|
Politics Apocalypse
get it now creative feedback
food for thought
|
Religion IMHO What follows is my honest and humble opinion. These thoughts are the result of my own journey through life. I acknowledge that Christianity may not hold meaning for you. What is meaningful to one person does not necessarily hold meaning for another. Here I attempt to explain the meaning I personally find in religion in general. Personally I do not find meaning in a supernatural, other worldly interpretation of Christianity. I do not believe in miracles or that God is a being who intercedes in human history. I have a far more liberal interpretation. I hope you find the following interesting and thought provoking and take it in the spirit in which it is given: An opinion amongst others for you to consider on your own journey through life. Update: my options have changed slightly since writing these. Christian atheist? I guess you will have to wait till the next album... I don't
hold a supernatural-theistic view of God. I believe the divine is a term
we use to explain the sacred or spiritual; which can be basically
concentrated into the following term: love. I don't believe in any supernatural miracles, that God is a supernatural all knowing being who intercedes in human life (including "sending" profits or messengers), or in divinely authored (or co-authored) scriptures. I believe that the concept of God has evolved over time (based on experience and antiquated reason), and that in many ways is a concept created by man to explain that which he did not understand. God is not a being that exists. God is a concept which explains a spiritual depth to reality. God is real, but not an entity. No explanation of God will ever be complete. Humans try to describe/make sense of this religious experience using our limited understanding. This meant that in the past it was described in terms of myths. I don't think we should take any of these myths literally (without interpretation and context), but I believe in the reality to which they point. As history advances our explanations become clearer. For example: Jesus describes a God of love, quite a different take than the vengeful God of the OT. Now we may not believe in a God who is a supernatural being who intercedes in human history, but we can still believe in the reality of God. We can apply rationality and current knowledge to interpret the experience, thereby rejecting archaic descriptions (or literalisations). Christ is a clear example of humanity. Love, patience, generosity and kindness. Showing us what it means to be human. Breaking past social and religious boundaries. Teaching love and forgiveness, regardless of race, gender or religion. This is what it means to be divine. So Jesus was a mediator of God (who is love) and was divine in that sense. But he had no "superpowers". IMHO, Cliffe Jesus was a reformer within Judaism speaking against the ritual and rules which were not the true way to God. It is interesting to note that Jesus did not actually question the written traditions, he opposed the oral traditions. The Jewish society he lived in basically had two sets of rules: those thought to be recorded by moses (the written tradition - which is now thought by scholars to be the work of many authors) and those moses passed on by word (the oral tradition). An example of oral traditions he opposed were carrying on the sabbath and helping others on the sabbath (healing). These sets of rules were replaced by the commandment of love. This is the basis of Christianity and it is from this basis Paul (and others) take further steps to remove meaningless man made rules and replace them with the acceptance of God. We can go
as far as to describe any loving (selfless) action as Godly while an
ungodly action (or selfish lovelessness) is wrong. I think that Jesus had such a profound effect on those that he met that they came to see him as a mediator to God. And after his death he became the face of God to them. All the gospels are written 30 to 90 years after he died and are written by his followers. They are a mix of the memories of the historical Jesus and an attempt to explain what it all means. Much of the scriptures is written in metaphor. "Son of God" is used metaphorically in the Old Testament to describe King Solomon and the Israelites in general. Being a son of God represented a closeness with God. Jesus is called the light of the world (but is he literally a light?). Jesus is called the lamb of God (but is he literally a lamb?). Jesus is called the Son of God... Therefore I can honestly say that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He represents what it means to be close to God, or to show what it is to be divine. Another symbol used to describe Jesus is Son of Man/messiah. However, Jesus did not fulfil all the expectations of the awaited messiah; for a start the messiah was expected to rule over Israel as King, defeat Israel's enemies and establish universal peace. Taking the predictions of a messiah literally and applying these as proof that Jesus was the messiah requires selective literalisation. However, Judaism was waiting for a messiah to reform the entire world. To Jesus' followers, Jesus represented just this. Therefore the title was awarded to him by the early Christian community. Jesus preached the Kingdom of God which was in stark contrast to the Kingdom of Rome. Rome at the time was in power over the Jews. Rome's control over Israel was initially via the King of Israel, but after despatching of King Herod, the high priest in the temple became the liaison between Rome and the Jews. Jesus demonstrated against the Romans, riding into town on a donkey, in contrast to the procession of Caesar riding in on chariots. Entering the temple and preaching the Kingdom of God. He was killed for it. Christ on the cross is a symbol of selfless love. IMHO, Cliffe I think to
be Christian is to have Jesus or his teachings at the center of your
faith. IMHO, Cliffe Why religion and state law need to be separated In first
century times religion and state law were one in the same. From a
religious POV (IMO) the criteria for an action's godliness is simply
"love", the actions born from an uncorrupted loving intention would be
good. State law is created to ensure that the actions of individuals are
fair to others (this is necessary because people do not always act
fairly). The state law should be criticized in light of the religious
criteria of love. But should always be open to review. IMHO, Cliffe Anyone who
claims they have anything directly from God is being naive. I don't
