Posted                       

quote:

---

Goldenkey, I can't really agree that Revd Hart has the 'courage of his convictions' on this. If he does, then why doesn't he renounce his position as Revd?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
When I started this thread I didn’t expect anything like the response it has got. I am frankly amazed at the vehemence of many of the posts. I have been reflecting on this and wonder whether the issue is purely a theological one or whether there is an undercurrent of what I can best describe as western cultural imperialism:

"We’re westerners, we know more about Christianity, you should do it our way!"

Sorry folks, Christianity has been happily co-existing with Hinduism here since Thomas the Apostle arrived in AD 52.

---

And St Thomas arrived and honoured Ganesh did he?

I'm not sure what you mean by ' you weren't expecting the vehemence of the response', I think most of us on here are just having an honest and direct debate on here. If you wanted everyone to agree with you then perhaps this website wasn't the best one for you to post on!

I think some people are bound to disagree. If Revd Hart now has a different perspective on Christianity then he should explain that and perhaps leave. I don't think that's vehement, I rather think it's the same as saying, for example, Tony Blair should leave the Labour Party because he's clearly to the right of most members. It's rather a statement of fact as far as I see it.

Still Bishop Jenkins of Durham remained Bishop up till '94, well after he stated that he didn't believe in the literal truth of the resurrection, so in the context of Anglicanism then perhaps Revd Hart is perfectly within his rights given that precedence. But from a more logical and literal understanding of the Articles of faith and the Bible and Anglican/Christian tradition, it does seem rather obvious that Revd Hart has departed from all of these.

[ 30. August 2006, 11:19: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Yeah. try using that excuse if you ever commit adultery. Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I has sex with a prostitute, but I was really making love to you.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
It took a while to get used to seeing houses in India with Christian and Hindi symbols of worship on outside. They do seem to like hedging their bets.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to invoke the first commandment against Rev Hart has to (as part of the charge they're making) assert that a god called Ganesh exists. Which for some reason they seem reluctant to do...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to invoke the first commandment against Rev Hart has to (as part of the charge they're making) assert that a god called Ganesh exists. Which for some reason they seem reluctant to do...

---

By the same argument, when the OT prophets invoked the first two commandments against the ancient Hebrews for incorporating symbols borrowed from Baal worship (such as Asherah's poles) into their temple worship, they would have needed to assert that a god called Baal exists. And as far as I can make out from the OT, they didn't do that.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that the Judea-Christian tradition has always had issues with syncrenism. (Notwithstanding the sort of 'redemptive appropriation' that Barnabas mentioned earlier in the thread).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Yeah. try using that excuse if you ever commit adultery. Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I has sex with a prostitute, but I was really making love to you.

---

The difference being that the prostitute actually exists as a seperate entity, and the person using said prostitute knows full well it is not the same person as his wife and uses her services accordingly.

I can see a massive difference.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
When I started this thread I didn’t expect anything like the response it has got. I am frankly amazed at the vehemence of many of the posts. I have been reflecting on this and wonder whether the issue is purely a theological one or whether there is an undercurrent of what I can best describe as western cultural imperialism:

"We’re westerners, we know more about Christianity, you should do it our way!"

Sorry folks, Christianity has been happily co-existing with Hinduism here since Thomas the Apostle arrived in AD 52.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Yeah. try using that excuse if you ever commit adultery. Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I has sex with a prostitute, but I was really making love to you.

---

The difference being that the prostitute actually exists as a seperate entity, and the person using said prostitute knows full well it is not the same person as his wife and uses her services accordingly.

I can see a massive difference.

---

OK. How about: Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I has sex with a prostitute, but I was really making love to you in my heart.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think that at the time it was rather assumed that Baal did exist. It did take rather a long time for YHWH to work His way up in the Hebrew mind from a tribal God who was special because He was their tribal God, via conceptions as being the Top God, to being the only all-powerful God, to being the only player on the scene. Given that, the prophets' objections make perfect sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. But context is all-important. Worship of Canaanite deities involved practices that were in themselves unpleasant or indeed downright evil - from ritual prostitution to human sacrifice, at least the way the OT tells it. And in the Christian era, the requirements for Christians to partake of Emperor worship were specifically about renouncing Christianity.

