Faith In Action: Bringing Hope to the Planet

[Interbane]

Nice assumption, I'll just go kill my mother since she's a Christian. It should not be up to us whether or not we allow people or ideas to exist. Why would you even bring that up? I do not think religion should continue to exist, but I'll do nothing beyond words, since my strength of belief does not run as deep as yours. The only time I'll move beyond words from my belief is when it appeals to the golden rule of morality. On the other hand, history has shown countless times that people with the strength of belief such as yours are the people who move beyond words into harmful actions. I'm not saying that is you, I'm saying that it is your strength of belief. For your sake, I'll say that it is when that strength of belief is found in others with less love and morality, bad stuff is more likely to happen. Yet I wouldn't presume to know you that well.

Can you really say what action you would take if you were faced with being the only person on earth who could prevent Christianity from being forgotten forever, and all you had to do was harm someone? I know what you'd say, but what would you do? If I were in that situation, and it were atheism that was under the spotlight, I could say with certainty I would simply laugh. If atheism has greater truth than other belief systems, it will inevitably come to exist again at some point in the future regardless of any action I take.

[Dissident Heart]

Interbane: Why would you even bring that up?

Astonishing. He clearly doesn't see how he introduced the notion of myself as raging inquisitor asassinator...and then acts with gasping incredulity that I could even imagine such a thing!! Nor is he able to make the connection between the incindiary words he espouses and the terrible deeds that would follow.

[Interbane]

The irony was intended, and read the rest of the post.

[geo]

geo: Yes, but do you believe the Bible is sacred? Is it the word of God?

I think the Bible witnesses to the sacred word of God: it is an impossible compilation of confounding voices that stutter, spit, mumble, scream, profane, sing, praise, shout, rejoice, lament, cry, and whisper about a unimaginable presence and uncontainable force which words can only glimpse...an invocative alluring sensation tapping into regions of the heart and mind that inspire wondrous acts of courage, hope and love. It is not a safe book: it is neither sanitized nor completely sane...it speaks about impossibilities becoming fact and truth becoming flesh and it imagines another world toward which this embattled combat zone of life is headed, is already surrounded by, and in acts of justice and love: is already here. As a Christian the Bible is not the word of God: Jesus and the way of life he lived is the word of God...the word became flesh...lived among men not as text on page, but body in relationships: the word of God is about peculiar, dangerous, high risk, even impossible relationships: interactions that turn this world of imperial hegemony on its head...where the meek inherit the earth, those hungry for justice enjoy great feasts, the poor and borkenhearted are blessed, and the peacemakers are called the children of God. So...when I see the Bible produce relationships that transform the world from imperial brutality to healing solidarity: I celebrate a sacred text worthy of great care, study and emulation.

It's a yes or no question, DH.

[Dissident Heart]

Geo: It's a yes or no question, DH.

I don't think it is a yes or no question...or, if that is what you are after, then I don't think you will get a meaningful answer. What you will get is a sure way demarcate enemy lines and determine fellow travellers from oppositional forces...but you won't learn anything meaningful about the Bible or the Word of God or naming what is Sacred in life. Demanding "yes or no" from your questions is really a shibboleth.

[Interbane]

I don't think DH is capable of responding with a yes or no. He'll obfuscate and overdramatize his answers until they are meaningless.

It's a book DH... nothing more.

[DWill]

As I see it, we all need to get a little more enlightened about The Age of Enlightenment, and perhaps recognize the value of living in a Post-Enlightenment age...it might even be worthwhile to abandon the naming of ages altogether. There is a strong eschatology in Enlightenment thinking: the notion that time and human history are steadily progressing toward a better future, shedding past superstition and ignorance, accumulating more wisdom and knowledge, and growing more moral and authentic along the way...in other words, this is largely a matter of faith and really a bit of a religious hangover, tied to a Messianic eschatology were the future will provide a saving force able to liberate miserable humanity from itself.

Of course, the future has yet to deliver anything of the sort: and science has proven far from able to free us from the usual vices of human pride, envy, lust, avarice, mendacity and (in good old fashioned religious language) sin. Actually, it is just as reasonable to say we have endured the Age of Endarkenment: the ravaging of millions of acres of rainforests, decimation of sea and land species, wreckless genetic modifications of food stuffs and livestock, the accumulation of many thousands of tons of toxic wastes, huge swaths of dead zones across the seas, how many millions destroyed in world wars using the latest most advanced technologies to deliver miseries that ancient and medieval humans could never imagine...and, of course, the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in the air, under ground, on the seas and travelling across our highways, able to deliver exponentially more disaster than Genesis' story of Sodom and Gomorrah....

