Common Ground

[ose mcgroat]

I originally offered this video for members' consideration in the Welcome forum, but I understand that the Welcome forum is not for discussions.

I therefore offer it again here and would love to hear your comments.

 

[Serving Zion]

Hi Mr. Mcgroat! This was an interesting piece of drama, thanks for that!

I really do like what you are encouraging in this, and I agree that you are essentially right in what you say. While there is some moments in this that reveal an opportunity for your understanding to be further developed, and that would benefit you too.

It is really important that we all (regardless of religion) acknowledge that we have a common enemy. We are all humans. We are all "in the same boat", as it were. We all have earth as our habitat, and we all have the same basic needs. As you said, society is knit by a universal moral law (the golden rule), that is fair regardless of religion.

So, who is our common enemy? I have to answer with a concept that you have become accustomed to not receiving, and therein is our enemy.

Did you catch that?

Our enemy is sin. Pride. (And keep in mind, it is not entirely a one-way street, because we all possess something that can benefit another person). When one person does not receive the truth that another gives, and they actually should have done so, that is sin. It is a stroke against the one who has rejected the truth, and it locks that one into a state of being opposed to that truth.

You may observe this: all the religious people seem to have some sort of stubborn fixture on a belief that is either unsubstantiated, speculative or downright false; and yet, they are not entirely wrong in everything that they believe.

It is when a person comes to possess untrue beliefs and holds fast to them with sincere heart-felt belief that these are true beliefs, then they are no longer innocent in God's view.

Now what I am about to say might surprise you, but then it might not. Either way, pay attention to how you are inclined to react, because it is an example of such a truth that has the power to condemn in this way.

A person is seen by God as being innocent based upon his culpability (that is, his liability for having consciously offended based upon his knowledge). Therefore, mistakes made in ignorance contribute a degree of mercy toward us when we stand accused, because it is true that we did not do wrong with a full intention to bring forth the consequences of our error.

In this way, the quality of education for morality and religion, is central to both equipping people to have a perfectly clear conscience AND making a person absolutely liable for judgement for their errors.

This is the very problem that we have in the world today: that the quality of education to this end is lacking, so much so that people are doing what is wrong but also being ignorant of their error. Why?

Because the only person who was actually capable of stating the truth without any flaw, well, that was the one whom God Himself brought into the world. Jesus is the only one who has had the power to speak for God as God. There was nobody who was able to stand against Him with a word and prevail.

So Jesus is the one who, (distinct from all the rest of us who have various needs for improvement), He is the only one who is capable of speaking truthfully and teaching us all accurate knowledge without any error. Do you see why this is significant? .. He was cut off from the earth half way through His full potential lifespan, and before He had even received the full capacity of earthly authority (throne) to speak for the purpose of establishing the education we require in order to overcome sin and to have world peace.

Jews and Christians will agree to this fact: that Messiah is to establish this outcome (Consider Isaiah 11:6-9).

Christians acknowledge that Jesus Christ continues to do His work from heaven while we speak on His behalf on earth, to educate people so that either they grow in their knowledge of the truth and participate in His work, or they decline the knowledge of the truth and become liable for heavenly judgement, being opposed to divine truth.

This is fine in theory, but in practise, not all Christians operate this way. Many Christians have received a false doctrine in their religion that does not empower them to participate in that, instead they believe that the purpose of Christianity is to encourage everyone to hope that when they die they will be ok.

Hopefully this is good food for thought for you, and you will respond well toward it so that we can grow together through a healthy conversation I certainly do imagine your thoughts will be interesting!

A couple of minor observations as feedback on the content of the clip:

6:35 : Whether Jesus is the son of God or not doesn't affect how you relate to your fellow man.

Actually it does, because we are made in the image of God, and therefore God lives in us. Jesus Christ is inside of us, but when we become fixed on sin, then our sin displaces Him. Therefore, a Christian does acknowledge the spirit of Jesus Christ as being present in all of us, and that Jesus' body is the only one in whom no sin was found because it was designed to be that way: born of a virgin and ministered to by angels so that He would remain blameless and spotless, the only ever perfect representation of the spirit of God. Please consider Matthew 25:40 and Matthew 25:45 to this effect.

7:20 - you say that Christians pray occasionally and a little bit according to regime. In fact, Christian scriptures encourage us to "pray without ceasing" - because having been born again, we have a living relationship with God, that we are constantly in fellowship with Him. Understand of course, some Christians who have received a false doctrine and have departed from a truth, they are not in a state of spiritual life. They do not have fellowship with God, because they are walking not according to the truth, they are secretly hiding from God, while simultaneously believing that heaven awaits for them, and also simultaneously teaching others to follow the path they have taken.

Now, do you notice I have not used the words "devil" and "demon" in this? Can you see where I might have used them if I had have believed that they would not have impaired your reception of my message? .. Either way, I hope you will find some interesting thoughts from this

Nice to meet you, and thanks for your contributions here! May we all maintain strict observation to truth, respect for one another, and charity with our possessions, that we may grow in unity never leaving our common ground.

