A United Christian Church Future

Yeah, even unto the 75th and 76th reply.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
[QUOTE]


James,


[QUOTE] There's so much here to touch on that I've realised it's futile - I just haven't got the time to respond in the depth that is required!

My prediction was that you would definitely duck out of a reasonable debate, twist my words and insult me as you have done before. You have completely failed to respond to any of my points instead you twist my words, or respond to points that I have not made.

quote:

And, to be honest I've rather lost the enthusiasm following the simple, but to the point comments, by Joe90 and Deane F above (I make no comment about Copernicus).

LOL don't tell me you agree with joe90?

quote:

Clearly some of my observations are based not just on this thread, but on previous comments you have made about faith, esp. Christianity, (hypocrites etc) which inform your comments and disclose your underlying view.

Yes, and my view is always backed up by hard evidence unlike yours. You choose to wantonly ignore all the positive comments I have made re. faith in an attempt to me look unreasonable but my comments are there for anyone to read. They exist. Unlike God.

quote:

The 'bold assertions' is that great list of soundbites - either you spent a long time typing these out, or downloaded them from a convenient website.

I note that rather than give a single example you dump all my alleged 'bold assertions' altogether as mere 'soundbites' in an attempt to discredit without offering a single argument. This tactic is as transparent as it is pathetic.

quote:

I guess we all have our sacred texts we refer to, even atheists... (though Darwin, chosen by the atheists as the ulimate sacred text of the atheist, is becoming a bit unravelled at the seams...)

Nice try but I am on record on this forum as saying that I do not believe that Darwin was right and I have not mentioned him on this thread.

quote:

I think trying to draw parallels between people of faith trying to reflect the love of God but falling short, and Nazi SS officers in the death camps, is in the poorest possible taste and not a worthy contribution to intelligent debate. I am surprised you think it is.

I am not surprised you failed to understand my point and that you twist my words - I suggest you go back and read them at face value and not twist them to your own manipulative devices. You have done this on a number of occasions - this is typical of people of your ilk - you can not possibly win the debate so you twist words and duck out with a few pompous insults. No wonder your churches are empty. People are fed up with you. You have so little relevance any more. People are educated and sophisticated and no longer bow unquestioningly to self appointed authority (the church). We have grown up while the church remains - well sort of medieval and infantile and yet demanding an adult/child relationship with its followers - ok you have electric bands in your congregation and people can dance in the aisles but its the same old message isn't and by and large people don't fall for it. This is not because people are not yearning for a spiritual path it is because they see through what you are peddling. It's the blind leading the blind - even the archbishop of Canterbury cant answer the simplest of questions and all he can do is repeat 'we just have to have faith' like some desperate mantra.

quote:

It is equally distasteful to try and claim that Hitler was some kind of Christian (Catholic) crusader. However one was brought up, it is perfectly possible to change one's views in later life. (For example, I was not brought up as a Christian.)

Here you go again - do you have no integrity? I have never used the words crusader or anything like to describe Hitler - if you can find that I have I will donate £5,000 to your steeple fund. All I said was that he was a Catholic - which I am told is true but I have not checked it myself (did the Vatican excommunicate him or make much of a fuss about the holocaust?). Note I said he 'WAS' a Catholic (I believe?) - he may have stopped being a catholic but he brought up as one. I never used the word 'crusader' or anything like and you sir, are guilty of putting words in my mouth (not for the first time) in some desperate (but futile)bid to discredit me. You do yourself and your faith a considerable disservice. Christianity is not the dominant faith it is by virtue of Jesus's loving message alone - it is the dominant faith, in part, because it stopped at NOTHING in getting there. It seems you will stop at nothing either. No surprises there then.

Here is what you said and my reply:

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?)

Thus we can see you misquote me and you twist my words even when I am record for all to see that I am actually agreeing with you.

quote:

You seem unaware too that many, many Christians were murdered in the death camps too. These came from all Christian traditions, eg - perhaps the two most well-known - Maximilan Kolbe (Roman Catholic priest) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Lutheran evangelical pastor).

