Losing Our Religion

Initially I made this comment in another thread, but that was less than an hour ago and hasn't had a reply so I suppose this is a better place to put it:

Hi, I've been following the blog for a while, but never commented before. I was quite interested in the documentary last night and wanted to ask a question or two of Dr Crawley (or do you prefer William/Will?).

I was actually at the dawn service shown at the start of the documentary, but my recollection seems to differ somewhat and I find myself somewhat confused about some of the comments made. You mentioned that the preaching seemed to be all about death, judgement, sin and fear, yet I recall a sermon on the hope and confidence a Christian has because of the assurances that death and evil cannot return after Christ returns. I am most curious as to what aspect of that you found so fearful?

The comments about the joy of the assembled worshippers also seemed at odds with my recollection. I saw and experienced much joy during the praise and if that seemed diminished during times of prayer and preaching, surely the weariness that accompanies an early rise makes any attempt at commentary on joy somewhat difficult to accurately make? Comparisons with recently arrived tourists seem particularly unfair when some of the worshippers had spent the night walking from Ballymoney. After an overnight walk, a lack of effusive, expressive joy is surely understandable, but such actions most surely be motivated by an inner joy?

'Losing Our Religion'?. More like, ' Evolving Our Religion'! What a disapointment. Only 5 mins out of the hour were given over to talking to non-believers and they weren't even asked if they had lost their faith or ever had any. And if they lost their faith, why? The vast majority of the programme dealt with the diverse choice of religious/spiritual dogmas currently available here and the changes in both them and their followers. I think a more appropriate title would have been 'Trying anything rather than losing our religion.'

Why not now make the programme your title suggested. Talk to the growing number of atheists here and ask them why they lost their faith. Chances are that a great deal of them will have been raised in religious families and I'm sure many will have experienced push-back and tension when they 'came-out'. Yet they had the courage to ask the questions and seek alternative, rational, verifiable answers. You call yourself a 'questioner' William, I get they impression there are some questions you still don't want to ask or are unwilling to listen to the answers.

I'm confused,bewildered and seeking guidance.
The messages we get confuse and confuse!!!
Why do our so called leaders not lead by example???
Willie McCrea and the deadly sin,greed ???

Comments like #2 are inevitable from the overabundance of humanist/atheists on this blog. But in fact religion IS what the program was about. Crawley is in fact a questioner; for him theology is more about potential answers than established ones. Atheists like amanofreason have made a conclusion - "There is no god" or "There is probably no god" - that Crawley, and myself, and many others, have simply not found satisfying. To us that is not a satisfactory answer, and the fact that there are unanswered questions is okay.

I thought the documentary was seriously beautiful in parts, like the baptism sequence. The sameness and staleness of the churches, and the timewarp it represents... so familiar. Loved the music. Know personally 2 of the churches visited, and the people there. It was like an analysis of my homeland (spiritually and actually; I used to run around church isles as a toddler and continued to do so all the way through my teens and early twenties).

Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster it didn't spend longer dealing with humanists. :-)

Jonathan, hi

Good to have another perspective on the dawn service.

I certainly agree with you comments about inner joy; much, much, too much emphasis is placed on externals at times, in fact I think it's important to say that joy, in the Christian sense, doesn't necessarily mean happiness, which is more often circumstantial.

In terms of the preaching, your explanation of it certainly does make sense to me. That death and evil will one day eventually end is a message of hope for the Christian. That hope though, is dependent on 'judgement' and although I don't know how William understands this there has been a bit of a tradition in Northern Ireland which emphasises salvation in terms of, "I've made the right choice, I've done the right thing". And it can all get a bit condemnatory.

Please don't misunderstand I'm not suggesting that this was the thrust of the sermon that morning, I wasn't there, but maybe what you or I would have heard and what others might have heard would have been different things. It's one of the reasons I keep going on about listening to and understanding other people and living our message. I fear that too often we in the church can assume that people understand our language, when maybe they don't.

I'll put it this way, I do hope one day to be 'delivered from evil', others don't think in those terms (indeed maybe you and I might need to discuss what we understood those words to mean), if nothing else I've learned that from this blog, and part of being a Christian is, I think, to try to better understand others, and to try to better explain me. Maybe then our Christianity will be clearer and just so hidden by our church activity.

Thanks for the welcome Peter. I completely agree that language familiar to churched people can be ambiguous or confusing to unchurched people and one of the big challenges for Christians in today's culture is communicating the gospel in a way that people will understand and will help to show its relevancy, rather than obscuring it.

In the case of the dawn service however, I don't imagine that there were too many people present who would face such difficulties in understanding. There would be far more unchurched people in the audience for the documentary. They weren't present and so have to rely on Dr Crawley's summary and interpretation of what was said – which is where my confusion comes in. After all, our host is no stranger to the church or its language and even goes so far as to say that the service reminded him of his past traditional experiences. Given his intimacy with such occasions and the language used, I'm confused as to how he could come to the conclusion that the sermon was about judgement, death and fear rather than confidence, life and hope.

I'm curious about what impression people got about the sermon from the one direct quote (it was something along the lines of 'at the end of chapter 20 of Revelation, the sea is numbered along with Death and Hades as one of the places from which the dead will be brought forth for judgement'). Taken out of context, it would certainly support his thesis that the sermon was about death and judgement (though not necessarily fear). In context, however, it led to talk of the resurrection and the end of death. Indeed the text for the morning was 'there was no longer any sea', the point being made that if the sea is associated with death, then an end to the sea signals an end to death - a concept surely more full of hope than fear?

There seems to be a gap here between my recollection of the service and the summary we were given on Monday, which I am at something of a loss to explain, unless our host should venture to speak.

If the sermon was 'at the end of chapter 20 of Revelation, the sea is numbered along with Death and Hades as one of the places from which the dead will be brought forth for judegment' why should this be a problem?

Judgement is a part of Christian theology.

Jonathan

Fair point. I suppose it's a bit like William's quote from Hosea 9 with the "Do not rejoice, O Israel" reference sounding a bit bleak. I think William went on to say something about the congregation not having such a happy Sunday!

In context though, the book contrasts Israel's unfaithfulness with God's faithfulness, the hope coming fully in the faithful one, Jesus. That's where the joy is, Christianity means I'm freed from having to perform, freed from trying to meet religious standards. Which is a supreme irony right there!

But is that the general perception of Christianity, or are we perceived as dour, faultfinders for whom enough is never enough and do we present the same type of God. I'm generalising of course, and perhaps William was too, but maybe that was the PCI William knew. As I said on another thread, the 3-4 services on a Sunday issue in itself would make me ask a lot of questions, nobody can meet those exceptions.

I suppose one of the difficulties for William is that in going public, so many people (including me) will have opinion, what he's going to do with them all, I don't know!


agmckinley

Judgement is a part of Christian theology indeed. The problem arises when, and unfortunately it happens, some of us point the finger, so sure about who will be found guilty, while not always subjecting ourselves to the same criticism. Just a thought.


I'll put it this way, and understand I'm making no implications about any individual or any church, sometimes "Jesus loves you", in Northern Ireland speak, sounds like, "You're going to hell!"


You guys should stick around :-)

amanofreason:

I agree with much of what you say. However, we have to accept that the programme was largely about William's personal journey from teenage convert to questioning freethinker.

It did, however, confuse the issue completely by having so many people talking about FINDING religion rather than losing it. What was this about, William? I accept that you may not have had any control over this aspect of the programme. But it seems to me that the makers copped out and tried to balance your journey with some people going in the opposite direction. Why was this considerate necessary in a programme about losing religion?

I am disappointed that the programme was not more about the society at large and why it is becoming more secular. It singularly failed to deal with the process of Ulster secularisation, which is what its title suggested it was about.

petermorrow, god spoke to me just the other day and he told me everyone so far has gone to hell except for Jesus who barely made it back into heaven and from what he sees, everyone alive today is also going to hell too.

As for religion, back before Senator Mitchell stuck his nose into things people in Northern Ireland knew which side of the fence they stood on and stayed there. I blame all this "secularism" on the end of the troubles. What a name for a savage civil war. Talk about blarney.

William:

Let me stress that what you did in the programme was in my view a brave thing and no doubt the wrath of god is descending upon you. The trouble with having an open mind in NI is that there is never any shortage of people trying to put things in it.

You can't lose somthing that you never had !

Ah - missed all this. I'll have to pick it up on iPlayer. John, you're maybe being a bit harsh on us Humanists, Freethinkers, Atheists (whether Christian or otherwise ;-) etc. I can understand that the concept "there is no god" may be unsatisfying for someone who *wants* to believe in a god, because it's not the answer they want to hear. However, if by "satisfying" you mean that it corresponds with the evidence, then it fits the bill big style. And many people *do* find humanism/atheism satisfying, in that it makes us concentrate on the people around us, and what we can do to make the world a better place, rather that pinning our hopes on fake apocrypha like the Book of Revelation, or even the 65 books that precede it.

-H

I found the programme both interesting and strangely frustrating. I kept wanting to put words into Williams mouth. If he is such a serious questioner, I thought to myself then why does'nt he ask this question or that.Every time he interviewed a person of faith there was a strangely smug air to the proceedings as if both people were in basic agreement and were just too polite to quibble over the odd dogma like transubtantation or why God allows suffering. This was especially obvious in the Islamic sequence where Will and a Muslim convert joked about the trendiness of their clothes, while I kept wanting Will to probe out the other guys key beliefs.The Muslim lady actualy said that Islam encouraged questioning wheras Christianity did not, a moot point I would have thought but not a squeak out of Will.
Strangely enough the one exception to this Holy Huddle approach was Wills interview with the man who converted him.Although both men kept grinning like Chesire cats most of the time there was a real tension in the air, especially as Will pointed out the problems in interpreting the Bible, but the debate just ended before it got really interesting!

