Linear
If we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"? (Main Forum)
by Brian Coyne 
, LINDEN, NSW, Monday, June 04, 2012, 13:56 (356 days ago)
From the email I'm sending out today:
Tom McMahon emailed me overnight to say he'd run out of puff and hadn't been able to prepare a commentary for today. I confess I feel a bit the same way myself and have also decided to take the day off from preparing a commentary to attend to some administrative tasks. I'm still mulling though on the questions I posed in the forum yesterday [LINK] about what would happen if the whole Jesus story just turned out to be "legend"? (It's a sign of how vigorous the discussion is on our forum that that string is now on page two of the main index page.)
My gut sense is that despite all our advances in knowledge, humankind continues to seek some mindframe or paradigm partly at the moral level but others as well that help us make sense of life. If Jesus, or any of the other great prophets and deities didn't exist in history, we'd invent some new Jesus figure — or a Muhammad, Confucius or whatever. So much of how our lives are organised today comes out of an assumption that there is some "power" or "God" above each of us, and above the most powerful people in our world.
I pose these questions within the context of the now rapid decline in esteem for the institution and its institutional leaders. The statistics tell the story: the vast majority of educated people in the Western world have ceased listening and participating in institutionalised religion. Nearly 90% of the congregation of the Catholic Church are now alienated from the religion they were baptized into. Perhaps the educated world will reach the point where it does have to "start again" with this whole business of religious belief, theology and these big questions as to whether we are accountable to some "higher power", and how?
So much of our discussion these days is a discussion out of frustration at how our religious leaders and so called "experts" seem to have "lost the plot", appeasing the insecure, feathering their own nests, or trying to prop up beliefs and ideas that the vast majority of people simply do not believe anymore. Let's turn from that for a while and consider these two questions: (i) can a human society exist without a notion of "God"? And (ii), if we answer that in the negative, what are the essential roles we need this notion of "God" for?
![[image]](http://catholica.com.au/images/CatholicaICO_30x30.jpg)
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
locked".....two questions: (i) can a human society exist without a notion of "God"?
by Bill Dowsley , 'Wombeyan, NSW', Monday, June 04, 2012, 14:30 (356 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
I have no right to have an opinion on your question, Brian, but my answer is Yes.
I have no education but I can see no reason for believing in a God.
I read what you believe, still, and of course am drawn to it because of the inculcation received when young but, with the type of churchmen we have had for at least 1600 years, how can we possibly beieve?
I have always drawn great encouragement from our happy marriage, our family, friends and, for five years, from this beautiful community you and your beauty have brought into being, into our lives.
Nowadays, I believe in love, friendship, being manly, being decent, the beauty of the world and of people.
With a very, very few exceptions these are not to be found in what was once 'my Church'.
lockedBut, Bill, ....
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, June 04, 2012, 15:14 (356 days ago) @ Bill Dowsley
I have always drawn great encouragement from our happy marriage, our family, friends and, for five years, from this beautiful community you and your beauty have brought into being, into our lives.
I wonder though, Bill, how much of all those values you write of in the paragraph above owe something to our religious heritage and the values that came out of that heritage? Is human self-interest enough to push us in the direction of some "golden rule" where we sense being compassionate and loving towards one another is strong enough to overcome the "selfish gene" that wants to continually fight and compete with one's neighbour for domination. Without religion, or at least some belief in a higher power without the trappings of some "institutionalised religion", might not society continually revert to some "law of the jungle/might is right" set of beliefs and social values? Would we see the spread of Mafia and outlaw bikie "law" become predominant? Are courts of law and police forces sufficient to keep any society in check?
My question today is partly stirred by the work I'm doing with Fr Eugene Stockton at the moment. He rang this morning all excited about the small bit of the video I showed him last week that I've edited and he's redrafting the script. He's moving from the hospital to a rehab place today and I'll also take down the video I shot on the weekend from Chris Geraghty's book launch. Eugene was both a seminarian with Chris and later on staff with him at the seminary. In a sense the question I am asking is similar to the question Eugene Stockton is asking in his book "The Deep Within". Forget all our dogma for a moment and look across all the great religious paradigms and sets of beliefs that exist in society. What are the common features to all of them? What is the "good" in all of them when you strip out the religious 'games' and superstitions that we human beings play to distract, or amuse ourselves with, or engage in to placate or get rid of our anxieties and insecurities?
I am mindful though of what seems to be developing in some parts of the world where a society can be "moral" without necessarily being overtly religious. At the same time I think there is a legitimate question as to how much those emergent "religion-free" societies might be trading on what might be termed some "moral capital legacy" or a "religious capital legacy" — norms of behaviour and thinking that were passed down in the culture.
My own gut sense at a very deep level is that society continues to need some concept of "God" or a "higher power" — and not just for one or two reasons but for a complexity of reasons. I think a legitimate question we might be asking ourselves is: how much of the 'civilising' of civilisation comes from the sense of a belief in a "higher power" (by the people at large who make up the 'civilisation') quite independently of the question of religious institutions and structures and the corruption that often comes to be associated with institutions and structures?
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedBut, Bill, ....
by Bill Dowsley , 'Wombeyan, NSW', Monday, June 04, 2012, 17:47 (356 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Brian, I do enjoy these conversations with you, even though you are so far ahead of me.
James writes far better than I.
You write in part, ".... I wonder though, Bill, how much of all those values you write of in the paragraph above owe something to our religious heritage and the values that came out of that heritage? Is human self-interest enough to push us in the direction of some "golden rule" where we sense being compassionate and loving towards one another is strong enough to overcome the "selfish gene" that wants to continually fight and compete with one's neighbour for domination. Without religion, or at least some belief in a higher power without the trappings of some "institutionalised religion", might not society continually revert to some "law of the jungle/might is right" set of beliefs and social values? Would we see the spread of Mafia and outlaw bikie "law" become predominant? Are courts of law and police forces sufficient to keep any society in check?...."
That is far too deep for me, mate. Yes, the religious education by the Marist Brothers no doubt influenced my thinking and my, former, attachment to all things Catholic.....but, whilst some were inspiring men, some were utter bastards.
Our Mum was not well disposed towards priests, although she went out of her way to give us a Catholic education.
I believe my blood set me on, what I hope, has been an average decent, manly life.
( I am fully aware there are beautiful women here, from out-station States, who are guffawing now!!!)
If I could find some proof that Jesus lived, said and did what we are told He said and did, I would love to follow His example of love but...
With the exceptions of three priests, with two of whom I like to think we are/were mates, my greatest exemplars through life have been married women and married men.
Who could possibly respect the creatures I mentioned above in an earlier post? Any good mother shows far more of 'Jesus' than they.
lockedBut, Bill, ....
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, June 04, 2012, 20:00 (356 days ago) @ Bill Dowsley
Bill and all, wow, what a conversation. I've now read the whole string and feel like commenting on something in every post. I'm not sure how much time I have though but I'll make a start now. In a sense I took some of these thoughts down to the hospital with me and had a good chat with Eugene Stockton about some of the ideas we've been discussing on Catholica recently. He was also in need of some fresh reading material so I printed out a whole lot of our recent commentaries.
What we discuss in this place might upset the fundamentalist and triumphalists who want to take religion back to bells and smells, processions and novenas but I don't pick up any sense that society is heading in that direction on the big canvas (albeit that the fundamentalists might have a small resurgence because of the current insecurities in our world). What came with triumphalism, and clericalism, are all the things you complain about Bill. Will those who want to take us back to triumphalism and clericalism learn the lessons though? I am totally sceptical of that.
To something specific that you have written, Bill: do we need "proof" of the existence of Jesus? That is close to the heart of my question on Sunday in the original string. Eugene Stockton made the point to me an hour or so ago that his search is for the "mythic Jesus" (not "mythical" as in "make believe" – that is something completely different to the "mythic Jesus"). He argued "biblical scholars have taken us off track by this search for the historical Jesus" — implying, if I understand him correctly, that we're not going to find "the real Jesus" or "the Jesus that matters" in history books, archeological records and historical "facts". I don't think he's totally unkind to "biblical scholars" because all their research has turned up many valuable insights and he's not really being discouraging of "biblical scholarship". The point he seemed to be trying to make to me, perhaps agreeing with the point I'd been trying to make, is that the real substance of the Jesus "message" is in the insight and wisdom of the man (not whether this or that "event" recorded in scripture actually happened).
Bill, I honestly don't think it matters if we get "proof" of what the individual named Jesus actually said or did. I suspect a lot of it is "made up" (by the largely anonymous writers of scripture). They weren't endeavouring to give us a history or science lesson. It wasn't "modern journalism". They were "story tellers" — probably very similar to the ancient aboriginal dreamtime storytellers. We were never meant to interpret it all literally. We recite the story of the three little pigs to our children not because we are trying to teach them that pigs can think and talk but for "the moral of the story" — that it's best to build houses of quality materials rather than inferior materials. Quality pays off in the long run. That's how the Jesus' story is meant to be told — for "the moral" in the stories not whether he actually ever spoke to a woman at a well, or confronted a whole lot of people intent on stoning an adultress to death, etc., etc.
The confusion, I think, is whether we present Jesus as a "rule maker" or as a "rule breaker". Jesus tells us himself he wasn't like Moses in bringing down some great new set of "commandments" or "rules" from heaven. His principal message was about showing us how to navigate through all the commandments and the rules in order to make intelligent choices in life. I think there is still massive confusion — not only in Catholicism but some of the Protestants are worse than the Catholics — in what we present Jesus as attempting to do, or preach or teach.
On the other side I also think it is wrong, or perhaps that is too strong a word — misleading might be better, to suggest that Jesus was this "nice man" running around trying to get us to all engage in some huge "New Age love in". His message is "tough". To live it you do have to think — and think pretty hard about the choices one makes in life. But it is not "hard" in that style, to quote Enda from further down this string, "learned from Brother Belter at St Mary Miserable's or from Sister Terrorista at Our Lady Fear of Hell". It is "difficult" in the sense that often the choices that life throws up in our path don't have easy black or white choices and we need to navigate our way carefully to find the most sensible (and morally correct) choice.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedThat is another great post, Brian, thank you,........
by Bill Dowsley , 'Wombeyan, NSW', Monday, June 04, 2012, 20:33 (356 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
......shall print it, keep it, refer to it.
You have lost me, though. I understand your differentiating between 'historical' and 'mythical' but that is not how Jesus was/is presented to us, is it?
