humans that attend ;-) it happens EVERYWHERE, but at least in the good ones it does something about it by changing hearts. Compare in the Bible the Church in Ephesus (Book of Ephesians) and the Church in Corrinth (Book 1 & 2 of Corrinthians) - one a shining example and another a bad example. However if a Church stays true to God, the Bible and is lead by the Holy Spirit - it's then that we see a glimmer of perfection that can be awesome and change hearts to ones that serve God rather than themselves.
Yep, and the bad example Church gets destroyed by God and everyone in it innit?
No, Paul went over there to kick their butts... lovingly.
Andrew
Andrew
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
I have no problem with 'God is love' but its awfully vague and as soon as anyone starts to clarify the definition they get into some very deep water indeed.
True. My answer to that would be not to try. At least love is something we all can experience, and recognise by name. I think you've been given a hard time here to be honest, but I would like to hear more of what you think, rather than what you don't.
Andrew - Your faith is wonderful, but with respect, using the Bible to make the point is just shouting louder at someone that doesn't understand the language.
Good thread this.
quote:Originally posted by JWM:
I would contribute to this thread, Rasher, but I really can't be arsed.
Oh yeah?
I'm glad you have
quote:Originally posted by Rasher:
Andrew - Your faith is wonderful and I envy you that, but with respect, using the Bible to make the point is just shouting louder at someone that doesn't understand the language.
Good thread this.
Thanks Rasher.
I hope at the end of the day it isn't seen as shouting, but a dramatic revealing of information...
One that responds to your questions in a memorable way while quickly getting to the heart of the matter In making a point about Christianity, the best way is to return to the source material, even though it can make me seen like a bit of a "Bible thumper" along with all the connotations about standing on street corners with a megaphone.
Before becoming a Christian I made initial assumptions about the nature and quality of the material within the Bible. It was only until reading it that I realised.
a) That it is a wonderful self-contained jigsaw of literature
b) How it all clicks into place
Yep, this thread is fun
Andrew
quote:Originally posted by Rasher:quote:Originally posted by JWM:
I would contribute to this thread, Rasher, but I really can't be arsed.
Oh yeah?
I'm glad you have
That's because I am a hypocrite
ATB James
quote:Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
It has been distorted by the lenses of time, politics and translation. We do not even have a single accepted version of 'complete' scripture yet alone interpretation.
Why does it matter? Andrew is lucky in that he can read the Bible and connect with it and get something meaningful out of it. Who cares where it came from if it can do that! That's brilliant!
From my wishy-washy position I can at least understand one thing in myself; that is, even though I don't know what it is I believe in, I do absolutely believe that it's not Nothing.
I'm not particularly bright and I can easily accept that if it was all explained to me by a higher power, then I probably wouldn't understand it anyway.
When I get my Lotus Elise, I'm going to spend my time driving it, not investigating under the bonnet.
quote:Originally posted by JWM:quote:
James,
[QUOTE] 1) To clarify, it is entirely intelligible to say that God - in God's fullness - is, by very essence, not completely 'definable', therefore it is little surpise that people have not come down to a single, narrow 'definition'. "God is love" is a pretty astounding observation.
You seem to be saying that it is intelligible that God is unintelligible. Would this be a fair summing up of your point? I have never said that any definition of God should be a 'single, narrow definition' (you scamp)I have said that there should at least be a clear definition and some consensus about that definition. I have a notion as to why 'God' could be seen as unintelligible but its complicated. I will think about an answer and maybe summon Meister Eckhart to the witness box.
quote:
2) You make bold assertions based on little evidence, apart from personal opinion (which, in reasoned debate, you must allow is capable of being as flawed or biased as you would claim of my opinion). I am not quite sure what you mean by "so little consensus" I think there is quite a lot of concensus - more than, say, secular political philosophical affliation or active soccer support. "God is love", is I think, a pretty big point of consensus. It is only vague if you have no sense of what love is.