Is a title/name so important? It is good to see and hear programmes about home that extend our thinking about ourselves, others and the place we create and form.

Hi William. I enjoyed the programme which gave me an insight to your experience and where you stand now. I, like you, was very religious as a young person but as I began to accumulate more questions than I was receiving answers to, I became disillusioned with the Christian religion but not with Jesus Christ. Like you, I have realised that religion has become lost in translation, that there had to be more than what I had been offered, that religion seemed to be losing it's relevance, that there was a staleness about it, I began feeling like an outsider and that others felt like-wise and some, due to their realisation that the church was incomplete, were creating new religious expressions to suit the changes in society.

However, what strikes me is that all the current Christian religions have been created by human beings who lack the authority to 'speak' or 'act' in the name of God. I believe THE Church was established by Jesus Christ before He left this earth but I don’t think it survived much longer than the demise of the Apostles. What we have had in the interim are churches organised by the limits of man's understanding. This has caused a variety of churches, with differing viewpoints and understanding of what the scriptures really mean, to proliferate. These sects may have been formed by well meaning and good intentioned men but they have failed to replicate the full purpose of what church should represent to us. I believe the reason for this is because all those who have attempted to form a church has done so by trying to piece together, like a gig-saw, the church from the bible, but without the big picture on the cover of the box as a guide.

My view has been supported by your programme as I didn’t get any notion of authority from those 'leaders' of churches you spoke to - their lack of authority was all too evident. Imagine if I set up an agency issuing visas to foreigners to live in America because I had read a book about the place and had taken the Oath of Allegiance performed by a guy with an American accent in my bedroom. Would my 'visas' be valid? Why then do we think that any man can assume the authority to set up a recruiting agency for the kingdom of God then? Is there no 'officialdom' required for entrance to 'the kingdom'? Is entry that throughother and laid-back? Somehow, I doubt it.

The Vineyard leader, I'm sure, like all the rest of the leaders you spoke to, may be a decent person but he didn't claim authority to represent God nor did I get that impression. As I watched 'converts' being baptised, I couldn't help think how those who performed the ordinance, obtained authority to initiate people into God's kingdom. If I took it upon myself to set up a church, could I just assume the authority to 'handle' the ordinances of God's kingdom? I wouldn't dream of it; but surely this is what is happening here. Maybe if I was motivated like Simon the magician or the sons of Sceva I might not just dream of it, but do it .

The Catholic priest, with his 'old testament robes', didn’t convey confidence in his authority either. In fact, he admitted that the reason for becoming a priest was that he had experience of, "something else or other". Hardly enough to claim authority that what he was doing was authorised by God or that God called him to his position.

Barry Moore stated that you can, "...poke full of holes, point out the hypocrites and all of the inconsistencies and religiosity of the church. But...you can't poke a hole in Jesus Christ". It seemed like he was saying that the church doesn’t matter. It mattered to Jesus. I personally think that he lacks authority or he would have been able to help you "get" the Church of which you have trouble getting at times. Mr Moore doesn't need a church. He get paid by others who do seem to need one.

I do think there is a need for 'church'. To me, I think among other things, the church should be able to help me gain understanding, be exclusively authoritive, be consistent, respond to the needs of it’s peoples, be vibrant, be accommodating, be certain, explain mysteries and not use psychological 'tricks' to imitate spiritual feelings.

The current Christian churches produce disenchanted, unfulfilled, unanswered and disinterested individuals who tend to look elsewhere for meaning. Others, for whatever reason, accept blindly what is fed to them. Over the years I have continued to 'lose my religion'. I was christened into the CofI, attended the Presbyterian church, baptised into the Church of God, baptised again into the Brethren and attended a variety of mission halls and was left more unfulfilled than when I first set out on my 'journey'. I now believe that nothing will change until Jesus Christ's church is revealed.

Hi William, i wasn't fussed at all by your documentary, i found it gratituous television and not as interesting i hoped it would be. i have living proof that there is a God and that he loves us all as if we were his only child. my son had cancer when he was 3 and i was given the number of a faith healer to contact, but i thought God was for others and i didn't need him. i was wrong however, because when the cancer came back when my son was 4, i went to see this healer. the tumour immediately disappeared and the doctors in the rbhsc were totally incredulous and have no explanation at to how this happened. i know that it was God, and it just proves to me that no matter how much we deny his existence, when we need him, he's there, thankfully. I have such a profound faith now, that it will go with me until the end of time. i now feel sorry for people who feel about God as i used to feel and pray for them. i hope your faith is restored William, we all need God, what else have we got that's worth anything?

Hi Peter,

'Sometimes "Jesus loves you", in Northern Ireland speak, sounds like, "You're going to hell!"'

I'm sure it can do and when this is so I'm also sure it is neither compelling or endearing. But that is not the point.

The guy interviewed whose name escapes me seems to think that God's judgement shouldn't be preached at all, 'lets preach hope and love'. This is the issue. As it goes if we admit that judgement and damnation are aspects of Christian theology, and if redemption is to have any meaning at all, then I cannot see what objection a Christian can consistently raise against the preaching of these subjects.

This is to say nothing of the truth of Scripture which is rather beside the point. It is sufficient to say, if A then B.

Not everyone will agree that the Bible teaches these things but that is an exegetical debate that is either rudimentary or sophisticated depending on which side of the fence you sit. But if you are persuaded that the Bible does teach these things a preacher, if he is a faithful preacher, should not omit them because of the sensibilities of the congregation or those that like to picture a weak and weepy Christ or even because it might draw sneers and sighs from the standard-issue liberal, apostate or atheist.

You guys should stick around :-)

Thanks but I think I would end up spending too much time on commenting. Besides I have been to the fairground before and tried out several of the merry-go-rounds and one thing I came to realise was when they stop it is best to get off.

All-

It's interesting to see the responses here suggesting that William was brave but not brave enough. Less religious than he used to be but not outright anti-religious ('like he *should* be?'). From my perspective, the documentary was certainly not explicit on the finer points of William's becoming a 'questioner' (and of course that's an interesting word to use, since it avoids describing exactly which parts of his earlier faith he is 'questioning', and I would venture that that's absolutely deliberate for a few reasons; A- William's own comfort level, B- not wishing to get sidetracked by debates on these finer points, C- maintaining some degree of impartiality, D- appealing to the many kinds of questions which exist and therefore maybe better reflecting the audience).

But it was definitely question-raising, and isn't that the point?



Helio-

I accept your point about evidence; religious belief is, therefore, either a matter of faith or a matter of ignorance, or in my case and perhaps William's, a matter of an open mind.

Brian McClinton- Its interesting how people had different expectations of the documentary based on the title. It seems you wanted the documentary to look at the issue of people losing their faith in Northern Ireland. However initially I understood the title to be a question (however I am now aware that there was not a question mark in the title). In this sense I feel the documentary fulfilled its purpose by introducing the viewer, albeit briefly, to some of the views of those who have changed religion, become disillusioned with religion and those who have rejected religion. In my opinion the topic would have been better served by examining the issues in more depth as part of a short series. But as a single one hour programme I feel it served its purpose by raising some interesting questions.

Brian you have suggested that:
'It did, however, confuse the issue completely by having so many people talking about FINDING religion rather than losing it. What was this about, William?'

I don't know what you found confusing about that to be honest. Even had the documentary been solely about the decline of religion in Northern Ireland, I would still have expected some input from the many people in who are finding religion. This seems completely reasonable to me.

Karen02- I am interested in your statement that
'i know that it was God'.

How do you 'know' that it was God? Does 'know' mean that you 'believe' that it was God? I am interested in why you consider the example of your son to be 'living proof that there is a God'? You seem 100% sure that God cured your son, and I find it very hard to understand how you can be that sure.

PS- its great to hear a story about cancer that had a happy, positive outcome.

Marcus

"petermorrow, god spoke to me just the other day and he told me everyone so far has gone to hell except for Jesus who barely made it back into heaven and from what he sees, everyone alive today is also going to hell too."

Good for you Marcus, which State was god from?

Hi ag

"if redemption is to have any meaning at all, then I cannot see what objection a Christian can consistently raise against the preaching of these subjects. "

I agree. All I'm doing is to try and suggest that we ought to try to be clear that what we say is what other people hear, especially when people don't know our lingo, a bit like old testament Levites explaining the meaning; I just wish the business of 'understanding' was more of a collective activity.

Thanks for the interaction.

peterliketheresnotomorrow;

"Good for you Marcus, which State was god from?"

I thought the answer was obvious, from Texas of course even though Montana is known to some as god's country. BTW, the road to heaven runs straight though Santa Monica California in case you had any doubts. And the road to hell that's paved with good intentions? Well that one runs through Mogadishu and ends just about there. That should also have been obvious too.

TheMarcusBrothers

"I thought the answer was obvious, from Texas"

Well, I didn't want to be too presumptuous, but if Texas is, as I understand it, the only State able to secede from the Union (or is that folklore?) then that kind of sovereignty is rather godlike.

But here's the thing, if god is from Texas, where did you meet him, was he wearing a Stetson, and what does he drive?

God is Paris Hilton, I heard.