The popes assure us women cannot be priests because 'Jesus appointed men only'.
That assertion may be correct or may be not but, the 'story' goes, Jesus had a far higher opinion of the worth of women than have had so many clerics.
You are supposed be resting, mate, and I shall leave you to others who have more brains than I.
(You could mention to the excecutive-in-charge of these matters that I have not received a "Petal' for yonks,.......... please!)
lockedWho benefits?
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, June 04, 2012, 22:23 (356 days ago) @ Bill Dowsley
Sadly, Bill, I think it is the leaders who have often been leading us up the garden path. Milly grabbed the review copy of Chris Geraghty's book and has nearly devoured it already and was reading a section of it to me a little while ago that is really quite hilarious. Geraghty had resigned and was penniless and wondering what now to do with his life. He briefly played with the thought of putting up a shingle as an exorcist in Sydney. He perceived there was much corruption in society and it might be a good business opportunity. But quoting St Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, founder of Opus Dei, it dawns on him that it is not only wider society that offers an opportunity but the institution he had just left itself...
"As I have not ceased to warn you, the evil comes from within (the Church) and from very high up. There is an authentic rottenness, and at times it seems as if the Mystical Body of Christ were a corpse in decomposition, that it stinks..."
That's the quote from Escriva. Now for the words from the former lecturer in Theology at the seminaries at Springwood and Manly...
Though those on the inside have always known it, the little people and the outsiders are now aware that the devil and his many minions have been active among the executive members of the institution. The sexual drive and the terrible need in an authoritarian system for secrecy have been exploited by the devil. But they had not been the only port of entry for him to take possession of the superior ranks of holy mother Church. The power structures, the unquenchable thirst for control, the tightly closed categories of orthodoxy, the paranoid concentration of the minutiae of the law, the widespread acceptance of superstitious and idolatrous practices as well as the evil spirits of ambition, ignorance and arrogance, deceit and stupidity have provided fertile soil for the devil to play havoc.
When the devil saw that God had sent his son to earth as a travelling, homeless, dusty preacher and that this divinely touched man was defying the religious establishment, exposing its stupidities and emptiness, Satan knew instinctively he was facing a challenge to his influence and that he had to devise a strategy to combat the forces of good. He had to inspire Jesus's followers to build big churches, collect babbles, dress up in extravagant gear, talk a strange language, complicate a simple message in heavy formulae, multiply regulations, exclude the little people, the twisted, the ugly, the stranger, the homosexual, the black and the female, invest in real estate and establish an international firm with a branch office and personnel in every large city and colonial outpost throughout the world. He watched on as God's special messenger invited his friends to remember him in the context of a simple family meal, breaking and sharing bread, passing around a cup of blessed wine. He knew what to do. Create an entanglement of theological interpretations and overlay the memorial communion with an evanescence of byzantine ritual and high-camp ceremonies, tie the simple event to a priestly cast of men, to a hierarchy of ranks which would inevitably distract and pervert the message.
There was much work to be done, many devils to be dealt with and money to be made.
Christopher Geraghty, Dancing with the Devil, pp232-233
My own question is: why have our popes and ecclesial leaders sold Jesus short? Do they actually believe Jesus is some "book of rules" and there principally to force the "simple people" and "little people" into social conformity? Who benefits: the little people, the simple people, the ordinary pewsitters, Jesus, or themselves — the bishops and management of this system?
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedYes, and it can certainly exist with the Church...
I agree with you Bill....And in answer to Brian's question, the fact is that most of Western Society is living withhout God, in the sense of someone that we adore and pray to. And that majority is increasing.
I don't see society falling apart.
Of course, the pulpit thunderers, and those who have given up their wooden ones for electronic ones, like Scott Stephens from the ABC's Religion and Ethics Report, continue to belch out their jeremiahs. But they have become noisy gongs and clanging cymbals, continuing that noisy tradition since at least the time of Plato, of old men complaining about the drop in standards of the new generation.
There are some pertinent passages on this theme in John Burnheim's To Reason Why:
“It was becoming increasingly obvious that the fight against social evils in modern times, against racism, exploitation, slavery and tyranny had been led, not by the Church, but by secular humanists. The best one could claim was that in doing so, they were drawing on the resources of the Christian tradition.”
And then discussing the topic of whether and how God spoke to his creatures, he writes,
“It seemed clear to me that the outstanding candidate among competing claims to embody such revelation was the Catholic Church, and that in the long run that claim can be tested only in terms of its capacity in practice to live up to its own claims, to manifest its redeeming message in action…if religion is seen as a matter of objective truth, in my view…the choice came down to one of Catholicism or atheism.”
“The Church had failed the crucial test. It was no longer possible to see it as the vehicle of divine revelation. The whole basis of my religion had collapsed. In my view the very existence of a personal god was plausible only if that god revealed itself to the world and the only plausible candidate for the revelation had now discredited itself…the Church itself in solemn Council had recognized that the authoritarian practices of past had to be superseded, but that it had shown itself incapable of keeping its promise.”
“The surprising fact was that I no longer felt the need for a religious commitment, and it seemed that relatively few other people were worried any longer by the secularization of culture. Humanism allowed the reflective appropriation of the poetry and sensibility of religions once they were shorn of pretentions of authority. All that was lost was the security provided by specious authority.”
I am sure there are an awful lot of former Catholics who have come to a similar conclusion. And you can see how far the Church has hopelessly failed the test and moved away from the original message of Jesus, by its reliance on the “Ellis defense” when victims of sexual abuse by clergy try to claim compensation from the Church in court.
In its media releases, the Archdiocese of Sydney says that it “takes responsibility” for the victims of such abuse, but when the victims want to have an independent arbiter, the Courts, to determine compensation, the Archdiocese says, “sorry, 'the Archdiocese' does not exist". And it doesn’t. It is not a corporation or an individual. On the other hand, the diocese of Newcastle, to its credit, has taken the view that it will not rely on the Ellis defence and will accept responsibility to pay proper compensation for the victims, as determined by the courts, even if that means selling up millions of dollars of property. In the meantime, the Sydney Archdiocese, with contributions from some others, has spent between $30 and $85m on a palace in Rome for well-heeled pilgrims, including, I have to add, comfortable accommodation for clergy, and the Archbishop himself. Perhaps that might have been enough money to pay acceptable compensation to the victims.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, a man fell among robbers and was left in a ditch. A priest and Levite came along and passed him by. In the modern version of that parable, the man in the ditch was not put there by robbers, but by colleagues of the priest and the Levite. The Church in Sydney is passing him by, and will not even allow an examination by an independent body, namely the Courts to see to what extent the man was abused and harmed by the Church's own priest and Levite. It wants to be the sole arbiter of if and how badly the man was treated, as if it were divinely immune from the problems of being a judge in one's own case.
At least the Bishop of Newcastle seems to understand what the parable of the Good Samaritan was about. But the big business attitude of the Archdiocese of Sydney is far more representative of the Church as a whole to the extent, to quote John Burnheim again, "it no longer matters very much."
lockedA minor correction albeit it might be a big one for Andrew West...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, June 04, 2012, 18:58 (356 days ago) @ James
James, Scott Stephens is in charge of the ABC's Religion website. Andrew West is the one who presents the ABC's Religion and Ethics Report on Radio National. From what I have heard and read of Scott Stephens I concur with your assessment. I don't see him as a man to take religion to new frontiers but is one proping up a sinking Titanic. It's a pity that given that the ABC has been one of the dwindling number in the media estate that continues to take religion seriously. Perhaps though it is a good thing as he might be an assistant to the further decline into irrelevance.
I want to write more on other comments you have made but will read the rest of the string first.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedA minor correction albeit it might be a big one for Andrew West...
I certainy wasn't thinking of Andrew West, but the ABC titles are a bit confusing. According to the ABC website, Scott Stephens is the "Religion & Ethics editor for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and theologian-at-large", but he always sounds is he is trying to out-thunder a Baptist thunderer.
lockedThe role of religious practice or adherence, or just belief in a "higher power"...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, June 04, 2012, 23:06 (356 days ago) @ James
Yes, the titles are certainly confusing.
Back to your original post. I was particularly intrigued with the first quote you provided from John Burnheim's To Reason Why:
"It was becoming increasingly obvious that the fight against social evils in modern times, against racism, exploitation, slavery and tyranny had been led, not by the Church, but by secular humanists. The best one could claim was that in doing so, they were drawing on the resources of the Christian tradition." [Emphasis added]
Despite all the corruption in the Church and institutionalised religion down through the centuries, I do think we need to acknowledge that riding side-by-side with that is this massive legacy of social and civilising capital which Burnheim is also acknowledging in that quote. We've just been watching Four Corners [LINK] in this house on the people smugglers who have now made their way into Australia and been "doing very nicely for themselves" including public housing for their families. Even amongst the impoverished or desperate of the world the "selfish gene" is ever-ready to exploit an opportunity.
Perhaps I reveal my own insecurities in that I have long had this sense that democracy, and civilisation, is "a fragile package". A civilised society might seem robust but, so often we see in situations of breakdown, how fragile it is and the crocodiles very quickly emerge out of the swamps to exploit the opportunities. No society can employ a police force or judicial system large enough to place such guardian angels on every street corner, or in every household. There will always be a small element in society who are "lawless" and it seems to me as long as a society can keep that element below a "critical mass" society can function in a fairly orderly manner. The other critical factor though is an acceptance on the part of the vast majority of a set of mores and values where they are broadly able to control themselves ethically and morally — and without the need to have a policeman standing on every corner or in every house.
The wider question I have is this: from where in society is this set of "mores and values" learned and integrated into the ordinary lives of "the average citizen"? Can a secular education system do it alone? Is it the "fear of punishment" if caught that can be partly imposed by a strong police force and "law and order" political campaigns? It might be argued that once upon a time the media played a part in this "cultural and ethical formation" role. Is it a thing that families alone, considered as an important "institution" in society, help form and nurture? If religion and spirituality disappeared off the scene completely what structure is there in a secular society to help nurture and form these values? Are the "secular humanists" that John Burheim mentions in the quote above of sufficient "critical mass" in a society to maintain a "civilising order" or are they presently partly trading on the religious legacy that keeps much of the hoi-polloi socially conformist and "in line"?
Again I come back to the observation that Burnheim makes: how much is present day society "trading on" a "moral and ethical legacy" that perhaps doesn't just come from the institutional churches but was part of that general set of cultural standards that was encouraged in wider society in the time of Queen Victoria?