 

[ose mcgroat]

Thank you for your kind comments.

Perhaps I should have mentioned in my "Welcome" post that I was brought up in a Christian family: I had a grandfather and two uncles in the Church: and my wife and a number of members of my family are devout Christians. So I do have a fair insight into these matters.

I think your ideas so eloquently expressed above are absolutely lovely, and I would be the very last person in the world to deprecate them. But as I am sure you understand, there are a large number of millions of people in the world who believe something different. I think my main message is that if you stand back, these differences are actually quite small.

R*ch*rd D*wk*ns (if I may be permitted to mention him!) has recently suggested that the problem with being in a religion is that people do bad things they wouldn't otherwise do. He's quite wrong, of course, and if he was a better scientist he wouldn't blatantly select data to suit his own agenda - he would try to generalise his findings. He would then see that being in a religion alters people's behaviour - and some of the changes are bad, but many are good.

No, the problem with religions is the intolerance: believe what I believe, or you'll take the consequences. Whether it's "Justification through Faith" or the lunatic fundamentalist who'll kill you if you don't embrace his interpretation of the Koran. (Actually I've never really got my head round the idea of being rewarded - or punished - for what you believe: which is something you have no control over, for heaven's sake).

I worked for many years in the British NHS and my friends were of all colours and creeds, and it distresses me that there is so much religious hatred in the world that seems to be based entirely on ignorance and intolerance. So I'm starting here, which for me is closest to home.

On your specific points: the status of Jesus shouldn't affect the four important precepts that I identified. And my comments on praying habits was based on the actual behaviour of your average Christian, and certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism.

 

[Serving Zion]

Thank you for your kind comments.

Perhaps I should have mentioned in my "Welcome" post that I was brought up in a Christian family: I had a grandfather and two uncles in the Church: and my wife and a number of members of my family are devout Christians. So I do have a fair insight into these matters.

This is good information for me, as I will keep this in mind, that you have an opportunity for close contact with The Holy Spirit in your wife. The reason I have said this, while having also just said to you that The Holy Spirit is in all of us, is that when He wishes to speak to us (being spirit as He is), the words that we choose and the mood of our delivery of those words, makes a direct contribution toward the effectiveness of that communication.

When the one through whom He is presently speaking has both reliable belief and perfect intentions, then their words have no potential to fail as a useful conduit for The Holy Spirit. Conversely, where we have a faulty belief, this can cause us to say words that do not represent The Holy Spirit (aka "The Spirit of the Truth" - John 14:17).

The other factor (sanctification, love etc) can cause us to invest some of our personal sin into the words we speak (for instance, wrath or pride or lust etc). With the presence of sin in the heart while the heart is forming words, this is a contending force upon the recipient, adding provocation to him or her, that will distract from what The Holy Spirit may wish to be saying.

This also motions in the recipient's essential state for receiving The Holy Spirit's message. One who wishes to hear The Holy Spirit must be willing to acknowledge Him. There's a number of reasons why someone might not be in a state of readiness for that at any time, not the least common being a resolved resentment toward Him, for the pain one has suffered at the hands of those who have been hurtful in His name.

It is only if you are interested that I would offer this food for thought, as context for what I mean with the terminology of "spirits": Adonai Reigns : The Holy Spirit.

I think your ideas so eloquently expressed above are absolutely lovely, and I would be the very last person in the world to deprecate them. But as I am sure you understand, there are a large number of millions of people in the world who believe something different. I think my main message is that if you stand back, these differences are actually quite small.

Yes, that's OK, and I know it is because there is two types of religious person: there is a disciple of the truth, and there is a person who has chosen deception and departed from the truth. There can be people of this spiritual disposition in any school, and indeed, they can even come and go from that state of sanctification from moment to moment.

I have sought to bring in this view as support for unity and to show why God is with us when we stay devoted to the truth and remain in share of the common ground that unites we disciples of the truth: that there is only one Holy Spirit and there are people in all religions (indeed, even outside of religion) who are disciples of His leadership, albeit, where His leadership consequently operates within the confines of our various "schools of thought".

Where people are choosing to cling to truth (and indeed, sometimes overcoming various temptations against them in order to do so), they are choosing to remain without blame in His view, and He therefore does not acknowledge an error in their choice. They have not chosen to displace Him in their life by favouring to empower an unholy spirit in their heart for the sake of maintaining an objection to a vital truth.

However, there are also members of religion (and permit me to describe only my knowledge of Christians in saying this - although it should be visible in other practises too), who when having a view that is not consistent with the truth, is challenged by the truth to justify that view, and The Holy Spirit brings them to a point of repentance where they are expected to change their view, retract their former stance, and to go forward with a more accurate view.. so sadly and tragically, Christians will choose to let their beliefs shape their view of the truth rather than letting the truth shape their beliefs. This is where they become a disciple of deceit instead of the disciple of the truth, and it is no longer The Holy Spirit that has entire representation in them, because they have chosen to yield their heart to a dishonest spirit so that they could maintain their former belief system.