I really enjoyed this programme and think it has great educational merit. I can see it stimulating some fanastic opportunities for discussion on belief, worship and lifestyles with children. N.I is so diverse and it is hard to illustrate this without good media footage. I need to get hold of a copy for future use!
I wonder about the following:
1. do community style churches succeed because they are removed from rigidity/formalism of established churches? They fit in with busy lifestyles eg breakfast supplied. Lack of a 'Marks and Spencer' image?
2. Does formulaic indeed liturgical worship get stale and hence equal empty pews? Is it the main reason for young people drifting off?
3. Does modern worship equal long lasting faith foundation? or is it merely based on emotions and therefore a short term faith experience?
4. will humanists have an important role in the future providing name ceremonies for babies born in mixed married relationships?
It is healthy to be questioning. Where it goes wrong is when we use it to find fault.

Instant thoughts in repsonse to mancomesaround:


1. Community style churches...

Yes, they are more successful because they're more relevant and alive and don't have the trappings of as much stale, boring and useless tradition. But that doesn't mean that they are capable of turning the tide and making church popular again...


2. Liturgical worship and staleness

It can be, though it can also be very powerful. The problem is that most churches aren't very good at it, most of the time. And of course it's not going to appeal to the 18-30 crowd as much since it's simply not very captivating. Reading things aloud isn't a majority sport. Politicians and newsreaders use teleprompters because it doesn't seem like they're reading. Worship which seems more organic, spontaneous, which uses normal everyday speech, is succeeding for a reason.


3. Modern worship and emotion

Worship that doesn't appeal to emotion will never succeed. As 'modern worship' is doing that, it is succeeding for the people to whom it appeals.


4. Humanism and the future

No, I don't think humanism is the future any more than the church is the future. Could be wrong, but I don't see humanism filling a need that is left empty by the departure of religion.

Can Texas secede from the Union? Well on February 1, 1861 it announced just that...and was dragged back in along with the rest of the kicking and screaming Confederate States that seceded too. So they can't. Not unless they want another taste of Yankee ire.

petermorrow, petermorrow, petermorrow, life is a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. Except...Well were all going to hell when we go....God told me. Sorry no ten gallon hat this time. He said he only wears it to shield his eyes from supernovae when he looks at planets close to them.

What does he drive? Why an old Ford Galaxy of course.

Marcus - I would tend to see God as a good socialist who would use public transport - Isaiah 6 v 1 '...his train filled the temple...'

I thought the programme was refreshingly honest and real. I thought it was courageous and fair. I really thought the part in the programme where William looks up and says
'there has to be more than this'
was poignant and moving.
William was loving and not bashing and I think that he carefully exposed religion and our interpretation of church and christianity for what it often is
I am a Presbyterian I am a christian..I think you can be a christian and still a seeker or a searcher and that does not devalue faith rather it informs and strengthens faith. I would say Williams programme was more real than many of our so called religous programmes..we need to get real and be real...

Watched the programme late last night and found it interesting and balanced. It reinforced something I have learned from participation in this blog: that I know nothing whatsoever about evangelicalism. What I thought I knew (guitars, anti-Catholic, using the word saved) now seems at best partial!

The programme seemed to me to major, understandably, on losing an evangelical faith (even Redemptorists are surely the closest the Roman Catholic church gets to an evangelical approach - correct me if I'm wrong RJB). Where were all the Anglicans? Are we all secure, like me, possessed of no faith but equally lacking the slightest smidgen of doubt. I never, ever, question the reality of God.

I thought the programme was refreshingly honest and real ... I thought it was courageous and fair ... William was loving and not bashing

I've seen a few comments like this now and must confess that I'm struggling to see the programme in the same light. Speaking as someone who was at the dawn service near the start of the programme, I am unable to reconcile Dr Crawley’s description of the day with my own recollection. If anything, it seems to tell the opposite tale. Such a large discrepancy precludes for m the use of descriptors like ‘honest’, ‘fair’ and ‘loving.’

As far as I can tell, there are two possibilities:
1) Dr Crawley genuinely found reasons for fear in a service that I found to be full of confidence, hope and joy.
2) Dr Crawley disingenuously lifted a quote our of context and painted a false portrayal of the service for the purposes of his agenda for the documentary.

Assuming for the moment that the first is the case, I’m curious about why Dr Crawley has declined to give any reason for his description. As one who has described himself as a questioner, where is the engagement with questions?

Dr Crawley, if you are reading any of these comments and truly are interested in questions and questioning, perhaps you'd like to discuss these issues? The issue of how two people can find fear and hope in the same thing surely has some relevance to your programme?

For the benefit of those who were not at the service and may be somewhat perplexed by this, here’s a larger quote that gives the context for the short snippet that was shown. I think this was all recorded, though the camera was turned off part of the way through the sermon, so I’m not sure. I’ve emboldened the snippet that was shown along with some of the phrases that give me cause to say that was about hope and not fear.

Well let's turn to God’s word for some hope as we read from the book of Revelation.

[Here there was a reading from Revelation 21:1-4]

This is a well known passage, but there are words we skip over that are there to give us hope so I want us to pause for a moment on something we often miss out.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.”

'there was no longer any sea ' - we talk about the new heaven and the new earth, but what about the passing of the sea?

To the people of Israel, the sea was a dangerous place. They weren’t sailors like many Mediterranean people were and so often when we hear of people on the water, they are people in peril – Jonah thrown overboard, the disciples terrified by a storm, Paul shipwrecked. The sea epitomised death. Fall into it and that was probably you gone.

Even in our culture we talk about people being lost at sea as if they’ve disappeared without trace. Many navies have or have had traditions of burying people at sea, as if it is the natural place for the dead. At the end of chapter 20 of Revelation, the sea is numbered along with Death and Hades as one of the places from which the dead will be brought forth for judgement.

The sea is the realm of the dead, but Christ rose from the dead. Yet if things at Easter had stopped there, at Christ’s rising, we would consider Christ’s work half-done. If he was the only one to rise, that would be miraculous, astonishing, praiseworthy, but not much reason for us to be thankful. But it didn’t stop there.

Death and Hades we are told will be thrown into the lake of fire and as for the sea? Well it will be no more. There will be absolutely nowhere for the dead, no domain for them to dwell in, which only makes sense if there is an end to death.
Christ’s victory over death applies not just to him, but to us as well, he didn’t leave the job unfinished. Christ doesn’t leave his work half-done.

Jonathan Boyd:

Sorry, but your sermon has rather proved William's point. It's all about triumph over death. Frankly, as a Humanist, I think very little about death and get on with my life and thinking about the living. 'Christ's victory over death' is meaningless to me, but does indeed suggest an obsession with death.

Since I believe death is the end of me, I don't fear it, though I do fear the process of dying (which of course happens while I'm still alive). Nor do I currently want to die, so I dislike the thought of not 'being around', though I don't fear it.

Brian, thanks for the contribution to the discussion.

Easter is about the resurrection of Christ; you can't talk about Easter without talking about his death and resurrection, so no conclusion about obsession can be reached simply from seeing that the subject is raised. Rather, you have to look at how it is dealt with. Quite frankly, a humanist view of life and death is irrelevant when determining whether an Easter service is obsessing over death. You may as well say that people at funerals are obsessed with death simply because they mention someone has died.

If you look at the language and conclusion in the sermon, do you a dwelling on how we will all die - something majoring on fear and dying - or do you see a focus on resurrection - something majoring of life and hope? Surely the former is required in order for there to be an obsession with death and fear (as Dr Crawley claimed), whereas the latter would indicate a confidence in new life (contra to Dr Crawley's claims)?

At the very least, does it seem more like something intended to inspire fear, or something intended to inspire hope?

Brian

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about death either. But I do find comfort in the thought that oblivion isn't our inevitable destiny.

OK, call that wishful thinking or whatever. Jonathan's point is that it isn't a morbid preoccupation with death.

GV

That said we all have to face human mortality and immorality at some stage. Best to face it in the context of hope, I would have thought.

GV

Jonathan

Welcome to the Blog.
Round here we call him Will. And trust me, people have accused him of worse than you have. (I've said far worse to him. But recently, I have to say, some of the comments towards Will have seemed spiteful.)So I doubt he'll take offence at a politely phrased critical questions. People disagree with him all the time.

Comments from other bloggers about Will being "smug" seem out of order, though. As for the "Dean" thread... I don't know how Will took that in his stride. He's owed an apology.

There, glad that's out of my system.

No, I think you're asking fair questions in a fair way, and I hope you'll stick around.

GV

Thanks GV. I certainly hope that this can be a discussion that Will as a questioner will join in, whether to address the question about his ethics or the question about his understanding. Any documentary, however honest or biased it may be will leave its subjects wanting to say more of their story, which I am hopefully putting across on behalf of those evangelicals whom Will regards as fearful traditionalists. The flip side is that on this Blog, Will himself is a subject who doubtless has things he would want to say about his position rather than have people leap to confusions. Hopefully extra input will be good for discussion and help all concerned to explore the idea of faith and losing/finding/changing/rediscovering religion.

I should have mentioned previously that death in the sermon was not a theme in itself, nor the defeat of death a main point. Rather it was an example of Christ's work not being left half-done, which then gives the Christian confidence. Indeed the other points of the sermon were that Christ's work is an undoing of evil and that Christ's work cannot be undone. Rather than obsessing with death, it takes the idea of death and life and uses it to show the victorious, eternal nature of Christ's work, which then gives the Christian hope and confidence.

Interestingly, one of the applications of this was to the future of the church in the face of declining numbers, a topic which I thought would have been perfectly suited to Will's programme and much more interesting than a quote about the sea epitomising death. Though I suppose that if the camera was off by that point, maybe Will didn't have footage he could use.

