Values, belief, politics

Well, the religious theme continues on Webdiary. Craig Schwarze organised this article by Greg Clarke, from New College - I might say a very concise, coherent statement of a Christian view of Church and State.

by Greg Clarke

I will be reminding them [Muslim leaders], as I remind all Australians, our common values as Australians transcend any other allegiances or commitments, and I will be talking in practical ways about how these goals might be achieved.

John Howard, reported on SMH website in PM set for radical talks with Muslims, 22^nd August 2005.

The Australian Prime Minister made this extraordinary comment in August last year in the week of a summit with Australian Islamic leaders to discuss the problem of religious extremism.

I cannot think of many religious believers who would agree with it.

In fact, many would regard it as the ultimate act of blasphemy to suggest that there is a higher allegiance than one’s God. I don’t know how much import to place on the Prime Minister’s remark, which was in the midst of a radio interview, but at the very least it demonstrated the difficulties that today’s secular, and often pluralistic and multicultural states, have with religion.

If the Prime Minister was claiming that there is a kind of natural law which all human beings, by the very nature of the universe, understand and respect, then I can go a fair way down that path with him.

Yes, there are many shared values, morals, and a common conscience. Most religions, cultures and societies agree on many of these things. In his famous essay on the subject, C.S. Lewis claimed that it would be “the abolition of man” (we would say ‘humanity’) to deny this.

However, beyond that it is remarkable how different and distinctive can be the various religions. Christians believe Jesus was the son of God, who died on a cross for our sins and was raised to new life by God as Lord of the Universe. Muslims do not believe this. Muslims believe that Muhammad is Allah’s last prophet; Christians do not. Jews believe in a God who speaks; Buddhists do not. Hindus believe in karma; Christians believe in grace.

We are at a point in Australia where we are wrestling with such issues. How can religions which teach quite obviously different beliefs and approaches to life, both individually and socially, coexist? Is there a kind of secularism where religions have a place, or are they always going to be in conflict with the secular state?

To my mind, one point is clear for the Christian. He or she cannot agree with the Prime Minister’s comment that there is an allegiance that transcends commitment to Christ.

The Bible teaches that Jesus, the Son of God, is the one through whom the world exists, for whom it exists, and by whom it continues. The fullness of God dwelt in him and he is responsible for making peace between God and all things on heaven and earth, through his sacrificial death. He is the human hope for the life to come, because he rose from the grave and is empowered to give that same eternal life to anyone who will believe in him and walk in the Christian way. (I get all this from the Bible, Colossians 1:15-20).

These are no small claims. One’s allegiance to Christ rides above everything—above nation, above community, above family.

But at the same time, allegiance to Christ gives the Christian a whole range of opportunities and responsibilities in nation, community and family.

So, if Christ is Lord of all, how then should a Christian live in the world?

How does faith in Christ work itself out in the polis, in politics?

In my view, there are three stances you might take on this issue:

1. Try to run the place

2. Try to leave the place

3. Try to persuade the place.

The first view is, in my opinion, the stance of many Christian political parties. The reconstructionists in America are here. ‘One nation under God.’ Ideally, they would run the state. They would have power to legislate, and would do so according to Scripture. They would attempt to put into law the Christian way of life. There are some groups among Australian Christian communities who seek this outcome.

I don’t believe Christians are called to this position. It seems to deny the separation of church and state which I see in Scripture.

The second view is, in my opinion, also unbiblical. It is the separationist view, where the church is an alien community with nothing in common with the state. The church looks inward, not outward, and is only concerned to obey God itself, not to bring about godliness in the world.

Many church groups throughout history have reached this point, especially when the ‘world’ or state or polis has seemed particularly sin-ridden and to be involved in it a compromise of the Christian walk.

Stanley Hauerwas, an eminent American ethicist, recently argued that in a human future he believes will be bleak, Christians should be known as "those peculiar people who don't kill their babies [through abortion] or their old people [through euthanasia]."

As attracted as I sometimes am to this view, again it doesn’t pull together the nature of the church in the Bible well enough to convince me.

The third view is that the church and polis are distinct, but in a very particular way. Jesus Christ is the actual ruler of the world, post-resurrection. Therefore, the Church is the greater ‘nation’, and its Christian duty is to tell the state what to do—to restrain it from the evil it is inclined to, and to give it moral guidance.

But it will NOT do this by trying to wrest control. Instead it will “speak truth to power”, as the Quakers put it. In particular, the church will play a role in humbling the state, precisely in reminding it that what the Prime Minister said on the radio last year just won’t wash with Christians, or any genuine religious believer.

We look forward to pursuing the commonality that is the Prime Minister’s goal, but it can’t happen by transcending religious beliefs. For believers, there is nowhere higher.

[ category:

]

Hillsong

Submitted by Ross Chippendale on March 21, 2006 - 3:49am.

Hi Craig, I noticed your comment on Hillsong and I'm sure they do actually help people.

But to quote a couple of good things is a little short of the whole story isn't it? I know the allegations about using Feds funds mainly for "fees" and employing people to administer funds are still just allegations but really, Hillsong is essentially a blue light disco. Why do people go? Because their mates go and it's a great feeling to be amongst people who are having a good time and feeling good too.

I've been to similar events but had to stand up and leave when some in the audience began babbling, trying to imitate what they see as "talking in tongues". How do I know that was rubbish? I waited outside and asked those I saw babbling what had happened. Their answer was that they felt they had to as others were doing it. They admitted it was simply babbling, forced.

I don't question that being included value to people but why the need for Federal grants to distribute when so many government agencies already exist to do just that? Isn't it clear that pushing money through Hillsong simply adds more middlemen? That it's about gaining votes. More people and costs to reduce the amounts actually getting to the supposed targets.

To be extremely cynical maybe it's Costello's way of helping reduce unemployment?

Could I ask you directly what is the moment that you found your belief and how? It could have been no particular moment but I just don't get it. This is where I just cannot follow religion and I am genuinely interested in how others have made that connection. It's probably a question too hard or personal to answer but I'm ready to listen, and not criticise, if you can respond on that.

I'm currently reading a book about the Gnostics and their beliefs. It's hard reading as I'm not familiar with all the names but it's something I had no idea about and want to understand what they say and why. Of course any books are just someone's understanding of what info they have available but already this book has created huge questions to me about the history of Christianity, things I had previously just accepted as part of what I was taught as a child but may be a total misunderstanding or deliberately altered.

Reply to Ross

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 21, 2006 - 11:43am.

Hi Ross, I'm amazed that anyone else still looks at this thread! Regarding your questions and comments -

Hillsong is essentially a blue light disco. Why do people go? Because their mates go and it's a great feeling to be amongst people who are having a good time and feeling good too.

This is a common enough criticism. The church is damned either way on this issue. If its all solemn and old-fashioned we are "out of touch". If it is contemporary and fun we are "populist". Every church has to find its style.

But the appeal of community has always been one of the attractions of Christianity, from the earliest days.

Their answer was that they felt they had to as others were doing it. They admitted it was simply babbling, forced.

Fair enough. Many more conservative Christians share your concerns.

I don't question that being included value to people but why the need for Federal grants to distribute when so many government agencies already exist to do just that?

Well churches have always been involved in charity. Whether the government supports them or not is a decision for the government. The present government likes to "outsource" some of these functions - you can express your dissatisfication at the polling booth.

There is also an idea that churches do this stuff better than the public service. Certainly my friends who deal with Centrelink say it's a nightmare.

Could I ask you directly what is the moment that you found your belief and how?

Sure, happy to share my story. It will be necessarily brief.

I grew up in a not terribly religious house. Didn't go to church or Sunday School. Heard some stuff at Scripture at school and that was about it. I remember praying a lot though - mostly when I really wanted something. But at age 15 I considered myself an atheist, and I was proud to be the only one in my roll-call class with "no religion" on their sheet.

But there was always a sense that there was something more going on in the world. At 18 I was talking to a girlfriend - we used to have these huge D&Ms. One night we started talking about the whole God thing. I was trying to straighten out a few things in my life at the time, and wanted that to be one of them.

So we tagged along to church with a mate. There was no hard sell, just some people who spent a bit of time answering questions and explaining the gospel message.

One of the things that struck me was how intelligent and coherent their world view was. I was also impressed with the rather scholarly sermons. I had vaguely expected to hear pious fairy stories.

After a couple of months I was convinced that it was true. I knew I either had to walk out of church and never return, or make Christ the most important part of my life. I chose the latter path.

If you want to ask any more questions that might not be appropriate for these forums, you are free to email me at craig.schwarze@gmail.com. Anyone can email me who wants, I don't bite.

Regarding the gnostics, there is a mountain of scholarship. If you are fair dinkum about this, finish what you are reading and email me your questions. I know a couple of historians who specialise in that era of church history who can probably help.

Reply to Roger

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 7, 2006 - 11:01am.

