A novel way to belief this summer

WEENY says:

05:30am | 08/01/10

You should read: God is not great by Christopher HITCHENS.

JA says:

06:50am | 08/01/10

In this age of hyper-distraction and self-absorbtion, I find it refreshing and heartening to be reminded that some human qualities will never change.  It is very grounding and sublime that every so often there is a small piece of art, a book, perhaps new life, or a death, or even occasionally a regular ol’ sunset or rainbow that causes people to slow, stop, reflect… The capacity for thought and feelings is a beautiful thing.

Bryndal says:

08:27am | 08/01/10

Faith does’t provide answers - questioning does. As to beliefs - other than belief of basic priciples of fact - the sun comes up, water flows down - beliefs do nothing but close peoples minds to other ideas.
The motivation of terrorism is driven by belief.
How about some healthy opening of minds rather than the circling of wagons around your beliefs.

grant says:

10:02am | 08/01/10

Why does this piece feel like subversive preaching wrapped in a book review.  Sorry, you don’t get +50 conversion points for every unbeliever converted.

This statement is alarming to say the least “At heart a Christian who is on the side of love over justice, Gospel over Law”. 

God’s law over man’s law, that is never ever going to happen.

Why is this even on the Punch, how is this relevant to your mission statement or what you set out to achieve?

IMHO says:

10:09am | 08/01/10

I’m all for introspection over the human condition; how to come to grips with the infinite sadness, anxiety, and, in some cases, insanity associated with knowledge that as sure as we are born we will die. No one knows what happens after that but the idea that we might not cease to exist but rather carry on in some sort of ethereal form is understandably comforting to many, and perhaps instrumental in the prevention of madness for many more.

Unfortunately once we start elevating this hopeful and comforting idea to the level of fact, we are travelling along the Road of Self-Delusion, which leads only to the Cul-de-sac of Unshakeable Belief, where rational discussion is not only pointless, it is unwelcome.

At the end of the day, no one knows what happens when we die, and that’s what we should tell our children.

DocBud says:

10:10am | 08/01/10

“And yet, he is at heart a Christian who is on the side of love over justice”

Love and justice cannot be in contradiction, if you love, you will desire and insist upon justice (of the universal rather than narrow state kind). That is true irrespective of one’s belief system. The problem is in the definition of justice.

“And yet, without a decent knowledge of the issues involved in Calvin’s theology, let alone the modern variations of Karl Barth, Ludwig Feuerbach and others, the story makes only superficial sense.” There’s no snob like an academic one.

Simon Ingram says:

10:57am | 08/01/10

Can all the atheists commenting on this article in a derogratory way just go away please. You get more than your fair chance to be heard loudly with every other article on every other day of the week with crucial life and death issues dear to your hearts such as rugby, football, cricket, pop music stars, celebrity affairs, Big Brother, The Twilight Saga, fashion trends and the new iPhone. Is this not enough for you that you also have to write in and bag someone who writes about issues of eternity on the rare one occasion that someone dares to.

Thank you Greg for your refreshing reminder that we have a reason for existing beyond what the media tells us we do.

For Grant who thinks “Man’s Law” usurps “God’s Law”, you have a very nasty surprise awaiting you on the other side of you last breath. You won’t have the last laugh.

For Bryndal who thinks “Faith doesn’t provide answers” you have clearly never studied “Faith” (which is more than just being told something by another person by the way. - That is a cult. Faith is a relationship with the creator of the universe. Who would have better answers??)

Bob says:

11:10am | 08/01/10

Sounds interesting.

I don’t think it’s snobbish to say some knowledge of Calvanism would enrich the reading experience. It’s like saying the reader of a cricketer’s biography would be limited in their appreciation if they know nothing about cricket.

And, I think “Gospel over Law, grace over all”, refers to theological Law (hence the proper noun), not secular law. The book of Romans actually states that Christians are expected to obey secular laws as part of their faith. (One of the harder parts of the New Testament for many Christians to accept.)

Knowing a bit about Christian history allows me to appreciate the intent of this article. Which is that the book is not about self-righteous banging on, but rather about questioning the self-righteous crap that Calvanism in particular is often used to justify.

I look forward to reading it and finding out how far she goes.

If people are interested in such things, I recommend God: a Biography by Jack Miles. Also a Pulitzer winner, it turns many ideas from the Torah (Old Testament) on their head. Makes a person wonder how modern Christendom managed to go so far off course.

Bryndal says:

11:12am | 08/01/10

Simon@11.57 - who told you the creator exists? What cult was that? The only ‘answers’ provided by the ‘creator’ have been written by man who by religions definition is flawed. I will take my luck with reason thanks!

iansand says:

11:15am | 08/01/10

“What this may mean is that the questions to which Christian faith provides answers are already in the minds and hearts of many a reader.”  Well doh.  Just because the questions are there does not mean that Christ provides the only answer, or even the best answer.