I'm not sure Will's been a subject before, and he doesn't get involved much. This thread is more an exception than a rule.
In fact, I couldn't tell you very much about Will's opinions and beliefs. I don't think he regards *all* evangelicals as 'fearful traditionalists'.

Some of us are. Deprive me of caffeine and I am, I suppose.

G Veale

Contributors on this blog tend to agree that questioning is a good thing, but, in real terms, is anyone significantly closer to an understanding of truth or to God than they were before they started contributing?

It seems to me that those who contribute have a range of concerns about the Christian religion such as; problems with the interpretation of the bible, unsure of what to believe, a sense that there must be more, unhappy with the way the message is presented, concerns about wrong-doing within the church, unsure of how we should worship, differing views about what should be emphasised in church, uneasiness about the culture of religion and problems with new forms of worship.

I, too, share those concerns and that is why I have withdrawn from the so-called Christian church. However, I get the feeling that we can't see the woods for the trees. I get the sense that there are those who feel that a few tweaks here and there will sort the problem out. I, on the other hand, believe that a much greater event than a reformation is needed before we can have some sort of certainty about Christianity.

I believe, from my reading of the New Testament, that the CHURCH (ie 'the assembly called together') is the organised body of believers who have chosen to follow Jesus and have been initiated into the church, possibly through baptism after demonstrating faith in Him and repentance for their wrong-doing. To be the Lord's church, it appears, it must have His laws, His name and be governed by Him through representatives whom He has chosen 1Pet2:4,5,9. Is this the case with the church today?

In this sense, the church has existed probably from the time of Adam and has been on the earth whenever there was a group of believers who had authority and revelation from heaven. However, does the church have authority and receive revelation today?

The word 'church' is only used twice in the 'Gospels' but frequently mentioned thereafter. The Old Testament uses the term 'congregation' and the word 'kingdom' is often used since the church is literally the kingdom of God on the earth.

Offices in the church are mentioned in Eph.4:11-16, in which it is pointed out that the church is a means whereby the members become edified and progress toward the full measure of the stature of Christ. Belonging to the church is important as emphasised in Acts 2:47. Do we agree that such is the case today?

Unity and oneness should exist in the church according to 1 Cor 1:10-13 and Paul repeatedly explains that all offices and functions of the church are necessary (Rom 12:4-5, 1Cor.ch12, and again Eph 4:1-16), for the body to fitly join together. Surely, the opposite is the case now?

I do not believe that the church that is described in these verses exists within what is considered to be the present Christian church and I feel that it would be hard to convinced to the contrary. If it doesn't exist within Christianity, where is it?

For me, there are many verses indicating big trouble in the early church and the likelihood of it's possible demise. Acts20:29; 2Thes 2:3; 2Tim 1:15, 4:4; Jam 4:1; 2Pet 2:1; are just some. In fact Amos 8:11,12 seems like prophesy has been fulfilled.

I believe that all Christian churches that exist are the construction of man who has tampered with the church so much that it bears no resemblance to the original. Further tampering will not restore it.

Without God's approval we cannot re-create the 'church', the 'assembly called together' or the 'kingdom of God' on earth. If the church can't be found we can't create it.

It is my view that unless someone is chosen, given direct authority and continuous revelation to restore the church, we will be debating ‘what should be’ for a very long time without agreement.

I have made contributions to a few controversial threads which would have been unnecessary if we were dealing with the Lord's church. Would we have had a situation like the fiasco at Whitewell? Would we have the Benny Hinn's of this world? Would we have a better understanding of compassion? Would we have a greater insight to creation? Would we have a definitive understanding of the Bible? Would abusers be protected by the Church? Would there be any need for emergent churches? Would we be losing our religion? I would think the answers would be no, maybe, yes, yes, yes, no, no, no. Unfortunately, in the absence of the true Church, we will continue to have such controversy.

The only comfort I have is the Lord looks upon the heart and, church or no church, it will be the heart He judges.

Liturgical worship, staid and stale sermonising, community expression, happy-clappy participation and emergent churches will never provide us with the necessary framework for our faith to grow to the full measure of the stature of Christ which the gospel requires. Our churches may provide a culture and connected community, but if the true church was established, the very ties that connect us to the false churches may be too strong to permit us to embrace it.

Maybe I,m wrong and the same church that Jesus established exists but I'm too blind to see it. If that is the case I would be appreciative if someone could point me the way.

Will

I watched too and enjoyed the documentary.

I agree with Will that it was respectful and it was certainly thought provoking.

With regards to concerns about perceptions of the dawn service, perhaps the difference could be explained to some extent by the fact that orthodox believers see faith, redemption and final judgement (seperating the sheep and the goats) as an ultimately good conclusion, because everyone gets what they really want.... justice is done on every crime in history.... there is no more suffering, hunger or war...

I could understand how un-orthodox people might find this distressing and depressing because some they cannot accept that some people will be excluded from God's presence and face eternal judgement.

(CS Lewis said that the gates of hell were locked from the inside... a powerful summary of a very complex and grave issue...).

I found Will's story very personal and interesting - I havent seen the others in the series.

No doubt many people are drawn to Christian faith for community and fatherhood... I can understand how some may later feel that they have outgrown the need for this.

Is it possible that such people might again feel such a need if life throws them a curve ball? I'm thinking the Beatles - Help me if you can I'm feeling dow-n-n-n etc.

I'm thinking CS Lewis again - Pain is a loving God's megaphone to get our attention.... etc.

I can also understand how rational thinking can block out God. Even if you dont believe in God I think you should be able to understand how this could be the case if the God of traditional Christianity exists.

I personally find that my desire to have "everything thought out" can so easily crowd out my actual need to experience God and his power, love and forgiveness on an ongoing basis.

I dont find "faith" comes easily but more of a battle to hold on. It is not just a passive blind gullibility with like minded people.

I also force myself not to confuse organised Christian religion with God, nor to judge Christians or God because of the limitations of church sub-culture.

Arguably all the epistles in the NT are aiming to deal with erroneous takes on Christianity, party factions, doctrinal heresy and to promote unity among believers of many races, nationalities, backgrounds etc.

In other words, I'm asking if it is really sensible to hold the risen Christ at arms length because there are variations in teachings in Churches about very much secondary issues? I guess this is the point made by the evangelist in the film.

I fully accept Will's argument that his journey strikes a chord with many, many people. On that basis I think it is great to be able to have an open respectful discussion about the issues he raises, regardless of where you are coming from... or going to!

OT

Will,

Thanks for sharing, evidently you've ben fairly overwhelmed with responses so I appreciate the fact that you've been able to take some time to write a fairly lengthy response. With so many issues having been raised it obviously wouldn't have been possible to go into any great depth for any one individual item, but I wonder if you might be able to write further about your reaction to the dawn service.

Obviously the reactions of 'insiders' and 'outsiders' can very easily differ and an important issue in Christianity is how we communicate to 'outsiders' who may be unfamiliar with our message or language. Given that you have an element of insider to you though, I was surprised at your reaction. In my original post I asked what it was that led you to react the way you did and having read your response, I'm none the wiser. Clearly since I'm participating in the discussion here, I have no wish to dismiss your comments and would prefer to learn from them. It's very hard to learn however when reactions are given without explanation. I'm not asking you to apologise for anything done with honesty and integrity. Rather, I'm asking for an explanation in order that there might be great understanding for all.

So, from one questioner to another, why did you react with fear rather than hope? I'm sure it would be useful and productive not just for the church, but for the readers of this blog and hopefully even each of us, to discuss how one message can be heard in such divergent manners. In a sense, it's a question of whether you want to learn from a contrasting viewpoint, or dismiss it. Surely it can't take more than a couple of minutes to at least outline a couple of reasons why you heard fear instead of hope? You've written to justify the editorial choice of material regarding the mosque; I wouldn't mind hearing the editorial justification for seeing the sermon quote you chose as representative of the service.

Hi Will, glad you appreciated my comments on your film. You have emphasised your "honest" approach throughout and I have given you my honest opinions without trying to insult you or toady up to you. Good luck with your journey!

OT,

What you say about the possibility of differing reaction to judgement is interesting, not least because of the absence of references to the act during the service. I think you're on to something when you say that messages of judgement can reassure believers while concerning unbelievers, but if that was the reason for any fearful reactions on the day, I would hypothesise that it was actually an internal fear being manifested, rather than a theme of fear being imposed.

I say this for the reason that the word judgement only appeared twice in the sermon and then only in the context of events that occur after the day of judgement:
1) after people have been called up to the day of judgement, the sea passes away
2) after the day of judgement, the formerly dead do not return to here they came from

In both cases, the day of judgement is simply providing a chronological reference, separating this age/mortal time from the age to come/eternity. The act of judgement wasn't really commented on. Instead, the focus was on how believers can have confidence that they will be raised to life without danger of that life ever being taken away or lost (and how this can be applied to life now, including confidence in the enduring nature of the church). Fundamentally, it was about hope and confidence for the believers. Unbelievers weren't even on the agenda.

Any fear would really have had to come from unbelievers working through the consequences for themselves, figuring out that if this was for believers, then there must be something else for them. They could infer fearful consequences, but the message itself was one of hope. You could liken it to a 19th century abolitionist speech which could consist entirely of messages of hope and freedom to be enjoyed by those to be released form slavery. Such messages would provoke fear in slave-owners, but it would be quite unfair to label the messages themselves as fearful rather than hopeful.

Having just looked at the sermon again, the only reference to unbelievers really came towards the end:

The world may not seem interested in Christ right now. But he will have the last word. When the world passes away, he and his people will endure.