Why I am asking these questions is not because I want to see society go "back to church" necessarily, or re-adopt the sort of "Victorian" values that characterised the mental outlook of some of my great aunts and uncles. I am more genuinely intrigued at what role formal religious practice or adherence, or just a set of spiritual values and some "belief in a higher power" contributes to the overall "mix of forces" that cause any society to be civilised rather than uncivilised.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedThe role of religious practice or adherence, or just belief in a "higher power"...
"It was becoming increasingly obvious that the fight against social evils in modern times, against racism, exploitation, slavery and tyranny had been led, not by the Church, but by secular humanists. The best one could claim was that in doing so, they were drawing on the resources of the Christian tradition."
Brian,
When you look at the social evils he is talking about, they are "racism, exploitation, slavery and tyranny". Now, in each of these, the reason why they existed was precisely that people were not observing the Golden Rule - treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Each one of them is the quintessence of not observing that rule.
So then, you have ask: where did the Golden Rule come from? Well you can find it in the Code of Hammurabi, in the ancient religions of China, Mohism, Taoism and Confucianism, in the ancient Egyptian concept of Maat, in ancient Greek philosophy, in Thales, Epictetus, Epicurus and Plato, in Buddhism and Hinduism, and of course in Judaism (Leviticus), all of which pre-date Christianity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
Christianity likes to claim that it invented it, because its Christian expression comes from several passages in the Gospels, but it didn't. Of course, Christianity promoted it, but so did every other religion that had it. Islam also had a form of it, and within the areas of the world which it controlled, it was promoted by Islam. Of course, there are contradictory passages in Islam that fundamentalists grab hold of to justify all sorts of outrages. But Christianity did the same : "I came not to bring peace, but the sword"...and the list could go on.
And, of course, it is appropriate to acknowledge the "resources of the Christian tradition", in the sense of the good things about Christianity, including its acceptance and promotion of the Golden Rule. But in doing so, the secular humanists that he talked about had to reject so many other bad resources, like its dogmatism, intolerance, its opposition to democracy and to science - and I could go on with the usual list of evils practiced in the name of Christianity.
But equally with Christianity, we have to acknowledge that there are considerable "resources" came from Greece. In a recent article in Colombia's El Espectador, William Ospina wrote,
But Greece wasn’t just a few individuals, but a whole culture of dialogue, clear thinking, pedagogy, and astonishing freedom of thought, active citizens with uncontrolled imaginations, architects, merchants, fine artisans, artists, politics allied to thought and aesthetics, a society where even slaves like Aesop and Diogenes were wise philosophers...Greece invented the philosophical dialogue, geometry and the paradigms of science. Without it, Christianity would never have been born, as Platonic philosophy was fundamental to that religion
And Augustine relied as heavily on Plato as later Aquinas did on Aristotle. And where did he get his Aristotle from? From the Muslim Arabs, Avicenna and Averroes.
What we acknowledge today as "civilization" is an incredible mixture of all different cultures and influences, and the civilizating process means picking the best bits out of all of them and discarding the rest. One of the most important aspects of civilization these days is democracy, but that didn't come from Christianity, and yet, it is probably our most important human social value. One could say that it is the broad application of the Golden Rule, but it is something that the Catholic Church has, until very recently, opposed, and still opposes in its own structures.
Perhaps I reveal my own insecurities in that I have long had this sense that democracy, and civilisation, is "a fragile package". A civilised society might seem robust but, so often we see in situations of breakdown, how fragile it is and the crocodiles very quickly emerge out of the swamps to exploit the opportunities.
I couldn't agree more. You couldn't get a more Catholic country than Colombia, yet the last fifty years has seen it wracked by the most unbelievable violence where you had the equivalent of Tony Abbott and his allies in big business and Julia Gillard and her allies in the unions, paying poor kids from the slums $200 to get on their motor bikes with a pillion passenger on the back with a gun, ride up to a political candidate, or the head of a Human Rights organization and shoot them dead in the street because they belonged to the opposite political party or way of thinking (Oblivion: A Memoir that you advertise regularly here is an excellent account of this).
In one presidential election, four presidential candidates were assassinated. Now, is it fair to blame that on the Catholicism, or Christianity? Or go to another Catholic country, Argentina, and look at all the evidence coming out now about the Catholic hierarchy there having meetings with the dictator Videla, a staunch and loyal Catholic, giving him advice on how best to handle the public relations bit about the "disappeared".
http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=103796
We wouldn't accept in this country that this behaviour was "Christian", because we like to think of Christianity doing better than that.
But ultimately, the point made by Burnheim, is essential one that Jesus made: by your fruits you will know them. And the fruits of Catholicism at the highest level at the moment are pretty rotten. I can only repeat what I said earlier. The modern living out of the parable of the Good Samaritan in Sydney is that a man fell among robbers who left him injured in a ditch. A priest and a Levite passed him by, but in this Sydney version of the parable, the man in the ditch was not put there by robbers, but by a colleague of the priest and the levite. There is no clearer evidence of the behaviour condemned by Jesus himself than the use of the Ellis defence on the victims of clerical abuse.
There will always be a small element in society who are "lawless" and it seems to me as long as a society can keep that element below a "critical mass" society can function in a fairly orderly manner. The other critical factor though is an acceptance on the part of the vast majority of a set of mores and values where they are broadly able to control themselves ethically and morally — and without the need to have a policeman standing on every corner or in every house.
And Colombia, and many other places in the world, are examples of where this has broken down - in fairness, I have to say that Colombia has improved a lot in the last ten years. I'm still reading "Why Nations Fail", and it is a fascinating history of how this civilizing influence breaks down. Acemoglou and Robinson basically argue that you have to have a relative flat society with equal opportunity for everyone, with a broad involvement of a majority in the economy, security of private property, an independent judiciary and the rule of law operating throughout the whole country. If you have those things, not only does the economy prosper, but so does the general feeling of goodwill between citizens. That is what we have, as do most western democratic countries, and that is why we don't have to live in gated communities - the reinvention of the medieval castle.
If religion and spirituality disappeared off the scene completely what structure is there in a secular society to help nurture and form these values?[/b] Are the "secular humanists" that John Burheim mentions in the quote above of sufficient "critical mass" in a society to maintain a "civilising order" or are they presently partly trading on the religious legacy that keeps much of the hoi-polloi socially conformist and "in line"?
I don't accept that it is secular humanism v Christianity thing. The fact is that religious observance in this country, as you have mentioned many times is disappearing. It won't disappear completely. But equally I don't see thousands flocking to the meetings of the Humanist Society. The real question is: is society breaking down? Well, if you want to be a religious Hanrahan like Scott Stephens, it is. I disagree. There is, of course, a very real need to educate people in ethics, and the introduction of ethics courses in schools is a very positive thing - and it is simply incredible that the Churches opposed this given their own observations of their emptying pews.
I am more genuinely intrigued at what role formal religious practice or adherence, or just a set of spiritual values and some "belief in a higher power" contributes to the overall "mix of forces" that cause any society to be civilised rather than uncivilised.
Well, we have now had a good thirty years of steady decline in religious observance in Australia, and, despite what the shock jocks try to stir up, I don't see Australian society sliding into the slough of despond.
lockedBrian, did you see East to West last night?
Brian,
There was a very interesting program on the SBS last night called East to West, this particular episode being entitled The Renaissance and Islam.
When you are brought up on a Catholic diet, the only thing we knew about Islam was that it took over the Holy Land, so we had to go on Crusades to get it back for Jesus's Vicar, that it treated women badly etc. We Catholics also started the first University in the world, at Bologna, Galileo was Catholic, so was Copernicus etc,...well, yes they did have a bit of bother with the Church, but that was neither here nor there. In other words, it was Christianity that produced modern civilization as we know it.
Every now and then a grudging acknowledgment was made, that, well, yes, the Arabs did give us our numbers and maybe they had something to do with algebra. But that was about it.
But according to that program, the only reason we have all the riches of the philosophy of Greece and Rome is because of a massive translation effort by Muslim Arabs, and by their founding universities in Morocco and Cairo a century before Bologna, that Copernicus got his ideas from the Arabs, Aquinas only knew about Aristotle from Averroes, and that the Renaissance only happened because of their influence, that being Muslim involved using your reason as well.
Now, you can look at the Arab world now, and see that in many ways it went into decline in comparison with Christian Europe. And so did China in terms of its vast technological superiority up to about 1500. But if you are going to talk about decline and fall, it was also Christian Europe that went into decline between about 600AD and 1300AD, while the Arab world soared ahead.
The "Catholic schoolboy" view of the world has always been that our team has been the greatest in terms of technologial advances, music, literature, culture etc and it was all due "Christianity". But the reality is that compared with the Islamic world for about 7 centuries Christian Europe really was in the Dark Ages.
That is why I think that ascribing all advances in civilization to Christianity oversimplifies history. Because if you can do that, you can also say that all modern advances came from Islam. And that too oversimplifies it.
The good things we have today are a mixture of the influences of many cultures and religions, including Christianity, but also including pagan Greece and Rome, and the Arab Muslims.
lockedJames,
I missed it ... but thanks to you have just watched it online. What a visually stunning documentary, intellectually stunning also ... and I think the film maker might have given us a slightly new style in the documentary style. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
I don't need convincing of the core thesis to your own post. I think our world has now entered a time of change that eventually history might see as revolutionary or epoch-changing as any of the great revolutions in previous history. Christianity and Catholicism itself is facing a crisis and revolution as significant as the Great Schism and the Reformation. None of us can predict where it will end up. Watching the neanderthals who now control the citadel though — this latest sally they have unleashed against the Mercy nun, Margaret Farley, is simply so gobsmackingly stupid that it is hard to believe. I have written before that I think these people now leading institutional Catholicism are literally scientifically and mathematically illiterate. No one is capable of educating them. I doubt even Almighty God might be capable of enabling them "to see the light". The original Benedict is credited with leading Europe out of the Dark Ages. We might be witnessing a situation where the sixteenth Benedict is intent on leading Catholicism and Christianity back into a new "Dark Age"?
What is interesting to take from this documentary I think is the insight that at the height of all their greatest influence the greatest empires encouraged freedom of enquiry and eschewed dogma. The truly wise person, and rulers especially, is unafraid of real truth — and the freedom of enquiry that is its true servant.