"Craig Schwarze, I compliment you on your neat little trick. I see that you refused to answer a single question that I asked you. Your assertion that I put words in your mouth is part of that ploy. I was going to assume that you had an ulterior motive for something so transparent and then I realised as I read your reply that you were making your most significant personal statement so far."

Roger, I frankly did not understand much of that paragraph. Let me say this - if we are talking about my beliefs, I will express them in the manner I see fit.

You are smart enough to know whoever frames the terms of the debate has a massive advantage. But I reject your understanding of God, and I reject your presuppositions.

If you want to know what I believe about God and faith, you will have to listen to my words and mode of expression. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

"I know the details of your last post intimately. The interesting thing is that it fits point by point with Catholic theology, but then your being Anglican explains that fact."

I'm not denying that it fits Catholic theology – however, you are simply incorrect if you think it is somehow sub-protestant. Read the Augsburg Confession, the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession and the 39 Articles. They will demonstrate clearly that what I have written is entirely protestant.

"...if you are also familiar with the first principles of theology. "

I doubt we agree on the first principles of theology. I think we would have radically different assumptions here. I would say that one of the first principles of theology is that God has revealed himself, both in creation and scripture.

"Well, since you are not omnipotent, how could your rebellion be any more than an irrelevant rump that does not posses enough gravitas to be even a miniscule annoyance for a Supreme Being?"

Because humanity has far more significance in the eyes of God than you allow. Humanity is created in His image, given authority to rule over his creation. We are not insignificant and irrelevant in His sight.

Also, the majesty of God is so great that any affront against Him is a very serious thing indeed. And an insult increases in severity depending upon how respect is due to the person insulted.

If I insult someone who has just done me great harm, no-one would consider it particularly unjust. If I insult my mother who (say) had loved me and sacrificed everything for me, that certainly would be a much greater wrong.

How much more dreadful are insults against the creator, to whom we owe everything? There is no such thing as "minor rebellion" when it comes to God.

Finally, there is no such thing as "minor sin" when it comes to us either. The nature of sin is that it grows and spreads. If you look at everything that is bad about our world today, that is the result of sin. When you look at the terrible things that happen in wars, say, is it wrong for God to be angry about that?

"So if there is no satisfaction for your terrible theology by considering an omnipotent God"

I have amply demonstrated that there is

"He also knows why He is punishing us and He knows that we are confused by that because often the punishment far outweighs the gravity of the offence."

I do not agree on two points. I do not agree that every misfortune that happens in the world is a punishment. And I do not feel that the punishment "far outweighs" the offence. As I argued above, there is no such thing as a "small offence" when it comes to God.

"I am struggling to see anything in the God that you revere because He is crueller than the worst despot on earth because He does all these things by His own hand with full knowledge."

It is not our place to judge God, but to be judged by Him. And God does not owe us anything. He is debtor to no man. He does not owe us a happy and prosperous life. If He gives us 10 years of life, that is 10 years more than we can create for ourselves or anyone.

My parents were not wealthy. When I was 15 I was given a bike, but it was 2nd hand. I complained. And I am ashamed now about that, because my parents gave me so many good things.

It is not for us to judge God for the life He has given us. It is not for you to call God "cruel" or a "despot". It's like a teenage girl complaining that her parents are "so unfair" and "they just don't understand."

Job had the right response - "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." I know you cannot swallow that, Roger, but the fault is not God’s.

"Perhaps if we consider omnipresence some semblance of a God worth knowing will become clear. Well, the problem with omnipresence is that it is so damn paradoxical. God does not exist in our space-time continuum."

I disagree. If God is to be truly omnipresent, it seems to me that He must certainly exist in our space-time continuum. Having said that, I am not a physicist. Fortunately our assistant minister used to be a physicist before he was ordained. I could ask him about it if you want to pursue it.

"If God is angry then He is angry for ever. If He is happy then He is happy for ever. No switch states can exist for an omnipresent being."

This is too simplistic. Say you have twin sons in the living room with you. One of them is behaving well, the other is behaving badly. You can be unhappy with the latter, whilst simultaneously being happy with the former. There is no contradiction here.

God is deeply unhappy with sin, and deeply happy with true righteousness. He responds appropriately wherever he finds it on "the space-time continuum."

"There will never be a time for Him when this “rebellion” which you embrace so readily will be over. It is just there forever."

That is simply untrue. The events of rebellion are restricted to the space-time continuum. In so far as they are bound by time, it is possible for them to be over.

"If a person never has the opportunity to think about these things then perhaps they can be excused. You study theology, you search for meaning and yet you can only acknowledge a bean-counter God,"

The God I acknowledge is a bean-counter, but so much more besides...

"...super-heavyweight champion of the whole of creation, who will one day punch your lights out because you have been a bad boy and He found out what you did."

If what you mean is "He will someday righteously judge all the works of man and dispense justice" then yes, I agree with you.

"What sayeth you?"

What I have just said-eth.

Craig S., I apologise

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on March 11, 2006 - 5:58pm.

Craig S, I apologise for being tardy but we encountered the "mother of all weeks" which reduced my free time to zero.

Just to explain regarding my last post's opening paragraph, I put a number of questions to you which you just ignored. However, in place of some specific answers you gave a fairly comprehensive review of where your spirituality stands today, as distinct from what you may consider as being theologically "in play".

At this stage, I want to address some of your points because I think in those cases your logic fails.

"But I reject your understanding of God, and I reject your presuppositions".

Can you explain which of my understandings and presuppositions are in error in your opinion? I have given you a number of theological propositions about the Supreme Godhead. If you have a different understanding of my arguments then I would like to hear them.

"If you want to know what I believe about God and faith, you will have to listen to my words and mode of expression. That seems perfectly reasonable to me"

Absolutely, as it also applies to me. I understand your faith position and I have nothing to say about it. Your personal relationship with God, as you see it, think it, feel it, is absolutely none of my concern. I do, however, want a justification of your theology. Firstly, as it relates to the propositions that I have put and, at your discretion, how it fits with your faith.

Perhaps, you could explain, what the proposition means to you, that God is “all-powerful, all-knowing and ever present”.

Regarding you assertion that "one of the first principles of theology is that God has revealed himself, both in creation and scripture". What proofs do you supply for the first part, i.e. in creation and can you supply just as rigorous and factual proofs for the second part, in scripture.

Regarding your claim that mankind is somehow special in God's eyes how do you explain the away the deaths of tens of millions of people, over the eons, in circumstances of horror and degradation? How would you explain to the wife of a fisherman in the Sunderbans that it was God's will and an expression of God's love and charity that her husband was eaten by a tiger?

How in the face of these facts do you justify your statement "We are not insignificant and irrelevant in His sight"? What proof is there anywhere on this earth that humanity enjoys a special status? I have looked for it for many years and have not found it. Is there a refuge that I have overlooked?

"Also, the majesty of God is so great that any affront against Him is a very serious thing indeed. And an insult increases in severity depending upon how respect is due to the person insulted".

Craig, you commit the error of anthropomorphism. God, if He exists has no feelings. Only those possessing a body made from DNA with all the electrochemical functions inherent, have feelings. What you engage in, as do most believers, is the folly of sheer arrogance. You have decided that God must punish you. This is the only way that you can control your God, by appeasing Him for imagined sins.

Have you ever met a person who has great power? I have had the good fortune to have met one of the most powerful men on earth. This fellow possesses immeasurable wealth and is responsible of over 100,000 employees. The thing that strikes you, almost immediately, is that nothing fazes him. He is cool, calm and collected, fearing little. Now if this relative pissant, compared to the Supreme Creator, has a life flair that regards insults and minor rebellions as nothing to be concerned, what, apart from your need to control God, makes you imagine that you can do this same thing to God?

"It is not our place to judge God, but to be judged by Him". I did ask you this question before so perhaps you can amplify your answer, seeing that God is omniscient and omnipresent what is the purpose of His judgement? Can you see that God knows the outcome of all things already? Do you agree with what I just said?

As to what "God owes us". That is simple. If we can say that God is a just God then He owes us a duty of care. We are His creation. He cannot just create us and then judge us according to rules known to Him alone and still be considered a just God. Mankind existed for at least 1 million years before God, in His wisdom, chose an unknown tribe of desert nomads as the outlet for His holy word. Even today, there are millions of people who have little idea that this God of the Jews is their final arbiter. You may consider yourself very fortunate that you stumbled across this fact before you ended up before God and wailing "Why wasn't I told".

Now "Job", says you. Look, I cannot handle arguing the case through some one who never existed which would indeed make it hard for me to swallow. A possible fictitious entity is being spoken for by a man who never existed, why don't you quote Mickey Mouse?

Regarding God's existence within this space-time continuum, I confess to poorly wording my point. What my intention was, was to point out that God is not bound to our space and time. He must be, if He is truly a Supreme Being, is independent of now. And certainly you can get an opinion from your assistant minister. I would be most interested to hear it.