That is not a call for us to be triumphalist, taunting the world. Instead we need to keep on offering the spring of life to the people of the world, so that they will not pass away like the sea or earth or heaven. And the world can only be offered that spring of life if they hear of the crucified and risen son of God, if we keep Easter at the heart of our purpose and witness and being.

That surely is a message of hope, not fear? You could argue that it would make an unbeliever fearful, but that would only be the case if they thought that the message was true... which should lead them to believe and therefore it becomes a message of hope. It can only really be a message of fear for someone who thinks it will happen, but doesn't like the idea.

'I regard faith as a journey, not a set of propositions. My journey remains a faith journey --even if some others on that faith journey now fail to recognise me as a fellow-traveller.'

Hi William,

What do you mean by a 'faith journey' and 'faith is a journey' as opposed to faith as propositions. I understand that faith can be used in different senses, for example Scripture talks about having faith and the faith, with the first referring to our belief and the latter referring to the objective content. You don't seem to be using faith in different senses so I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'faith journey'.

When you are on a journey you can be going in the right or wrong direction, but it's always helpful to know where you are going incase you get lost !

pure

"Contributors on this blog tend to agree that questioning is a good thing, but, in real terms, is anyone significantly closer to an understanding of truth or to God than they were before they started contributing?"

Not me. I was already there before I started and I haven't budged an inch. I gave pastorphillip his chance and told him to take his best shot but I remain unconvinced. I'm sure with enough time and enough exchanges between us....I could make an athiest out of him yet :-)

agmckinley
Im with you on the 'faith' thing. Faith means different things to different people. When I read about people talking about their 'faith', I tend to replace it with belief. When I think about faith I associate it with something or someone. For instance, I have faith in NI Electricity and know than when I flick a switch a light will come on. I dont keep trying it all day to see if my supply is still there. I have faith that my postman will call with mail. I don't phone up the depot and ask them if they still deliver. I have faith in Jesus Christ and know that if I do the things He asks me to do that I will be a better person for doing it. I have exercised faith in Him in the past and my faith has always been rewarded. Therefore, my faith in the principle I followed has become a sure knowledge in that principle.
I have that much faith in NIE that I run many appliances in the confidence that power will be delivered to run them. I have that much faith in the Post Office that I will send parcels and valuable documents knowing they will be delivered (well, most of them anyway - but you get my drift I hope). And, I have that much faith in Jesus Christ that I will continue to follow His counsel with the real hope that, ultimately, my faith will be rewarded and I will become like Him and share His inheritance. That's the purpose of f

It really comes down to, what's your definition of religion?.

I think in William's case it was his Presbyterian/Evangelical roots which maybe "HE" has lost.

Again, I also think that William's loss goes much deeper,
right to the core of, what is truth.

The most dangerous time for a new convert is when they are in the early stages of their infancy in Christ, Why? because when the Spirit of God comes in to a person's life at the beginning, just like a baby being born into this world, they start to grow and develop and very soon want to learn and take in as much as they can, now during this process if they are influenced by various people and by different things they start to become confused about their life and purposes and down through the road of time, everything becomes a muddle of questions which takes you away from your birthright, which is to love God and love others.

sorry
...that' the purpose of faith to me and the only way I understand it.

Marcus
If you are typical of bloggers here, and I think you probably are, it doesnt look like anybody is learning anything here or rethinking their position. That's not a criticism, by the way.
Is the purpose of the blog, generally, to show off how clever we all think we are by waxing lyrical, espousing positions and putting down our neighbour? :-0 Maybe Iv sat up too long.:-)

pure;

"Marcus
If you are typical of bloggers here..."

Somebody help me here. Am I a typical blogger on this site...or anywhere else for that matter?

"Is the purpose of the blog, generally, to show off how clever we all think we are by waxing lyrical, espousing positions and putting down our neighbour?"

Whatever else someone might say about postings, I think one thing they'd agree on is that I don't wax. As for espousing, I've never revealed my marital status. :-) BTW, you're not my neighbor. I live many thousands of miles away from you if you're in NI.

":-0 Maybe Iv sat up too long.:-)"

You might feel better if you were in a horizontal position at that. More blood rushing to the brain bringing oxygen. On second thought maybe you shouldn't. You'll have plenty of time in the future to lie supine....when you're dead.

William:

Do you not think the publicity from Doubleband about the programme was misleading?
“William Crawley examines what role religion plays in modern Northern Ireland” (DoubleBand). That’s a big claim, and much beyond what the programme actually atempted. But others naturally went with it. Northern Ireland Onscreen stated: “William Crawley explores the role and relevance of religion in modern day Northern Ireland”. And, according to the Radio Times, “William Crawley explores the role and relevance of religion in modern day Northern Ireland. He travels around the province meeting religious leaders and followers, and talks to the increasing numbers of people who do not follow a faith at all”.

If the title in its earlier draft had a question mark, why? And why was it removed? I would suggest to you that the makers copped out of making a proper programme about this subject matter and sought instead to soften the impact of its presenter coming out as a ‘freethinker’. It tried to ensure that not too many of the Christian majority would be offended and outraged, by countering your journey with Christians going the other way.

On the number of Humanists. Okay, so there are fewer than 300 fully paid up Humanists in NI. But, according to the 2001 Census, 13.9% of the population described themselves as either having no religion or refused to state a religion. I am not suggesting that they would all describe themselves as Humanists but I am sure many thousands would, even though, like you, they do not belong to any spcific organisation. Indeed, this is the point: a freethinker is, by definition, someone who tries to think for themselves and therefore tends not to be a joiner of groups, where his/her freethinking will inevitably be compromised. The programme could have spoken to many of these individuals, but it didn’t.

Let’s be quite clear about this last point. I am sure that most Humanists in NI are grateful for the publicity given to us by the programme. But I am saying what I think as an individual about the programme in general. It said very little about alternatives to religion and too much in favour of it and that is my main gripe.

William,
Thanks for stimulating our thinking through your programme Losing Our Religion. It was great to see how you respected everyone's diverse views - wish we had a bit more of this tolerance from those within the church:)

Like yourself, I have been a former church leader in Norn Iron and left because of people wanting to be 'biblically sound' but somehow incapable and resistant of being, at the same time, 'culturally relevant'.

It was great to see the Vineyard church in Coleraine. They are full for a number of reasons - they have also planted a church in Dungannon which is also going 'great guns'.
I believe these new fledgling 'church plants ' with continue to grow expedentially because people are fed up with 'old time religion' and want a valid and biblical)expression of worship ..expressing their personal relationhip by devotion to their new and Saviour. Sadly some will never get their hands raised above their intellect :)LOL
I pray that you are encouaged to continue in the important role you play, in raising the awareness of the spiritual hunger that still exists in our communities; often found in these fresh streams of counter culture,yet refreshingly contextualised to culture.
Keep up the great work.
Go on ye boy ye...

post...55,

What do you mean "that" people are fed up with the "old time religion",
if you mean "that" the style of the music used in worship is changing, maybe, "but" if you are referring to the terms used in the, "old time religion" such as... are you saved, are you born again, a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun and so on, you are very much mistaken, as these words are clearly associated with Holy Scripture and if the "old time religion" uses them, its good enough for me.

Brian

So you're including Deists in Free-thinking (say, Paul Davies)? And would Parhasios count as a Freethinker? A non-subscribing Presbyterian?

You can see how the boundaries might overlap with religion.

GV

"I regard faith as a journey, not a set of propositions."

But Peter Morrow and I would agree with that. As it happens belief in a set of propositions is essential to my journey.
But "faith is a journey" is a proposition. Now you're not contradicting yourself, because (very roughly) your faith isn't in the proposition but what it corresponds to.
Same here. My faith is in what some of the propositions correspond to, not the propositions themselves. And of course there's far more to my faith than assent to propositions. There's fiducial trust, betting my life, following examples, internalising commands.

GV

I think it's interesting that one would choose a religion where many of its practitioners define your basic nature which you know you can't change and which science now also tells us can't be changed as willful sin to be condemned. These religions seem at war with themselves over selective acceptance of their doctrines, some being held as absolute truths, others according to some practitioners to be ignored or interpreted to apparently contradict their self evident meaning. It's a battle that doesn't seem to have any possible compromise, any satisfactory resolution. It appears that the need to belong to a group is often more powerful than the need to assert one's individuality and right to assert oneself as equal in every regard of creation as anyone else. This is not to pass judgement on it one way or another, merely to observe human behavior.

Marcus;


"your basic nature which you know you can't change and which science now also tells us can't be changed"

What is this again?

I'm not sure science has defined human nature.

Graham:

I am not addressing William's journey but the title of the programme and its publicity. Any programme that advertises itself as about 'the role and relevance of religion' and says nothing about the influence of religion on politics, sectarianism, education, culture etc but instead focuses purely on the nuances of 'faith' or lack of it, is quite simply being put out under false pretences.

I found the programme interesting (would Will ever tell us what his 'doubts' actually are?) but finally disappointing. It was disappointing on two counts: first, the title misled me into thinking that we were going to have a sociological study of the decline in traditional religious practice (preferably noting the similarity between North and South in that respect) and second, when it became clear that it was instead the story of Will's own loss of certainty, the extent of and reasons for Will's doubts were never spelled out.

I would love to see an old-fashioned, research-based programme on the alleged decline in religious belief here. As Brian McClinton has pointed out above, the census returns indicate a growing minority who do not identify with any religion. Surveys of the young in England have found that a majority do not believe in some central tenets of Christianity - life after death, miracles and a god you can speak to. It would be interesting to see whether young people here are equally sceptical, or whether the shadow of sectarian violence means that there is still a strong tendency to stick to the tribe.