I'm tempted to write that I wish the bishops of Australia would all look at this documentary and do something to stop Pell in his tracks as to what he is endeavouring to do to Catholic higher learning in this country through his attempts to control and dogmatise Catholic higher education. I sense it is already too late. Pell is merely a "politician" enormously adept at holding a wetted finger to the wind to discern which way the global ecclesial wind is blowing. If the wind changed direction, Pell would be the first to change his viewpoint quicker than any of us could blow our own noses. What is driving things today is a "global ecclesial wind" — and it is not a pleasant one but one driving Christianity and Christian civilisation back to fundamentalism, dogma and a new Dark Age.
Here are three screen shots I captured from the program:
![[image]](../misc/images2012/SBS-EastToWest_480x104.jpg)
I am just gobsmacked by the number of fabulous television documentaries that have begun to erupt on our television screens and computers in recent years. How I would love to be a young person beginning my life all over again from the point of view of the knowledge they now have access to compared to what was around when we were at school or university. What is exciting is that Pell's attempts to turn Catholic universities and other places of tertiary and adult education into some equivalent of modern Islamic Madrasah's will ultimately be thwarted by the democratisation of education through the media marketplace.
The entire program will be available for viewing on the SBS website or here for another seven days. I highly recommend this program for any person wishing to increase their general knowledge.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedWow!!!!!
Yes, it was a stunning documentary. Some years ago, I went to Cordoba in Spain to have a look at the famous "Cathedral" there. Cordoba was, of course, one of the great centres of Islamic learning, and as that program pointed out, the whole Renaissance thing took off because of the books that Christian scholars found in the Islamic libraries of Toledo and Cordoba.
The Cordoba "Cathedral", was a mosque, but has been turned into a Church, with a baroque Cathedral built right in the centre. Christian Churches went verticle, while Islamic Mosques went horizontal, and somehow in this attempt to bridge them both, it doesn't quite work. Mind you, as an example of a baroque Cathedral, it is not all that bad, but it was just a sacrilege to have ruined the view across this amazing building. Mind you, as some people have pointed out, turning it into a Church probably prevented it from being ripped down entirely by the Spanish Inquisition, commenced by Isabela la Catolica, who expelled the Moors and Jews from Spain in 1492, putting an end to one of the great eras of multiculturalism and religious tolerance. For her ethnic cleansing, and for bringing the faith to "ignorant" South America Indians, and for the Inquisition, there is a move within the Opus Deiers to have her canonized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral%E2%80%93Mosque_of_C%C3%B3rdoba
There were two other movements that I forgot to mention in the march of civilization: The Protestant Reformation, which was Christian, but certainly not Catholic, and the Enlightenment, which was neither. Again, my Catholic schoolboy view was that the Great Schism and the Reformation were the two greatest wounds to the "Body of Christ", that needed to be healed, and off we went praying for "Christian Unity". My current view is that they were two of the best things that ever happened to humanity, because they split the corruption of power.
The decline into irrelevance of the Catholic Church is very sad for those who thought that Vatican II was going to herald in a new renaissance, but it looks like any renaissance that does occur in the future for the human race is going to have to go on with out it. I still can't get out of my head, Chris Geraghty's wonderful description of the current Church hierarchy:
"....old frogs, thrashing about in an evaporating pool, full of wind, croaking out the same old message in the night – obedience, submission, conformity in all things.”
The old frogs have just croaked again and Sister Margaret Farley's book, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics has just hit No.1 in the Amazon charts, despite it being written six years ago.
locked
Christians should stop hiding their lenses!
by Roy , Thursday, June 07, 2012, 09:47 (353 days ago) @ James
I don't think anythings changed with the christian leadership since everyone was hiding their lenses in fear of being scourged or just locked up.
This sort of ignorant leadership is how got here ...still hiding our lenses etc
be they contraceptives or just letting your wife run things in the household.
Tut Tut .......you'll go to hell!!
I mentioned a book my neighbour wrote a few weeks ago about this very subject that East to West covers (yes I did watch it)
His book is about how the renaissance came out of a breakdown in authority and population allowing the east knowledge to find it's way in. (One of a set of book on alternate historys)
as I said yesterday ....you have to be careful and remember the victors always write the history.
Is how we got to this ridiculous place ....Opus Dei being the extreme example their thinking based in eradication of anything that isn't Opus Dei 
fruit loops of all fruit loops.
I think the only that will remain after this latest enlightenment and insight into the workings of catholic church will be a few phrases in our language.
Maybe time to start writing the churches epitaph ........wonder what it will read?
My own feeling is that it will be listed in history along with Stalin and Hitler
lockedWow!!!!!
This was an amazing documentary as so much of what it covered is almost unknown (or totally ignored) by Western Christian biased history. There must be great treasures of literature and architecture still around, if we knew where to search for them, and documentaries such as this are true gifts to us.
J A Holznagel
locked
The definition of "God"
by Dolores , Northeastern USA, Wednesday, June 06, 2012, 01:14 (355 days ago) @ Bill Dowsley
Nowadays, I believe in love, friendship, being manly, being decent, the beauty of the world and of people.
Bill - this is the very definition of God should we need to define God using human language. (I would alter "being manly" to "being the person we are intended to be")
With a very, very few exceptions these are not to be found in what was once 'my Church'.
Don't confuse an unknowable divinity with a human institution.
Don't confuse 'my Church' with the members of the hierarchy who are politically and self-servingly motivated.
Go with Love, Go with God
lockedThe definition of "God"
Dolores,
Your comments are well on target.
Last year I read theologian Elizabeth Johnson's - Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God.
I highly recommend reading her work. She presents perspectives from many resources to make us all think. God is the Incomprehensible Mystery who cannot be contained in a small box, even in the mind of humans.
Joe
locked
Brian, I thought you were meant to be having a rest!
by CathyT , Adelaide, South Australia, Monday, June 04, 2012, 14:58 (356 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Or are you having a "busman's holiday"?! 
Cathy Taggart
I splash in my poetry puddle
and try to keep God amused. - James Broughton
lockedBrian, I thought you were meant to be having a rest!
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, June 04, 2012, 19:00 (356 days ago) @ CathyT
Yep, always a busman's holiday for me, Cathy. I have no complaints though. Life is continually interesting and exciting.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
locked
If we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
by Vince , Mackay - North Queensland, Monday, June 04, 2012, 15:48 (356 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
The science of philosophy tells us that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SENTIENT BEING THAT WE DEFINE AS A GOD.
One loves to think that one brings only clear reason to consideration of truth in the world.
But all personal reason is affected by personal bias, no matter who you are! Yes even your own personal bias enters into what you thought was pure scientific reason.
Therefore it is virtually impossible for any one of us to really know truth in any situation.
Science can try to test the theories produced by reason, and if they stand the test I believe that the theories can be given a high value of acceptance.
Most theories start off in personal imagination. This applies in a general way to both scientific investigations as any other.
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
by Robert , Australia, Monday, June 04, 2012, 16:13 (356 days ago) @ Vince
Therefore it is virtually impossible for any one of us to really know truth in any situation.
. . .
Most theories start off in personal imagination. This applies in a general way to both scientific investigations as any other.
I have a sense, Vince, that what you have written above hits the nail on the head. There is a scientific theory called Bells Theorem, which suggests that the result of any experiment depends, in part, on the intention of the experimenter . . . and I think your last paragraph, above, says much the same thing.
What this means is that the objectivity claimed by science boils down to nothing more than "a high probability". We often hear television advertisements for medical products which use the ridiculous phrase "clinically proven". What this means is that there is a high probability that this material/tablet/whatever will work in your particular situation, but it might not.
With regard to religious matters, most of us try to prove what we want to prove . . . if indeed it is provable! In other words, mostly we are following our own inclinations.
Given the above, when one hears Popes and other clergy huffing and puffing about the evils of relativism, I can't see how it's possible to regard any knowledge as more than relative . . . relative to who you are, past experience, past study, past understandings and the starting point in your quest to find out.
From this perspective, infallible knowledge must be a furphy . . . there cannot be such a thing, because it really represents of God's-eye view-point. Because any human being can only look at something through their own eyes and with their own understandings . . . these things do not make something true, simply because the person asserts it.
All knowledge in many ways is like, as St Paul tells us, looking through a piece of glass . . . we only ever really get a glimpse!
Also worth considering is that, as the Hindus tell us, physical life is largely an illusion BUT we are locked into it . . . so we might as well make the most of it was caring and kindness and family Bill Dowsley said in an earlier message.
lockedWhat is the prime aim or objective or any religion?
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, June 04, 2012, 23:43 (356 days ago) @ Robert
From this perspective, infallible knowledge must be a furphy . . . there cannot be such a thing, because it really represents of God's-eye view-point. Because any human being can only look at something through their own eyes and with their own understandings . . . these things do not make something true, simply because the person asserts it.
See what I wrote in my direct response to Vince, Robert. But isn't the very challenge of "being human", or to quote the insight of Gregory of Nyssa, "the goal of the virtuous life is to become like God" — in other words the goal is to think, feel and act as though one had the wisdom, insight and overview of one who had a "God's-eye view-point"? The prime aim of any religious institution, or any minister in such an institution, is to help the individual aspire to have that sort of "wisdom, insight and overview". Is that not the prime purpose of the entire religious or spiritual endeavour in the sense that James Fowler outlines in his description of religion as a stepped process to higher levels of spiritual maturity? [Wikipedia: Fowler's stages of faith development] It might be true that none of us can ever finally get there — we all might aspire to be saints but few of us actually complete the course to do so within our lifetimes — but the quest to endeavour to do so remains and, I submit, ought be seen as one of the prime aims of the entire religious or spiritual quest in life.
The prime aim of religion, or belonging to some church, is NOT to go to church on Sunday in some endeavour to "suck up to God". The prime aim, as Gregory of Nyssa so brilliantly observes, is to actually learn how to make intelligent and wise choices and decisions in one's life as though one had the insight, the wisdom and the overview of God. It is a life-long process learning how to do that.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedWhat is the prime aim or objective or any religion?