This is a good dose of healthy skepticism, always welcome. You are on a roll.
DWill

[Robert Tulip]

I don't think DH is capable of responding with a yes or no. He'll obfuscate and overdramatize his answers until they are meaningless. It's a book DH... nothing more.

Is the Bible sacred? This is a trick question, rather like the pharisee's asking Jesus whether to pay tax, or whether to stone adulterers. On tax, 'yes' isolates him from the Jewish radical base, and 'no' is criminal sedition. Hence the masterful response, render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's. On adultery, 'yes' is merciless, while 'no' is against Moses. The master responds - let whoever is without sin cast the first stone.

Is the Bible sacred? 'Yes' takes us down the barren old path of inerrancy and intolerance, when we know the Bible contains many metaphorical ideas, wrong ideas, and ideas lifted from older mythic traditions. 'No' ignores the sense in which a divine presence speaks within this text in a way that has immense practical transformative vision for our planet. On balance, I believe we should see the Bible as sacred - meaning precious and central, while recognising that this does not make it an infallible blueprint. This book has not been adequately studied from a modern critical perspective. The critics falsely assume the Bible is delusional and do not give it the respect it deserves, or like some of the comments here, look through it to find everything bad that they can use to promote atheism. Christians tend to be far too defensive, and should lighten up to sort the wheat from the chaff.
RT

[Interbane]

There is much wisdom in the bible. A lot of the text is important in that respect. But wisdom is found elsewhere, outside of the bible. Being, as I see it, a compilation of wisdom from countless authors across the centuries, it has more going for it than other books from a single author. I'm sure there are books out there that tell stories with deeper wisdom and on a broader scale than even the bible. Why are these books not sacred? Or are they? What gives the bible special status other than it's own claims?

It doesn't have a monopoly on the whole of human wisdom, most likely it only presents a small portion. What else is there besides this one book that gives any support for what is written within it? The word of other people in ages past that it's true? I really don't understand how people can so easily fall victim to the belief trap, the carrot on a stick.

[Robert Tulip]

Teasing out these issues enables a hardened atheist such as Interbane to recognise the wisdom in the Bible. I would say, if other books have equal or greater wisdom then they should also be considered sacred. For example the Dhammapada of Buddhism is a wonderful book, as are the Hindu Upanishads. I think of nature as sacred, so scientific work which reveals nature also has a sanctity about it.

You are right that the bible does not have a monopoly, and its status has rested on political authority. This political status is precisely why there is such widespread derision of the Bible, because assertions without evidence breed deep resentment in those who are forced to assent to them or respect them. So lets agree that the 'belief trap' is a pre-modern error. My own claim is that I can justify all my beliefs with logic and evidence. That may seem unlikely, but it is why I prefer to engage in dialogue here than with Christians who retain a fixation on acceptance of beliefs by authority. Evidence and logic trump authority these days.

Chatting to a friend today, we were discussing how the pulpit has a captive audience to disseminate positive messages, especially for economic development in poor countries, but instead it is too often used for repetitive turgid shallow rubbish, along the lines of praise the lord and be saved. Christian faith and biblical study have enormous development potential, from something as simple as the injunction in Leviticus not to shit on the ground but to bury it, on to the complex message of the Sermon on the Mount of the victory of love over hate. The problem is that secular prejudice sees faith as blind, and this prejudice is deeply ingrained, and often justified. Achieving what DH has called for in this thread, a faith that will bring hope to the planet, requires a major re-engineering of the doctrinal basis of faith, recognising the achievements of modernity while keeping the valuable kernel of the gospel.

Where I see the story of Jesus as valuable is in the core ethical messages about love, and the claim that presenting these messages to the empire in a rigorous way results in crucifixion and resurrection. The passion story is an immensely profound parable for our planet - the archetypal story of human politics, in which the USA can be viewed as the new Rome. The challenge is to find a potent myth which can draw together human needs for planetary transformation. The messianic prediction in the bible seems to me to provide an unequalled source for this task.