Here you go again - in what way do I seem unaware that many Christians were murdered in the death camps? I have said NOTHING that could possibly lead anyone to such a conclusion - I am on record on this forum of pointing out that as many Poles died (all catholics)in the death camps as did Jews. As for Bonnhoeffer he is a personal hero of mine and I was reading him when I was 14. You just haven't a single clue what you are talking about.

quote:

One reason why I do not think I will have the room to respond to all you have to say, is because a lot of it does seem to be based on (I am afraid to say) a grossly simplistic characature of faith, Christianity, etc... Perhaps especially the concept of sin and sinner... Being sent off the pitch for 10 minutes for being naughty may be the rugby 'sin bin' (sin in a colloquial sense) but that has little to do with a faith understanding of sin.

Here we go again - making up arguments or points I have not raised - show me where I have mentioned sin in any way much less a simplistic way. The casual reader may think you have a point but I know (and you know)you making this stuff up as you go along. You have completely ignored all the points I have raised and tried to deflect attention away from them through using various transparently obvious devices.

quote:

Christ summarised the law as 'you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, MIND and strength, and your neighbour as yourself'. I believe that this means we are called to try to understand these things as deeply - not as simplistically - as we possibly can. (It also means, for example, reading the Bible with intelligence, which is a gift of God.)

Then there should be some definitions and listing of the attributes of God for one to meditate on and consider deeply - how can one love God or consider God deeply if we don't know what God is exactly? Any list of characteristics or attributes is easily refuted which is why the church uses vague (but still contradictory)definitions - God is love is a cop-out. 'One day (not that there was day or night because 'love' had not created anything as yet)'Love' decided to create the heavens and the earth' well 'Love' must have some attributes to be able to do this so what are they? You have ducked this issue repeatedly.

quote:

The atheist and the person of faith approach the idea of faith from entirely different perspectives.

For the atheist, faith is an intellectual concept of the superstitious.

Whereas, for the person of faith, faith is about a lived experience, discipleship.

Discipleship of the God of love, not a Victorian grandfather.

Here we go again - I have not said otherwise indeed I have said virtually the same thing - You really are a transparent manipulator - you have lost the debate and all you can do is either twist what I have said or invent things I have not or repeat my own points as if I have never made them - frankly its all I expected from you.

quote:

You quote a few things about wrath in the Bible, but I don't know how much of the Bible you actually read - the wrath comments could just as easily have derived from Dawkins' partial listings, for example.

I have read the bible in detail although not for many years - I saw through it. I have also studied biblical archeology and read all the great theologians and philosophers. I have read many of the alternative gospels. I also have a deep understanding in how spiritual paths functions (and I am on record here as saying that all religions function in the desired way - although only up to a point). I am not a follower of Dawkins. I agree with some of what he has to say but I very much disagree with a lot of what he has to say. Indeed I happy to post an article I wrote about him which tears a good deal of 'thinking' apart. I am on record on this forum as NOT agreeing with him on a number of issues relating to science and faith.

quote:

And may I also suggest that you read the Bible not just as one book but as what it is, a Library of books, written over many centuries, which disclose a growing (indeed evolving!) understanding of God. God begins with us (humanity) at the point where we are, not where he eternally desires us to be.

Old Testament book - the Song of Songs - the life of faith and discipleship is described in the terms of the entwinings, joy, and exploration of one another of lovers.

New Testament book - the Gospel according to St Luke - par excellence revealing God's mission to the poor, the hurt and the outsider.

Yes, all very nice but what a pity (and I mean this)that the message is corrupted for so many by the thought that this God (Jesus)is the same essence as the evil loony God of the OT. How do you reconcile the two? You can't and I have never met a Christian who could (least of all joe90). If you were to read Shantideva's 'Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life' you might find St. Luke somewhat lacking.

quote:

To return to the topic of the thread, it is by faithfully living out discipleship in love that Christians will be drawn together towards full and visible unity. And we can only responsible for the bit we're doing now. Realistically I know that it is unlikely that the fullness of Christian unity will be achieved in my lifetime. But it shouldn't deflect me from doing all I can to promote this now (and that includes wrestling with our differences - and anyway, is 'unity' the same as being homogenised? Or does it mean being a 'rainbow people'?)