I said, "If God is angry then He is angry for ever. If He is happy then He is happy for ever. No switch states can exist for an omnipresent being."

You say "this is too simplistic". I will ask you quite simply for your understanding of what the answer to these questions are:

How does God get angry?
What happens when God gets angry?
How long does God get angry for?
If God has existed for ever what measuring point would He use if He was angry yesterday?
Does God ever forget that He was angry?
When He considers past events does God have "flashbacks" where He momentarily get angry again?
What is the purpose of God's anger?
Did God know before He created the universe that He was going to get angry?
What scale can we use to measure God's anger?
What physical manifestations are there when God get angry.
What happens to God when He is unhappy?
Can God be happy and unhappy at the same time, because if you are sinning and I am not what becomes the proper Godly response, multiply that by 3 billion?
If God has defined righteousness in a Hebrew book why did He not make us all Jews and ensure that we all understood?

This week I had the opportunity to reread the transcript of the 1948 BBC debate between FC Coppleston, the Jesuit philosopher, and Bertrand Russell on the existence of God. The thing that pleased me most is that these two gentlemen argued their case from first principles with no Bible reference or appeals to magisterium or faith. There was something quite powerful in what they both said because it allowed for the fact that "knowledge of God", i.e., theology, always must precede faith. At the time, the world was still coming to grips with the horror of the holocaust and the ever-present question, "where was God?".

That question remains unanswered.

There Is An Impasse

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on March 12, 2006 - 2:45am.

Craig, I thank you for taking the time and the effort to answer my last post.

You raise the existence of Natural Law. From a faith perspective, this is primarily the work of Thomas Aquinas. I wonder why, if understanding natural law is a basic predisposition of all men, we had to wait for Aquinas to give the proof to such an idea. Historically, the first known codified laws are within the Code of Hamurabi. These laws deal with the practical matters of the time. Prior to that, stretching back through the Stone Age, the concept of Natural Law would seem an exotic endeavour. By the time we reach back past the Neanderthals and back to the very simple first hunter-gather groups, are we really saying that there was in this society of humankind, an explicit understanding of Natural Law? To what purpose would our ancient forebears need access to Natural Law as presented by Aquinas? Is not the work of Aquinas a special pleading to provide a substantial framework to modern Christianity (the servant of the powerful)?

You say that I anthropomorphise God. I need you to understand clearly that I do this for your benefit and not because it represents anything that I believe. I do not believe that a Supreme Being has anything in common with a biped life form that is made of the same DNA as worms or slime moulds or anything else that we would say "lives". The biomass of this world is all interconnected and if examined at the microscopic level is basically indistinguishable. It is not my position that this particular species of primate is made in the image of a Creator. If that is true then the Creator must be subject to the same laws of entropy and must suffer the same fate, namely decomposition and recycling into either other life forms or inanimate matter. Of course, if the reference to being made in God's image is not a reference to our physical reality but to some invisible soul then we are departing again into the realm of faith and not rational discussion.

If you had faith, that is a belief in a personal God who has conquered death, and Scripture did not exist, you would have to invent it because no rational examination of this existence could lead you to saying there is a "God who personally cares". The evidence is completely to the contrary. In every aspect, faith/religion is a special pleading. Is it not somewhat incongruous that only in the last 4000 years of this space-time continuum has God seen fit to inspire some writing about His existence? If you accept 1 million years as the length of Homo sapiens' existence on earth then God has revealed Himself only in the last 4 thousandth of 1 percent. In your case, I assume that you would merely accept this as being "God's plan'.

A word on faith. It is actually quite clear, contrary to what I intimated purely for the sake of argument, that faith does neither follow nor precede theology. One does not need to know anything about Godly attributes or any other facet of Godly knowledge to be a believer. Faith is such a peculiar thing in that no amount of argument or logic can form it or shake it. True to the "Tent of Miracles" tradition, faith is the shamanistic response to life.

Responding to the Impasse

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 14, 2006 - 9:15am.

Firstly, I want to thank the Webdiary editors for their patience in allowing this increasingly esoteric debate to continue.

I think it is significant that Roger and Alga initially came across as critics of religion. But as the debate has progressed, it has become clear that both have belief systems that could be classified as religious/spiritual.

That being the case, I hope I have presented historic Christianity in a way that compares favourably to these competing world views.

Now, to answer some more of Roger's points -

...are we really saying that there was in this society of humankind, an explicit understanding of Natural Law? To what purpose would our ancient forebears need access to Natural Law as presented by Aquinas? Is not the work of Aquinas a special pleading to provide a substantial framework to modern Christianity (the servant of the powerful)?

I think you have misunderstood my point. All men are affected by natural law - it is written into their hearts. Your example of Hammurabi is one evidence of this.

However, you don't need to understand Thomistic philosophy to be affected by Natural Law, in the same way you don't need to understand Newtonian physics to be affected by gravity.

You say that I anthropomorphise God. I need you to understand clearly that I do this for your benefit and not because it represents anything that I believe.

I appreciate you doing this for my benefit. But this raises some problems. Do the arguments you put forward based on anthropomorphism have any validity or not? Because you have used anthropomorphism quite a bit. For example, suggesting that God is "cruel" is anthropomorphic.

I find this too confusing. I would much rather that you put forward arguments that you yourself believe. I feel there's little point engaging in a discussion if you turn around at the end and say "Well, I don't believe that anyway."

...no rational examination of this existence could lead you to saying there is a "God who personally cares". The evidence is completely to the contrary.

Oh, I disagree. I know of all the terrible things that happen in the world - mostly caused by people. And yet I am still struck by the abundant provision of God in every area of life. Perhaps it’s a "glass half full" kind of thing.

Is it not somewhat incongruous that only in the last 4000 years of this space-time continuum has God seen fit to inspire some writing about His existence?

I don't see why.

If you accept 1 million years as the length of Homo sapiens' existence on earth then God has revealed Himself only in the last 4 thousandth of 1 percent. In your case, I assume that you would merely accept this as being 'God's plan'.

Correct. I should also point out that writing has only existed for a few thousand years.

A word on faith. It is actually quite clear, contrary to what I intimated purely for the sake of argument...

This is problematic. When you say something, I am taking it on good faith that you actually mean what you are saying. What is the point of me engaging with arguments you don't believe?

Faith is such a peculiar thing in that no amount of argument or logic can form it or shake it. True to the "Tent of Miracles" tradition, faith is the shamanistic response to life.

The word faith actually means "belief" or "trust". It is a vital part of all relationships. That’s why we talk about a "faithful husband" or a "faithful friend". We cannot live without it.

Craig, the editors actually

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on March 14, 2006 - 9:54pm.

Craig, the editors actually enjoy reading all this, don't you guys and gals?

I will trust that you don't think that this is underhanded but in each case where I have used terminology that mirrors some of your own, it is done to highlight the incongruous and problematic ways and ideas of religious belief.

When theological argument comes to the point of the implausible (if not ridiculous) then the standard fall back is "God's plan". When faith finds no reason for its existence it fall back on "laid upon my heart", "moved by the spirit" etc.

God gives man an intellect (standard theology) and man gives God pablum and totally useless and pointless adoration.

Those of faith laud the soaring towers of theology but dare not explore beyond the carefully defined borders for "thar there be monsters".

The life of faith is life in a box. Comforting, reassuring but confining. The prevailing wisdom is "if you must question do not do it much". All the answers to life's riddles and problems are set out in these books and the works of a handful of men.

Question for you, why could you not be the next John Knox? You do understand at a visceral level, I hope, that the Reformers did say "to hell with the old theology let's have the new". The problem is that today, Reformation theology is old and worn, and doubly for the Catholic one, and out of step with a modern understanding of a Supreme Creator based on what we have learned in the intervening 400 years or so.

We can do a crude attempt at creating life through cloning. We can explore the universe. We can live in a life that compared to 2000 years ago is truly miraculous. You would be killed as a sorcerer in the time of Christ for doing the most mundane things of this day and age. And yet when it comes to the justification for faith, time stands still, reason, science and all the miracles of this millennium do not amount to a hill of beans. What a waste!

I am not spiritual in the sense of having a religious faith but my God thinks that your God is a joke. My God actually thinks that I am doing something worthwhile by questioning everything. My God does not want and did not create a world of poor wretched sinners but a world for those who would try to understand his creation. Your God is in the pocket and employ of the establishment (I believe that the Queen as Fidei Defensor gives your God his daily orders). My God is the creator of everything (even the Queen).

Not restricting...

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 15, 2006 - 8:37am.

Roger, I have to say that my experience of faith has not been restricting at all. It has opened up some marvellous doors and exposed me to some wonderful experiences. I can say, with absolute sincerity, that my life has been much richer and fuller than it ever would have been otherwise.

One other point. The Reformers did not see themselves as wholesale "throwing out" the old theology. They saw themselves as returning to the "real" old theology of Augustine and St Paul. When you get around to reading Calvin and Luther I suspect you will be surprised at how much respect they give the church fathers.

