Something Imaginative

I enjoy spending time debating; though you could have worked that out from the numerous posts on the subject on this blog. During one of these debates in an attempt to defend the Religous point of view, I made the standard appeal to experience. It was pointed out to me that the experience is often viewed in light of the cultural norms of the experiencee. That is, if you are brought up a Christian, or currently exploring Christianity, you are more likely to attribute the experience to the Christian God.

This means, then, that though the experience can be powerful life changing, however, it is difficult to use it as a definitive proof for a specific form of Religion/Mysticism. Though similar experiences are reported in all religions, experiences very rarely change religion. Nor, in the same way can it be said to point to a divine being, as those who search for inner enlightenment would say that the experience is an example of reaching this state of nirvana.

This, obviously, put me in a rather awkward position. Either I need to say that all revelation point to the divine, and posit a single God, or that all experiences point to a divine, and posit many Gods. Positing a single God, while being in keeping with Christian Doctrine does play fast and loose with the Bible, which at many points does refer to other gods. Though later these gods come to be thought of Demons, or agents of Satan. This causes another problem in our attribution of Ecstatic experience, who is to say that such experience is not from Satan. Of course the experiencee often attributes the experience one way or the other, but Satan, that great lord of deception could easily convince a befuddled mortal mind.

As you can see, this is a very complicated subject, and I don’t yet have an answer. However, I thought I would turn to google, that fountain of random knowledge to see if it had any answers, and up comes a result from an article by Paul Tillich, and American Theologian.

Though good at articulating the problem, Tillich seems to avoid giving an answer, rather to say that Religion cannot defend itself in the realm of science, but rather one needs to take the critic into the awesome nature of the divine, so that they can see the error of their ways. The rational seems to closely mirror that of Al-Ghazzili.

Tillich doesn’t seem to offer a real solution, but rather states that one should be honest about the problems of trying to justify the experiences. He also makes the point that trying to find proof of God is next to pointless, as God is beyond time and space, essentially, I guess, making God immeasurable. Though the article is interesting, I’m not sure it gets us any closer to a kind of sensible justification, but rather moves the argument. I think that the notion of moving the argument is important, it is very difficult to argue an emotional subject from rational only. Especially as Christians are in the awkward position of needing to work backwards from what they know to what they can prove, and often find themselves with a Religion that works for them, that is predictable, that is comforting, and that guides their way of life.

There are two sides to this. The ordinary Christian will find exploring this subject uncomfortable. It is difficult to hold onto faith when the only justification they are looking for comes from cold, hard fact. However, Religion is not about that which we can prove, but rather about Faith. Religion should improve our lives in one way or another, it should fill a hole or answer a feeling that has no place in the cold sceptical world that Atheists seem to want to create.

The response to these intellectual difficulties, however, should not be to hold even tighter onto the Bible, and turn it into a literal truth where it cannot stand in the face of science. Tempting as some might see this, as it give full certainty, it only means that the fall of faith is much greater should any of the facts prove to be incontrovertible for the literal believer. Those with faith do not live in a comfortable world where Faith is the norm, we live in a world where there are those who are using Faith as a hammer to do harm, though religion can and should be being used to change the world for the better, with focus on health, care of the sick, the elderly, and each other.

I have yet to find a sensible rebuttal, but that doesn’t mean that I should stop thinking.

Thinking Christians are facing attacks on both sides; on one side we have the Atheists who ridicule us for trying to think through our faith, and on the other, our Biblical-Literalist brothers, who ridicule us for wanting to think through our faith. It is no wonder that people leave the Religion (thought not the faith) daily, as they try to struggle with their own morality, and that of the loudest voices around them. I can only say to those of you that are here searching for comfort, you are not alone.

~Black Xanthus

Source : Paul Tillich Article : http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=494

Popularity: 1% [?]

Tags: Americans, God Notes, Phil-Osophy by BlackXanthus
No Comments »

Originally written: 02.07.2010 while in Lesotho.

