|
Religion IMHO
Please read this first:
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...
What is God?
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.
God is Love. God is Humanity.
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
Who was Jesus?
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.
The doctrines of the Church are a human attempt to understand God (and
the universe). However, these can (and have) contradicted one of Jesus'
central messages: rules can become meaningless.
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
What is a Christian?
I think to
be Christian is to have Jesus or his teachings at the center of your
faith.
Christians have varying traditions, doctrines, and spiritualities.
Various Christians have different books they consider to be sacred and
different interpretations of those books.
Various Christians have different creeds and interpretations of those
creeds.
Various Christians have different ways of understanding Jesus and God.
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.
Church doctrine can be an example of building rules based on the
criteria of love; however, they are human creations which need to be
open to re-evaluation and abandonment. For example many of the rules are
based on what was thought to right at the time they were thought up, but
our understanding of humanity, love and justice continues to evolve (for
example slavery, women's rights ...). Ideally Church doctrine (beyond
love and attempts to understand God) should be unnecessary, but I guess
some people feel more secure with a set of rules. Which brings me back
to my original point, creating sets of rules runs contrary to one of
Jesus (and Paul's) primary messages.
IMHO,
Cliffe
Divine Revelation?
Anyone who
claims they have anything directly from God is being naive.
I believe Gods will (in so far as God can be said to have a will) has
been partially revealed through various mediators throughout the history
of man. Many "revelations" have been the result of a human's
God-experience which has led them to speak up against an established
tradition or practice: for example from the history of my religious
tradition - the OT profits spoke against the ruling religious
authorities, this continues with Jesus, Paul, Luther, Tillich, Spong -
to name but a few. Some of these names are obviously controversial
depending on your beliefs but the same can be said for many other
religious leaders such as Buddah, or leaders in other Christian
denominations (I am not claiming any exclusive authority for my
tradition). As Christians we see Jesus as the central point of
revelation (as he is the clearest mediation of God) and he is the
criteria for religious revelation. Any new claimed revelation is judged
on his example. (Admittedly this does not always work - lots of bad
things have been done in his name - but hopefully our understanding of
Jesus' message has deepened). So although he was a man in the context of
the first century he becomes the mediator to understanding Gods "will".
The scriptures are one of our strongest links to Jesus and our religious
heritage; that is their value (they can also become a mediator of God)
and therefore it is important to study them (although they must always
be interpreted from the context in which they were written).
I don't believe God is a being who wants us to act a certain way and
therefore intercedes in the history of the human race. Rather God is a
spiritual depth to the universe which each religion is an attempt to
explain or understand. Interacting with this depth drives us to love and
humanity.
No. I dont think anyone has a full understanding of God's "will".
I don't
believe the source to be a divine being,
The source is (theologically speaking) the Ground of All Being or to
rephrase, the essential potential of love within the universe which is a
spiritual reality people have access to via various mediations, it is
almost exactly the same thing as what the secular humanist holds dear -
love and humanity. This is what I call God. (As do many Christians)
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"
What's that you say? "Cliffe orthodox?? I thought you were a liberal
Christian?" :)
This will have to be described in philosophical and theological terms
because it is for conversations like these that they were invented.
So IMHO...
"God the Father" is outside of the subject-object relationship. God the
Father is not a supernatural entity within existence, "He" is the
essence of love and humanity and being itself. It is impossible for God
to be observed by subjects within reality directly (as "He" is outside
of the subject-object relation).
"God the Spirit" is (like) a metaphysical dimension to life which forms
a spiritual depth dimension. "God the Spirit" is therefore present in
all objects and subjects within reality. It is via "God the Spirit" that
we form our limited understanding of "God the Father". Although present
in everything "God the Spirit" is particularly accessible in "Thin
Places" (such as religious activity, nature, ...) so interactions
between any subject and object can result in a "religious experience"
where God is encountered. We may call a object which forms a "Thin
Place" "Holy", but it is not anymore divine than any other object.
Interactions with "God the Spirit" results in "revelation" which allows
the subject to experience "God the Father" (love), which results in an
evolution of humanity.
Jesus was a human who experienced God, and reformed his religion
(Judaism) accordingly. He saw God as love. Jesus then became a Thin
Place for his followers (they experienced God through him). And
continued to be not only a Thin Place after his death, but became the
metaphorical human symbol of God: God in a relatable human form. This
symbol is known as "God the Son".
IMHO,
Cliffe
Proof of God’s Existence?
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
Anglican Diversity
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
cliffe@politicsapocalypse.com
|