Well as long you all live in love all will be well but the long history of the church and the present loonies in the US with their increasingly militant stance leads me to think that this union will never happen - maybe if Christians were to dump the OT altogether (after all it is little more than a history of tribal warfare and we all know that the victors - most often the most ruthless - get to write the history)they may have a chance but the OT God is far too appealing for despots to summon as their authority to make real peace something we can look forward to. If Christianity has an 'evolving' understanding of God then why don't you dump the OT where it belongs? I'm not saying it should be burned but (heaven forbid)but put it on bookshelves listed under 'Myths and Legends' or place it next to Mein Kampf where it belongs. In the meantime keep up the jumble sales. I went on a peace demonstration in London on Saturday - I saw a few dog collars there which warmed my heart - but there were so few - so few and I wonder why?

Acad

quote:

my comments are there for anyone to read. They exist. Unlike God.

That, I consider, neatly sums up your views.

I believe God exists. I can't proove this.

You categorically state that God doesn't exist. By all means you are entitled to this as a belief. But you can't prove it.

In my view, your statement that God doesn't exist is just as dogmatic and just as dangerous as any Church member claiming that their book (bible, koran etc) setting out God's "rules" is the only thruth, or their interpretation of these books is the only true interpretation.

Many of us have no problem remembering from our sunday school days and from our RI days at school, that the OT is basically a tribal history (of dubious accuracy) about the middle east, mixed up with a series of man's (biased ?) visualisations of how God would have us behave. I think it helps to reveal the nature of man. Otherwise, IMHO the best bit of the OT, worth saving is the Ten Commandments.....but I'm no expert, so please feel free to disagree or add any other bits worth saving. As for the NT....how accurately that represents the teachings of Jesus, is up for debate IMHO.

Will the Christaian Churches ever reunite?. My prediction is "never", even though "never" is a long time. Should they try ? of course. Likewise we should try to get reconcilliation with Jews and Muslims. And practice tollerance between all faiths and non-believers alike.

Cheers

Don

acad said:

quote:

Yes, all very nice but what a pity (and I mean this)that the message is corrupted for so many by the thought that this God (Jesus)is the same essence as the evil loony God of the OT. How do you reconcile the two? You can't and I have never met a Christian who could (least of all joe90). If you were to read Shantideva's 'Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life' you might find St. Luke somewhat lacking.

Regarding the comparison between God in the OT and God in the NT. Try looking up +"old covenant" +"new covenant" in Google. Basically the New Covenant is Christ. An interesting comparison can be found here: http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/OldVsNewCovenant.html

As for the 'Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life', you do need to practice chapter six more before replying to JWM again . Failing that I suggest meditating on what Jesus says in Luke 6:37

Andrew

quote:

God is man made! all of them.

You're right, he is.

In order to be God, he has to be worshipped.

In the Bible ha actually states 'I am that I AM' - which means he's who he is regardless of whether you worship him or not.

Actually he's really cool with the fact you don't believe in him - there are scriptures throughout the bible where this is pointed out.

The reasonable person only has two answers to the question 'is there a God?'

'Yes'

or

'I don't know'

To answer 'no' means you know it all and can then be compelled to prove it.

And we all know that we DON'T know it all.

I have thought a lot about the existence of a Supreme Being. For me it has boiled down to a couple of first-questions which, when I choose answers, allow me to settle my world view on some kind of fundament.

One of those questions proceeds from a belief that mind is different from matter and causes me to ponder over which came first. I choose the answer that mind came first and matter proceeded from that.

But the most basic question of all is why is there something and not nothing?

Is there a God ?

Why is there something and not nothing ?