Ah Yes, The Experience

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on March 16, 2006 - 12:22am.

Craig, somehow I think we are somewhere near where we started. As with you, my years of Catholicism and in particular, Charismatic Renewal were full of all sorts of wonderful experiences.

The experiences are a chimera, however. If you want to take heed of something from your own scripture, read Matthew 17. Jesus dismissed the experience of the Transfiguration even though his companions were overwhelmed. The disciples had to concentrate on the work at hand not the experiences.

I think that you will understand this admonition. If you want to live a life in Christ, there is no Transfiguration only the preparation for the crucifixion. Don't get seduced by experiences, the Gospels are quite clear, the reward is in the next life not this one.

My personal belief, is that except for a few outstanding individuals, those who profess their faith have little to no understanding of what that entails. The gospels do not depict an experiential magic carpet ride or the obscene displays of Hillsong, or prayer breakfasts, or biblical study groups or anyone of a thousand other distractions. The gospel depict the interaction of Jesus with ordinary people. Why do Christians not follow Christ's example?

Experiences

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 16, 2006 - 10:04am.

I think I might use the word experience more broadly than yourself Roger. It is not just an emotional experience. It might include study, or a new friendship, or engaging in some act of service. These are all experiences - and enriching ones. Even "taking up your cross" is an experience.

As to why Christians do not follow Christ's example - well, the majority that I know do try.

Is "Try" Enough?

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on March 19, 2006 - 12:15am.

Back to nuts and bolts Craig. In my opinion, the trying is hardly worth the effort. The world is no better off by people trying to emulate the life of Christ.

Christians are expected to make a difference in following their Master. It's all very lukewarm from where I sit. For example, I would expect a million Mother Theresa's, we only got one. Her order remains behind, a shadow of its former self.

Can you imagine the impact of a million Mother Theresa's? The world could not help but be changed for the better. It's just not there, I'm afraid.

In place of a million MT's we get hundreds of millions world-wide who are "trying" and making no difference. All the world's ills remain. Moral turpitude abounds. Professed Christians take nations to war based on lies. Christianity is a failed ideology whose one saving grace is the comfort that it brings those who indulge. The rest of mankind is consigned to hell in a hand-basket. As practised, it is really a very selfish pursuit. I point to Hillsong again as a typical example of selfish Christianity in action, complete, of course, with pelvic floor exercises.

Christ, as portrayed by the Gospels, had no house, no car, no mobile phone, no computer games, no job, no vacations, no future in this world. His triumphant entry in to Jerusalem only took place because he knew (amazing prescience) that somebody had a donkey that he could borrow. Where was the event management company a la Billy Graham Wordwide Crusades or Dr Ralph Schuler's Crystal Palace or Joyce Meyer's one-woman tour-de-force, for the Son of God?

Are Christians prepared to follow the sort of life that Christ actually lived? If they are not, then, is not all the pious huffing and puffing just so much selfish, useless ballyhoo?

Trying...

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 19, 2006 - 8:25pm.

"In my opinion, the trying is hardly worth the effort. The world is no better off by people trying to emulate the life of Christ."

In my opinion, the world is better with people trying to emulate Christ.

"It's all very lukewarm from where I sit."

I can't contradict your view. Yet from where I sit, I am seeing many lives impacted for the better.

"In place of a million MT's we get hundreds of millions world-wide who are "trying" and making no difference."

There are plenty who have made a huge difference in my life. I've just gotten back from a weekend conference where quite a number got up and told about those who have made a difference in their life as well.

"I point to Hillsong again as a typical example of selfish Christianity in action"

I get a little upset when Hillsong is criticised - and many within my Anglican denomination criticise them.

Hillsong has a massive charitable arm called "Emerge". When I was going through my divorce, I attended a divorce recovery program they run. The course materials cost $70 (for a 15 week course) - aside from that they made no money out of me.

They are selfish, are they Roger? Certainly I did not find them so - I found a beautiful group of people who helped me through an extraordinarily painful time in my life. And they got nothing out of it - I had nothing to give them in return.

Even though I don't attend their church, and don't agree with all their theology, I do thank God for Hillsong. And I know of many others who have been impacted by their work. Indeed, their entire Emerge program contradicts your point Roger.

"Are Christians prepared to follow the sort of life that Christ actually lived?"

It is a great challenge, no doubt about it.

"If they are not, then, is not all the pious huffing and puffing just so much selfish, useless ballyhoo?"

I agree. But more is being done than you know.

Not Good Enough

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on March 20, 2006 - 10:31pm.

Craig, I have read far more inspired and spirited defences from you than what you have just presented. There is a very tired theme to your assurances that things are well in Christendom.

Things are not going well. What you seem to be quite satisfied with seems to be so far removed from the vibrant portrayal of the Gospels that I find it difficult to reconcile the two.

I am glad that people came in to your life as you needed them but are you actually saying that even one of these people was anything like a Mother Theresa. I trust that you understand the point that I am making. I do not know of a single Christian person in Australia with the track record and instant recognition of an MT. I would be very interested to know who, from your experience, you would equate with her and we could do a comparative study.

Regarding Hillsong, it is a fact that all the churches gave money to the victims of the Indonesian tragedy. On my reading of the Gospels they should have given every thing that they had, with no thought to tomorrow. Is that not the message from Christ to the rich young man? Is that not an act of trust in the providence of the Lord? $500,000 seems like a lot of money but in comparison to the hundreds of millions of dollars of aid that has been given, it is almost irrelevant.

What about this scenario as an example of absolute belief in the providence of God? What if Hillsong sold all their property and then hired a tent to worship in while they sent the tens of millions that they would make from their property sales to Indonesia? What if the thousands of people who attended Hillsong did the same, sold up all their houses and cars and shares and sent it all to the Indonesians? Wouldn't that be magnificent Christian gesture on an unprecedented scale? Wouldn't people around the world be in awe of these Christians? And, of course, wouldn't Christ look after these "giving till it hurts' Christians making sure that they themselves got food and shelter, a nice tent or even a caravan or Housing Commission flat to live in? Yes, we missed the opportunity for an inspirational act of charity and to prove to a sceptical world how God rewards those rely on His providence. Of course, we will not examine the reasons why God's providence did not extend to the 250,000 persons who died in the first place.

You see how poor the actual Christian response to the tsunami was? It was not the widow's mite but the Pharisees shekel that was being given by most of those charitable souls.

Hillsong's ideology is a Christian travesty if compared to the gospels. Perhaps you would like to present a short analysis of why you think that Hillsong is true to the Gospel message and what it is about that church that you think God is thankful for.

Not good enough indeed...

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 21, 2006 - 11:26am.

Craig, I have read far more inspired and spirited defences from you than what you have just presented.

Well, I said enough to refute your comment. But I'm not going to waste too much time. If I said "they gave $1M" you would say "Why not $2M?". If I said "they gave $2M" you would say "Why not $4M?" What is the point?

There is a very tired theme to your assurances that things are well in Christendom.

I don't know that I've used that phrase. I admit that I find your constant attacks tiring.

What you seem to be quite satisfied with seems to be so far removed from the vibrant portrayal of the Gospels that I find it difficult to reconcile the two.

From what you have written, I don't have any confidence that you have read the gospels correctly.

I am glad that people came in to your life as you needed them but are you actually saying that even one of these people was anything like a Mother Theresa.

No, but that was not the point under discussion. You are confusing categories - either deliberately or without realising it. I will be charitable and assume the latter.

I do not know of a single Christian person in Australia with the track record and instant recognition of an MT.

Gosh, neither do I. She was a remarkable woman, wasn't she?

I happen to know quite a few physicists. And you know something - none of them are as smart as Einstein!! Can you believe it? Obviously they are not serious about physics.

Regarding Hillsong, it is a fact that all the churches gave money to the victims of the Indonesian tragedy.

Indeed. I have no idea why this is relevant to the discussion though.

On my reading of the Gospels they should have given every thing that they had, with no thought to tomorrow.

Your reading is flawed.

$500,000 seems like a lot of money but in comparison to the hundreds of millions of dollars of aid that has been given, it is almost irrelevant.

Doubtless you and the local "former-catholics" club raised heaps more.

What about this scenario as an example of absolute belief in the providence of God? ...

Well, I guess they have to work out their faith for themselves. If they come to me asking for advice, I'll be sure to point them your way.

Yes, we missed the opportunity for an inspirational act of charity and to prove to a sceptical world how God rewards those rely on His providence.

What rot, Roger. Nothing will change your mind about Hillsong and you know it. You would just come up with some other reason to criticise them - "Yes, they gave the shirts off their backs. But if they were really serious, they would have each donated a kidney as well."

You see how poor the actual Christian response to the tsunami was? It was not the widow's mite but the Pharisees shekel that was being given by most of those charitable souls.