I think I should stop reading st. Thomas Aquinus, he’s giving me ideas above my station. The thought was as follows:

Prayer transforms God’s power in potentia into God’s action in the world

This is hardly, I would guess, a new thought, but it is a new one for me. It gives human action a bigger part in prayer, being almost the guiding or directing force. Perhaps prayer acts more as the gate through which God can act? The problem with that is that that implies that God cannot act and requires permission to. My problem here, as always, is the opposite of the problem raised by J.B. Phillips in his book “Your God is too small” in that the Christian God is defined as being so Big. Perhaps, then, the important words are “in potentia”. If God’s purpose is something that is a river, constantly at work in the world, prayer then, as a two-way action, doesn’t simply alter the flow of the river, but makes us aware of the way, speed, and force of the river; making us more aware of the will of God. Of course that reads suspiciously like the near-traditional description of fate, except here the river is not an impersonal force, but that of a loving God. Prayers, then, could be seen as the pebbles dropped into the river, causing ripples. This implies that the more people who pray, or perhaps the stronger that you pray, for a certain thing the more the course of the river is altered. This doesn’t, to me, seem wholly satisfactory, but then I suppose that no analogy can ever be. However, there seems to be some superficial truth in the opening statement.

There is an equivalence with this idea in Christian ritual (the original statement, that is) whereby the celebrant (ordained person) calls God’s power onto ordinary bread & wine and transforms them into the spiritual body & blood of Christ. That power is called fourth and granted by the Grace of God. How much of the Eucharistic Prayer is necessary to achieve this transformation is a big debate in theology . For me, it requires the commemoration (“On the night he was betrayed, He took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them saying “Take, eat, this is my body that was given for you, do this in remembrance of me etc.”), and the call of the Holy Spirit (Heavenly Father, send your spirit upon these thy gifts of bread and wine so that they may be for us His body & blood”). It is the point of the call (during or directly following – I’m not sure, not yet being Ordained!) that the elements (bread & wine) are changed. This then, is a call on God’s power In-potentia and demonstrates (or seems to) that Man# has the ability to call and use God’s power, ot at the very least a properly# Ordained person does. The practise of (emergency) baptism by lay people is still practised and considered to have force, and there are no standard words for such (or, rather, no guarantee that such words were available at the time) and no-one has called these Baptisms invalid#. The problem with prayer then is the seemingly rare occurrences of them being answered ( we don’t have hundreds of millionaires, nor are the terminally ill healed at any scientifically validated rate). Christian theology had then looked for other forms of “answers”; the spiritual healing for the terminally ill, becoming wealthy in spirit. Though they are good and valuable answers they neatly side-step the idea that prayer should be able to move mountains and uproot fig-trees and throw them in the sea with very little faith#. Seemingly, then, the amount of faith a person has does not have an impact on the level of success one should expect from a prayer. There is also the idea that:

“All Prayers are answered; sometimes the answer is ‘No’”

Giving “no” as an answer fits with the idea of a loving Father-God. Any parent# knows that giving in to every demand of a child leads to tyranny of the spoilt. however, it is difficult to see how a loving Father-God could answer “No” to the prayer to intervene in massive humanitarian problems (like Zimbabwe# massacres) or even to help people suffering as the result of a natural disaster (which are ultimately, according to the standard Christian doctrine, the result of God’s action).

With things like the Zimbabwe massacres it is possible to point to human free will as the problem. God gave us free will#, and must therefore allow us to exercise it. It does, however make God appear to be complicit with massive human death, especially as nothing is being done to stop him (Mugabe#). There is no-doubt much prayer being said against Mugabe.

On the small scale it appears that prayer does seem to function in-line with 2000# years of Christian thought. Probably just enough to bring new believers to the faith as they experience the subjective truth of God’s presence#.

There seems to be, then, rules that govern God’s interaction with the world. They are no-doubt, subtle and complicated, and probably, ultimately, unknowable, but it seems rational that these rules can be explored in a fairly rational way. We can, of course, only speak in generalities because God (presumably) is able to transcend any of the rules at will. This does not mean that the inquiry, though it may not be wholly successful, will not in someway bare fruit. To paraphrase Aquinas, all exploration of Divine truth is profitable. It should also be remembered that the truths may not bring specific comfort, as anyone who has faced the sudden death of a child# in any capacity has found that the notion of God’s plan wholly unhelpful, or as anyone who has had to explain to a near-hysterical person why God thinks that it’s okay that they might suddenly drop dead, and how is this fair on them or their loved ones found the questions impossible to answer. The fact that we may never truly know the answer should not stop the enquiry.

So where does that leave the opening statement? It stands, I think,as a good place from which to continue thinking about God’s actions, how we perceive them, and what they say, if anything about God. It seems to me that we cannot jump straight to speaking about the general transcendent God until we have outlined how He appears in specifics, on the small scale, before taking this image out to walk in the light of world history and global problems. We should start, as any enquiry should with what we know,what we understand and how this applies, and then, once that shape is wholly tested,and ironed out, forged as it were, in the light of experience and interpretation with God can we then explore the general and far-reaching truth about God.