Brian,
I have a bit of a problem with Gregory of Nyssa's saying,
"the goal of the virtuous life is to become like God"
and
The prime aim, as Gregory of Nyssa so brilliantly observes, is to actually learn how to make intelligent and wise choices and decisions in one's life as though one had the insight, the wisdom and the overview of God
We first have to ask, what was God's insight, wisdom and overview. You can go to the Bible, and see him ordering genocide, ordering a man to frighten the wits out of his son by sacrificing him (there is no suggestion of Abraham sedating him first), and then, like the man spared at the last minute before the firing squad, holding his hand, destroying Sodom and Gemorrah because the people won't do what they are told, and subjecting innocent Egyptians to having their first born slaughtered because of some despotic Pharoah, subjecting the whole of humanity to a form of collecting punishment because of the behaviour of Adam and Eve. We could, of course, pick and choose, and look to the lillies of the field, the good Samaritan (sadly with a different twist in the Archdiocese of Sydney) and the beatitudes and ignore all the genocide and vengeance stuff, but we can't deny that the Old Testament, at least is full of it.
But you could go beyond the Bible and have a look at nature, and of course, there are wonderful and stunning things in nature. We can look at Supernova, watch sunrises and sunsets, play with our children and grandchildren, use our brains to discover and use electricity, antibiotics etc...all the wonderful things of life. But we can't ignore the tsunamis, the earthquakes, the floods and fires, or the innate cruelty of the food chain and the evolutionary process,none of which have anything to do with sinful humanity.
So, what is the "insight, wisdome and overview" that we have to follow?
lockedWhat is the prime aim or objective or any religion?
by Robert , Australia, Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 12:44 (355 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
But isn't the very challenge of "being human", or to quote the insight of Gregory of Nyssa, "the goal of the virtuous life is to become like God" — in other words the goal is to think, feel and act as though one had the wisdom, insight and overview of one who had a "God's-eye view-point"?
I think you are correct, Brian, in saying that in order to acquire, or arrive at, a God's-eye-viewpoint, it is necessary to act as if we had such a viewpoint, or it was possible to arrive at it.
I also happen, possibly heretically, to accept that the word "God" probably refers to the totality of all being, which suggests that each of us contains the divine spark etc etc . . . you get my drift. It follows, if this is the case, that what you said above suggests that we re-member, in some way that I don't fully understand, "stuff" we already know, as opposed to finding something out for the first time? I think one of the prime things we need to rediscover is the God within.
The prime aim of is any religious institution, or any minister in such an institution, is to help the individual aspire to have that sort of "wisdom, insight and overview".
I couldn't agree more . . . I see that every life journey is an individual thing, and every point of arrival at the end of each life is also individual, and as such, needs to be respected. So whatever "wisdom and insight and overview" has been achieved in life just is . . . and I'm suggesting, in saying that, that words like "good" and "bad" don't really apply. So I agree with you totally that the aim of any religious institution is to help people to move towards the God's-eye-viewpoint in the best way that the individual knows how.
Is that not the prime purpose of the entire religious or spiritual endeavour in the sense that James Fowler outlines in his description of religion as a stepped process to higher levels of spiritual maturity? [Wikipedia: Fowler's stages of faith development] It might be true that none of us can ever finally get there — we all might aspire to be saints but few of us actually complete the course to do so within our lifetimes — but the quest to endeavour to do so remains and, I submit, ought be seen as one of the prime aims of the entire religious or spiritual quest in life.
Again, we are on the same page, the religious/spiritual quest is a lifetime journey. I have always felt that once you reach the point of saying, "I have arrived", you've lost the plot, because you've stopped growing in understanding. My personal experience is that every time I read a new book, listen to a radio broadcast, see something on YouTube, read really interesting material on Catholica, etc, I learn something new, and my perspective is changed . . . my understanding of something is changed in such a way that that my worldview is altered. I see this as healthy, but equally I understand that some may find this scary to live in a world that continually varies.
This of course, is part of what Fowler, I think, is on about. We do not live in a static world with worldviews that are the same for every person, and certainly worldviews which change . . . and specially in the 21st century . . . very rapidly.
I suspect that part of what those who were often identified as the "temple police", and also those on the opposite extreme who might be described as "fundamentalist Bible Christians". . . what they want security of an unchanging worldview, and work on the principle that "if you close your eyes, it will all go away".
The prime aim of religion, or belonging to some church, is NOT to go to church on Sunday in some endeavour to "suck up to God". The prime aim, as Gregory of Nyssa so brilliantly observes, is to actually learn how to make intelligent and wise choices and decisions in one's life as though one had the insight, the wisdom and the overview of God. It is a life-long process learning how to do that.
I love your description of "sucking up to God", and as one of many Christians who was taught to suck up to what I describe as "the headmaster God" . . . obviously loaded up with canes, straps, and the ultimate sanction – hellfire.
I no longer believe that God (however you see God) needs anything that we can provide. The whole idea of "praising" God sounds utterly sycophantic – as you've said often. I don't believe that God need to us to be in church on Sundays, Or the missing Mass the mortal sin we were all taught about.
I do confess, however, to being a Mass or Eucharist addict. One of the things I like to do often, on most Sundays is to attend a Mass somewhere. Sometimes this is within my own community, sometimes I visit other local churches of various denominations. Sometimes, when I am visiting, I listen to the preaching, and I think about whether I can agree with what is being said or not. On other occasions, you can walk out thinking WOW! Or thinking, "what a load of crap"!
This latter, the load of crap, is simply my opinion . . . many of the others there may have found it absolutely useful.
But, and it's a big but, whatever was done and said, what I found valuable was being with a group of people, enjoying their acceptance of me as a stranger, having something (the homily/sermon) to mull over in the ensuing days, and having had the opportunity to participate in prayers etc . . . which will possibly alter my worldview and spiritual understandings.
So, having said all that, I think you're absolutely right in saying it is a lifelong process.
It is why I would find it difficult to accept ministrations of the present Pope, who seems to want to say any variation in thought from the magisterium would threaten "ones salvation" . . . which is a static point of view!
lockedWhat is the prime aim or objective or any religion?
At this point in my life, I feel that I am reaching a new, more adult view of God, as I contemplate the Mystery opening up before me, as I discard the certainties of the past and much of what I was taught(brain-washed) as a child .
I was a ready adherent to the teachings of the Catholic Church till I had time to think, after my working life ended. Now is the time for sorting out in my life, to get rid of unncessary possessions, spiritual and physical, to make space for something greater. God for me until about 20 years ago, was the old man with the long white beard and big red account book - someone to be grovelled before; placated by certain rituals or prayers; kept in boxes by those in charge and dished out to the rest of us when we performed the right rituals. Then I began to intuit ( the only way I can talk about it) that Someone Who created everything must be beyond this. I believe that God, for me, is the Alpha and Omega - the origin and destiny of all creation. I have no trouble linking the Big Bang and "God said "Let there be light.""
From this all Creation flows and every element contains some of the stardust of Creation, restless till we are re-united or absorbed back into the totality from which we came.
As to the origin of God, that is not important for me any more. He is. I am. We are and that is OK for now.
One thing which is "under review" for me now is Original Sin. If God, Who is all good, made humans in His own image and likeness, then original sin becomes nonsense. I do believe that we inherit a tendency from our ancestors to make lousy choices in life and I do believe in race memory - that what happened back along my family tree has some resonance in me now.
Still struggling with the Redemption/Saviour aspect but not wasting a lot of mindspace on it. Incarnation makes a kind of sense but I'm not fully up on it yet.
I cannot now, in all truth, accept that the Catholic Church is any better than any other path to God. This has been brought about by the betrayal of our people by our leaders, not only recently (though we are only hearing about much of it now) but down the centuries when power meant more than people.
In "The Radical Christian Life" on page 50 Sr Joan Chittister quotes a Sufi proverb "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, there will be true peace."
Once this become the bedrock for society, we will know peace. How and from what source of belief/s this comes remains to be seen, but the seeds are sprouting as fundamentalism of all kinds fails..
J A Holznagel
lockedWhat is the prime aim or objective or any religion?
by Robert , Australia, Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 15:56 (355 days ago) @ judith
As to the origin of God, that is not important for me any more. He is. I am. We are and that is OK for now.
Yes . . . I couldn't have said this better!
lockedWhat is the prime aim or objective or any religion?
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 18:08 (355 days ago) @ Robert
Robert, thanks for these further replies. A few further thoughts flow for me out of what you have written...
What is this "truth" that we all seek?
Firstly, it has long intrigued me: what is this "truth" that we are all supposed to be seeking? In my own more fundamentalist and conservative days I think I primarily saw it as "understanding" things like the Ten Commandments or the teachings of the church. The "religious game" if you like was to be likened to standing outside abortion clinics, or in front of your children, demonstrating that you KNEW God's laws and you'd never be caught breaking a single one of them. The breakthrough for me was when I was confronted by some fundamentalist Catholics from within my own family playing that game and they were doing it at my expense (and the expense of a couple of others) by attempting to elevate their stature, and obedience to God's rules, but they were trashing our names and reputations. I'm sure they "took it to their graves" in total ignorance of the real game they had been attempting to play.
The "truth" we are meant to be seeking is NOT the Ten Commandments, nor the teachings of the Church — it ought be taken as a presumption that every intelligent, adult person knows those rules and laws. The "real truth that matters" are the myriad individual decisions and choices we have to make where, often in difficult territory, we have to navigate between the commandments and things like Church law and teaching, to actually make the intelligent moral choices in the matters immediately before us. We're not going to be judged, to take a pretty frank example, for how many times we stood outside abortion clinics protesting that abortion is wrong or trying to counsel clients of the clinic not to go in. That is a "game" of seeking to elevate one's own moral stature in the eyes of God at the expense of the person who has got to the end of their tether and decided that an abortion is the only answer. What we might be judged on (assuming in this case that you are a parent) is how you respond when you're sixteen year old walks in the door one day saying she has just had an abortion, or she's booked into to have one the next day. The "truth that matters" are the decisions you have to make as the parent of that child in helping them to come to some sort of spiritual equilibrium in their life given the action they have just taken or are about to take.
All of us are involved in making a myriad of decisions, large and small each week — sometimes each day — that involve choice. Choices that have a bearing on the future shape of our life journey. It seems to me that the "real truth" that we seek is not the Ten Commandments written in black and white in our bibles or catechisms, it is "the intelligent moral choice" or "truth" in each of those myriad decisions we have to navigate in order to live a fulfilled life. We don't instantly come at the ability to make "wise choices". It's not something we can learn in a classroom, or out of a Catechism, nor something that we can learn by having others make the decisions for us. By trial and error we have to make the decisions and slowly, slowly learn what makes for a morally or life-choice "good" decision and what is "less than the ideal". It is that very process of learning how to make "better decisions" that is the very process of "being a Christian" or "becoming more like God" to quote Gregory of Nyssa once again. We don't become "more Christian" by counting up how many times we go to church on Sunday. It is computed by our increasing abilities to make morally wise and life-givingly intelligent choices in our lives.