JA says:

11:17am | 08/01/10

Personally, i think it’s great to see someone, regardless of their religious persuasion, focussing on issues of depth - spirituality, love, wisdom and reflection… Issues that are far too often stepped over to our own detriment.

IMHO says:

11:18am | 08/01/10

Simon you sound like one pretty angry non-atheist. It’s an interestingly threatening tone you take in paragraph 3.

Faith by the way is simpy a belief held without or in spite of the evidence. Believing that one has a relationship with the creator of the universe is an example of a belief held in faith.

You clearly are not interested in discussion of the issue, as I predicted in my previous note. Why would it be the case that atheists, or anyone for that matter, would not be welcome to discuss beliefs that you hold so assuredly, about an issue that affects us all, and binds us together in our common humanity?

Simon Ingram says:

11:24am | 08/01/10

Ok Bryndal. How do you explain that the exact date of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, to the day, was written six centuries before the fact. (Daniel 9:25). Or that his crucifixion was described in detail seven centuries before the fact (Isaiah 53). 285 BC-dated copies of both of these books are currently in the British museum.

I just randomly picked two good examples out of hundreds.

Grant says:

11:25am | 08/01/10

@ Simon

As a non baptised non believer, I am glad that I am not heading to an eternity in a utopian existential reality with no freedom or purpose. 

The beauty of it is none of us will be getting any last laughs, and you won’t get a surprise when you arrive.

Because when you leave this existence, death will only bring the peace of complete non existence. 

Deep down you know its true, you all do. Does it scare you?

Is there a new iPhone coming out?  Oh goody….

Bryndal says:

11:36am | 08/01/10

@ Simon - Correct me if I am wrong but the ‘groupings’ that were exposing these ‘premonitions’ were consider cults weren’t they? So you have been told by them that the creator exists - you believe it - by your own rekoning - ““Faith doesn’t provide answers”  (which is more than just being told something by another person by the way. - That is a cult.” - by your own words you are in a cult! Not that there is anything wrong with that.

DocBud says:

11:58am | 08/01/10

Bob,

To imply that what one chooses to read into a book is superior to someone else’s ‘superficial’ reading of the same book and to drop a few influential names into the bargain meets my definition of academic snobbery. As does Simon’s:

“You get more than your fair chance to be heard loudly with every other article on every other day of the week with crucial life and death issues dear to your hearts such as rugby, football, cricket, pop music stars, celebrity affairs, Big Brother, The Twilight Saga, fashion trends and the new iPhone.”

H of SA says:

12:02pm | 08/01/10

Cheers for bringing the book to my attention Greg, Its probably to late in the summer for me to get it in before I have to read for study and not interest as Uni goes back, but I’ll remember its title for when I do have some free time.

Harquebus says:

12:23pm | 08/01/10

Religious people are nothing more than gullible fools not to be trusted. Got that Greg.

jim says:

12:57pm | 08/01/10

Sounds like a good read. It’s been a while since I’ve read your work, since unichurch I guess.

I think death is truly the factor when one makes time to reconsider all aspects of their life and puts them on the table for a better perspective.

It’s also something that sticks to the rest of my life as well.

@ Harquebus : Thats what Mao said.
@ WEENY : I’ll get that for my e-book. I wasn’t too impressed with Dawkin’s book, he’s not that good of an author compared to the quality of public skits. Though I must say, because of my close encounter of death during my teen years, atheism has never since been ever appealing.

H of SA says:

01:04pm | 08/01/10

Nothling like those intollerant religous types that look down on others eh Harquebus (do you realise the irony)

Bob says:

01:18pm | 08/01/10

DocBud,

I’ll agree on the name dropping part.

But I think we are coming from opposite ends of the interpretation on the ‘superficial’ part. You are looking at it from what one ‘reads into’ a book, I am looking at it from what one gets out of it. Both are valid ways of looking at the act of reading as I think we do a bit of both. Sorry if I implied that there was any ‘superiority’ in either way. Not my intent. I’m no academic, a dropout in fact, but I like to read.

I have no idea about the quote in your last paragraph means to say. I didn’t say that, Simon did. And as an atheist myself, I don’t intend to do what Simon says.

Grant says:

01:40pm | 08/01/10

If the’re was a supernatural who can transcend time and space and bend matter to its will, this being which people here might label as god.

I believe then this god, he is technically the ‘Father Christmas’ for adults edition of the childrens version, who judges people based on whether they are naughty or nice.  In the adult version, the stakes are higher.

The way Simon was writing about me not going to heaven, I think Simon may come up naughty on the list, and miss out on his dream of dreams, which like any reasonable person is to live for eternity in a sky/cloud castle.

stephen says:

02:09pm | 08/01/10

Nice article, good read.
I’ll go get Gilead.