This is why it is vital that we all do focus primarily on sharing the common ground that we do have (whatever that may be at any given time between two people), and very delicately extend those boundaries so as to prevent the total loss of unity through an unfortunate fall-out. That takes practice! So, I am grateful if you will bear with me at that stage, and if needed, patiently explain to me why I ought to repent of a blunder. We do make mistakes sometimes

R*ch*rd D*wk*ns (if I may be permitted to mention him!) has recently suggested that the problem with being in a religion is that people do bad things they wouldn't otherwise do. He's quite wrong, of course, and if he was a better scientist he wouldn't blatantly select data to suit his own agenda - he would try to generalise his findings. He would then see that being in a religion alters people's behaviour - and some of the changes are bad, but many are good.

I would explain that when a person's belief system forces them to oppose the truth, then they do go forward doing bad as a result. Our beliefs have a direct impact on our behaviours, because they form the philosophy for which we regard the world, what we expect of it, and that determines how we are acting within it in order to achieve the results from it that we are seeking.

Where a person's beliefs have been established in opposition to The Holy Spirit's expectation of that one's response to the knowledge of the truth (iow, as I just described: The Holy Spirit has expected them to repent and to change their beliefs, but they have chosen to believe a falsehood instead), then their belief is no longer consistent with reality according to the truth. Their belief is disjointed from reality and it creates dissonance, a disharmony with truth in reality.

This is very harmful when wrought in God's name, because people's henceforth regard for God is impacted by their dealings with those who claim to speak truthfully about Him, but whose beliefs are actually disjointed from reality according to the truth!

A lot of harm is inflicted in God's name because of this, and lots of resentments accumulate as a result.

No, the problem with religions is the intolerance: believe what I believe, or you'll take the consequences. Whether it's "Justification through Faith" or the lunatic fundamentalist who'll kill you if you don't embrace his interpretation of the Koran. (Actually I've never really got my head round the idea of being rewarded - or punished - for what you believe: which is something you have no control over, for heaven's sake).

I quite agree. Some degree of tolerance is required in this world, essentially for subsistence in presence of motion.

Also, as my motions are toward increasing accurate knowledge of God, I would like to recommend the correlation between 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:18. Those who threaten punishments are not acting from a place of love, and it is not the spirit of God who is empowered in their hearts when they choose to act that way.

I worked for many years in the British NHS and my friends were of all colours and creeds, and it distresses me that there is so much religious hatred in the world that seems to be based entirely on ignorance and intolerance. So I'm starting here, which for me is closest to home.

You and I have common ground in this complaint too, though for me, my heart goes out mostly in sympathy to the children and the animals who are wrongly treated, hated even, by the ignorant and intolerant (I am distressed by unjust abuses of those innocent and well-meaning ones, especially where authorities consciously support and even empower the abusers).

On your specific points: the status of Jesus shouldn't affect the four important precepts that I identified. And my comments on praying habits was based on the actual behaviour of your average Christian, and certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism.

I don't mean for an argument!

 

[“Paisios”]

Interesting video, and I certainly would love to see people get along better, regardless of religious affiliation.

One comment I would make: in your parable, both pediatricians walk away and modify their treatments after discussion. You make the underlying assumption that neither is treating the actual disease, but only something like it. I would guess that most religious believe they are treating the actual disease in the correct way, and therefore have a moral responsibility to correct those trying to treat it wrongly. (I agree that that does not excuse behavior that goes against the morals teachings of our religions to achieve that end).

I would also assume that most religious feel we have no right to make changes to the treatment, as it is prescribed by a higher authority to which we are subject. We do not see (perhaps I am being a bit presumptuous speaking for others) that our religion is a man made construction, which seems to be an assumption in your video.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I originally offered this video for members' consideration in the Welcome forum, but I understand that the Welcome forum is not for discussions.

I therefore offer it again here and would love to hear your comments.

[this is a repost after my realization that my original post didn't end up in the Kitchen Sink....]

You're quite right that it would be indeed a great thing if Jewish, Islamic, and Christian persons [and maybe Hindu and Communist, too] could sit down over cups of coffee (and a crumplet or two--or more if they're American) and talk peacefully about all these philosophical and theological issues. It seems that they should be able to. Right?

And I appreciate the humorous candor of the video. However, there is one issue you didn't quite touch upon which, when people have to contend about such things, can cause quite an amount of ire between those who are so contending. And that is the issue of "real estate." That is, the "who can get what, and where" issue, which for some reason, always has been entangled in all of this theological debate since...well, before Moses. It's enough to make one say, "Ehhhhhhh....Jerusalem," rather than "Oh, Jerusalem !!!"

And by the way, welcome to CF, ose mcgroat!

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[ose mcgroat]

Thank you so much for your insightful and very interesting comments on my parable.

You make the underlying assumption that neither is treating the actual disease, but only something like it.