Of course, all that is absolutely heresy — or more likely totally incomprehensible to the temple police and the orthodox and conservative elements in the Church. The words literally "mean nothing". I may as well be trying to speak in swahili to them for all the meaning they can make of those sort of words. If I was some "authority figure" saying words like that they might swoon all over me like I was the Messiah himself.
How do we pass on this knowledge?
In defence of the idea that going to Church once a week is a good idea I don't think we can learn these "life lessons" or "moral lessons" in isolation. We don't, or can't, do it by reading books alone, or studying documentaries in this modern age. These are lessons that are only learning "in community" — by interaction with other people. We NEED a sense of community, or "communion", as our classroom of life.
The trouble with the ecclesiology (sense of church or community) we were brought up in — and which the Western world at large seems to be now rejecting — is that it was NOT geared to helping people "navigate life" and make these sort of moral decisions essential for their growth. It wanted to take all the "hard thinking" away from the ordinary pew-sitter and turn each of them into "docile" (that's the institution's own word) clones who would "pay, pray and obey" — and above all, not ask any difficult or challenging questions. The priestly caste assured us that they'd do all the thinking for us and all we had to do was follow their instructions.
Fear (of hell and eternal damnation) well might have been a brilliant marketing and evangelisation tool — a great tool for keeping the participation levels high but, can we ask, did it do anything to turn out "good Christians" or "good Catholics"; ordinary people capable of making morally intelligent choices?
What I'm leading to in all of this, and I don't pretend to have the answers, is how, in the new thinking milieu we seem to be entering do you continue to foster a sense of "communion" and "community" within which this "spiritual and moral development" can take place?
A couple of further questions to be explored at some time...
I really need to finish this later as there is much more to be explored and I don't have the time right now. What I'm getting at is that I have a sense that we still need to "congregate" or "go to church" or "be in communion" but, once you remove the fear factor that "unless you attend on Sunday you'll go to hell" — how do you encourage "community" or "communion" in this new milieu we're in where people cann't be forced?
A further question that arises in my mind is how do you measure the effectiveness of the organisation/institution/local parish or diocese in achieving its overall objective. For a long time now we have relied on Mass Participation Levels to provide some sort of measure as to whether or not Catholicism is achieving the mission it was commissioned to do. That measure is now quite plainly inadequate not so much because the vast majority no longer rock up but it provides no measure of progress towards "spiritual maturity" in the overall context of what we've been discussing in these posts.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedThat is beautifully written, dear Judith. Thank you. nt
by Bill Dowsley , 'Wombeyan, NSW', Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 20:28 (355 days ago) @ judith
nt
lockedIsn't this pointing to the big confusion in what the role of religion is, Vince?
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, June 04, 2012, 23:30 (356 days ago) @ Vince
The science of philosophy tells us that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SENTIENT BEING THAT WE DEFINE AS A GOD.
I agree with that in the sense that this Mystery we try and cram into the word "God" is not supposed to be "sentient" like us. Who, besides the fundamentalists and biblical literalists would hold such a belief anyway?
One loves to think that one brings only clear reason to consideration of truth in the world.
But all personal reason is affected by personal bias, no matter who you are! Yes even your own personal bias enters into what you thought was pure scientific reason.
Therefore it is virtually impossible for any one of us to really know truth in any situation.
But isn't what you've just written above part of this massive confusion in society as to what the role of religion is, Vince? Some seem to perceive religion as some agency for social control — forming "docile, obedient citizens" who can be easily manipulated and controlled. Even some high Church leaders seem to operate from that illusion (or is it delusion?).
The alternative view, I submit, is that one of the prime purposes or objectives of religion is to encourage the individual to be able to see beyond their own "personal biases" – their own insecurities, anxieties and the tug of ego – to be able to see whatever they happen to be looking at, or considering, through the eyes of a person with the "wisdom and insight of God"? That is the very function, the prime function, that a religious institution ought be engaged in — lifting its members up to engage more intelligently with their world and with their neighbours. Is that not the prime role of education, spiritual and moral formation, adult faith education? So often "adult faith formation" is interpreted not as empowerment and uplifting of the individual but a further attempt to get them to "learn and memorise" the dogma rather than to learn how to apply the rules or navigate through them to make intelligent choices in their lives — and not necessarily just "moral choices" but all the sorts of choices we have to make whether it is buying a new computer, new clothes, what food we should eat, where we should live, what we ought study, where we should most intelligently invest our savings, or utilize what capital we have, and so on.
Science can try to test the theories produced by reason, and if they stand the test I believe that the theories can be given a high value of acceptance.
Most theories start off in personal imagination. This applies in a general way to both scientific investigations as any other.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedPersonal biases
The alternative view, I submit, is that one of the prime purposes or objectives of religion is to encourage the individual to be able to see beyond their own "personal biases"
I don't know of any religion where that is its prime purpose, except maybe those not so dogmatic ones of some sections of Buddhism where the practice of meditation is supposed to make you "lose yourself".
I would have thought that all religions actually promote biases which they want to impose on the individual, so that they then become the individual's "personal biases". Then they build up all sorts of fear mechanisms to keep them there - eternal damnation for apostasy, for the sin of "pride" for daring to think outside the religious square, and with excommunications and defellowshipping.
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
Brian, either question could give us something to discuss for the next year.
Currently, there is a popular movement toward atheism and it seems to go along with current cries to turn to communism here in the USA. In spite of it being a faddish in-thing, atheism will remain a passing fancy. It is doubtful that any society can or did exist without a notion of “God.” Can a society exist without the notion of organized “Church?” That question in both of our countries is becoming much easier to answer as formal Church disintegrates before our very eyes.
There is something innate in our desire to worship a being that is greater than ourselves. Even when we walk out of our beloved churches we know that what we had inside the doors remains with us outside of our churches. For many of us the knowing of a something else in this universe has become stronger by our exiting.
We search out those that have had a similar experience and form like groups of other believers that worship an unseen presence that we relate to without doctrine or rituals. Our belief in the goodness of this “other” binds us together without leadership or an institutionalized hierarchy. We follow the teachings of Jesus and other prophets and mystics because they are good principals of a moral way to live. The most of us practice contemplative prayer and allow our inner room to become our teacher. Living in the presence of the unseen becomes our way of life and seeking the unseen in others becomes part of our quest.
We can certainly exist without Church but we cannot exist without the unseen presence because it is part of who we are in this universe. This notion of “God” is the common denominator that is the unseen factor that binds us together in an eternal singularity. It is so very sad that men have used this desire within us to create organizations that have led so many into slavery, wars, and an endless path of exclusionary hate of other humans. We can only hope that as we continue to evolve we will recognize the beauty of this presence in one other, our natural surroundings, and in the endless universe. If we don’t we are doomed to fail by simply trying to be something without the very essence of our being.
Please forgive my z’s. Richard
Richard
lockedYou don’t have to believe in God.
“You don’t have to believe in God. You just have to believe that you are not God.”
Bill W. one of the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous.
After hearing him talk in Sydney recently I’ve just read two David Tacey books, Edge of the Sacred: Jung, Psyche, Earth (2009) and Gods and Diseases (2011). They are both very good.
A few things about Gods and Diseases: Tacey is a Jungian scholar, that is Carl Jung’s work strongly affects Tacey’s world view and Tacey clearly knows Jung’s writings very well. He also writes about them clearly and engagingly. Not all writers in this area do.
I have read little Jung though I know a bit of him from some inner work I have done. I am not sure yet what I think of him. Some things he says are spot on in my experience. Some things I just do not know. So far I have found nothing I really detest or think is nonsense.
Wikipedia says that Carl Gustav Jung (26 July 1875 – 6 June 1961) was a Swiss psychiatrist and the founder of analytical psychology. Jung is considered the first modern psychiatrist to view the human psyche as ‘by nature religious’ and make it the focus of his exploration.
He was at first a disciple of Freud but they broke away from each other. Part of the reason was Jung’s insistence on the religious aspect of humans whereas Freud was an atheist who thought studying the religious aspects of his patients was going off into fairyland.
Tacey was born in 1953 and now teaches at La Trobe University in Victoria. As a teenager and young man he lived in Alice Springs and is influenced by Aboriginal insights into what it means to live in Australia. He uses this information in Gods and Diseases. He is also a teacher of Literature and poetry features in his work.
Tacey believes in gods and he thinks they are necessary to our psychic health. I am inclined to agree with him. If you are an atheist do not rush away yet. He is pretty convincing. He is not talking about the god you learned from Brother Belter at St Mary Miserable’s or from Sister Terrorista at Our Lady Fear of Hell. He is talking about the god instinct which he and Jung believe exists in the universe.
I recommend the whole book, Gods and Disease, but I’d especially recommend the chapter called ‘The Storm Gods and the German Psychosis’. In it he deals with what happened in Germany after 1918 when under the influence of Nietzsche and the belief that God is dead and that they had been humiliated the Nazis gained power and wreaked havoc on the world. Tacey accuses the Germans of the day of a massive projection; "everything bad is someone else’s fault".
Christianity was in decline, it failed the Germans he argues but modernity was singularly incapable of dealing with the gods and demons of our nature.
I started with a quote from Bill W. He was one of the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous and he too was influenced by Jung, and by Genesis. The great insight of Genesis is that given paradise humans are not satisfied. We want to BE God.
That’s why the first step in AA is to admit you are powerless, “You don’t have to believe in God. You just have to believe that you are not God.”
If you think YOU control the universe you will never get and stay sober let alone psychically or spiritually healthy.
Nietzsche had declared God is dead then tried to become Superman. He wanted to contain God in himself. He ended up mad.
Jung argued that the ever present temptation of humans now is that we want to be God. But as Hitler and his gang showed us we either humble ourselves before the gods or become humiliated by them.
This is not me or Jung or Tacey evangelising you. Jung is not putting a Christian or any other line. He thinks that the way Christianity has gone has failed modern humanity.
I have read similar sentiments on Catholica.
He argues that we have to find new ways of being healthy with the gods. Poetry and art offer something.
That’s enough from me.
I’d be interested in some of you reading Gods and Diseases or Jung or anyone else who has something sensible to say and see what we can come up with.
lockedYou don’t have to believe in God.