DocBud says:

02:10pm | 08/01/10

Bob,

I should have left the comment about academic snobbery out and then we could have had the far more interesting debate about love and justice which is relevant to all faiths and humanism.

BBB says:

02:26pm | 08/01/10

Simon @ 11.57, can you please explain your third paragraph and in particular what you mean by the nasty surprise?  It almost sounds like a threat.  I thought one of the most important comandments was to love thy neighbour as thyself.  Surely this must mean, according to Christian belief, that there are no nasty surprises for anyone?  Or alternatively, there are nasty surprises in store for all.  While Christians have depicted a vision for those that do not conform - ie hell - that is fairly graphic and grotesque - see various churches around Europe - this cannot be right surely?  Does eternal suffering accord with fundamental Christian beliefs?  Or is Christian belief hypocritical in nature?  If I believe in something other than God’s law, what is in store for me? 

In your final paragraph, do you actually believe there was a creator of the universe?  I thought most rational Christians had rejected creation myths as set out in the bible (which in itself is problematic as surely you simply cannot elect to drop the parts that are proven by science to be mere fantasy)?

And your comments at 12.24pm - how do you know the exact date Jesus entered Jerusalem?  I mean, the date the poor guy died changes each year, so surely the “exact date” might be a bit suspect? And looking at Daniel 9:25, it’s not real precise.  He talks of a prayer “in the first year of his (Darius son of Xerxes) reign”.  So the exact date might be a bit hard to calculate if you believe what God said to Daniel in 9:25 as it could be anywhere from 1 to 365 days out of whack.  Maybe if Daniel had an iPhone he could have recorded what God said and we could have worked out the “exact” date that way…

IMHO says:

03:03pm | 08/01/10

BBB, maybe God could release or divinely inspire an addendum to Daniel in order to clear up these obvious misunderstandings we mere mortals are unable to sort out ourselves. It has after all been nearly 2000 years since God’s last official divine communication with us. Surely He’s been working on something in all that time. Come on God, throw us a frickin’ bone here!

Interloper says:

04:03pm | 08/01/10

Settle down, people.For the athiests out there, use a little imagination and accept that your primary school notions of mainstream Christianity may not be sufficient to actually understand what theology entails. Leave the setting up and knocking down of strawmen to Dawkins et al. For some of the Christians out there, remember that blind adherence to dogma was something that Jesus railed against ... and this, in fact, was a prinicple reason for his execution.
Most humanist and athiest philosophy can be read and understood in a Christian way. I would suggest that much Christian theology and philosphy can be read in a humanist and athiest way. And good literature should be able to make us think and reflect regardless of our underlying beliefs.
In short: open your minds, people.

iansand says:

05:35pm | 08/01/10

Simon Ingram @12:24pm | 08/01/10

Ok Bryndal. How do you explain that the exact date of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, to the day, was written six centuries before the fact. (Daniel 9:25).

If you are aware of a prophecy it is pretty easy to ensure that it is fulfilled.

Bwian says:

09:35pm | 08/01/10

Simon - Isaiah 53 as a description of the crucifixion?  You should stop believing everything your priests tell you and read Isaiah for yourself.  Start at chapter 40 and you will see that it is referring to a figure that was to lead the Jews from the Babylonian exile back to Palestine.  On no reasonable reading can it be said to be referring to Jesus.  That early Christians (and some modern ones) would claim that this is a prophesy of Jesus well illustrates the rickety pretence on which Christianity has always been based.

Jasper says:

10:10pm | 08/01/10

As the early Christian church gained ground they did not throw out the baby with the bath water of paganism and classical culture was kept alive by theologans in both Christianity and Islam. They recognised that even if they did not believe the religious underpinings, the tales told by the Greeks and Romans, along with their philosophy held truth.

They made efforts to ensure that much was incorporated into their religions and truths were kept. As an athiest myself, I still feel that it is a grave mistake for athiest dialog to be so dismissive and distainful of holy texts, religion and theological reasoning.

There can be fundamentalist athiests as much as religious fundamentalist and fundamentalism is an impediment to critical thinking regardless of if one is religious or not. Try having a conversation with a Trotskyite (if you can find one) if you don’t beleive me!

You don’t need to be a believer to find truths in the Bible, it is after all an enormous and complicated text with many contradictions. But it is also something that, like the works of the classical world, people find truth in. In the words of Frederick the Great of Prussia: ” All religions must be tolerated, for every man must get to heaven in his own way.”

Athiests need to recognise that many people feel, in the words of Battlestar Galactica’s first article of faith: “that this is not all we are”. This is a persistant feeling that many people have and it is not reasonable to dismiss it out of hand. It is part of the human experience, as the humanists say: the proper study of man is man.

There is a middle road and that is honest exploration of the religious experience and theological thinking in, if you excuse the pun, good faith.

colleen says:

10:21pm | 08/01/10

Gilead sounds like a good read -thank you for drawing it to my attention.