~BlackXanthus

Popularity: 8% [?]

Tags: God Notes, Phil-Osophy, Reflections by BlackXanthus
No Comments »

While thinking about the nature of belief, it occurred to me that most people see the movement of God in their life through a high level of coincidence-type actions. When people see that their life fortuitously comes together, or improves despite some calamity, it is easy to see how this could be the action of a God. Especially when such events seem to occur on a regular basis. These events are then often coupled with a deep feeling of connection to something Other, something outside of the individual, normally something greater than oneself, and a feeling that perhaps one’s life is being guided by a benevolent hand. When times are not going so well, there is a tendency to look to oneself as a source of the problems. IF the problems occur outside of oneself (for example, loosing one’s job during the recession), then there is a tendency, at least in the short term to recite platitudes, like “Everything happens for a reason”, or “God moves in mysterious ways”. The positive is re-enforced, and the negative is often forgotten, or seen in a different light. The negative can also be seen as the action of something outside of oneself, but a force that is in some way evil. Logically, if God is Good, then the negative force cannot (at least in the immediate instance) originate with God, and so such “evil” is then attributed to a personified form of Evil (in much the same way that the Good is attributed to the personified God).

Much of the decision-making that happens in regard to Belief seems (at least to me) to be based on a mix of cognition, self-fulfilling prophecy, and emotion. As humans, we have fallible memories, and it is well documented that our minds have a wonderful ability to forget things that we would rather not remember, and to remember things in a more positive light than they actually were. Anyone who’s had any previous relationships (friends or lovers) need simply to look back on them, and they will find that over time one aspect tends to shine through more fully than any other (be it the positive or the negative aspects of the relationship). Sometimes we might even forget why it was we liked them in the first place, or perhaps, why it was we broke up with them. It is these fallible memories that leads us to remember only those things that match the way we see the world. This human tendency makes it very difficult to attribute experiences contrary to our held stereotyped view of the world properly. An example would be that should we hold a sweeping stereotype like “All Blonds are Dumb”, even if we were to meet an intelligent blond, we would either think they had died their hair, or even if it was proven to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were natural blonds (how that might happen, I’ll leave as an exorcise for the reader) we would simply add this blond as the “exception that proves the rule”. We could meet many intelligent blonds, and still hold the notion that blonds are dumb. A wonderful example of this was done my the Monty Python Team in the life of Brian.

Reg: …. And what have they ever given us in return?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That’s true.
Masked Activist: And the sanitation!
Stan: Oh yes… sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: All right, I’ll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done…
Matthias: And the roads…
Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads… the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads…
Another Masked Activist: Irrigation…
Other Masked Voices: Medicine… Education… Health…
Reg: Yes… all right, fair enough…
Activist Near Front: And the wine…
Omnes: Oh yes! True!
Francis: Yeah. That’s something we’d really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!
Stan: And it’s safe to walk in the streets at night now.
Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order… (general nodding)… let’s face it, they’re the only ones who could in a place like this.

(more general murmurs of agreement)
Reg: All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?

I think you get the point. However, a Robot (that is, a high-functioning AI robot) has perfect recall. They are able to remember everything that they have ever done, and every sequence of events that has led to specific outcomes. If we take a robot like Data (from Star Trek: Next Generation) He would also be able to work out the probability of the action that has happened. A robot would not be able to accept the empirical proofs put forward such as “I feel it”, having no emotions (which are prone to be arbitrary). The actions of God in the life of the Robot would need to show actions that border on the far side of probability for the Robot to even begin to contemplate the existence of some form of entity that guides their destiny. They would not be subject to the same problems that fallible humans are. Would the Robots ever come to believe in a God?

I’m not sure if a Robot would ever make the leap to a full-formed God, like, for example, the God of the Christians, because they would be lacking in the emotional attachment such religious structure brings with it. They would have no use for the moral structure, and would have difficulty making a personal connection to a deity like Jesus because these, primarily, are emotional links. However, should the amount of chances in the Robots life actually border on the far edge of probability, if they were able to see that there is an apparent Order in the Chaos of their lives, would they make the logical leap that there was someone aiding their life, guiding it in some way? or simply see that they existed on the far end of the probability curve, and therefore, re-draw the probability curve to one that matches where they are? (this is the kind of math that’s a little beyond me, but it occurs to me that if things are happening on the edges of probability repeatedly, then the math that produced the probability graph is off, and they move to become the “norm”, rather than improbable).