I don't see that at all. And I bet my eye teeth that you have no idea exactly how large the "Christian response" to the tsunami was. You are just throwing out baseless accusations, looking for any opportunity to criticise.

Hillsong's ideology is a Christian travesty if compared to the gospels.

I don't think you are in a position to judge.

Perhaps you would like to present a short analysis of why you think that Hillsong is true to the Gospel message and what it is about that church that you think God is thankful for.

I've already said why I am personally thankful to Hillsong. Obviously their help to me (and many like me) means nothing to you. Fair enough.

No, I wont present the analysis you ask for. I would be wasting my time. There is a saying about "pearls and swine" Roger.

A Sore Point

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on March 21, 2006 - 11:36pm.

Craig, I note in your reply to Ross, and you have done it on other occasions, a touch of apology that people would read and even respond to what you or I or anyone else would write here. I have no idea why you need to preface some of your remarks that way.

What you write is not an imposition, that is what WD is here for, no apologies or expressions of surprise are necessary.

I am also disappointed that you have allowed a personally-pointed cynicism to creep into your replies. That is unnecessary and unwarranted. Either we have a robust debate here or else we stop. It's your call.

I don't understand why you have taken it upon yourself to be an apologist for Hillsong but since you have adopted that role I will address some of your last statements. Normally, as a debating style, I don't favour the point by point rebuttal but on this occassion I will do so.

Firstly, you have said absolutely nothing to refute my comment except your statement that you have done so. I have looked very carefully through your last post for your refutation and I cannot find it. Second, as to what is the point?, the point is what is specifically written in the Gospels.

This is your area of expertise and it is something that you are writing on elsewhere, as you have intimated. This is what I have been given to understand about you. You profess to follow Christ. You fully understand what being a Christian means. Therefore, you can either deny or endorse the Gospel reports of Jesus Christ.

Did he or did he not, by His life's example and words eschew ALL wealth? For myself, I would dearly like to find the part where He said "Keep a little for a rainy day, or your old age or your children's education". Do you personally think that being wealthy is a sign that a person is being "mightily blessed" by God, as can be commonly heard at Hillsong.?

I don't know that I've used that phrase (referring to all's not well in Christendom). I admit that I find your constant attacks tiring.

I don't know that you have said those exact words but that is the clearly intimated inference of most of your writing. As to the second sentence above, I am not attacking you. You have represented yourself as a Christian apologist and a lay theologian, like myself.

To question the essence of your publicy-stated belief or to probe your understanding of your very public apologetics I have issued many challenges (most of which in my opinion you have ducked). If you want your faith to be a private matter then you can do something about that. If you want to hang your beliefs out in a public forum then you cannot avoid being asked pointed questions.

From what you have written, I don't have any confidence that you have read the gospels correctly.

My first question is for you to point out the theological error of any position I have taken. That is a well-accepted and standard procedure in any religious debate. In our fairly lengthy exchange over the past month I have not yet received from you a detailed and referenced rebuttal on anything that I have written.

I would expect that from anyone who wishes to present Christian apologetics in a public forum. Your statement above is specious. The issue does not revolve around your personal levels of confidence but around the presentation of argument and counter-argument.

No, but that was not the point under discussion. You are confusing categories - either deliberately or without realising it. I will be charitable and assume the latter.

I confuse nothing of the sort. I deliberately injected Mother Theresa into my post to highlight something that is very obvious, quantitively. The number of living saints, that is people who can be easily identified as truly living a life in Christ and therefore making a difference to the world can be counted on one hand in any lifetime. I expected you to comment on why that was so. Instead, you slid into this:

Gosh, neither do I. She was a remarkable woman, wasn't she?
I happen to know quite a few physicists. And you know something - none of them are as smart as Einstein!! Can you believe it? Obviously they are not serious about physics.

I need to correct you on Einstein, who I have studied extensively. He was not an especially gifted physicist and he was not a particularly brilliant mathematician either. Most postgraduate physicists of today would put Einstein to shame on the "smart" table. In fact, Albert relied significantly on his friend Marcel Grossman to clean up his formulas. His genius was in intuiting that time was a variable property and what that meant to the Newtonian view of the world. His personal life was a shambles and after he emigrated to the US did very little of any value.

Indeed. I have no idea why this is relevant to the discussion though.

It is relevant because you raised the charitable arm of Hillsong in your defence of them.

Your reading is flawed.

With apologies to Pauline H, please explain with all the relevant scripture that you need why my reading of the Gospel message of giving till it hurts is flawed. I am truly interested to know how you interpret what Christ said and did in the matter of wealth.

Doubtless you and the local "former-catholics" club raised heaps more.

Sarcasm is the refuge of those who have lost their way. As someone who is not a Christian, what I gave is a non-issue. As a rhetorical question, what does it matter what a person gives if they are under no obligation to give anything?

A Christian on the other hand is not in that position. You cannot forget Christ's exhortation to love your neighbour as yourself. You are called to a higher standard, the full example of Christ's life on earth, even to the point of giving up your own life for someone else, is yours to follow, including the Gospel story of the rich young man. Perhaps, you would care to explain why Christ's words do not mean what they said in that he was required to give away everything. Did not Christ also say that you may be required to turn your back on your family and friends, if necessary, to follow Him.

Well, I guess they have to work out their faith for themselves. If they come to me asking for advice, I'll be sure to point them your way.

Thanks but no thanks. Are you now saying that faith is something personal and not a public event? What is the point of evangelism if these good folks are working things out privately for themselves.

I'll include my comment here

"Yes, we missed the opportunity for an inspirational act of charity and to prove to a sceptical world how God rewards those rely on His providence."

What rot! How do you as a Christian and a student and thinker come to the point where you can openly deny your God as a providential God? In doing so, you deny your creed, you deny your Gospel and you deny your faith. Craig, where do you go from here? Is your God or is not your God, a God of love and a God of providence? As it states in the Gospels, God knows when a sparrow falls. Do you no longer believe this? Can you or can you not, fully trust your God to take care of all your needs if you are living a life in Christ?

Why are my statements "baseless"? What statistics can you employ that proves that you are correct. The most significant responses (monetarily) were and still remain from the governments of the US, Australia and other nations and private and public corporations.

The private business sector in the US gave the equivalent of $350 million in aid . I am not making a statement about what Christian groups have done in Indonesia. I applaud their work. I am making a comparison between the clear Gospel message and the reality of the scale of the giving.

I don't think you are in a position to judge (that Hillsong is a Christian travesty).

If I am not in a position to judge then on what basis do you assign that honour to yourself? In fact, I have my own connections with Hillsong and at a level that I believe is far higher than yours.

I've already said why I am personally thankful to Hillsong. Obviously their help to me (and many like me) means nothing to you. Fair enough.

On the contrary, I said very clearly that I was happy for you that you were helped when you need it. I am not asking for your impressions or a description of a grateful response. I am asking you about how you understand the theological implications of what is taught at Hillsong.

No, I wont present the analysis you ask for. I would be wasting my time. There is a saying about "pearls and swine" Roger.

I don't appreciate the insult, Craig. I thought I was dealing with a Christian and a professional. I appear to be in error on both counts.

More on Hillsong

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 20, 2006 - 10:05am.

"I point to Hillsong again as a typical example of selfish Christianity in action..."

A little more on Hillsong. Last year they raised $500,000 for Tsunami relief. And they currently sponsor 2,600 children in Uganda. I wonder if the beneficiaries of this generosity would agree with you, Roger?

I suspect not. They may even ask what you have done for them?

Beyond Good and Evil

Submitted by Phil Moffat on March 4, 2006 - 9:05pm.

“Why atheism today? "The father" in God has been fundamentally disproved, as well as "the judge," "the rewarder." Together with his "free will." He is not listening. And if he did hear, he wouldn't know how to help anyway. The worst thing is this: he appears incapable of communicating clearly. Is he indistinct? From a number of different conversations, asking and listening, this is what I have unearthed as the cause of the decline of European theism. It seems to me that it's true the religious instinct is growing powerfully, but that it is rejecting, with profound distrust, theistic satisfaction.” Nietzsche.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even dear old Freddy.

Ideology

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 4, 2006 - 10:22pm.

Yes indeed - everyone is entitled to an opinion and a philosophy. But philosophies can be powerful things. Sometimes the murmurings of a cranky old man can lead to the slaughter of millions.

I'm just making an observation here. Ideas can be dangerous...

Ditto Craig

Submitted by Phil Moffat on March 4, 2006 - 11:45pm.

Craig Schwarze, yes indeed, especially when we substitute philosophy with theology and theologies with philosophies. Tell me, Craig, were the Crusades the idea of a cranky old man?

Crusades

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 5, 2006 - 11:06am.

The different crusades had different causes. The First Crusade was prompted by the struggle between the declining Byzantine empire and the advancing Seljuk Turks. Alexius I called on Pope Urban II for soldiers to help defend his borders.