For my part, I believe there is a God. My vision of what God means, is shaped by a Christian up-bringing and having lived in the middle east for 5 years and India/Pakistan for a few years. This doesn't mean I accept the NT/Koran etc as "Gospel"

Our ability to describe these concepts and worse still discus them, is severely limited by our imagination, our langauge and that thing we call "science".

Some people believe there is a god, some believe there isn't, some simply accept they don't know and many simply state they don't care. Some say they know God through Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed, Mormon, etc etc etc or the writings ascribed to these people by others.

Our current knowledge that we call science is IMHO, extremely limited, but we throw it around sometimes, as if it were able to reveal the origins of nothing/something/god/no-god. Our language is often a barrier to communicating the concepts in our minds, and we use langauge to deceive and manipulate just as freely as we do to explain our little concepts.

One day, science might find out whether there is a God or not. We might find out what preceded the (alleged) Big-Bang, we might find out "how" "it" all started, or even "why" it all started.

Meanwhile, its just idle gossip, and its a pity we don't treat is as such, without getting too up-tight.

Cheers

Don

If there is a God isn't our efforts at 'science' really a waste of time - wouldn't we do better to spend time praying to know his (or her) will than spending money on universtity budgets & research programmes ?

Bloody well said Don.

quote:

I went on a peace demonstration in London on Saturday - I saw a few dog collars there which warmed my heart - but there were so few - so few and I wonder why?

Do you honestly think Acad, that priests sit around at home all week waiting for Sunday?
The Church's view on the war is well known and publicly declared. Whether Bush proclaims he is a Christian or not, he is a politician and will manipulate any avenue for his own personal means. Being a politician, he isn't sane. I wouldn't use him as an example for humanity let alone a Christian (unless you are primarily a political animal yourself and are manipulating in exactly the same manner).
I've got work to do. It's been interesting, but this thread is too time consuming for me.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
The reasonable person only has two answers to the question 'is there a God?'

'Yes'

or

'I don't know'

Sorry to disagree but to my mind only the second answer is reasonable.

Ian

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

The reasonable person only has two answers to the question 'is there a God?'

Sorry joe90, but bollocks to that. The religionists and the scientists are just as vigorous as each other in defining for others what is "reasonable" and what isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

The reasonable person only has two answers to the question 'is there a God?'

'Yes'

or

'I don't know'

To answer 'no' means you know it all and can then be compelled to prove it.

And we all know that we DON'T know it all.

We also don't know, what we don't know....

If we answered YES and we didn't know the answer was NO then.....ah bugger.

I believe that the bible and all organized religion although extremely flawed at times is just a way of getting the people of this planet to live in some sort of orderly and controlled way.
In my view most religion is admirable in that it makes great attempts to teach us how to get on with each other and if that meant by saying eternal damnation is yours if you sin against your God or fellow man is the way to keep the stupid ,the uneducated, the psychotic,the despotic,the ignorant or the bully under control and thus keeping some sort of harmony over life then let it be .
Lets be fair the thought of no religion and the freeing up of the nasty citizens to do as they will without consequence is truly frightening and i feel sadly that this reality is fast approaching .

quote:

Originally posted by fentontfox:

Lets be fair the thought of no religion and the freeing up of the nasty citizens to do as they will without consequence is truly frightening and i feel sadly that this reality is fast approaching .

Have you considered that the presence in religion of moral thought and ethical codes maybe due to those things being an elemental part of human nature rather than, as you seem to imply, something that is added to human nature by religions?

C.S. Lewis said that the sense of fairness in humans is inate and that this can be extended to some sort of proof that God exists. I am not so sure. I personally (although with little real evidence) believe that this sense of fairness is not socialised into a child - rather the other way round almost.

No the point i'm trying to make is that without the fear of damnation the less enlightened would be free to behave as they feel fit and to kill, rob, rape and pillage with impunity as the concept of do as you would be done by might have trouble sinking into the boneheads of this worlds brain cell.

quote:

Originally posted by fentontfox:
... without the fear of damnation ...