I’m not sure a truly logical brain could actually arrive at the notion of a God, unless, of course, God existed. A mind that remembers everything, that is able to view their life without prejudice of emotion, or self-delusion could only arrive at the notion of a God (here defined, of course, as an unseen entity guiding their life) unless it became truly apparent to them that something was. For Robots, of course, they won’t believe, they will simple accept it as another fact, another variable to add into their equation. They can’t believe; they have no emotions.

The lack of emotion, of course, raises all sorts of other questions. CAn you have a soul without emotion? Can a soul that lives in what is essentially an inanimate object enter heaven? (because belief is cited as a criteron for entering heaven). The reason I’m not contemplating the question of wether or not a Robot can gain a soul is simple; God can choose to give a soul to a Robot, if He wants too.

~Black Xanthus

Popularity: 12% [?]

Tags: God Notes, Phil-Osophy by BlackXanthus
No Comments »

Recently, I was reading “Stubborn Theological Questions”, by John Macquarrie. An interesting book which I found myself thoroughly disagreeing with. The problem, for me, was the current thrust to “De-Mythologise” Christianity. Denial of things like the Incarnation, and of explaining away Miracles as happenstance, or with other logical answers seems to be the way of the times. This is the process where people seem to be hunting for the true facts behind the Bible stories; that is, those that can be explained only by scientific, archaeological, or historic means. This to me seems to be a little.. odd. Essentially, what these Christian Theologians seem to what to turn Christianity into Christophosofy. A Philosophy that’s based around an eccentric Rabbi from distant Palestine. Okay, so when looked at like that, it’s not a bad philosophy. Love one another, and share the wealth around. Not at all a bad way of living your life. However, the thrust of Christianity also adds the idea of a “God”.

In the modern world, many people feel that it is necessary to prove the existence of God in a scientific way. This is not a new argument (though some people act as though it is), and some of the greatest (and not so great) minds have tried to come up with a suitable answer to the problem. As of yet, we (Christians) have not found one. Though more and more people keep finding that there is something… other in the world that doesn’t fit the rational scientific post-enlightenment mind set. For some, this way of thinking is destructive, and for others it’s liberating. The Post-Modern Philosophy that currently drives our society puts the emphasis on the personal experience. Some theologians would sneer at that as the sin of Subjectivism, but is a world-view where Miracles happened, where God does have a part to play in guiding the world a bad thing?

As with many things, it’s a double-edged sword. There are Christians who would want to hold onto the Bible with both hands and scream “if it’s not in here, it’s not true”, which does the book itself a disservice. The Bible is full of people thinking, and re-envisaging their interactions with God. Becoming or Being a Christian does not mean checking your brains it at the moment the Bible is opened, and never turning them on again. Indeed, the Old Testament is a struggle to do just that, to record the history of a people, and to see how they observed God moving and supporting their small country.

If we are going to believe in a story based on the Miraculous, it seems to me to make more sense that on some level that we must also accept the Miracles, and the idea that Christ, in some way, is the Son of God. To look for miracles in our own lives, and to be willing for the Other to have an impact, and to change the way we view life. To look around us, and to not see nature, but to see Creation. This doesn’t meant to deny the process of nature (such as evolution, the Big Bang and so on, God gave us the ability to think for a reason), but rather to look at the world and to think that, in some way, God had a hand in bringing it about.

If we are to avoid the turning Christianity in to yet another Philosophy, then we need to find a way to deal with the miracles, and with the other super-natural events that are part of the heritage of Christianity (say, perhaps, the miracles of saints), and wrap them into our world view. I can understand that some people might find the concept of the super natural difficult, especially when such events have not managed to produce themselves like dancing dogs for the scientists. Our fear of trying to justify what some people see as “insane thoughts” has meant that we would rather remove anything we can’t justify under the scrutiny of science. Of course, if we spend all our time trying to justify it to the level of science, we will go mad (though, of course, some people think that to believe things that cannot be proved to be true is a form of madness). If we do remove all these things that we cannot prove all we end up with is a Christosophy. A noble way of life, indeed, but it makes the ritual, and the gathering connected with it a little pointless.