No, paediatricians treat patients, not diseases. And each of my paediatricians, in his own way, is doing the best he can for the children, where science cannot help. And maybe the children are benefitting from their willingness to collaborate.

I would also assume that most religious feel we have no right to make changes to the treatment, as it is prescribed by a higher authority to which we are subject.

My paediatricians are supposed to represent the higher authorities, us ordinary guys are represented by the kids.

We do not see (perhaps I am being a bit presumptuous speaking for others) that our religion is a man made construction, which seems to be an assumption in your video.

Well, yes (though that in no way diminishes it). But I don't want to stray from my topic.

 

[ose mcgroat]

sit down over cups of coffee (and a crumplet or two--or more if they're American)

Do you mean crumpets? Oi, do you mind! They're British!
(Damn colonial types)

the issue of "real estate."

So sad. I wish I could understand why it's so difficult to sort out.

And by the way, welcome to CF, ose mcgroat!

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

And peace to you!

 

[“Paisios”]

Thank you so much for your insightful and very interesting comments on my parable.



No, paediatricians treat patients, not diseases. And each of my paediatricians, in his own way, is doing the best he can for the children, where science cannot help. And maybe the children are benefitting from their willingness to collaborate.



My paediatricians are supposed to represent the higher authorities, us ordinary guys are represented by the kids.



Well, yes (though that in no way diminishes it). But I don't want to stray from my topic.

Thank you for the clarification of some points. I appreciate the attempt to bridge differences between religious (or no religion) ideas, and to promote mutual understanding and tolerance (though that term seems to be taking on a different means no in this modern world - but that is for a different discussion). I also do not see force and coercion as reasonable or moral means of proselytizing (I have often said, though not here, that Christianity is an invitation, not an imposition), and I pray for a world in which peaceful coexistence will occur. We may still have some disagreements related to your parable and video as a whole, but I appreciate it, nevertheless.

Peace.

 

[ose mcgroat]

I have taken the liberty of copying Fiat Lux's response from the Welcome forum, in deferance to the wishes of the moderators.

My own thoughts are interspersed in bold type.

Welcome and thank you for sharing your views!

All Christians have a shared responsibility to be and do good. However, none of us really are! It's a good thing we have Jesus Christ, who indeed is good and who has set an example for us to follow; namely to love God and to love our neighbour.

The problem, however - while there is some overlap - to "love ones neighbour" varies in all beliefs. That is, we live in a world where cultures, religions and beliefs define their own idea of what is "good" and what "love" looks like. Even your proposal of finding common ground is probably to a secular mind seen as a good thing, but to people of other beliefs, it can be destructive.

Can't get me head round that. What gets destroyed?

Faith is really like colours. There's a great number of them, and some are closer than others, but all are exclusive. Though there are colours that can be considered "neutral", even they are exclusive, and it requires people agreeing on the concept of "neutral", and through this it involves sacrificing their beliefs.

To give a very practical example based on one of your ideas; that people should learn about different religions, but not from a devoted person - from a secular point of view, this could be good, because it's led by a secular mind for a secular recipient.

I take "secular" to mean "unrelated to religion" so I'm not sure what your last line is intended to mean. There's no reason why people should read the passage you mention as promoting "absence of religion" as a virtue.

From a Christian point of view, this is not good, because Christianity is not understood purely academically, but appropriately apprehended through faith. Furthermore, because it's a faith we are given, it's not something we can freely mix with other beliefs, for then it becomes a new and different belief in its own right. This is called Syncretism, which is really a discussion in itself. However, I do agree that there is much value in learning about different religions and beliefs, because it gives you a balanced world view, and furthermore it allows you to interact with people with sensitivity and understanding.

Now we're motoring.

Saying all of this, at a very basic level, of course Christians certainly aspire to love and to respect and to live in peace with all. But, unfortunately, there is bound to be disagreements because what is considered "good" by a person of "no faith" can often be harmful to a person of faith.

Thank you again for challenging us, however. If I were to challenge you back, I would say this:
There is really no such thing as "believing in nothing". e.g. If you were to agree with science, rationalism, humanism and politically correctness, then this is very much a belief. It's a fluid and non-fixed belief, but a belief nonetheless, and very much exclusive. And so, when you are asking people to "take a step back and think", are you setting your own beliefs over others?

Can't think how you managed to derive that idea from my video. I went to some trouble to make it clear that what I believe is of no importance and quite irrelevant to the message I am trying to put across.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I have taken the liberty of copying Fiat Lux's response from the Welcome forum, in deferance to the wishes of the moderators.

My own thoughts are interspersed in bold type.

Welcome and thank you for sharing your views!

All Christians have a shared responsibility to be and do good. However, none of us really are! It's a good thing we have Jesus Christ, who indeed is good and who has set an example for us to follow; namely to love God and to love our neighbour.

The problem, however - while there is some overlap - to "love ones neighbour" varies in all beliefs. That is, we live in a world where cultures, religions and beliefs define their own idea of what is "good" and what "love" looks like. Even your proposal of finding common ground is probably to a secular mind seen as a good thing, but to people of other beliefs, it can be destructive.