Urban II issued a call, not just to defend the Byzantine empire against the Turks, but also to retake the Holy Land. He appealed to the nobility and peasants with promises of wealth and land in Palestine, as well as a heavenly reward after death.

This was just after the Great Schism. Urban was hoping to consolidate the power of the papacy (which had been weakened) and potentially reunite Eastern and Western Christianity. He may well have genuinely believed it would be a good thing for Jerusalem to be under Christian control.

To answer your question, Phil, I can identify at least three "cranky old men" who caused the first Crusade - Malik Shah (the Seljuk Sultan), Alexius I (the Byzantine Emperor) and Pope Urban II. I guess you could write a book on the rights and wrongs of each man’s actions.

Three is worse than one

Submitted by Phil Moffat on March 5, 2006 - 6:25pm.

Craig S, I suppose what you are saying is that three cranky old men are worse than one cranky old man regardless of beliefs. BTW, dear old Freddy never hurt a fly; he simply did not have it in him.

Cranky Old Men

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 5, 2006 - 7:18pm.

Well, I was just answering a question regarding the crusades.

BTW, dear old Freddy never hurt a fly; he simply did not have it in him.

Then why did he wear those horrible finger knives???

Oh, wrong Freddy...

Good and Evil

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 4, 2006 - 7:47pm.

Roger, you seem to keep forgetting that we are coming from massively different ideological assumptions. And, as you've argued previously, there are differences even within Christianity.

In your general manner of argument, you display a fault that I suffer from too. Because you wish to quickly advance the argument, you like to state your opponent’s point of view for him and then get on to refuting it. This is bad manners and intellectually bunk.

I have frequently complained about you putting words in my mouth, as you would recall. I will tell you what I understand about the nature of good and evil. This will be quite different at points to some of the Catholic theology you have learned.

Our theology teaches us the following. Man was created in the image of God, with authority to rule over the earth. We were created good, good being defined purely by the character of God, not by any external source or reason.

Personally, I know of no "good" apart from the character of God. I suppose you have a different definition - I feel as "bound" by your definition as you do by mine, ie, not at all.

Mankind, through exercise of his free will, rebelled against God. This is what we call "sin". Sin is rebelling against God, violating His law.

Personally, I know of no "evil", apart from this rebellion against God.

This tendency to rebel is hereditary. It passes through generations, in an analogous manner to a virus passing from parent to newly conceived child. We are all born in rebellion against God; we are all born with the desire to reject his rule. This is sometimes called "original sin" in theology.

According to our theology, it is right for evil to be met with retribution. It is right for sin to be punished. Because we are all, by nature (and also by choice) sinners, we all deserve punishment.

Sin affects every part of our life - but it does not affect every part of our life to the utmost degree. We are "totally" corrupt, but not "utterly" corrupt. Those good impulses we have, we attribute to the grace of God. That is, they are of no intrinsic credit to us who are by nature depraved in the sight of God.

So that is my "anthropology" - we are totally corrupt in the sight of God, but also restrained from utter corruption by His grace. We are also deserving of His fearful retribution, as we are - by nature and by choice - rebels against His good and just rule.

God Great, Allu Akhbar, Gedalyahu

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on March 5, 2006 - 10:09pm.

Craig Schwarze, I compliment you on your neat little trick. I see that you refused to answer a single question that I asked you. Your assertion that I put words in your mouth is part of that ploy. I was going to assume that you had an ulterior motive for something so transparent and then I realised as I read your reply that you were making your most significant personal statement so far.

I know the details of your last post intimately. The interesting thing is that it fits point by point with Catholic theology, but then your being Anglican explains that fact.

"Rebellion against God" is a real touchstone for you, I see. My question would be, because I did not place that statement in your mouth, "How could that be so?", if you are also familiar with the first principles of theology.

There is no dispute that a Supreme Godhead possesses at least the following three attributes, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. So if we examine the proposition, that you personally are rebelling against God and that this is an affront to Him, in the light of the godly attributes, what do we come up with?

Well, since you are not omnipotent, how could your rebellion be any more than an irrelevant rump that does not posses enough gravitas to be even a miniscule annoyance for a Supreme Being? What is it that you could possibly do that would require terrible retribution to assuage a vengeful God? If you committed adultery, perhaps, or murdered a mother and her unborn baby, or stole the entire cash reserve from the Reserve Bank forcing Australia into bankruptcy – would that be sufficient to stir the Supreme One’s ire? Perhaps you have cursed the Holy Spirit? Are there sins that are so bad that an omnipotent God must wreak havoc on you and others to restore order in the universe? Of course, the real answer is that even someone like a Hitler or a Stalin with millions of murders on their hands might not meet the criteria for some serious vengeance, as it never came. I somehow doubt that you qualify. Why do you need a nit-picking God to keep you on the straight-and-narrow anyway, don’t you know better now? The good God can eliminate a quarter of a million people in a matter of minutes as He did that Boxing Day, 2004. What did those dirt-poor adults and nose-dripping children do that was so bad? I am sure that there were Christians among them who believed in a good God. Perhaps the problem is that we have too much affirmation and not enough fire-and-brimstone raining down from the pulpit?

So if there is no satisfaction for your terrible theology by considering an omnipotent God then is there a clue for us in an omniscient God? God knows everything. He knows the human condition, created by Him. He knows the brain chemistry including the workings of the reptilian brain and its effect on the higher rational brain as well as being the controller of all emotions. If there was a way to fool God we do not have one, because He knows everything. He also knows why He is punishing us and He knows that we are confused by that because often the punishment far outweighs the gravity of the offence. I am sure that there were thieves and adulterers within the tsunami zone. They may have considered that losing a hand or something equivalent might be a fair punishment, but losing your life? But God knew all that, it was of no surprise to Him because His omnipotence engineered the deadly event and His omniscience knew all about every detail from the subatomic level to the slight wobble engendered momentarily in the earth’s spin. Is it deserving of those 250,000 to die because Allu Akbar? I am struggling to see anything in the God that you revere because He is crueller than the worst despot on earth because He does all these things by His own hand with full knowledge.

Perhaps if we consider omnipresence some semblance of a God worth knowing will become clear. Well, the problem with omnipresence is that it is so damn paradoxical. God does not exist in our space-time continuum. He is everywhere and in all times. If God is angry then He is angry for ever. If He is happy then He is happy for ever. No switch states can exist for an omnipresent being. God has to be perfectly happy (not in the emotional sense), in complete accord with His creation, judging nothing and wanting nothing. He knows everything for all time. Long before we, individually, became extant in our allotted slice of time God knew because He has always known. He knew of the Borgia Pope. He knew of Hitler/Stalin/Gengis Khan. There was never a time when He did not know. It is His plan executing exactly as He wants (or allows) it to execute. There will never be a time for Him when this “rebellion” which you embrace so readily will be over. It is just there forever.

If a person never has the opportunity to think about these things then perhaps they can be excused. You study theology, you search for meaning and yet you can only acknowledge a bean-counter God, super-heavyweight champion of the whole of creation, who will one day punch your lights out because you have been a bad boy and He found out what you did. What sayeth you?

No, you would not Craig

Submitted by Deb Wands on March 3, 2006 - 1:50pm.

Thanks Craig Schwarze, for your interest.

"I also believe we are capable of wrong when other people are not affected. Gratuitous cruelty to animals, for example."

I think that you just made my argument for me – “when other people are not affected”, is the same as saying, if man is not socialised by interaction with others, then he can not know the difference between right and wrong.

We're all capable of dreadful things, none more so, than those performed in the name of religious faith.

Craig, I think that without religion you would be free to be the thinking and very human person that you obviously are, just have faith in yourself!

I'll now take my leave with some quotes that I like:

“Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.” - Bertrand Russell

"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed." - Bertrand Russell

“If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine - but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you've been bad or good - and CARES about any of it - to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.” - Frank Zappa, American musician

“Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” - Isaac Asimov, Russian-born American author

“You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.” - Richard Dawkins

You don't know me, Deb

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 3, 2006 - 4:27pm.

Craig, I think that without religion you would be free to be the thinking and very human person that you obviously are, just have faith in yourself!

Well that is very kind of you, Deb, but you don't really know me. Certainly my ex-wife did not have such faith in me when she took an AVO out against me. Though I can understand it really - I spent the first 2 years after she walked out fantasising about doing violence to myself and her.

Deb, I have looked into my own human soul and seen lots of blackness. Were I to one day believe that we truly live in a world without an objective morality, I suppose I would become a hedonist. And if your pain is necessary for my pleasure - well, so what?

Indeed, you have spoken a bit about evolution. But, according to natural selection, my main "opponent" is not some other species - it is other human beings.

Two men were walking in the jungle. A lion roars, they turn and run, the lion pursues.

"It's no good Smith," says one. "We'll never outrun the lion."

"I don't need to outrun the lion," says Smith. "I just need to outrun you."