What bold assertions have I made on little evidence? I am happy to deal with each assertion individually. Again to say that 'God is love' is vague and does not prove that I do not know what love is. The Dalai Lama radiates love is he God? Does he even believe in god? If after 2 thousand years of Christianity the best you come up with is 'God is love' I wonder what people do in Theological college. 'God is love' is a theological and philosophical cop out compared with the rigorus definitions of complex subjects in other spiritual traditions. 'God is love' is clearly contradicted by the Bible itself. This is most problematic. How do you get past this problem? Can the bible be said to be 'Holy' if it contradicts itself massively in the most important area of all the very nature of God? I'm sure I speak for many people when I say I can't even begin to understand the difference in the 'Jesus is love - Jesus in the son of God and the God of the OT - I believe I have presented evidence using quotes from the Bible itself. I believe you get round this by reinventing God and in doing so you effectively re-write the meaning of the Bible whilst hanging on to the Bible as God's word for your ultimate authority. Your understanding of who or what God is may be right but if that were so can you then hang on to the Bible as an irrefutable source of authority? I don't think you can.
quote:2) It's the 'pays their dues and preaches exclusivity' business (which charcterises so much of what you say reagrding faith) that I can't get my head round. From a Christian perspective, for example, we have St Paul saying 'What I have come to realise is God has no favourites', and of course, on a number of occasions Jesus himself looks beyond his own birth faith community for exaples of faithfulness over an above than odf his own birth faith community (Samaritans, Romans, prostitutes etc.)
This refers to the fact that there are so many different flavours of Christianity - so many different churches and they dont always agree (take Andrews views on Catholicism earlier in this thread or the Anglican Church and the End Timers)and agree even less with atheists or practitioners of other religions ('No one comes to the Lord accept through me' etc. this is an example of exclusivity to which I refer). The thing about God having no favourites according to St. Paul is also contradicted if the Jews are God's chosen people or the story that he saved Noah's family but no one else?
quote:You maintain a very high counsel of perfection for people of faith, do you maintain such a high standard of perfection for yourself and those without religious faith? Are you ever allowed to make mistakes - and learn from them?
I do not have a problem with people who have a faith (faith being a belief in something for which there is no proof)because they have a personal connection with that faith which functions to give their life meaning. I do, however, have a problem with those who think and claim 'to know' that their faith is a universal panacea - ultimate literal truth and that they are right and everyone else is wrong. I am not against faith per se - I am against religious pomposity, smugness, arrogance, intolerance and bigotry in all its guises. If people could say 'hey it works for me but may not work for you and thats cool' then the world would be a better place methinks.
quote:
3) The thing that makes it so difficult to have a decent conversation with you (though I sense there is one in there trying to get out
See my answer above. Please can you give an exact quote of mine which illustrates my ' premise about faith' which seems (to you)'entirely unrelated to the reality of ordinary, loving, caring faith communities' I don't think religious faith is a crucial ingredient of voluntary and charitable work. The church has no monopoly on love.
quote:It is not enough to constantly point out the occasions of falling short or misunderstanding, and saying 'there you are then' faith is damned. Historically, secular ideologies (eg Stalinism, Nazism, Communism, Fascism etc) have reeked far more havoc than any religion in the worst excesses of misinterpretating.
I agree up to a point. Of course one of the reasons why relatively fewer died during the crusades for example was that there were fewer people around then and both sides lacked the technology to do any more damage than they did - one can only speculate what either side would have done if they had had machine guns and high explosive bombs. Again, I am not anti faith per se I am anti the mindset that of 'I am right and you are wrong' and whenever I get a whiff of it I like to challenge it. In fact James we are more alike and think more alike than you may imagine, I am deeply moved by acts of faith inspired sacrifice and appreciate the benefits that faith can bring - I just challenge the mindset of unquestioning blind acceptance of recieved dogma. My position is ambivalent here - on the one hand I know the benefits that strong faith can bring and on the other hand I have a deep mistrust of the rationale behind it. People by and large believe what they want to believe and most 'thinking' is in fact emotional and culturally conditioned and not the 'ultimate truth' it is thought to be.
quote:
As a Christian myself, I fully recognise that I fall short for the simple reason that I am a fallible human being. And I admit to my mistakes, even when it cause me embarrassment to do so. And I try not to look at the spec in my neighbiour's eye whilst ignoring the plank in my own. But - I believe with the grace of the God of love - I can learn from my mistakes and over course of time grow towards my full potential/stature as a human person, which I believe is foundin loving relationship with God, and with people (and I meet all sorts, believe you me).