Can't get me head round that. What gets destroyed?

Faith is really like colours. There's a great number of them, and some are closer than others, but all are exclusive. Though there are colours that can be considered "neutral", even they are exclusive, and it requires people agreeing on the concept of "neutral", and through this it involves sacrificing their beliefs.

To give a very practical example based on one of your ideas; that people should learn about different religions, but not from a devoted person - from a secular point of view, this could be good, because it's led by a secular mind for a secular recipient.

I take "secular" to mean "unrelated to religion" so I'm not sure what your last line is intended to mean. There's no reason why people should read the passage you mention as promoting "absence of religion" as a virtue.

From a Christian point of view, this is not good, because Christianity is not understood purely academically, but appropriately apprehended through faith. Furthermore, because it's a faith we are given, it's not something we can freely mix with other beliefs, for then it becomes a new and different belief in its own right. This is called Syncretism, which is really a discussion in itself. However, I do agree that there is much value in learning about different religions and beliefs, because it gives you a balanced world view, and furthermore it allows you to interact with people with sensitivity and understanding.

Now we're motoring.

Saying all of this, at a very basic level, of course Christians certainly aspire to love and to respect and to live in peace with all. But, unfortunately, there is bound to be disagreements because what is considered "good" by a person of "no faith" can often be harmful to a person of faith.

Thank you again for challenging us, however. If I were to challenge you back, I would say this:
There is really no such thing as "believing in nothing". e.g. If you were to agree with science, rationalism, humanism and politically correctness, then this is very much a belief. It's a fluid and non-fixed belief, but a belief nonetheless, and very much exclusive. And so, when you are asking people to "take a step back and think", are you setting your own beliefs over others?

Can't think how you managed to derive that idea from my video. I went to some trouble to make it clear that what I believe is of no importance and quite irrelevant to the message I am trying to put across.

First of all, please feel free to call me Daniel

Thank you for moving the conversation over here and for taking time to reply. I hope I can clarify. Your questions are pretty big, but I'll try my best not to add to the confusion. For other people, I originally wrote my post here: Hi all

By destructive, I mean destructive to the faith itself, and ultimately the person who keeps this faith.
This must be correctly understood through that people's idea of "good", "truth" and "love" are not universal, but different and exclusive; there are some varying degrees of overlap between different faiths, but there is no such thing a universal neutral ground across all beliefs (including atheist and other non-religious). In other words, who gets to decide what is good? e.g. A modern humanist would perhaps say "people"; a religious person would perhaps say "God". Again, who gets to decide what is important or not important? What is truth and not truth?

On the next point I would say that, again, while there is much value in learning about different beliefs for the reasons mentioned above, namely for a balanced world view and how to treat people with sensitivity, kindness, love and respect - it makes little sense to learn of a faith from a person who is not devoted to the faith, who does not believe in it. It has practical implications when it comes to things like prayer and mediation and it's furthermore betraying an understanding that other beliefs are more like optional or alternative philosophies or lifestyles; that they perhaps have elements of truth, but they're not entirely true. Thus, intentionally or not, setting one's own belief over others.

In my last point, I wanted to illustrate that, while I do appreciate you make efforts to keep your own beliefs to yourself - which in itself is a belief in contrast with Christianity that is fundamentally about spreading the good news of forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ; and so not something to be kept to oneself. i.e. Perhaps you consider it good to keep your beliefs to yourself, but a Christian considers it good to proclaim Jesus - your beliefs still show through what you say in the video, whether it be intentional or not. Again, that there's really no such thing as "believing in nothing". An absence of "religious belief" is not an absence of belief, for an adherence to things such as science, rationalism, humanism and politically correctness is also a belief; it's what some people claim to be true, and others not. Once again, it's a fluid and non-fixed belief, but a belief nonetheless, and very much exclusive.

In summary, then, all who bear the name Christian are called to follow Jesus Christ, and through this we may love our neighbour as we understand "love" - however, it may not be the same as an atheist's idea of "love", and because of this, "common ground" is regrettably only possible up to a point.

Very lastly, when you make statements such as "take a step back and think" - what are you actually saying? I don't think it's offensive, but it does reveal your personal faith, which is different from mine. In other words, your call to "switch on our brain" does at least to my ears sound like you understand something to be true, whereas we are adhering to something that is false, and therefore must readjust our faith - or am I perhaps understanding this incorrectly?

 

[ose mcgroat]

By destructive, I mean destructive to the faith itself, and ultimately the person who keeps this faith.
This must be correctly understood through that people's idea of "good", "truth" and "love" are not universal, but different and exclusive; there are some varying degrees of overlap between different faiths, but there is no such thing a universal neutral ground across all beliefs (including atheist and other non-religious). In other words, who gets to decide what is good? e.g. A modern humanist would perhaps say "people"; a religious person would perhaps say "God". Again, who gets to decide what is important or not important? What is truth and not truth?