That is natural selection, nature "red in tooth and claw" as Darwin put it. It is all about passing on my DNA, isn't it? Every man is a competitor, a rival. Why hinder yourself with that antiquated notion called "morality"? It was mostly embodied by religion anyway, and you pointed out that it is time to shake off such things.

As I said, Deb, I don't know who I would be apart from Christ. But it would be foolishness indeed to behave like a Christian if I had left Christianity behind.

What Do We Need To Know?

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on March 4, 2006 - 11:49am.

Craig, in your last reply to Deb, you made some personal revelations. That was a brave thing to do. However, I want to address the statements in your last paragraph: "As I said Deb, I don't know who I would be apart from Christ. But it would be foolishness indeed to behave like a Christian if I had left Christianity behind".

You seem to make the assumption that the person that you are today is the result of a mystical intervention by God in the Person of Jesus (and the Holy Spirit). How can that be so? Do you not have a free will? Has it not, in fact, been you who has made every decision in the past few years that has brought you to your current position? If it was not you then who is actually inhabiting your body?

You can not abrogate your free will. If you could, then the very essence of a final judgement would fail. You would have the perfect alibi, "Lord I handed over myself to you, everything that I did, you actually did, because I became not responsible for my actions".

You can't have it both ways, it's either you or it's God who is to be judged. In case you may be tempted to think that there were only a few critical times when God took over and then you proceeded after the event, I would ask you, how do you know? How do you discern that at any point it is not you but a symbiot that acts through you? If your track record for validating judgements is not perfect, as it cannot be for any of us, how do you make a determination that what you think is not delusional? Can you just say, as you have before, to paraphrase, 'it was laid on my heart'?

As I continually insist upon, religion only has validity as a personal phenomenon, where what you believe in you mind has an affect only on you. As soon as somebody publicly states that 'such and such' is the revealed truth from personal experience, then you have taken leave of all rational thought, which by the way could not be the intention of a supposed loving and personal God, for what does he need of people who do not to know their own minds. He could populate the universe with robots could he not?

We have a strong frame work of laws and rules within society which for the most part ameliorates our behaviour. But as to our ethics, if we do not have a strong internal wish, to not only be seen as ethical but to really be ethical, the fault is ours alone. Every person has choices to makes many times every day. If you do not like your choices, you can try to change them and you don't need an invisible God to do that, unless the ultimate fall back position is invoked, "the devil made me do it".

do you really think...

Submitted by Mike Lyvers on March 3, 2006 - 9:26am.

Craig S, do you really think that if your conception of God was somehow proven false, that you would suddenly feel like raping, murdering and stealing? I hope not.

Japan is the most atheistic country in the world, with something like 80% saying they don't believe in God according to a survey I recall from a few years ago, yet it has the lowest crime rate of any country on Earth.

I don't know

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 3, 2006 - 11:22am.

Craig S, do you really think that if your conception of God was somehow proven false, that you would suddenly feel like raping, murdering and stealing? I hope not.

I don't know. Given the primacy of my religious belief, it is difficult to know who I would be or how I would behave.

To be honest, I think I am capable of some pretty dreadful things. My life to date has not really been an oil painting.

Hi Craig Schwarze,

Submitted by Deb Wands on March 2, 2006 - 11:38am.

Hi Craig Schwarze,

"Oh, and in case you were wondering, evolution does not bother me at all. I don't see any necessary contradiction between evolution and the work of a sovereign creator."

Sounds like theistic evolution, ID, to me, religion disguised as science or the illegitimate marriage of evolution and creation! Can you, Craig, concede that the universe is just completely indifferent to everything -morals, ethics, good and bad etc?

from Morality without God by Chapman Cohen

"Now if we take ethical terminology, it is plain that the language used implies a relation and one of a very definite kind. The part of the environment to which these terms are related is that of other and like individuals. Kindness, truthfulness, justice, mercy, honesty, etc., all imply this. A man by himself -- if we can picture such a thing -- could not be kind; there would be no one to whom to be kind. He could not be truthful; there would be none to whom he could tell a lie. He could not be honest, or generous, or loyal; there would be none to whom these qualities would have any application. Every moral quality implies the existence of a group of which an individual is a member. And as the group enlarges so moral qualities take on a wider application. But this cardinal fact, that ethical qualities, whether they be good or bad, have no significance apart from group life, remains constant throughout."

Religion and Science

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 3, 2006 - 8:03am.

Sounds like theistic evolution, ID, to me, religion disguised as science or the illegitimate marriage of evolution and creation!

I certainly don't hold to "religion disguised as science". But well done for stringing together a list of provocative keywords. I think you got bingo!

Can you, Craig, concede that the universe is just completely indifferent to everything - morals, ethics, good and bad etc?

Not at all.

According to my ideological presuppositions, the universe was created by a moral God. Human morality derives from His character.

I don't really agree with Chapman. I concede that morality is primarily expressed through relationship with others. However, I also believe we are capable of wrong when other people are not affected. Gratuitous cruelty to animals, for example.

The last reference...

Submitted by Deb Wands on March 1, 2006 - 10:58am.

The last reference that I gave is particularly noteworthy for the last few paragraphs - the last paragraph being:

I think recent developments in understanding the emotional brain have a great potential for giving atheists a sound basis for their philosophical position. I suspect they also spell doom for religions that manipulate their flocks into a false sense of security, or a certainty, that many atheists know does not exist. We may even be on track to find the antidote for fundamentalism and terrorism. I live in hope.

From The Emotional Brain by Ken Young, 12th July, 2005.

Craig Schwarze, The proof

Submitted by Deb Wands on March 1, 2006 - 10:29am.

Craig Schwarze, the proof for murder and stealing being wrong? Faith does not enter into it. It is the early and continued socialisation of man that determines right and wrong. The human species has set for itself codes of behaviour to live by, for the continued survival of the species. It is evolution.

The emotional brain has been scientifically studied and researched, here is an ABC Catalyst episode.

The Limbic System or Emotional Brain as it is known is:

"an interconnected system of brain nuclei associated with basic needs and emotions, for example, hunger, pain, pleasure, satisfaction, sex, and instinctive motivation"

The Neocortex or Rational Thinking part of the brain is:

"the roof of the cerebral cortex* that forms the part of the mammalian brain that has evolved most recently and makes possible higher brain functions such as learning"

from this site on emotional and rational thinking.

Studies by brain researcher LeDoux who says that the emotional brain reacts quicker than the thinking brain, because our ancestors had to survive a hostile environment, LeDoux particularly studies fear responses.

And more emotional brain reading if you're still keen.

The wonder of evolution!

Proof

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 1, 2006 - 11:59am.

"Faith does not enter into it. It is the early and continued socialisation of man that determines right and wrong. The human species has set for itself codes of behaviour to live by, for the continued survival of the species. It is evolution."

Deb, this is just an assertion. It is not proof. It has no more intellectual force than me saying "God has set the species codes of behaviour."

Regardless, saying "everyone has always thought murder is wrong" doesn't prove anything. For a start, lots of people still commit murder. Sometimes the state sanctions it - as in Stalinist Russia.

But does "everyone has always done this" really hold water with regards to morality? Is it ever appropriate to question the received "code of behaviour"?

For example, most societies throughout most of history have been patriarchal. Can we conclude that this is part of "socialisation" - and is therefore sacrosanct? If not - why not?

I actually suspect your theory of ethics is ultimately unprovable. That being the case, I don't see how it is any less "a faith" than my beliefs are.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, evolution does not bother me at all. I don't see any necessary contradiction between evolution and the work of a sovereign creator.

right and wrong - good or bad

Submitted by Phil Moffat on March 1, 2006 - 9:30am.

“There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” Hamlet act 2 scene 2 (I think)

One may ask the same about right and wrong. Is conscience a subjective thing or do we have a collective conscience? Are right or wrong absolutes and, if so, how do we arrive at those absolutes?

If we break the law do we feel guilty or does that depend on the type of law?

Many people think and probably feel it is OK to make false claims on their income tax returns. Do they feel guilty? What do they think and how do they feel when they are caught?

We have become involved in an arguably illegal war resulting in the continued slaughter of many thousands of innocent people. How do we feel about that? Do we feel guilty that we have contributed to the death of innocents or do we think it was OK? Maybe we just don’t care.

As you can see yours truly has a lot of thinking and soul searching to do on this topic, it would appear we all do.

It Is Interesting

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on March 1, 2006 - 10:21am.

Craig, Robyn, I am compelled (emotive term) to take on the role of the Grinch.

I will propose a series of questions which restate something I wrote earlier. In spite of the comfortable metaphors that we use, where else but in the brain do the manifestations of emotions evolve? Is it possible that our left arms or eyes or buttocks or even that marvellous pump can trigger the necessary biological responses?