Alternatively, I would not mind a programme in which Will discussed his doubts frankly with both believers and Humanists. I thought his comment, while looking at the starry sky, "There must be more to it" a peculiar lapse into a very dated cosmology.

However, mixing the two types of programme did not work for me.

C'mon moderator, get a shift on it!

Ref 53 Marcus
I meant 'typical', in that most contributors have entrenched views and it doesn't matter what you say to them or what they say to you, minds are not going to change.

I did not say that you, specifically, 'waxed' but i have read some of your posts that espouse(ie, support, champion or advocate) a position which has been quite forcibly asserted as if authoritative and some that put down others. (I have read other posts putting you down too, I must add). So, in those two categories you are quite typical.

I meant 'neighbour' in the sense of this being an 'online community'.

I enjoyed your sarcasm and, therefore, have chosen not to be offended by it.

I bet underneath all those hard words there is a soft heart beating.

Cheers brother.

In response to Johnthebap2 .
I may be “very much mistaken” as you say, but like William, ‘old time religion’ has been part of my faith journey. I came to faith in the 1960’s and I agree that truth is timeless. Rather than adopting ‘NIV religious ways and venacular’ (Northern Ireland Versions :)) surely 'insiders' need to adapt eternal principles from the bible to become culturally relevant individuals and ultimately church communities that reflect Jesus’ unconditional love and grace. This is part of why the Vineyard church is becoming such a force for God’s goodness in Coleraine.
I am just affirming a view which I believe many outside the church see clearly, namely, 'outsiders' being fed up with ‘scripture toting legalists living in a time warp’! The amazing thing about God’s grace is it is inclusive not exclusive. Society has changed – we do not live in the 1960’s. Maybe I should have used the word ‘Rescuer’ instead of ‘Saviour’ in my comment, but then we’d need to go further than the King James and go back to the original Greek. Hey, you still might feel I am ‘very much mistaken’ !

gveale,

I hope you don't mind, could you clarify a couple of points for me?

'"I regard faith as a journey, not a set of propositions."

But Peter Morrow and I would agree with that.'

What does faith as a journey mean?

Now you're not contradicting yourself, because (very roughly) your faith isn't in the proposition but what it corresponds to.

I'm not sure I find this distinction very helpful. What is the difference between a proposition and 'what it corresponds to'? What part has 'a journey' to play in this?

Andrew

Thank you, William, for your documentary, which was excellent, and not at all unsatisfactory. As an outsider (to NI) I found it sympathetic towards different strands of Christianity as well as Islam and humanism.

I am well aware that there are, unfortunately, those who seem incapable of stomaching any kind of sympathetic approach to what they term "religion". Such people seem bitterly indignant when they see that "religion" is not on the receiving end of a continual and relentless lambasting by the media. To such people all I can say is: "if you are as rational and free-thinking as you claim to be, then at least have the decency to allow people the freedom to express why they believe as they do. Or is it always of case of 'we believe in freedom of speech, as long as it's our freedom and our speech!'"

Your comment, William, about refusing to rule out some kind of spiritual reality - in other words, God - is a completely sensible and logical conclusion, and not at all a "dated cosmology", as one contributor has put it. In fact the idea that the size of the universe undermines the concept of the existence of God (a view expressed by one interviewee in the film) is, in my view, without any logical basis. I have heard this "spatial argument for the non-existence of God" based on the "diminished value of man" before, but I fail to see that it is anything other than an emotional argument (as if a thing's or creature's value is in inverse proportion to the size of its environment. Not a very impressive line of reasoning, methinks!)

The word "community" cropped up quite a bit in the film. I suppose the "anti-religionists" do not believe in community? Or do they? It's seems pretty obvious to me that bigoted tribalism can exist in any community, whether "religious" or "non-religious". So the idea that the reality of religious tribalism - and all that flows from that - is a valid argument against the existence of God, is ridiculous. "Religion" can be the pretext for any evil, as can any belief, including atheism. To any clear thinker this is so obvious it hardly even needs stating.

As a Christian, I have very serious problems with much that goes by the name of "religion", and, in fact, I would refer to myself as a "Christian humanist", meaning that I understand Christianity to be the world-view which most affirms the value of humankind. I am also a "Christian rationalist", because I believe in the importance of reason, and I have noticed that those who think they are the champions of reason often resort to emotionalism when presenting their arguments. Because I am a believer in reason, I am therefore an unbeliever in naturalism, due to the epistemological difficulties of that philosophy, which I have elaborated on at length elsewhere.

I am of the view that there are many people, especially in this "progressive secular society" called England (where I live), who are disaffected with organised religion, but who nonetheless believe that there is more to life than merely atoms and molecules. The debate about the supposed decline of "religion" is far more subtle and sophisticated than the tribe of new atheists would have us believe. Lumping all non-naturalists in one homogeneous category called "religion" is naive, to say the least. I certainly resent it, since, as a Christian, there are certain forms of Christianity which are more obnoxious to me than even atheism (and that's saying something!)

BI;
I suggest that you read my posting again, reflect on it, and try to get greater insight into what it is telliing you. I'm sure if you try hard enough, you will understand its message. I won't be more explicit than that.

pure;
You clearly don't know me very well. I don't think you've been posting very long here and therefore haven't read enough of my postings. Among other things, I like playing games with words. I also have a thick skin. I can take it and I can dish it out with the best of them. Where I came from that was a prerequisite for surviving. And underneath my hard exterior....lies and even harder interior. A steel fist inside a steel glove so to speak. I'm from the Bronx, the toughest place on earth. It's my basic nature to be that way. If I've offended you or anyone else...I make no apology. I say what I have to say. If it doesn't get by the moderator, well then that's the breaks.

One thing I have noticed over the years, certain types of Christian people who are involved with so-called modern forms of radical worship always seem to associate the KJV with old fashion religion, again, this is not the case, most mega Pentecostal Churches still read and teach from the KJV.

Does this now mean these modern Churches are old fashion, NO! even in my own Church they use a modern translation, but are very old fashion with there terminology such as...are you saved.

Also modern day Charismatic Churches can be very legalistic as well, in the sense that if someone refuses to dance or speak with tongues or even lift up their hands people around them sometimes think that there is something not just right with the person who is not joining in.

Lastly, the KJV in Mark 16 talks about some Pentecostal gifts while most modern translations omit it from there texts, so if you are a modern day charismatic putting down the KJV, really at the end of the day you are putting down your own beliefs.

Andrew

As Graham mentioned me, I try an answer! Maybe this is what he was getting at!

If by "I regard faith as a journey, not a set of propositions", William means something like, 'I'm happy to be a cork bobbing up and down on the ocean not really sure where I'm going just being carried along by the current of faith exclaiming, 'Oh, look at this, that's interesting,' or 'Here, did you see that, brill!' Then I don't agree with that.

In terms of faith, I think certain 'propositional' statements are necessary. For example, historical statements about Israel, or Jesus for example, but I have found that often these statements are where faith can begin, and then, end! And I'm not putting my faith in the 'propositions' as such, the statements direct me to a person called Jesus. I'd say this is important as it emphasises the person and the actions of God rather than my mere assent.

Sometimes we spend so much time stating the things that we consider to be true that we forget to act on that basis. Sometimes Christianity seems so very static, an endless affirmation of what we believe.

So when Graham says, "there's far more to my faith than assent to propositions", I agree completely, and in this sense faith is definitely a journey. It is a journey which changes me, a journey which prods and pokes me in uncomfortable places and makes demands of me. It is a journey which comforts and encourages me, one which embraces me and brings me hope. A journey which is communal, a journey 'from God to God' as, I think, Augustine said.

And yes, we Christians say that Jesus is the focus of this faith, it is in Him we trust, but it is a faith which make us strangers, aliens, pilgrims, sojourners... journeyers and sometimes I think we don't acknowledge that enough.

Ref68 Marcus
You don’t know me either. Let me tell you that I was reared on the Shankill Road in the 50s and 60s on streets where we played tig with hatchets - seriously. Two of my closest friends went on to become infamous due to the number of innocent Catholics (and even some of their own) they were responsible for killing. Where I came from status was achieved in how much further you were prepared to go in damaging another. As a teenager I beat these lads when it came down to fighting. In my early years I was in more fights than I can remember. It ran in the family and was expected. Rarely, did I loose a fight. I headed up a notorious street gang at the end of the sixties. I have been to prison on two occasions. I have been a coke and speed addict. Now you don’t need to tell me what hard is as I probably know it better than you. I am well acquainted with the ugly underbelly of society and dangerous men.

However, even though I didn’t take education seriously when younger, I have always tried to analyse my thoughts and actions. I too, told and showed people how hard I was because inside I was scared but didn’t admit it – wouldn’t admit it and couldn’t admit it – nobody did.

However, as I moved away from the area, got older and mellower, I began to realised just how foolish and pathetic I had been. A good woman helped me to be the real me and the gospel of Jesus Christ and the love I felt from Him showed me a different way. I came to understand my relationship with my fellow man, namely, that he is my brother. Instead of being teak-tough I learned to be in touch with my feelings and emotions. I don’t think I cried until my early 30s. Now I blubber all the time and I love it. I came to realised that my violence was mainly in response to abuse I had suffered when younger and I freed myself from it by forgiving my abuser. They were dead at the time.

I don’t play games with words, preferring to speak honestly and what I know to be true. I now treat people with respect and get respect back in return. I don’t have an enemy. I was a hard man too but it was not my basic nature to be that way – my environment was responsible for that. Now, I would run away from a fight if I couldn’t talk my way out of it. Unlike you, I seek not to cause offence and if I do I apologise as soon as I become aware of it.