believe the source to be a divine being, IMHO, Cliffe A metaphysical explanation of the experience of a God which does not "exist" In order
to give a decent explanation I have to divide God into two sub-concepts;
and in order to stay remotely orthodox I will name them: "God the
Father" and "God the Spirit" IMHO, Cliffe Is there irrefutable proof for us that God exists? From a scientific and philosophical point of view the answer is evidently 'no'. Some would point to the Bible and apocrypha and say that these contain ancient first hand accounts of God's revelations to multitudes. But unfortunately this fails to consider that these were written in a first century (in the case of the gospels) context, and as such need to be interpreted carefully. This was a time in history where unexplained events were often interpreted in supernatural terms. For example epilepsy was thought to be demon possession. This was before the rise of the scientific world view which we now use to examine the universe. The terms used to describe God were obviously a product of their times. God was perceived as living just beyond the sky, angels were depicted as having wings so they could fly down from heaven, stars were peep holes from which the heavenly angels and God could keep watch over the world. Now that we know that a vast universe of galaxies exists beyond the atmosphere, we describe God in different terms, some describe God as being synonymous with the universe (pantheism), some as a spiritual dimension of the universe (panentheism) while some still describe God in supernatural terms (supernatural theism). There are philosophical arguments for God: Some argue that humans have desires and for each desire exists a way for us to satisfy them. People get hungry, people can eat. Many people are drawn to and hunger God, therefore he must exist. The Moral Law (made famous by C.S. Lewis) is described as a common sense of right and wrong which all humans share, even though few humans live up to these standards. If God exists this would be a logical way he could communicate his intentions to us. The Moral Law exists, therefore God exists. However compelling these arguments seem they are inconclusive. The cosmological argument: Everything that happens has a cause. There cannot be an infinite number of causes: something had to start the chain of events. The original cause or 'uncaused cause' is what we call God. Therefore God exists. The flaw in this argument is simple, who caused God? The teleological argument states that the obvious complexity of design of the universe proves there must be a designer. This leads us to- The scientific arguments for God. The Intelligent Design theory states that some organisms exist that are too complicated to have evolved naturally. This has pretty much been scientifically proven incorrect. Darwin’s theory of evolution can account for the complexities in life forms. Read “The Language of God” for a thorough explanation (although the first few chapters are pretty average the Human Genome project description is good.) Some studies have concluded using scientific methods that intercessionary prayer has healing benefits (*). These studies are dubious and their are more studies that show that they have no effect. *for example see "Double blind, scientific studies validate the efficacy of Christian intercessory prayer. Online Paper- Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population" The original state of the universe is another scientific argument for God. Life only exists because the universe and our planet have physical attributes that are just right. Any slight infinitesimal change to these values or the laws that describe the way they act could have prevented life from existing. There is a problem with trying to argue for God on the basis of a lack of scientific explanation for something (God of the gaps), because our understanding will continue to improve and eventually explain things we do not understand. Continuing to argue for God in this way does damage to religions. Some people get so caught up and entrenched in the conviction of outdated (and scientifically disproved) arguments that they feel compelled to wage a holy war against antagonist commentators. These outspoken fundamentalists who continually choose to commit intellectual suicide are among the most vocal in religious circles. Thus they are the stereotype given to all people of their religion and, although their intentions may be good, they damage the religion. (I am of course talking about Christianity but the same applies to other religions also). Although there may be no irrefutable evidence for God’s existence, it is obvious that that is not of great significance. The strongest argument for God is religious experience. Many people have experienced and continue to experience God. These people may be intrigued by the questions these experiences raise about the nature of our existence, and these explorations may help lead others to those experiences, but it is the experiences themselves that matter. The Bible is a path many have travelled to find their way to God. Jesus led those He met to profound experiences of God. These experiences and reflections lead to a constant evolution of morality and values that help people lead their lives in a way that enhances not only their lives but the lives of those around them. In order to keep Christianity pertinent for generations to come I feel it is important to continue to explore Christianity, and attempt to translate it to a current frame of reference. Not doing so (and trying to hold on to an older model) could eventually see this great tradition and pathway to God, which so many have loved and travelled, becoming the road less travelled, in favour of alternative religions and spiritualities where people endeavour to experience God without the intellectual baggage of a historical frame of reference. IMHO, Cliffe Can evangelicals, conservatives, moderates and liberals coexist in peace? Christianity is a religion of very intense convictions. Historically different interpretations and points of view have often resulted in division. Many of the various Christian denominations are the result of significant theological and philosophical thinkers challenging established doctrine. Rather than becoming a church with celebrated differences of opinion, separate groups have been founded based on those differences. Rather than forming a united front, Christians often choose to disparage alternative views. The Christian church now faces one of its biggest threats of schism ever. Within many Christian denominations (including Anglican, Catholic and Protestant) a paradigm of Christianity (known as ‘liberal’ Christianity) is continuing to develop that the secular world remains more-or-less unaware of. Many ‘conservative’ orthodox Christians of the older paradigm feel that the emerging paradigm is incompatible with their views. This growing concern has lead to conservatives and liberals taking more dramatic positions, and has lead to talk of further division. The earlier paradigm is built on doctrines which are formed through theological inquiry and revelation, that once established become indisputable. This approach has lead to the development of a rich tradition of theological beliefs, creeds, doctrines and ceremony. The emerging paradigm is based around the opinion that the foundations of the earlier paradigm were formed within the context of an earlier understanding of the universe. Beliefs, creeds, doctrines and ceremony were developed by our spiritual ancestors’ (the Jews and the early Christian church) within the context of their culture and understanding of the universe and as such are described from within their frame of reference. Because it was common in the past to interpret the unexplainable in terms of the supernatural (for example epilepsy was thought to be demon possession), the products of the earlier paradigm need not be taken literally. Through theological debate old doctrines and beliefs such as Jesus’ literal ascension into a heaven existing beyond the sky, bodily resurrection, healings, virgin birth and the Trinity are explored by liberal Christians and often are not literally believed. Many do not think of God as a supernatural being who intervenes into physical affairs, but rather as being itself or a spiritual dimension to the universe. Liberals see Christianity as a rich spiritual pathway (maybe one of many) down which God is to be found. Worship is a ‘thin-place’ (between the physical and spiritual) to many where God can be experienced. In a way conservative “anti-intellectual” points of view (such as belief that Jesus and Mary both rose off the ground and flew up to heaven) are an easy target for liberals to challenge in order to argue their point. Conservatives understandably feel threatened by liberal Christians’ tendency to challenge their beliefs (beliefs some conservatives and evangelists believe they have to hold in faith to be ‘saved’ – a concept that may seem odd to some liberals). The reaction by many conservatives in the past few generations has been to take scripture more literally and claim it to be direct revelations from God which cannot be questioned (of course this is problematic as various conservative Christians interpret these revelations differently). The split between the two paradigms has resulted in conservatives rasing their voices and thus turning many intellectually minded people away from Christianity and some conservatives removing the more symbolic elements of worship to emphasise the importance of ‘just believing’. Meanwhile the opinions of liberal Christians are viewed by some vocal conservatives as heretical and thus out of an attempt to keep the peace lay liberals often keep their unorthodox opinions to themselves. It is obvious that intellectual debate between the two groups is not going to resolve the opposing views, and the solution is not for the already divided Christian church to subdivide further into a plethora of denominations, all with a set of slightly different points of view. As liberals are able to relate to words they do not necessarily take literally, but can instead relate to the allegorical meanings these words carry, the answer may not be to change the liturgy to a dramatically liberal formula. Perhaps the liturgy could be subtly made more inclusive (as is already happening) and scripture explored more metaphorically. Conservatives have few issues with exploring scripture to find allegorical meanings, so long as the literal meaning is not also attacked. Although some very senior clergy hold liberal points of view, the general public remain unaware of these growing tendencies within the church. It is my firm belief that the alternative views should be celebrated. Information about the different views held within the church should be summarised and available to all lay people. This information could help develop tolerance and acceptance, bring in new faces who may have been discouraged by being exposed to strong conservative Christian views, and may help people feel spiritually at home within the church - regardless of their theological position. IMHO, Cliffe Anglicanism, as a unique
tradition, is founded on the principle of inclusiveness and diversity.
Since the 16th Century, when it positioned itself as a “via media”
between the Catholic and Protestant, theological diversity has been one
of the defining characteristics of the Anglican Church. I believe we are
called today to affirm the same tolerance and acceptance of others’
beliefs. The Anglican Church currently has many theological movements
including orthodox (from Anglo-catholic to forms of orthodox
Protestant), Evangelicalism (from forms of fundamentalism to Evangelical
Protestant theology) and Progressive (from Liberal Christians to
Christian Humanists). We have this diverse and
rich tradition because throughout our history we have chosen not to
become too indoctrinated. The mystery of God has been acknowledged.
Reason is valued, and since no definitive theology can be deduced
(theology is a moving and forever developing process) we can affirm the
sacredness of a diversity of opinions. This diversity is our greatest
strength and at the same time has become our greatest challenge. From an external point of
view (from outside of Anglicanism) our beliefs are unclear, and our
internal quarrels gain media attention and only help to confuse people
trying to understand what Anglicans believe. Internally we face a few
problems – it can be hard to find and assess particular theological
environments. – Debates over administrative decisions which are
controversial in regards to some of these movements. I believe we should
cherish our diversity, attempt to clarify what these movements mean and
what they believe to outsiders, and try to clarify where types of
movements, groups, and services can be found. In terms of leadership issues, the see of Canterbury has no jurisdiction or right to tell other provinces what to believe or do. We need to give people and provinces the latitude to make their own decisions and present our opinions for them to consider. Threats of schism are childish and counterproductive. Anglicanism, as a unique tradition, is founded on the principle of inclusiveness and diversity. IMHO, Cliffe
|
||||||||||