Depressing that you are unwilling even to consider comparing your beliefs with those of people of different persuasions, for fear of breaking something. It must be pretty fragile. If you had to sum up Christ's teachings in a soundbite (shudder), wouldn't it be something like "Consider the other guy's point of view"?

it makes little sense to learn of a faith from a person who is not devoted to the faith, who does not believe in it. It has practical implications when it comes to things like prayer and mediation and it's furthermore betraying an understanding that other beliefs are more like optional or alternative philosophies or lifestyles; that they perhaps have elements of truth, but they're not entirely true. Thus, intentionally or not, setting one's own belief over others.

This is diametrically opposite to what I am trying to put across. Children can be encouraged, and indeed in most cases will follow in the footsteps of their families, but they should be given the opportunity to make informed choices. If you disagree even with this, alas my video can be of no benefit to you.

Again, that there's really no such thing as "believing in nothing". An absence of "religious belief" is not an absence of belief, for an adherence to things such as science, rationalism, humanism and politically correctness is also a belief; it's what some people claim to be true, and others not. Once again, it's a fluid and non-fixed belief, but a belief nonetheless, and very much exclusive.

This was your idea, not mine. Atheism means not believing in God, not "believing in nothing".

Very lastly, when you make statements such as "take a step back and think" - what are you actually saying? I don't think it's offensive, but it does reveal your personal faith, which is different from mine. In other words, your call to "switch on our brain" does at least to my ears sound like you understand something to be true, whereas we are adhering to something that is false, and therefore must readjust our faith - or am I perhaps understanding this incorrectly?

Actually it is meant to be slightly offensive. I put it in for effect, addressing anyone who found themselves "upset or offended" by anything I said. When they were expecting an apology, I tried to show that I am not the pushover perhaps I seemed. And I was asking such people to try to control their emotions, and focus on their reasons for them. I had done my best to ensure that there wasn't anything controversial in what I said in the piece.

 

[ose mcgroat]

In that last post I'm ashamed to say I got a bit carried away and failed to follow my own advice about focussing. Hoist with my own petard!

The thrust of this thread is supposed to be racial intolerance, and in this regard my comments in the video about young children's religious education are critical. On this occasion, my point about a broad religious education is not so much that children can make informed choices (though of course this is very important) but that wherever they end up they should have as deep an understanding as possible of other religions.

In the current epidemic of religious hatred round the world, astonishing ignorance plays a huge part. I myself had a strong Christian upbringing, and I'm ashamed that it wasn't until I was around 60 that I made any effort to learn something about Islam - the religion of many of my friends. What sort of level of knowledge do people reading this post have on the history and practice of Islam? If it's less than satisfactory shouldn't you do something about it in our multicultural society? Shouldn't our children learn about it?

In one terrorist atrocity, they were shooting anyone who couldn't name the Prophet Mohamet's wife. Pretty good test, I would say.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Depressing that you are unwilling even to consider comparing your beliefs with those of people of different persuasions, for fear of breaking something. It must be pretty fragile. If you had to sum up Christ's teachings in a soundbite (shudder), wouldn't it be something like "Consider the other guy's point of view"?



This is diametrically opposite to what I am trying to put across. Children can be encouraged, and indeed in most cases will follow in the footsteps of their families, but they should be given the opportunity to make informed choices. If you disagree even with this, alas my video can be of no benefit to you.



This was your idea, not mine. Atheism means not believing in God, not "believing in nothing".



Actually it is meant to be slightly offensive. I put it in for effect, addressing anyone who found themselves "upset or offended" by anything I said. When they were expecting an apology, I tried to show that I am not the pushover perhaps I seemed. And I was asking such people to try to control their emotions, and focus on their reasons for them. I had done my best to ensure that there wasn't anything controversial in what I said in the piece.

In that last post I'm ashamed to say I got a bit carried away and failed to follow my own advice about focussing. Hoist with my own petard!

The thrust of this thread is supposed to be racial intolerance, and in this regard my comments in the video about young children's religious education are critical. On this occasion, my point about a broad religious education is not so much that children can make informed choices (though of course this is very important) but that wherever they end up they should have as deep an understanding as possible of other religions.

In the current epidemic of religious hatred round the world, astonishing ignorance plays a huge part. I myself had a strong Christian upbringing, and I'm ashamed that it wasn't until I was around 60 that I made any effort to learn something about Islam - the religion of many of my friends. What sort of level of knowledge do people reading this post have on the history and practice of Islam? If it's less than satisfactory shouldn't you do something about it in our multicultural society? Shouldn't our children learn about it?

In one terrorist atrocity, they were shooting anyone who couldn't name the Prophet Mohamet's wife. Pretty good test, I would say.

I'm not unwilling to compare beliefs or learn about other views, but I am unwilling to fall into Syncretism; I think this is a fair and important distinction. Christians are indeed called to love our neighbour, but we also have a responsibility to keep Christ's teachings. However, I can appreciate that not everyone will agree with this or consider this a good thing.