Thanks for that Enda...I haven't read Jung, and only know of what he said in a general way. But the problem with Freud is that he may have been an atheist, but then he turned around and invented another religion, psychoanalysis, in the sense that it was an all encompassing dogma, that had an explanation for everything, and which was impossible to subject to any form of scientific verification, despite its claim to be science.
But I loved this:
He is not talking about the god you learned from Brother Belter at St Mary Miserable’s or from Sister Terrorista at Our Lady Fear of Hell.
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
Why would you even have a concept of God?
Sue
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
by Oramzi , Monday, June 04, 2012, 20:08 (356 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Brian its a bit fruitless to raise these questions if you don't understand the difference between faith and belief compared to demonstrable knowledge. You cannot logically test the reality of a Creating God since it is but the result of belief, and faith in that belief. Perhaps you need to start another forum and leave this one to those who believe in God and in the Catholic Tradition and wish to discuss matters in that framework... Ken Fuller
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, June 04, 2012, 20:25 (356 days ago) @ Oramzi
Perhaps you need to start another forum and leave this one to those who believe in God and in the Catholic Tradition and wish to discuss matters in that framework... Ken Fuller
There is some discernment goes on as to who we allow into this forum, Ken. I think there are a plethora of internet "forums" where people can discuss "Catholic Tradition" in the sense you seem to be using the phrase in that sentence. A lot of us here think that it is precisely that interpretation of "Catholic Tradition" that has led to the vast majority of baptized Catholics in the educated, affluent, Western world saying "bye, bye". It might be yourself that needs to "start another forum"...
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
Brian its a bit fruitless to raise these questions if you don't understand the difference between faith and belief compared to demonstrable knowledge. You cannot logically test the reality of a Creating God since it is but the result of belief, and faith in that belief.
Ken, welcome to the forum. Since you raise the issue, I'm not sure that I really understand 'the difference between faith and belief compared to demonstrable knowledge'. Could you explain a bit more?
Also, I'm not sure how this makes Brian's original question not worth raising. How do you come to that conclusion???
Sue
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
by Oramzi , Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 09:08 (355 days ago) @ Sue
Thanks for the Comments on my comments on faith and belief. One cannot never prove the existence of God as one can prove the existence of the force of gravity for instance. If one comes to a belief in the existence of a God who created the universe and created us as part of that universe; one has to have faith that this God is a caring God who will be with us for all time and that prayer for instance is a meaningful way to our relating to God the creator. With so many real issues to be discussed regarding belief and faith I think that going back to identifying what sort of God we could invent really is a distraction. I know many people who have faith and belief but don't turn up for Mass. I don't regard them as having said Bye Bye. Ken Fuller
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
If one comes to a belief in the existence of a God who created the universe and created us as part of that universe; one has to have faith that this God is a caring God who will be with us for all time and that prayer for instance is a meaningful way to our relating to God the creator.
Why does that necessarily follow? It's a nice thought, of course, but bearing in mind that affection and the psychological rewards that it offers, ensures the continuation of the species - and not just human ones, most animal species that we term "higher" - is not that reason enough for its existence? Assuming that there is a creator, why does that necessarily have to be projected onto him/her/it?
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
" If one comes to a belief in the existence of a God who created the universe and created us as part of that universe; one has to have faith that this God is a caring God who will be with us for all time and that prayer for instance is a meaningful way to our relating to God the creator."
Ken, the very first problem I see here is this:
How does one come to a belief in God in the first place? 
Now I know that Brian and others are attracted to the idea of a there being a creator of the universe, and naming that creator 'God'. However, if you accept that, then rationally, where do you go from there? That is the next problem, and I think that Is what Brian's question is trying to address.
Finally, how do you know that what you further decide to accept (ie. that God is a caring God who will be with us for all time and can be related to through prayer) is not just the product of wishful thinking?
These are serious questions for many of here on Catholica, Ken. By wrestling with them we are searching for truth, and trying to help each other in that search.
Sue
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
by Oramzi , Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 10:53 (355 days ago) @ Sue
Sue thanks for your comment ...Belief in a caring God is completely a matter of belief and faith. It is no good gazing into space waiting for some philosophical proof because there isn't one. It's like love between Man and Women which is another good example of faith and belief. My point is that in this forum we should have accepted the existence of a caring creator God and move on from there. It's like the question of are there Angels and how many would stand on the head of a pin -- irrelevant to the big spiritual issues facing the Christian Catholic Church. We are, after all, discussing Catholic Spirituality and I think it's outside that discussion to go back to discussing a blank page . Rgds Ken Fuller
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
Ken,
I think you have a point about Catholica, because at the top of the title page it is advertised as "A vigorous discussion on Catholic spirituality, theology and faith". And I am sure that is how it started out.
Certainly when I joined the discussion about four years ago, I knew I wasn't going to ascribe to any of those thing, and was going to question them. However, no one suggested that I shouldn't be here, despite being a card carrying agnostic, at least on the God as creator hypothesis, and atheist on the God as personal Redeemer bit.
Gradually over time, more and more people who have a Catholic background, but who share my point of view at one extreme, right up to your point of view, at the other, have come on board. But isn't it OK, for all of us to be talking?
Ultimately, what all this boils down to is personal experience, and you mention being in love, which I think is the perfect analogy. None of us can get inside any one else's head and if anyone says that they have a personal experience of God, it is not my place to question the integrity of what they are saying. But nor is it their place to question mine if I say I haven't. But we are all human beings with different experiences and outlooks, sharing a common humanity. It can only be a positive thing to talk about them, provided it is done in a tolerant and respectful way.
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
by Robert , Australia, Wednesday, June 06, 2012, 16:53 (354 days ago) @ James
Ultimately, what all this boils down to is personal experience, and you mention being in love, which I think is the perfect analogy. None of us can get inside any one else's head and if anyone says that they have a personal experience of God, it is not my place to question the integrity of what they are saying. But nor is it their place to question mine if I say I haven't. But we are all human beings with different experiences and outlooks, sharing a common humanity. It can only be a positive thing to talk about them, provided it is done in a tolerant and respectful way.
Thank you for that. I have often thought what you just said above, James. The only things we KNOW are our own personal experiences, and I believe that our spirituality must start from there . . . not from some pre-digested second-hand material, provided by religious people or organisations.
The function of religion is to assist us to make sense of these experiences . . . or not, but the actual deciding how something makes sense is for each individual.
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
" It is no good gazing into space waiting for some philosophical proof because there isn't one."
Ken, it can be good to stand still and literally gaze into space. To suspend all beliefs and just try and experience the reality in which we are immersed. (It can be a bit like picking up a glass of water, and just looking at that stuff contained in the glass. Forget all the knowledge we have about water, where it comes from, what it is made of etc, and just look at this gorgeous, silvery, clear stuff, as if for the first time. Stare into space in the same way.)
You are right, that no philosophical proofs of the existence of God will be forthcoming. On the other hand, your 'inner compass' may experience a deep and lasting change of direction, a true metanoia. Or it may not, in which case, I just do not think we can deprive ultimate reality a chance to speak for itself by pre-emptively deciding what we do or do not want to believe. But that is just me, and I am quite happy for others to take a stand as atheist or theist if that is what they truly experience as reality.
On this forum many different questions come up for discussion and we all pick and choose which ones we want to respond to. You are right that there are big spiritual issues facing the Christian Catholic Church and I welcome your thoughts (in a different string) on some of those.
Sue.
lockedThe very first question is ...
G.K.Chesterton says somewhere that if you are taking in a boarder the first question you should ask him is "What is your philosophy?" Only after you have that clear should you ask, "And can you pay the rent?"
The BIG question I would want to ask a boarder now is, "Which God do you believe in?" If she said "I do not believe in God" I would persist with, "Which God is it that you do not believe in."
All the other questions about religion can wait until we find out which God we are talking about.
I do not believe in a god who plays silly games, for example. I do not believe in a god who demands sacrifice to get her or him to change his or her mind. I do not belive in a god who takes the life of a young person to test the faith of its parents. I do not believe in a god based on medieval kingship. There are lots and lots of gods I do not believe in.There are many gods I hear promoted by Catholics that I do not believe in.
I believe in a different god from the one some very important Catholics believe in.
God is not a creature and I find many of the images of God that rely on comparisons with creatures are disturbing and harmful.
That's why Brian's question is important.
lockedThe very first question is ...
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 11:00 (355 days ago) @ Enda
There are lots and lots of gods I do not believe in.There are many gods I hear promoted by Catholics that I do not believe in. [/color]
An interesting concept of 'many gods I don't believe in' Enda.
I find the concept of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit just too hard to cope with. All the mental gymnastics one has to go through work out who is what etc. I sometimes wonder if this 'doctrine' wasn't brought in to salve the notion amongst pagans of the time that there were gods for all occasions!
If this sounds heretical, then so be it. But it is the truth I am now facing, I do not believe in a Trinity.
Although I must say here that I most certainly follow Jesus and all he says - and he was the human manifestation of God's message to us all.
Still, I hang to what I hang on to in order to make my faith journey more authentic to me- and I must confess I now am drawn towards the poetic Celtic notion of God.
Helen
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedIs there a 'receptor' god.
One of the big questions that undid me when I started on my 5 year journey out of the 'cave' was a question I asked someone on Cat News, someone who was supposed to be there to answer such questions. In my depression as a result of finally not being able to maintain the masquerades we call adulthood and all the isms that go with that, and even worse, not being able to any longer maintain the psycho-social compartmentalisations that go with trying to cope with the effects of abuse, I would be lying in bed as I was want to do at that time, praying spontaneously and using a few of my preferred prayers such as the Anima Christi.
Then one night I simply asked the question to myself; "Is there actually a 'receptor' that is receiving my prayers (and they are mental prayers) in the same way sort of that I hear music or sounds: In other words, Is God real AND personal: (does God exist and also have a receptor of my prayers?)
The person from Cath News said I shouldn't be asking such questions because they were a distraction (from the devil) from me living out my faith (or words along that line).
Suddenly, I realised what type of people I had been involved with all my life and I wasn't happy nor have I been able to answer that question and I feel, now, like a total fool for having prayed all the prayers I ever have, believing more now that I was simply praying 'in my head' and there only.
And yet, I continue to do so and still, somehow hope that there is something out there, or in there, capable of 'hearing' my conversations with ?????
But, as silly as my initial question was, just think about it for a bit, and also ask yourself, have any of your 'prayers' ever really been answered? IE IS there a God and a God that actually receives us.