I've always found this C17th hymn very expressive...

My God, I love thee, not because
I hope for heaven thereby,
nor yet because who love thee not
are lost eternally.

Thou, O my Jesus, thou didst me
upon the cross embrace;
for me didst bear the nails and spear,
and manifold disgrace,

and griefs and torments numberless,
and sweat of agony;
yea, death itself - and all for me
who was thine enemy.

Then why, O blessed Jesu Christ,
should I not love thee well?
Not for the sake of winning heaven,
nor of escaping hell;

Not from the hope of gaining aught,
not seeking a reward;
but as thyself has loved me,
O ever-loving Lord.

So would I love thee, dearest Lord,
and in thy praise will sing;
solely because thou art my God,
and my most loving King.

(Now I'll just wait for the coals to be heaped on my head again... )

If you don't believe there is a God all theistic religion is invalid;

If you do believe in One God, your religion is the Answer;

If you believe in One God though, why not believe in many? How different is it from Norse, Hindu, Greek, Roman, theologies?

quote:

If you do believe in One God, your religion is the Answer;

errr..."religion" is just a statement of what it is you believe. In my case that just happens to include the belief that there is only one God.

quote:

If you believe in One God though, why not believe in many? How different is it from Norse, Hindu, Greek, Roman, theologies?

errr...because that is not part of my belief. It might be somebody elses belief. And they might be right. But there is no "logic" link between these two statements that you have made.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by fentontfox:
No the point i'm trying to make is that without the fear of damnation the less enlightened would be free to behave as they feel fit and to kill, rob, rape and pillage with impunity as the concept of do as you would be done by might have trouble sinking into the boneheads of this worlds brain cell.

if we can agree that the fundamental need is for humans to survive then co-operation is actually natural. we have learned that working together makes us stronger and gives us a better chance of survival.

religion, through history, has been used by some as a control mechanism in the same way that wealth, social statue, etc is used.

in general I think that religion/belief gives people what they need to live their lives, who is one to deny anyone of happiness? I suppose the problem I have is when religion is used as a "good reason" to eliminate someone, how hypocritical is that?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

If you don't believe there is a God all theistic religion is invalid;

As far as "validity" goes, I don't think it's possible to beat the test that Jesus of Nazareth is said to have suggested: "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Is it possible for a religion to change the heart of a man?

Can anybody here think of people they know who turned their life around (for the better) through religion? You know, did they stop drug-taking/wife-beating/workplace-absenteeism/flaming innocent people on internet forums - through the consequences of a religious experience?

quote:

Can anybody here think of people they know who turned their life around (for the better) through religion?

Lots and lots. But it still doesn't prove the existence of God or non-existence of God. However, it does show that religion can have a beneficial effect.

Whether, on balance, religion today and in the near future (with or without god) is beneficial to mankind, is probably debatable and probably heavily dependant on surrounding circumstances and the choice of religion.

Whether religion has a better effect, or a worse effect on mankind than say communism, aetheism, humanism or any other xxxism is likewise debatable.

I personally think that the Anglcan Church today is a benefit to mankind. But it is far from perfect.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

Lots and lots. But it still doesn't prove the existence of God or non-existence of God.

Perhaps the real problem is the notion of proof or certainty?

quote:

Perhaps the real problem is the notion of proof or certainty?

You could have a point.

Mathematics and science are tools, invented by man, to help us explore and understand our universe, and to conduct commerce in a fair and reasonable way. We know what we mean by "proof" within these diciplines, more or less. And we know that somethings are certain and other things are not certain, again within the managed confines of these disciplines.

As we push the boundaries of knowledge and experiment, we expand the disciplines to encompass new discoveries.

One day, these discoveries might lead to an understanding of nothing v something; god v no-god and probably other notions of which we have, at present, absolutely no concept at all.

And even then, we will probably still argue about what constitues "proof" and "certainty"

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:


And even then, we will probably still argue about what constitues "proof" and "certainty"

Cheers

Don

People with faith don't require proof.