I agree that there is much religious hatred today, which often comes out of ignorance or shallow ideas; not only with regards to religion, but really any form of belief. We would be wise to be patient and learn why people believe what they do.

However - forgive me - for I have to disagree with you in that children should be able to make "informed choices". I understand this may sound very backwards, but it needs to be understood correctly. I think from a non-religious point of view, presenting different beliefs as equal alternatives makes sense, if one believe that truth is relative. i.e. "What is not true to me is true to him." I don't know if you personally believe in this, but this is at least a popular belief in our day. However, any major religions would disagree, for most hold that truth is absolute, and so we have a responsibility to guide children in accordance with the truth. Specifically, for Christians, this truth is Jesus Christ, who declared himself to the the way, the truth and the life. To put it in a negative way, if a Christian parent were to lead a child out of Christianity or into a different religion, then this would be a great sin to the parent.

In a nutshell: From a Christian point of view we are called to love our neighbour, and part of this is taking an interest into others' lives and be sensitive, sincere and respectful towards everyone, as far as we are able, though often we fail; but we cannot mix our faith or be led into sin. We must love, but we must also be firm in our conviction.

 

[ose mcgroat]

Nothing to forgive; as I have said in an earlier post, belief is not something over which we have any control. And in a way, I'm glad you've expressed your thoughts so clearly, as they throw into sharp relief the reasons I made the video in the first place. I like to think your ideas are not representative of Christians in general. Any creed that seeks to be "exclusive" must be flawed from the start - I'm quite sure Christ would have rejected outright any such idea. And I can only marvel at your ability to make a concept as simple and beautiful as love into something so complex and difficult that it can't even be taught to children except by an ultra-specialist.

One last try. Just to please me, why don't you find yourself a nice slim volume on the elements of the history and practice of, say, Islam. I'm sure you could get it sent under plain cover. And I give you my absolute word of honour that you won't be contaminated by it. No obligation, as they say.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you mean crumpets? Oi, do you mind! They're British!
(Damn colonial types)

My apologies! I misspelled crumpets. And my wife informed me I probably should have said scones or muffins. I'm apparently facing a colonial learning curve here, my dear chap!

So sad. I wish I could understand why it's so difficult to sort out.

...well, one side claims they have had the 'deed' to the property for quite some time. The other side seems to think the deed was annulled somewhere along the way. From what I understand, there's been quite a feud over it.

And peace to you!

 

[Daniel9v9]

Nothing to forgive; as I have said in an earlier post, belief is not something over which we have any control. And in a way, I'm glad you've expressed your thoughts so clearly, as they throw into sharp relief the reasons I made the video in the first place. I like to think your ideas are not representative of Christians in general. Any creed that seeks to be "exclusive" must be flawed from the start - I'm quite sure Christ would have rejected outright any such idea. And I can only marvel at your ability to make a concept as simple and beautiful as love into something so complex and difficult that it can't even be taught to children except by an ultra-specialist.

One last try. Just to please me, why don't you find yourself a nice slim volume on the elements of the history and practice of, say, Islam. I'm sure you could get it sent under plain cover. And I give you my absolute word of honour that you won't be contaminated by it. No obligation, as they say.

Haha! I'm not "contaminated" by reading about Islam. Where do you get this idea? I've said on multiple occasions that I gladly learn about other beliefs, for from it comes a balanced world view, understanding and respect. But do I mix these teachings with Christ's teaching? No. Do you think Christians should do this?

Christ does not reject following Christ's own teachings, but rather he commands it, and this all Christians are to hold to - it's not just what I hold to, but all Christians. In this way, Christ's teachings are very much exclusive, for he make profoundly exclusive claims about himself and about the world and what we are to do, and what is good and true. These are the framework for the Christian faith, and none of us can change or argue what God has declared. Is this surprising?

As explained above; all beliefs are exclusive. Some are fixed (especially the Abrahamic religions) and others are open (especially non-religious, political views, modern humanism, philosophy, Universalism, Gnosticism and various forms of Syncretism), but all make exclusive claims. Even so, as said before, we don't disagree with learning about other views, but we can't adopt ideas that goes against the teachings of Christ. Or do you suggest that there are situations in which Christians should abandon Christ's teachings?

Christians believe in love, peace, forgiveness, goodness, kindness, gentleness, respect, long suffering and trust, which can benefit many regardless of their own beliefs - however, because all of these comes out of our faith in God, there is no guarantee everyone will approve or agree. Some may be offended because their own faith is in contrast to ours; that they have a different idea of "love" and "truth"; Just as you yourself have a different perspective on what love is from my own.

This is the Christian definition of love:
"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away."

And above all: "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Now if you ask a Modern Humanist, a Buddhist, a Wiccan or a Communist if they agree with the Christian definition of love, you may find that they don't. And furthermore, what this application of love looks like in practice will sometimes come across to non-Christians as bigotry and selfrighteousnesses, though Christians hold it to be love. However, that's not surprising to me, and I don't expect non-Christians to understand or adopt the Christian view, nor do I demand it or force it, but I will respectfully disagree with those who disagree with the teachings of Christ, and what Scripture defines as love.

