Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jehanne · 03-03-2005, 04:54 AM

Two thumbs up -- WAY UP!!

Part One:

http://www.jesusseminar.com/Periodic...eeringone.html

Part Two:

http://www.jesusseminar.com/Periodic...eeringtwo.html

Ben Willott · 03-03-2005, 07:35 AM

I have read the first part, and it is very well written, but I have some issues with the piece:

Quote:

That which provides each culture with motivation, cohesion and a vision of where it is going is what we may call its religion.

Religion, to my mind, is not and has seldom been the sole factor in cultural evolution. It has played a huge part, to be sure, but what about other factors, for example economics and power-seeking?

Quote:

By 'secular' I do not mean non-religious but 'this-worldly and natural' as opposed to 'other-worldly and supernatural'.

I'd suggest the word "naturalistic", "secular" already has a definition.

Quote:

The term 'faith' refers to the internal attitude of trust in relation to life. Christians have no monopoly of it, even though it has been one of their basic terms. Faith of some kind is essential to human existence. We humans cannot live well or long without faith. The absence of faith leads to depression, lack of motivation and despair. When Jesus said to the woman, 'Your faith has made you whole', he was not referring to her beliefs but to her trust and attitude to life.

I'd submit that is a dodgy definition of "faith". I don't get what he means when he says "the internal attitude of trust in relation to life". I also can't help noticing that the last sentence is wholely dependent on his interpretation of what Jesus meant.

Quote:

The term 'Christianity' by which it is known by most today did not come into use until the sixteenth century. Before that it was long known just as 'the faith', 'Christian faith', or 'Christian religion', which meant 'the Christian mode of devotion'. The very earliest name for it was simply 'The Way'. Perhaps that is still one of the best, being so like 'path of faith'.

I disagree. If it had been "A Way" then fair enough.

Quote:

On the other hand, secularists who reject Christianity entirely and refuse to acknowledge indebtedness to the cultural matrix out of which the modern world has emerged are cutting themselves off from their cultural and spiritual roots.

I know of no such secularists. All the ones I do know are passionate about freeing government and public institutions from sectarian control and influence. They have never indicated a desire to obliterate or alter record of the past.

Jehanne · 03-03-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Willott

I have read the first part, and it is very well written, but I have some issues with the piece:

Religion, to my mind, is not and has seldom been the sole factor in cultural evolution. It has played a huge part, to be sure, but what about other factors, for example economics and power-seeking?

I'd suggest the word "naturalistic", "secular" already has a definition.

I'd submit that is a dodgy definition of "faith". I don't get what he means when he says "the internal attitude of trust in relation to life". I also can't help noticing that the last sentence is wholely dependent on his interpretation of what Jesus meant.

I disagree. If it had been "A Way" then fair enough.

I know of no such secularists. All the ones I do know are passionate about freeing government and public institutions from sectarian control and influence. They have never indicated a desire to obliterate or alter record of the past.

I enjoyed the article because of its historical assessment of Christianity today versus the Christianity of the past and why religion (in the West, at least) has so fundamentally changed from its “original�? roots.

run2white · 03-03-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Yet the modern secular world originated in the Christian West. That is an undeniable fact. For this reason the secular world stands in a unique relation with the Judeo-Christian tradition, even though it is increasingly in conflict with much of the content of the Christian cumulative tradition. ...But is it an unfortunate, blind path in to which we have carelessly and foolishly stumbled or is it a genuine new stage in the evolution of the Judeo-Christian tradition? Too little attention has been given to this question by Christian and non-Christian alike.

It's an interesting academic approach to history as it results to our current world-culture. The author seems to focus upon the findings that support pre-conception and goes so far as to contradict himself during the second part of his lecture. Some of his intellectual conclusory leaps are a bit over-extended, in my observation.

This becomes a lecture of reason, void of heart in a denial of mystery, resulting in an interesting process of "partial-truth" analysis.

03-03-2005, 04:54 AM	#1
Jehanne Veteran Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Iowa Posts: 2,567	A fantastic article -- a MUST read for everyone on this board! Two thumbs up -- WAY UP!! Part One: http://www.jesusseminar.com/Periodic...eeringone.html Part Two: http://www.jesusseminar.com/Periodic...eeringtwo.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.