(Apologies to those who have faith - I don't want to undermine that). My conclusion: Be-lief = being in a state of LOVE, ('lief' and love coming from the same root), nothing more, nothing less, I'm sure this has always been the message of the mystics. But then that LOVE is also meant to be shared with those around us. Therefore God is not an objective noun but a psycho-social verb ever present when two or more are together IN LOVE and even when one goes onto the quiet of their own room. And that's what most people do not get BE-LIEF = BE-LOVE: But for some reason this is also something I think I have been frightened away from now - my reason alone won't let me go there neither will my hurts from when I did. It's hard to trust such a 'lifestyle choice'.
In regards to the point Ken is making (hi Ken, and welcome) having a starting point on this forum that acknowledges the existence of God, I sort of agree and perhaps we can have a separate forum sub-heading which we can call 'the devil's advocate' forum and discuss the more objective elements of belief there. It's funny, my biggest complaint when doing Studies in Religion at Uni was exactly the same as this: I was sick and tired of going over the same ground: I just wanted to assume the existence of God and then study theology, but I realised later that if I wanted to do that I need to go to a theological college which I did for a tiny while, but oddly enough, it was more of the same just talking about interpretations of God and scripture instead.
Be-lief. Yes, but it's so hard now.
Oh yet we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill
lockedThe first time I heard about real be-lief: Karen Armstrong
as being both intelligent and loving, combining and using the best of both head and heart: I think it's on this video - we had a discussion about it a while back. Even if it's not on this video, it's really worth listening to: These are the people we should be listening to and spending our days discussing and being nourished on. Love her.
(It's at 3 mins:18 secs) Should listen to also what follows.
If it doesn't work, go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMm4RAwVLo
I suspect if I listen to the likes of her more, believing would not be such a problem nor so difficult.
I want what she's having: Is that a choice or a coincidence of chance - need to first break down the barriers of damage.
Oh yet we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill
lockedThe first time I heard about real be-lief: Karen Armstrong
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 12:26 (355 days ago) @ Oh Yet We Trust
That's a great contribution to this discussion, thankyou Stephen.
I don't have a sense anymore of a 'God' I can pray to who will find me the best job, or a wife, or the winning numbers in Lotto or whatever. There is no 'receptor God' at home in that sense. I do have this sense that there are positive and negative forces that subfuse Creation — perhaps something like electromagnetic radiation or the unseen neutrinos or cosmic radiation that none of us can see but we can "measure" to be very "real". We have the choice to "tune in" to what Jacob Bronowski described in his television series "The Ascent of Man" as "the music of the spheres". We can align ourselves with the positive vibes in creation, or the negative vibes in creation, in much the way that modern science discerns there is matter and anti-matter, the measurable forces and the dark forces in the Universe, or we can choose to simply opt out of it all and be basically guided by our own egotistical wants and our insecurities and anxieties.
The "trick", as physicist Fred Wolf says in this video clip from "What the Bleep do we Know?", is to "be in the Mystery". In other words to remain content within our unknowingness or lack of answers...
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedThe Brain That Changes Itself:
We have the choice to "tune in" to what Jacob Brownoswki described in his television series "The Ascent of Man" as "the music of the spheres".
This just reminded me that I didn't really cover the concept of me being a receptor creature, ready, willing and able to listen to "God" rather than the other way around. Many a saint would have us acknowledge that it's not so much about God listening to/hearing us but about us listening to/hearing God. But, well, um, I now have so many problems with this one-sided perception of God: It's just too easy to then put it all down to just being in the head. But then, when you take it all on as St Benedict did, as listening with the ears of your heart, well then it does make much more sense and does have a much more transformative effect- it becomes a reciprocal belief, where God be-lieves in us/me. If we accept this and 'experience this as happening every time we pray, it then helps the plasticity of the brain work for you rather than against you. Our brain makes connections by looping together often what are separate things such as faith and negative emotions/thoughts/experiences, a bit like the old Pavlov's dog trick. But if positivity/rewards/joy/a sense of meaning/the feeling of being loved are looped with faith either by coincidence or experience, then faith becomes a positive thing. The same goes for faith and punishment/negative experiences/judgementalism: If we are punished in the context of faith (and by punish, I mean if whenever we discuss things or we experience a religion and we leave feeling sick or upset) then our brain will loop these two separate things as one, sort of like some people link sex with violence or paedophilia with priesthood.
Anyway, these are just some of the things I am exploring at the moment. Am reading a brilliant book called, "The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science", by Norman Doidge, M.D. see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brain_That_Changes_Itself - it has explained a great deal about so much.
And for those still interested, if you want to understand the processes involved in sexual attraction of all types, as well as paedosexuality/addiction/pornography - remember we were discussing it a few months ago - Chapter 4 - "Aquiring Tastes and Loves - What neuroplacticity teaches us about sexual attraction and love" - of this book will explain so much so well.
Oh yet we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill
lockedThe first time I heard about real be-lief: Karen Armstrong
by Robert , Australia, Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 15:04 (355 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
So . . . isn't religion/spirituality about "exploring the mystery" that is life/the Universe/ and everything else?
And a mature "faith" is one that says, "I'm never going to have all the answers . . . but, for sure, I will enjoy the ride".
This approach is not as secure (if it is secure at all), but it makes life more exciting! You are always finding out something new, or finding out a new way of looking something you had worked out.
lockedThe very first question is ...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 11:44 (355 days ago) @ Enda
Thanks to all of you for the contributions to what is a fabulous conversation.
My own sense is that "God is not dead" in the sense that Friedrich Nietzsche suggested he/she/it was, nor in the sense that can be inferred from Francis Fukuyama's suggestions in "The End of History". I think of the proposition via two windows...
Firstly I think fundamentalism is far from dead in the world. There will always be a remnant who need a concept of an "intervening God" they can pray to to cure their bunyons and cancers and who they believe will do their bidding in other ways just provided they continue to offer the correct sacrifices and incantations. In a sense God didn't invent God but humankind needed to invent God as a means of dealing with our human insecurities. That seems embedded deep down in the human psyche. We need security and certitude in our lives almost as much as we need food and water each day in order to survive. [See Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" Wikipedia.]
Secondly, and I'd argue more importantly, I sense there are other, and deeper (if that is possible), reasons why there is a need for "God" in the soul of humankind. I suspect this is the sort of "God" Carl Jung might be referring to or, for that matter, Gregory of Nyssa, in the quote I referred to a few times in this string.
The "fundamentalist God" is a God who, in a sense, is made in our image. The "Jungian/Gregory of Nyssa 'God'" is more the one who is an aspiration or manifestation [I'm not sure that is precisely the correct word] of the human dream of perfection. This "God" is not made in our image (especially our insecurities and need for certitude) but is some concept or visualisation of the "perfection" we aspire to in our behaviours, in the behaviours of humankind generally (our neighbours and enemies), and in the perfection of the whole of Creation itself — the perfection of the Cosmos. When in our theologies we speak of ourselves being made "in the image and likeness of God" I sense it is this "Jungian/Gregory of Nyssa 'God'" that we are referring to, not the "God" of religious fundamentalism.
When I hear atheists such as Richard Dawkins rail against religion and belief in a "God" my sense is that the "God" they are railing against is the "God" of fundamentalism not this sense of perfection, or wholeness, that humanity and Creation aspires to. My own sense, and despite the small statistical rise in the number of people in the world who would claim to be "atheistic", is that I don't expect in another four or five hundred year's time our world will be atheistic. Conversations like the one we are presently having will still be going on trying to discern what, or who, we aspire to be, and what form of ideal society humanity is trying to build.
Why I think this question I've posed — "If we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of 'God'?" — is important is that I think it would help if we identify the best sort of God we ought believe in.
Complicating everything I suspect is that lived life isn't quite as simple as I've outlined it here — basically into three categories of: a fundamentalist 'God'; this 'concept of perfection or an aspirational God' of what we aspire to be and what we aspire society and civilisation to be in its "perfect" state; and atheism. The reality we all have to contend with is that within each one of us there's a bit of the fundamentalist, the perfectionist and the atheist!
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
I'd like to know what is the eternal canvas that we can spread our dreams and images onto, that is beyond economic reasoning and the imperfection that humanity is? I would have thought that to always be the key to ancient religions, that are constantly revisited in every age, as humans attempts to posit their picture of Dorian Gray onto it.
Sociology tells us that it is the youth that bring each new and subsequent change, a phenomena that we have seen particularly rise alongside the evolution of the working class. I then have to ask, did the '60's really bring us the freedom that generation promised? I can only see more and more people returning to the wheel of production and losing any sense of identity and culture in doing so. Value, it seems, is still being derived from the workplace/career.
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
by Ian Lawther , Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 00:49 (356 days ago) @ Liz
God is God I am I am I dont want to understand I am happy to appreciate that every sunset I see means the start of another day out of the dirt bunk that awaits us all, and my faith in my mongrel Christianity/spirituality will provide me with what is needed to get through the day.I accept that every one is entitled to their thoughts on God and am willing to show them the same respect on their versions as I hope they will show mine.A one size fits all religion does not work/has not worked any where because to go against nature is to go against
god /Godde/Buddah- whatever. There is no need for us all to think the same what we need is to appreciate the fact that we can think.
Cheers Ian Lawther.
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
Ian, your last sentence is brilliant. Thanks.
J A Holznagel
lockedIf we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of "God"?
by Ian Lawther , Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 20:59 (355 days ago) @ judith
Thanks for the reply Judith. to me appreciation and acceptance of differing ideals/concepts are the building blocks of any civilized community with 7 billion people in the world there could well be 7billion Idoltry figureheads and to me not one of them has any more worth than the other.What matters most that we are comfortable with our concept.If we dont appreciate our abilty to think and to use the wonderful machine(our body)how are we to encourage others to appreciate and accept differing situations. so there is another Word Appreciation Acceptance and encouragement.Somewhere I read the lines I read the lines"If you cant see god in your adversaries you never will See Him." And Ithink if we dont appreciate our selves/ accept ourselves/ encourage ourselves we wont do it for others.
Cheers Ian Lawther. 
lockedIf we had to start , what would be our concept of "God"?
Thanks to all who commented on 'if we had to start all over again, what would be our concept of God'. I feel all these shared comments are God's way of sharing with us His words, wisdom, reflections and answers to questions we may have. The true Spirit of God continues to work in our lives and in our world - if we would only listen.
locked