Only you will know the real cause of this hardness you talk of but I’m sure that I can understand. I don’t know how old you are but it’s never too late to change. A catalyst is needed. Maybe you are looking for God. I doubt you will find Him here. On your knees is a good start. The world is such a better place when we let down our guard. If this doesn't get by your defences, well then that's the breaks as you say. Cheers bro.

purer than caesar's wife;

I think you misunderstand me. It is true that Bronx bombers have a reputation for burning and pillaging everything around them but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a mental toughness. And a cunning. We have physically tough people in America in places like Montana and Alsaka where they climb Mount McKinley before breakfast. I'm talking about Wall Street and Madison Avenue tough. I'm talking about the fastest paced place I know of. I can take San Francisco, it exists on human terms and dimensions. Not so New York City and I was born and raised there. I keep it at arms length, far enough away so that I won't get blown away if it becomes ground zero and close enough so that I can use it when I need it. It's a day trip for me now.

As I've gotten older, I've grown harder by being tempered by experience and adversity. Not to the degree my grandparents were, not by a long shot but enough to matter.

I'm not looking for god here or anywhere else. If he exists and wants me to know him, then he knows where to find men. In the meantime, I'm nobody's sucker.

Marcus:

You badly need softened up a bit. Your macho posturing would stun a horse.
Don't kid yourself that someone from the Bronx has any more insight or toughness than anyone on this planet.

What ever happen to the Debate, about losing our religion.

Or a different way to put it... losing our Experience?.



ps, I would rather live in Belfast (Safer) than the Bronx (very Dangerous) as it is a real tough place, just look at the number of drive by shootings.

bmc

I don't know if it's in the air or the water or what it is about the Bronx that makes any living creature born there so tough. I've got two mixed breed Rottweiler dogs. Both are female, both very gentle and affectionate, both are like children who love all other living things including children, cats, everything. Neither would hurt a fly. But the 100 pound dog mixed with German Shepherd is a strange animal afraid of nothing in this world. Loves to sit out on the lawn in the pouring rain watching the thunder and lightning, loves fireworks, loves trips to the vet, doesn't mind the vet scaling her teeth without anesthesia, and will never show pain. She was rescued from a junk yard in the Bronx as a tiny puppy. The other dog who is her best friend is a 170 pound mix with a Saint Bernard. When there's a thunder storm or fireworks, she tries to hide in the linen closet. Not quite afraid of her own shadow she is anything but assertive. She was rescued nowhere near the Bronx by the Port Gervis Humane Society also as a tiny puppy. Maybe it's in the earth itself there. Whatever it is, even by New York City standards, Bronx born anything is the toughest.

I remember one year during the 1970s when the Yankees were in the world series they showed a panoramic scan shot from the roof of Yankee Stadium. You could see fires burning all over the place. If you didn't know better, you'd have thought there was a war going on. And in a sense there always was.

Will, I actually enjoyed the program, and can identify with a lot of what you're saying in it. Your voice even changes - gone is the polished slightly anglicised BBC voice, and you're a wee Belfast boy again, all excited by what you're finding out. I thought that was nice :-)
One little suggestion - don't write off Terence as being a non-questioner. He, like the rest of us, is questioning, wondering. But he is asking sensible questions - questions that might actually *have* answers. We can all get a bit tipsy and wonder about what lies beyond, and that's OK, but to an atheist, such questions (the ones theists regard as the "big" questions) are actually relatively trivial - they touch HUMAN experience, but that's it. Homo sapiens. They tell us nothing about the world outside our human sphere. We like such questions, but we prefer to ground them. There are OTHER questions, arguably bigger. We *don't* see gods behind the majesty of the stars, but rather than closing doors, this opens them. We see as through a glass, darkly. But the murk of the past has been systematically swept away - now we see much more clearly, and we are not afraid to kick the "god question" back into the category of other mythical creatures who need *evidence* to back up their existence.

Keep questioning - doubt is a virtue. Well done.

[I do take Les's point above - there is another programme to be made, if you'd like to make it. Google "Church of Jesus Christ Atheist" for some experimental thoughts in this area]

Short review of the programme by Liam Fay in the Sunday Times today. Probably better if you don't read it Will.

William:
As Jan Moir demonstrates, journalists can be really nasty and often it knows no bounds when they are attacking another journalist. Here is what Liam Fay said about you and the programme in today's Sunday Times:

"There was yet more dispiriting mysticism in Losing Our Religion, a documentary that . conspicuously failed to live up to its billing as an exploration of Northern Ireland's retreat from the faith of its fathers.

"Once a province that was God-fearing to the point of being godforsaken, it is no longer a place where even atheists feel compelled to distinguish themselves as Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists. Growing numbers of citizens, especially those under 35, are refusing to bedeck themselves with traditional labels, and this film purported to chronicle their experience.

Regrettably, however, the programme was presented by William Crawley, a remarkably self-obsessed broadcaster who seems so preoccupied with his self-styled "inner spiritual journey" he often overlooks the complexity and strangeness of the world in front of him.

"Having abandoned organised religion a decade ago, after several years as a Presbyterian preacher, Crawley describes himself as "a questioner, a searcher, a free thinker". What this means in practice is that his eyes are forever focused on the distant horizon.

"Even when deep in conversation with others, Crawley seems to be looking inwards, reviewing, remembering, figuring out his own past. His internal odyssey may one day provide him with material for a compelling book or provocative essay but, as this desultory ramble around Northern Irish religious centres demonstrated, it makes for desperately poor television.

"Questions only become stupid when the questioner is too conceited to heed the replies".

Liam is a bit harsh. But I do think the BBC should have called the programme: :"Losing Our Opportunity".

helio

Can't resist a bit of sparring.

"but to an atheist, such questions (the ones theists regard as the "big" questions) are actually relatively trivial"

So let me turn that around and say, to a Christian, doubt (the one atheists regard as the biggie) is really rather trivial. :-)

Here's another thought about William's programme which I still think was rather good and which I still think had an appropriate title. It strikes me that at least part of what William was questioning and what he was asking us to observe and question with him was primarily our experience of church or our interaction with church. Now that's well worth questioning because what it does is begin to clarify for us the difference between form and substance.

Remember H, from doubt... faith!

I haven't read the Sunday Times article, but saying that, I would like to say, That Mr Crawley's TV Programme was very well made, it was honest, interesting NOT biased or prejudiced, infact it was clearly thought provoking and again a true reflection of problems that some people encounter when some spiritual hiccups happen in their own experience.

One thing! its easier to sit down and pen a so-called review "than" to get up and make an honest well thought out programme which exposes your inner feelings.

Hi PeteM, I agree that Will has left us wondering a bit; Will, would it be unfair to say that your journey has been influenced by your discoveries regarding the historical basis of the Christ and its relationship with the actual Jesus the Nazarene?

At least that's the feeling I was getting when you asked Father Michael (it was Michael, wasn't it? The very nice priest at Clonard - seems like a lovely bloke) about his acceptance of the historicity of the resurrection.

I don't think "faith" arises from doubt - unless it's faith *in* doubt :-) Belief is not a virtue, Pete.

Is there a link to the Liam Fay RV, nobbles?

Hi Helio, I thought Will was just querying the actual physical resurrection of Christs body. I think there are differences in Protestant and RC doctrine regarding his physical appearance after death. I took it that both were in agreement that a "resurrection" of some sort had happened ie it is historical.
No link I am afraid but I am sure it is available on The Times Online.

Helio said,

'Keep questioning - doubt is a virtue. Well done...I don't think "faith" arises from doubt - unless it's faith *in* doubt :-) Belief is not a virtue, Pete.'

'Doubt is a virtue' is a belief and belief is not a virtue and so believing doubt to be a virtue is not a virtue.

I agree though that faith does not come from doubt.

Interested in MA's post 59.


"At 2:37pm on 16 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
I think it's interesting that one would choose a religion where many of its practitioners define your basic nature which you know you can't change and which science now also tells us can't be changed as willful sin to be condemned. These religions seem at war with themselves over selective acceptance of their doctrines, some being held as absolute truths, others according to some practitioners to be ignored or interpreted to apparently contradict their self evident meaning. It's a battle that doesn't seem to have any possible compromise, any satisfactory resolution. It appears that the need to belong to a group is often more powerful than the need to assert one's individuality and right to assert oneself as equal in every regard of creation as anyone else. This is not to pass judgement on it one way or another, merely to observe human behavior. "
////////////////////////////////////////////


I think Marcus has hit on something there in his apparent lauding of individualism and assertiveness.

It almost appears to me now that being in a post christian society and all, these are two increasingly glorified qualities.

not so in the new testament.

in that book, it is servanthood and others that are in primacy. not individualism and intellectual stimulation as an end in itself.

Jesus summarises it all by calling us to love God and others.

Nowadays we seem to have reinterpresented these words.

Now they seem to mean;- "Commit yourself to serving your humble local congregation with your talents....until you find you disagree with the church's doctrine on secondary matters/ find it too parochial/ find it is not giving you intellectual stimulation. Then follow whatever path you think best."

I certainly know many people of the highest intellectual capacity who think deeply for themselves on all matters who remain committed to serving others in their humble traditional local congregations. they may not agree with everything their church teaches on secondary matters.

their church may not have even begun to think of some of the questions they are already wrestling with.

but they still commit themselves to their local congregation, turning up, encouraging people, praying for people, caring for people.