The strange things is that as Christianity is busy trying to stand up against science, the selves of the “mind, body and spirit” section are growing. The local Waterstones has gone from one shelf to nearly three. It’s not that people don’t want to believe, from all walks of life, but they want to believe in something that is where they are. That walks with them, and connects to their sense of the other, that explores their own life of Spirituality, where there is an explanation for the way that they find their world.

So, really, what is it we’re afraid of? Being laughed at by scientists? Is that really enough for us to run and hide our belief?

To my mind we must face up to the challenge, and ensure that what we believe is moral, sensible, and well thought out. As an Anglican, the three pillars popularised by Richard Hooker or Reason, Scripture, and Tradition serve as constraints, but also as guidance. We are not to suddenly ignore the world, and to claim (like some fundamental Christians would have us do), that Evolution is an unsubstantiated Myth, and that Dionsaur bones are either faked, left there in the flood, or put there by God to test our faith. I’m suggesting, however, that we walk a fine line between what Science tells us, and what we ourselves discover about the God and the world through our own interaction with it. It is a difficult task. With every line I write, I can hear the voices of scientific disapproval. Of those that say “But you can’t prove any of it, why believe it?”. It’s a difficult place to be. To have science demanding answers that you just can give it, and every bone in your body believing despite yourself. Knowing, almost beyond doubt, that there is something other, that out there, somewhere, there is a God, and that He sent his Son to show us the way back to Him. It’s a lot of big ideas, a lot of ancient thinking that has, on occasion, been a weight that has held down further thinking. We are simple thinkers, trying to find a way forward in a world where Belief of any kind is marginalised, and where believing in God is the path of ridicule. In this world, we must find a new way of thinking, a new way of approaching God that doesn’t leave us thinking that some form of mental trick has been pulled.

The great thinkers of antiquity were all writing in a time where God was almost a Fact. Now we are writing in a time where God seems almost distant, and the Mysteries and Miracles spoken about in the Bible and in the writings about the Celtic saints are considered to be fiction. To keep these elements as part of a theology, then, seems a little insane, but it seems to me that there’s no smoke without fire. All these wonderous things, then, must find a place in theology. All the things that people point at an scream “myth” like it’s a bad thing need to be re-investigated. There is no smoke without fire, and indeed, a lot of the records were written by people who had a lot less knowledge about the world than we do, and yes, perhaps some (or, a lot) can be explained with what we know about modern medicine, but somewhere in those stories, somewhere in all these ideas there is something deeper, something that fires our soul.

AS you can see the entire idea is not exactly a re-envisaging of theology. Perhaps a re-romanticising of Theology, but definitely a Re-Mythologising of Christianity. Anything to avoid it becoming a Christosophy.

~BX

Popularity: 17% [?]

Tags: God Notes, Phil-Osophy by BlackXanthus
No Comments »

….. Westborough Baptist Church looses.

Which is not very surprising, at all.

The usual madness that is the Fred Phelp’s clan descended onto Comic Con, USA, only to be faced by a protest held in response. With people holding signs like “Is this thing on?”, and “Odin is God”. The article doesn’t record the response of the Phelps’, but I hope that one day they will, themselves, see the light, and stop their hate-spewing nonsense. It is admirable that they are protected under the Free Speech rules, and so they should be, no matter how distasteful most people find them to be. However, it is also nice when those same rules are used to make the point that most people think them to be distasteful.

For many pictures, check here: Comic Alliance

~BX

Popularity: 21% [?]

Tags: Americans, Links, Phil-Osophy by BlackXanthus
No Comments »

Popularity: 82% [?]

Tags: Americans, Computing, God Notes, Links, Phil-Osophy, Poetry, Quotes, Reflection level 1, Reflections, Roleplay, Weird and Wibbly, blogging by BlackXanthus
No Comments »

Amidst calls for another reformation in the Catholic Church, the American Episcopal Church is busy forging ahead on it’s own. The news that’s making the headlines is of course the consecration as Bishop of Canon Mary Glasspool. This is not because she’s a Woman, the presiding Bishop of the US Episcopal Church is Dr Katherine Jefferts Schori, a woman. It is more because Canon Glasspool is in an openly Gay Civil Partnership.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, fearing for a split in the Anglican Communion, has repeatedly asked for “gracious restraint” in this matter. Now that the decision has been made to go ahead with the consecration of Canon Glasspool, a statement from the Lambeth Palace (as quoted in the Church times) says that this raises “very serious questions, not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole” (Dember 11, 2009, Church Times). The usual responses have been seen from the Fundamental Christian groups, getting all hot-and-bothered about the way that it might affect them. It of course, raises big questions about the communion, as many African Bishops are against Single-Sex marriages. With this going ahead, it is going to leave the traditional Anglican Communion in tatters, especially if there are no sanctions brought against the American Episcopal Church for going against the communion.