I don't doubt your sincerity or your motivation (both of which I admire)or that your faith in God will function to lead you to towards your goal, I do however, doubt you will reach it and this is because I don't think Jesus can possibly deliver on his ultimate promise. My reasons for this are extensive but that does not mean I will ever deny you the right to practice your faith which sadly has been one of the reasons why Christianity is as wide spread as it is - it has a long history of intolerance and it is getting that way again at least in the US and I find this worrying.
quote:I don't quite get the 'religion is bollocks because the adherents aren't very good' line.
I don't quite get it myself. To the casual reader it may look like you are quoting me but I have never said this thus you make your self look more reasonable than you are maybe or this is a simple mistake on your part?
quote:If one is fallible, trying to emulate a paradigm there are bound to be mistakes, misunderstandings, misinterpretations. That doesn't nullify the paradigm.
Not necessarily. I'm sure there were SS Officers who failed to live up to the Nazi paradigm but I would not call them failures. Of course I understand what you are saying and I agree totally that being a bad Buddhist does not nullify Buddhism or being a bad Muslim nullifies Islam or being a bad Christian nullifies Christianity (Hitler was a Catholic I believe?)
quote:As far as I can tell from all the contact I have had, the Church is a hospital for sinners (however you choose to define that) rather than a club for saints. And if - as I sincerely believe (and which is not 'disproved' by any science I have come across, and I am not totally ignorant), we are all 'God's works of art', we are presently all works-in-progress, not yet the finsihed article.
I don't have a problem with that - other than the 'we are all God's work of art' bit. If there is a God I think he would merit a 'must try harder' on his report card.
quote:This being the case, yes, the Church is indeed full of hypocrites (and you will know the literal meaning from the ancient Greek, I'm sure, so I won't have to tell you). The Church is indeed full of hypocrites, and there's always room for one more, Acad...
I can't remember if I used the word hypocrite - I may have but I cant be bothered to check - anyway I am sure there are many hypocrites in the church and in the temples and synagogues and in all walks of life - people are people 'sinners' if you like but what is it about faith and intolerance? This is what I find so interesting and so worrying.
What are the actual dynamics of faith and the process by which an individual generates faith in the first instance and then goes on to see his or her 'truth' as the ONLY truth? What is the common ingredient involved in all cases that can be singled out from the myriad of faiths and the multitudes of those involved?
quote:PS On topic - Christ prayed at the Last Supper, "May they all be one". That is why the journey to full, visible unity is and must be the aspiration of all Christians. That does not presuppose knowing how we will get there, and it means starting from 'where we actually are' rather than where someone else would have us be.
Part of the problem with the Bible, as I see it, is there is no definitive commentary to, for example, the words of Jesus. "May they all be one" has to be considered in its context (of which I am ignorant)but the words "May they all be one" would have a quite different meaning for a Buddhist or I suspect a Sufi or Qabalist.
quote:But - like marks & Spencer, who didn't begin with a huge national empire of stores, but a market barrow - it begins in small, local and significant ways, rather than being able to wave some celestial magic wand and the garden is all loveliness again. The unity of Christians (which what this topic is supposed to be about) begins by each Christian trying to imitate Christ.
I believe there were many versions of Jesus's teachings in the first centuary all vying for sole definitive status - one group seemed to get the upper hand - later we find some gospels were included in the Bible and some were not - I think the four that made it are the least 'mystical' most readily understood by simple folk and therefore it is impossible to say what Jesus's real teaching really were. This whole area is hotly debated by academics and yet most of the folk sitting on church pews and blissfully ignorant of it. We can not rely on what we read in newspapers about events that happened yesterday how can we know what happened 2,000 years ago?
This is a good thread and I am genuinely interested in your answers.
Respect Yo,
Acad
Here endeth the thread