The church is God's people whether they be found in a very traditional church or a very modern one. He calls them so serve each other in humility.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

On this blog for a number of years I was subject to uunwanted sexual innuendo and harrassment from guys who had lost the intellectual argument;-

see post 218 here for a single example of a rather unpleasant trend;-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_evolution_of_a_debate_at_s_1.html


NOBODY ever raised a word in my defence. Not the BBC. Not the liberal posters alongside. Not anyone. In fact a number of Christians later joined in the attacks. work that one out!

If someone had written the same tirade of innuendo against an openly gay person on this blog on the grounds of his beliefs what would have happened?

I would have been the first to condemn it.

Even though I strongly disagree in princple with homosexuality, I think it is just nasty to descend into personal attacks. It serves no purpose and clouds the proper informed debate bbc blogs are supposed to support.


If the DM are wrong I hope Mr Gately takes them to the cleaners. If the DM is right then further explanations are required all round.

Lastly, welcome to the 21st century.

Homophobia is heresy.

Is Chistophobia now orthodoxy?

OT

sorry, but the Jan Moir thread is broken....

There are a few layers of this latest twist on the tragic death of this young man Stephen Gately, imo.

I agree with Peter Morrow, firstly, there is such a thing as a respectful distance from a tragic death.

Next, it appears to me that Mr Gately's partner may have a huge pay cheque coming for a libel action against the Daily Mail.

If the DM is wrong it must pay up royally in damages, should it be sued. it should be, imo.


But, I want to flag up what appears to me to be double standards.

All sorts of guff are written about christians now having their whole faith based on "delusions".

- a hate crime or freedom or expression?

TV storylines portray them normally as nutters and psychos (before you respond, please cite me a few contrary examples in proportion to all the nutter ones we all know).



On this blog for a number of years I was subject to serious guff in the name of fredeom of expression, see post 218 here;-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_evolution_of_a_debate_at_s_1.html


If someone had written the same tirade of guff against an openly gay person on this blog it would have been rightly condemned all round.


If the DM are wrong I hope Mr Gately takes them to the cleaners.


But, welcome to the 21st century.

Homophobia is heresy.

Christophobia is orthodoxy.

OT


https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/10/jan_moir.html

Helio

Just to be clear, at no point have I ever said that faith arises *from* doubt, in the sense that doubt is the basis of faith, it doesn't and it isn't. If I have inadvertently implied that, apologies.

What I have said, or intended to say, is that one can doubt at a deep fundamental level and move from that doubt to faith. And of course I'm not at all suggesting we put our faith in doubt, although it seems to me that you come very close to suggesting that. Nor, and we've been over this before, do I equate your use of the word *belief* with Christian *faith*.

What I have also tried to do repeatedly on this blog is to question the extent of the doubt espoused by those who think it a virtue. And I'm still waiting on an answer to the question about just how far those who doubt God push that doubt into other areas of life and being.

But I think we know this about each other already.

I am neither trusting in 'doubt' nor in my ability to believe, which is just another way of saying that I gave up trusting myself a long time ago.

Hopefully this, without getting too theological about issues of grace and faith, clarifies things for Andrew too.

Peter, as you know, most Christians never question; most preachers don't encourage questioning - we are told we have to "believe". As far as the gods are concerned, there is no *need* to believe anyway. For many things in life, we work on operational acceptance, but much of that is based on evidence. If our notions are overturned, so what? We get over it. As for the gods, none of the apologists' arguments hold the slightest water. Does this disprove gods? No, but it does allow you to identify the proponents of the *arguments* as either dishonest or a bit thick; in either situation, you would be justified in thinking that this may apply to other things they say, and to their flawed source material.

Thanks for posting on the churchofjesuschristatheist blog btw :-)

OT - your post # 84.

Leaving aside any question of intellectual capacity do you realise you could have been talking about me?!

I certainly do not agree with everything even my church teaches but I am totally committed to my humble traditional local congregation.

Curses! Nobbles, the rv does not appear to be on-line (or at least I can't find it - premusably the Irish Edition of the ST isn't on-line). But, like I said, I enjoyed the programme. Maybe coming from an evangelical background (OK, Presby, not too hard line) means that I feel a certain empathy for the punters, and I know exactly what Will means about the "rock concert" feel of the Vineyard scenario.

Ref 84 Orthodox-tradition

You say, "The church is God's people whether they be found in a very traditional church or a very modern one. He calls them so serve each other in humility".

Would that include:

Church of the Tele-Evangelists (the viewers)
The snake handlers
The speakers in tongues that nobody understands
Messianic Judaism followers
The Catholics
The Protest churches
The sword swallowers
The Way International
Non-trinitarian worshippers
New thought churches
Jesus Army
Amish
Jehovah Witnesses
Christian Science people
Adventists
Christian Rappers
New Age Christians
Restoration Movement
Branch Davidians
Assemblies of Yahweh
Anglo-Israelies
Shakers
and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all.

No wonder many people don't know what to believe.

PTS, you left out the Christian Atheists, dude! (or dudess? ;-)

Of course people don't know what to believe - that is why the worst possible option is to let some other punter or some ancient fakes, fables and fantasies to decide it for you. That's the essence of freethought, people.

Ref 93 Heliopolitan
Sorry about the ommission. it's dude btw.

I can understand why many people don't consider religion as an option, given the proliferation of competing theologies. The fact that they are all different and can't agree surely is the biggest argument against them. Each church claims that they are acceptable to God and that the Spirit of God directs them. But, my argument is, if they are acceptable to God and His Spirit directs them, why dont they all believe the Bible the same way - why isnt there one church rather than the hundreds? I firmly believe that although God loves each individual none of their churches are acceptable to Him. Something happened away back to divert the Church Jesus established from the truth. Subsequently, because none of their theologies ring true, they are not attractive. They will continue to schism until God intervenes again. They revert therefore to superstition, scare tactics, more recently show business and hard-to-tie-down theology.


I do believe in God because of personal experiences that are too sacred to share with others. Anyway, it wouldn't matter what I say because God has to be accepted on faith first, otherwise we would be compelled to love Him rather than choose to. Nevertheless, faith in a particular thing is rewarded and so becomes a knowledge. For example, I was reading a passage from the Bible one time and I came to a part that I couldn't understand. I prayed about it and over a period of time I kept going back to it without enlightenment. Then one time I was reading about prayer and fasting and I was impressed in a way that I cant explain about fasting. So I fasted, going without food and water for about just over a full day while praying periodically for understanding. Without telling what happened, I got a result. The thing I wanted to understand became simple and I understood. Since then I have used the principal of fasting because I am certain that it works. I have come to know that many other principals are true because I exercised my faith first and it was rewarded with knowledge and my faith in that principal became redundant. In this way of obedience first then knowledge following I was able to test the things of God. I know in my heart that God exists; I know that He personally loves me. I know that Jesus is His Son and that He suffered for the consequence of each of our wrong-doings and sufferings, as only He could - given His status - so that we could be saved from an eternity of regret and the anguish that it would bring if He didn't. I know that Jesus provided a way that my spirit, after death, could at some futher point, be re-united with a perfect body and live forever. I know that Jesus did this out of love for the billions of us that have lived and will live on this earth. I know that if I remain faithful to the end that I will eventually become like Him and be a joint heir with all that is His. Those who don't follow their inner longing for contact with deity and those who willfully do wrong will have to atone for their own wrong-doing before they are at peace but they will never get to enjoy the life that God enjoys. Im certain of what I have said to you.

So, as i have stayed away from so-called Christian churchs, I have drawn closer to God. I don't fully know God's purpose but my thinking on the subject is mine and not some false doctrine made up by well-meaning men lacking proper authority. I don't claim to have authority and that is why I don't want to preach my understanding. This blog has allowed to share some of my thinking but I'm not looking to have people think like me. Rather, I would hope that they would challenge some of the notions they hold in which they lack total confidence. Only in this way will they come to know more certainly.

Helio

What about the People's Front of Judaea and the Judaean's People's Front?

rjb
Youre being a naughty boy now; a very naught boy ;-)

PTS

Lol.

Peter,

I agree with a lot of what you have said though I may say it differently.

I am quite happy to say faith is belief but then I have a rather high view of belief which is more or less the same as your understanding of faith. But I do not want to speak of Christian faith, and atheist faith as if there are different kinds of faith. The issue is not so much what faith is as it is what faith is in.

Which is why I find 'faith as a journey' to be wholly unsatisfactory if 'faith as a journey' is opposed to, or at least excludes, propositions.

Statements such as 'doubt is a virtue' or 'belief is not a virtue' do not help. Surely to doubt the truth is not a virtue and equally as sure believing the truth is. But I believe truth and doubt falsehood and don't we all. To doubt a falsehood is to believe truth and so it is what we believe that counts.

Doubt as a method fails, you can be consistent and be solipsist or you can be inconsistent and embarrassed.

Andrew

Faith as a journey is a Biblical image. In Romans 4 we read about Abraham's faith growing and being strengthened as he continued on his journey.

"... who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham."

"Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God."


As for propositions, I pretty much agree with you. Abram believed certain propositions about God - God would keep his promises, God can make new life from aged bodies etc.
Of course it's 'facts' about God that make those propositions true. So it's God that Abraham had faith in, not a systematic theology.

I can't really see why propositions are viewed as the enemy of faith, or religious passion or whatever. I believe many propositions about my children, but that hardly means that I don't love them.

GV

puretruthseeker ref post 92

would you agree that questions can be used either to seek truth or hide from it?


imo the church are those who idolize Christ, ie God who became man, who died through crucifixion and came back to life three days later, now sitting at the right hand of God.


Parrhasios ref post 92 - I'm glad someone out there "heard" me!

BTW how and why did you choose your moniker?

OT