The problem is that someone had to do something. Someone had to say that those three lines in the Bible that have been used for oppression had to be changed. We’re not still fighting for Slavery. We worked out that was wrong. Glasspool is the height of all the arguments that the Anglican Church in the UK have been arguing over. Single-Sex Issues, and Women in the Episcopate. Here, in one woman, we have both. The world will hold it’s breath as she gets ordained, and all the liberals pray that she doesn’t screw up. A good example will ensure that others will be able to follow her.

The one thing that isn’t being said that there was also another development in the USA this week that shows that, despite the most vocal Christian opposition, it is busy actually being more liberal than the rest of the world. Clergy in Washington, Iowa, Vermont, and Massachusetts are able to preside at civil same-sex marriages, and bless them. Essentially, it is possible for Clergy who’s conciousness allows to marry single-sex couples. Yes, that’s right, AMERICA is allowing clergy in some states to bless single-sex marriages.

Yes it may be up to individual faith-communities who they see as married and who they don’t but the LAW of America say that they are married.

The fuss about Glasspool means that this little gem is passing by the fundmentalists. While they are busy pointing up at the Bishop, they are missing the fact that America is working through it’s very own grass-roots revolution.

Now, if only the rest of the Anglican Communion could start moving forward, we may yet be able to avoid a split, and embrace this reformation with open arms.

~BlackXanthus

Popularity: 55% [?]

Tags: Americans, God Notes, Phil-Osophy, Reflection level 1, Reflections, U.K.-istan by BlackXanthus
1 Comment »

Recently, I’ve been debating with a few people I know, the issues of Sex and the Church. It appears that the Church seems to mask “sex” in the lofty idea of “morality”. It appears, at least on a cursory glance at relevant press releases. It all seems to revolve around precisely what the point of having “sex” is. Based on the Bible, they read it and see that the point of “sex” is for procreation, and so any form of “sex” that isn’t intended, or has the possibility of, producing offspring the Church can point too and say that that is imorral.

Speaking as an Anglican, when the Synod voted in the early 1900’s to allow men to ware Condoms, the basic argument was essentially torpedod. This move allows men and women to have sex for pleasure. The line that it should still happen inside Marriage is at least still strong, but the argument that morality should, as it is today, be linked to strongly to “sex” is patantly absured.

So, fast forward to 2010. The second biggest debate being held in Churches all over the world is about Homosexuality. Interestingly, by and large, lesbianism is forgotten about, but is generally linked together under the same barrier. The argument that if one passes they both will be accepted.

The debate often revolves around 3 issues. The first is that Homsexuality is “unnatural”, because the “sex” doesn’t produce children. This, I guess, it a logical line of thought, however, it only remains so if the Church is ALSO condemning every couple that doesn’t marry and start breeding straight away, or, for a more sane argument, any couple that cannot have children, or choose not to. The reason for the inclusion for couples that “cannot” have children, is that is precisely the arguement that is levelled at Homosexuality. That they cannot have children.

The next argument that it is unnatural is one that is difficult for both sides. One side holds up that homosexuality can be seen in nature, and the other counters with the fact that, from a certain point of view, Pedophilia is natural*. However, we should be talking about “consentual adults”, and not get ourselfs side-tracked with an argument over Pedophilia. Some would put forward a notion that God’s Design is that Man and Woman is the only way, however, we have no proof that this is so. All the examples that are given are given by fallen people, and the one perfect example is given by a celibate Christ, which is no help at all.

The argument that it “says in the Bible” has been answered before on this blog:http://blog.valhalla.jara23.co.uk/?p=285. This has been debated for many years, and is probably the only really sensible argument left. This at least turns the attention away from Sex, and more into a Didactic Reading of the Bible.

However, this issue is more insiduous than it may first appear. Homosexuality has caused the ArchBishop of Niger, Peter Akinola to say that Homosexuals are ‘deviants’, ‘perverted’ and ‘in rebellion against God’. He’s not alone in his comments. The entire idea that Christians could unilateraly hate a group of people because of what they do behind closed doors just seems bonkers.