I'm not sure what the root of your exact question is, but just to clarify - I have absolutely no resentment towards Islamic or Jewish people (or anyone for that matter). If anything, I know enough that I can respect, sympathize and relate to them, and above all, I am called to love them. However, that does not mean I agree theologically - but there's really no conflict on this account, for Christ does not call us to attack, for he conquered sin and death not with the sword, but through humility, love and laying down his own life.

I don't know if you know this, but many Christian scholars study Scripture alongside Orthodox Jews, and it's largely unproblematic, even though we fundamentally disagree theologically.
Though if you see it as a requirement that religions and should be open to mix their beliefs, I'm afraid you don't have a clear idea of what religion is or what the various religions mean to people. For most major religions would agree in that their belief is not an open philosophy or lifestyle to be mixed or adjusted in accordance with the current popular world-views.

To give you a practical example of this: If there are Orthodox Jews celebrating a holy day where gentiles are not allowed, from a Christian point of view - even though we disagree theologically -, we have no desire to protest or invade their celebration, for it benefits us nothing and it only heaps abuse on the Jew's faith; but we rather keep our distance for we have an understanding of their seriousness and commitment to their faith.

Now, my apologies, for this is a lengthy post - I can simply say that I agree with that we need to love and respect each other and omit what is meant, but I want to give you a fuller understanding of what this mean in practice; that part of loving our neighbour is also appreciating that their ideas can be significantly different from ours, and we must honour and tolerate that. If we truly desire to be tolerant, we must also embrace the fact that there is no universal neutral ground in which is compatible with every form of belief, for people's idea of "love" and "truth" are different - even in that you and I disagree is a testament to this in itself. If we say otherwise, then this becomes a form of Universalist idea, which ironically is highly exclusive.

 

[ose mcgroat]

...well, one side claims they have had the 'deed' to the property for quite some time. The other side seems to think the deed was annulled somewhere along the way. From what I understand, there's been quite a feud over it.

Sins of the fathers etc etc. Saddest and truest saying in the scriptures.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Tolerance means the willingness to allow the existence of views or practices one disagrees with. It does not mean acceptance of those practices. If I am not allowed to debate or disagree with another's view, then there is no 'tolerance' shown of mine. Of course, this should not be in a violent manner, but a simple disagreement and friendly argument is not really harmful. I have had many such discussions with Muslims before, for instance. While I agree with the sentiment, I disagree with the idea of "what's it to you?", for we must discuss such topics to actually familiarise, and in a way to humanise, our opinions of other groups. If I happen to think an idea to be accurate, and your soul is therefore in the balance, it would be an offence against charity not to share it. If someone insists drinking water from what I thought to be a lead pipe, I must inform them of this fact.

Anyway, just a little nit-picking criticism of your parable, unrelated to the point you were trying to make:
Medicine is not Science, but an Art. It is based on EBM - Evidence-Based Medicine. This is a system based on statistical analysis, a form of Empiricism but not a form of Science, for the cardinal rules of Scientific Method, Falsifiability and repeatability, cannot be applied to Medicine. We cannot repeat a study with poor outcomes, due to ethical constraints, and therefore all studies' results are treated as if proven - ie not-falsifiable. By arcane rules they are placed in confidence intervals, which then determine what weight should be given what study, and based on this, Evidence-Based treatment is suggested.
Your paediatricians would likely have collected their data for successful cases and these would then have been put together as retrospective or cohort studies, and based thereon, we would determine suggested treatment for a disease. Expert opinion alone is not highly valued in modern medicine, as there is a sincere effort to exclude bias as much as possible. Their indefinite results would have been analysed in systematic reviews and this would have become the Best Evidence for this illness, and seen as 'scientific fact' by those who do not know how Medicine operates.

On another note, when Evidence is ambiguous, when confidence intervals are quite broad, I have seen doctors who have vehemently and aggressively disagreed on treatment and practice, like any fanatic. In like vein, many discuss religion in a calm and civilised manner. Most people are actually quite tolerant if they face someone on a personal level, in my experience. Do not confuse an act of a few for a general rule and seek to condemn as a group for an action of a small percentage thereof, for would that not be intolerant?

 

[Serving Zion]

The other side seems to think the deed was annulled somewhere along the way. From what I understand, there's been quite a feud over it.

Christianity does not claim that the deed is annulled, but that Jews have momentarily disqualified themselves from the race. The times have changed, they have been humbled among the nations, and their heart is ready to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah if it can be shown to them that indeed what Christianity states about His resurrection is credible.

For now though, they see Christianity overrun by gentiles that refuse to repent when His Word falls against them, and for this reason God is not glorified in them and all their works are as deceptions. Thus they do not see that Christianity represents any of the qualities that belong to a holy God.