Take the case of the puppy being kicked. The photons that carry the visual information arrive at the retina of the eye of the beholder. This information is passed by the visual cortex to the brain. The brain applies the required amount of processing and recognises an episode of brutality from past information stored. It chooses also to refer this violent and unusual event to the abstract thought-processing region so that a label can be applied to what is being viewed. At what point does godly conscience kick in? Surely not until the brain has done its work. The brain must be capable of referring to both the area in which it stores esoteric information such as its current rules of ethical behaviour and to an evaluation of possible reactions and the internal vocalisation of our thoughts.

And what then transpires? Here is a plausible scenario. Upon recognising an act of brutality, the body must marshal its resources to make an appropriate response. If the beholder is to intervene, they need a massive amount of adrenalin to prepare the muscles for immediate and possibly violent intervention. If they choose not to, they must immediately try and resolve the conflicted result of having decided that a wrong was being perpetrated but also deciding not to interfere.

In such a situation, it is easily established that the brain is controlling everything and the emotions are always an artifact of the brain's work. If people choose to draw comfort from an alternate explanation, I wonder what benefit they are drawing from deliberately denying the role of their own super-organ.

If one believes in a God who has created everything then surely the greatest honour to be accorded to the Supreme Creator is to recognise His/Her creative work for what it is. There is no lack of spirituality in recognising the profane because our flesh is the only manifestation of who we are in the physical universe. As a believer, you can do no better than to say, “God made it so”.

I find it to be perverse that we can cling so stubbornly to a “fairy-tale” interpretation of our own existence when the truth is far more majestic.

Misunderstanding?

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 1, 2006 - 12:01pm.

Roger, I'm a bit confused. You may have misunderstood me. I certainly believe that the emotions come from the brain. I understand that "heart" and "gut" expressions are just metaphors.

As you suggest, I constantly look at the wonder of the universe and see the fingerprints of God.

Emotions and Conscience

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 1, 2006 - 8:10am.

Right and wrong, are judgement values that we can only consider properly and soberly when we are not affected by our emotions.

Doubtless that is true in a perfect world. But I was trying to describe what I encounter in day-to-day life. Roger, you are rare in that you have developed an ethical framework through logic. Most people I know have an intuitive ethics.

And emotions play a part. They see someone kick a puppy, and they feel revulsion. They see someone help a beggar, and they feel warm and fuzzy.

As you pointed out, these feelings can get very distorted, as in Nazi Germany (bingo!).

The theological view of conscience does not even consider that emotions play a part. The development of an ethical frame work is considered by theologians to be the result of study, instruction and introspection.

I imagine it depends on which theologians you talk to. Biblically, God places His moral law on the heart of all people (corresponding to what many would call "natural law"). Human beings act in accordance or not with this law, and are condemned or commended by their conscience as they do. But repeated, habitual wrong can "silence" the conscience.

Upon regeneration, we believe we are given God's Holy Spirit, which works in our heart to conform both our actions and conscience to the true law of God. Our moral "growth" is fed by study of the Scripture, prayer, and fellowship.

Here endeth the lesson... ;-)

I do believe that you are mistaken in your connecting of emotions to conscience.

My point was that emotions are how our conscience communicates with us. Feeling guilty is a true feeling - it actually feels yuck. And when you do someone very virtuous, it very often feels great.

Freudian slip?

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on March 1, 2006 - 9:43am.

And when you do someone very virtuous, it very often feels great.

Doh!

Fiona: Freudian slip indeed, Craig S! My apologies for having let it slip (so to speak) past me in the first place.

Jungian Complex?

Submitted by Geoff Pahoff on March 1, 2006 - 2:52pm.

That was very virtuous of you, Fiona. Letting one slip past.

Freud, Jung, whoever - it was good...

Submitted by Fiona Reynolds on March 2, 2006 - 6:14am.

And, being very virtuous, Geoff, it was great for me too!

Freudian corollary

Submitted by Will Howard on March 1, 2006 - 11:21am.

If you can't do someone very virtuous... you may have to make do with whoever is available.

Feelings

Submitted by Robyn Clothier on March 1, 2006 - 5:49am.

Roger, the words "feel" and "sense" are also used to describe something else which may be linked to the emotions but is something more than pure emotion. "Going with your gut", or "knowing in your heart" are expressions used because there are accompanying sensations which are almost physical in the region of the solar plexus. People use them because they recognise that it is also something different from pure intellect. It may turn out that it can all be explained in terms of neural pathways, but for many this way of "knowing" seems linked into the spiritual.

Feelings and conscience

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on February 28, 2006 - 5:05pm.

Roger, our conscience works through our feelings. At least, I think it does for most people. That is, if we feel bad about doing something, we say it is a result of our conscience.

How does your conscience inform you, if not through emotions?

Conscientious Feelings

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on February 28, 2006 - 9:40pm.

Craig, the development of conscience is an attempt by an individual to personalise the "rules" of societal living in a way that engages empathy and fulfills the urge for manifesting our personal destiny without harming others.

Here is a very good definition by the psychologist Abraham Maslow: "We all have an 'intrinsic conscience' which is based on the unconscious and preconscious perception of our own nature, of our own destiny, of our own capacities, of our own 'call' in life."

I can't help but think that you are applying a definition to emotions that is at odds with all conventional views. Emotions are driven by the washing of various hormones through our bodies. Anger, fear, lust, happiness, sadness etc are fuelled by mechanisms that have no connections to the concepts of "right" or "wrong".

Right and wrong, are judgement values that we can only consider properly and soberly when we are not affected by our emotions. The theological view of conscience does not even consider that emotions play a part. The development of an ethical frame work is consider by theologians to be the result of study, instruction and introspection. I do believe that you are mistaken in your connecting of emotions to conscience.

Craig Schwarze, morals

Submitted by Deb Wands on February 28, 2006 - 10:20am.

Craig Schwarze, morals and ethics are a sense of right and wrong which come from man's early socialisation, the development of the greater good for the survival of the whole species. Charles Darwin refers to man, as a thinking animal, having the intelligence and the intuition to know right from wrong. There are many moral and ethical people who are non religious and performing good works today.

Faith is nearly always seen as religious faith and is separate from morals and ethics (although many religious people think wrongly, that a person's morals/ethics can only come from a religious faith). I could say that I have a deep and inner conviction that there exists a giant, pink, flying pig and that is my faith. Because I say to you, prove that giant, flying pigs do not exist, (you can't) I can happily and faithfully believe in them. Faith is a belief, against reason, logic or evidence.

Where do ethics come from?

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on February 28, 2006 - 1:25pm.

Craig Schwarze, morals and ethics are a sense of right and wrong which come from man's early socialisation, the development of the greater good for the survival of the whole species.

But where do these ideas come from? Are they passed down in our genes?

You said, basically, that religious faith is a belief based on no evidence. Certainly no religious person I know would accept that. But we'll leave that aside for the moment.

I'm wondering is what sort of evidence for you have for ethical behaviour? Can you prove that murder is wrong? Can you provide empirical evidence that theft is wrong? If not, doesn't it fit your definition of faith?

Ethics and Faith

Submitted by Craig Schwarze on February 27, 2006 - 1:09pm.

The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing.

Deb, wouldn't this describe most people's approaches to ethics, regardless of religious affiliation? That is, there are some things that you just feel in your heart are right or wrong?

Is all ethical belief a form of faith?

The Heart Of The Matter

Submitted by Roger Fedyk on February 28, 2006 - 11:48am.

Craig, you ask in you last post to Deb Wand, "That is, there are some things that you just feel in your heart are right or wrong? ".

I know that it is a figure of speech that we have all heard for so long that we do not question it but "feelings" and the "heart" have no connection with the proposition that is being made, regarding morality and the conscience. The figure of speech is, of course, a nonsense, the heart being merely a muscle that pumps blood and nothing else, and we should stop using it if we wish to accurately convey what we think.

Using such expressions compounds the confusion and thinking on whether there is such a thing as the "conscience". Metaphors aside, there is only one organ at the centre of our own personal universe that controls all thoughts and actions, the brain. To continue in this pedantic train of thought, the use of "feel" only makes sense in describing emotions. As medical science now knows, the emotions are triggered by the flow of certain hormones into our blood stream which change the state of the brain and the rest of the body for a relatively short period of time.

So if you are alluding to the development of a life-long moral thought system that tempers our behaviour, which could be referred to as a "conscience" then feelings have no play in that development at all.

I will allow that, like the other members of the animal kingdom, we have certain instinctual responses that deal with our survival. The strength of the human brain is such that it can extemporise the instinctual through the use of abstract thought, along the lines of "if this is good for me than it must also be good for my neighbour". This movement from an instinctual knowing of what makes the individual safe to a generalisation is the basis of our idea of conscience.

Of course, for those given to using the heart metaphor, the idea that "The Lord laid it on my heart" is more comforting and persuasive than "The Lord poked around with my brain chemistry and rewired some neural pathways so that I now think that this is wrong and that is right".

Navigation

The Issues

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options

Recent Comments