Of course, I’m a liberal, who would rather spraed the love of God, than denounce people for a few badly-used lines in the Bible, so this post may be a little biased.

Christianity does not stop at Homosexuality, of course. All kinds of ‘deviant’ behaviour is ‘against’ God. BDSM, Furries, and all other kinds of sexual pleasures are considered ‘deviant’ also, but where, in this, is God’s Love?

We are called to be Excellent To Each Other. To just be nice to one another. Why is what people do in a loving relationship a problem?

Fundamentalists are all about a transoformational God, just so long as it’s not them that’s being Transformed.

BX

*This is part of the “slipery slope” arguement. It is generally used to evoke emotional responses, rather than considered thought.

Popularity: 49% [?]

Tags: God Notes, Phil-Osophy, Reflection level 1, Reflections by BlackXanthus
No Comments »

First, let me say that the Royal Shakespear Company’s recent version of Hamlet with Captain Picard(Patrick Stewart) and Doctor Who(David Tennant) is awesome. However, now that I’ve started being a God botherer, I started noticing some odd things about it.

I started noticing the religious tone. Nothing unusuall there, because at the time, God was part of every day language. Then something odd happened. Hamlet is obviously a morality play, but during the “To Be, or Not To Be” speech, I noticed the overtures about being judged, and then the forms of prayer, the sililoque offered by Hamlet’s Step-Father was crying out for Absolution.

Then other things began to drop into place. Things like Hamlet was from Wittenburg, the school where Martin Luther taught. As this began to wander through my mind, Hamlet is dragged off to england by his friends, and before her goes he rants about the “Diet of Worms”, of course, the famous sentancing of Martin Luther where he is rescued from his accusers by some friends.

As I was more watching the play because it was Hamlet, than applying any sensible literary Criticism, I didn’t really have time to go through it, but being as the events would have been still fairly recent to Shakespear, asn hamlet is written around the turn of the 1600’s, and Marin Luther was in the 1530’s.

I’m obviously not the first one to see this, but I wasn’t aware of any previous scholarship before seeing the paly. With enough time, perhaps, there may be milage in exploring it.

I though it was something interesting to note, and it does seem that the play may be in some way an “apology” for faith, though wether or not that is Catholic of Protestant I’m not sure.

~BX

Popularity: 44% [?]

Tags: Phil-Osophy by BlackXanthus
No Comments »

Today I was given a Fridge Magnet. It’s something that’s going to go in my “Rainy Days and Mondays” file. It was the simplest of gifts, yet the story behind it was… well, huge.

Let me start somewhere that could be thought of as the Begining. Last Week, I preached a Sermon. It was a simple Sermon, about taking time to enjoy the Peace of the Lord. It was a sermon that said that the next time your somewhere, just taking a look at creation, take some time to rest on the Peace of the Lord, just resting in him, asking nothing, and expecting nothing, but just enjoying being there.

Everyone said they liked it. Rave Reviews, if you like. I didn’t really put very much stock in it despite the warms of feeling, simply because I didn’t want it to go to my head. Nor did I want the bar to be so high that meeting it in my next sermon was impossible. Shortly afterwoulds, my placement supervisor talked me though the sermon. There were a few flaws, the kind of thing that is often difficult to see, but nothing, in her mind, that was going to be a problem in the future, no bad habit, no mumbling, that sort of thing. Most of the points were the kind of things that by and large would become less of a problem with experience. At the end of the meeting, she mentioned a guy who drove a train.

This guy, however, had listened to my sermon. During that week, he’d found himself alone, and the words of my sermon came back to him, and he sat there, resting of the Peace of the Lord.

I was bowled over. Christ, through me, had managed to reach someone. I had managed to deliver the words that Christ had called me to deliver. It was.. and Awesome feeling. It was the kind of thing that I was going to write down when I got five minuits. This week, the guy had come up to me, and given me a Fridge Magnet, his way of saying Thank-You.

I can’t put the effect of this Fridge Magnet into words. I was Humbled. He was thanking me, and I was so shocked, that all I could say was thank you. I stood there, being unable to say anything but Thank You, and the guy was obviously touched. It was an honour to be in that situation. An Honour so Great, that all I can do is thank God for being able to there.

Amen.

~Black Xanthus.

Popularity: 55% [?]

Tags: God Notes, Phil-Osophy, Reflection level 1, Reflections by BlackXanthus
No Comments »