We have to ask what this all means given modern assumptions about the existence of gods, about what these rituals mean to us now, rather than simplistically looking back to the applications of fundamental principles to past situations. The guy may well be wrong, but discerning whether this is the case is a lot more complicated - and I'd suggest thought provoking - than pointing to a few verses and canons.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by feast of stephen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
When I started this thread I didn’t expect anything like the response it has got. I am frankly amazed at the vehemence of many of the posts. I have been reflecting on this and wonder whether the issue is purely a theological one or whether there is an undercurrent of what I can best describe as western cultural imperialism:

"We’re westerners, we know more about Christianity, you should do it our way!"

Sorry folks, Christianity has been happily co-existing with Hinduism here since Thomas the Apostle arrived in AD 52.

---

And St Thomas arrived and honoured Ganesh did he?

I'm not sure what you mean by ' you weren't expecting the vehemence of the response', I think most of us on here are just having an honest and direct debate on here. If you wanted everyone to agree with you then perhaps this website wasn't the best one for you to post on!

I think some people are bound to disagree. If Revd Hart now has a different perspective on Christianity then he should explain that and perhaps leave. I don't think that's vehement, I rather think it's the same as saying, for example, Tony Blair should leave the Labour Party because he's clearly to the right of most members. It's rather a statement of fact as far as I see it.

Still Bishop Jenkins of Durham remained Bishop up till '94, well after he stated that he didn't believe in the literal truth of the resurrection, so in the context of Anglicanism then perhaps Revd Hart is perfectly within his rights given that precedence. But from a more logical and literal understanding of the Articles of faith and the Bible and Anglican/Christian tradition, it does seem rather obvious that Revd Hart has departed from all of these.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
his words could be taken as simply confident that his God was bigger than their god - but did the people of Israel in general?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
I'm just trying to highlight this deeply rooted conviction within the Judeo-Christian mindset that strongly resists the blurring of its distinctiveness alongside other alternative religious practices.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
his words could be taken as simply confident that his God was bigger than their god - but did the people of Israel in general?

---

Aye, but I thought the issue was the convictions of the biblical writers and the prophets themselves, rather than those of the people in general.

---

quote:

---

Your point about Elijah killing off his opponents after this incident is well taken - you do recall correctly. I'm certainly not arguing for a "full application of the Elijah model" at this point, I'm just trying to highlight this deeply rooted conviction within the Judeo-Christian mindset that strongly resists the blurring of its distinctiveness alongside other alternative religious practices. There seems to me to be more to it than it being tied to the henotheistic culture of that particular time.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Again, Numpty, you're assuming that Ganesh exists as a seperate entity from God. If Ganesh and God are one and the same, or, rather, if Ganesh is a representation of one aspect of God, then the analogy doesn't work.

---

quote:

---

"Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I wank off to pornographic images of women that aren't you, but I'm making love to you in my heart."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And again I'm telling you the analogy doesn't work if there are no other women for there to be pornographic images of. Just the wife, with different hairstyles, in different moods, and wearing different clothes.

If you're not getting why the analogy doesn't work, please drop it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:
What if, (sorry Karl) assuming that all representations of gods are actually just parts of the One True God, what if said deity doesn't want to be worshipped like that?

What if, to borrow your analogy, the wife wishes to be made love to when she is dressed like herself, wearing her own clothes and her own hairstyles and not clothes borrowed from her friends? What if she sees having to borrow others' clothes to entice her husband to sex as humiliating, or as whoring herself?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The idols we really ought to be worried about are global capitalism and militarism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Within some or parts of, perhaps, rather than the whole? I am not nitpicking here, I am making an important point that there are some members of the Judaeo-Christian tradition who do not have that mindset.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On that I'd disagree. Elijah considered Baal worship to be dangerous to Israel. The question is why. If the people saw it as a case of "let's worship Baal instead of YHWH, or as well as Him", then it certainly would be. If they saw it as having another god, it would be dangerous. I have no idea whether Elijah thought Baal was real in any sense, or what he thought. My focus here is on the fact that in that society and culture, at that particular time, it was a Bad Thing because it set up an alternative god in the minds of the people of Israel.

---

quote:

---

I'd also suggest that we cannot escape the other significance of the killing of the prophets of Baal, which is that in Israel at that time a religious statement was also a political one. Just as in post-reformation Europe, to follow a different religious practice was to dissociate oneself with one's own national identity and to associate with a foreign one - and an enemy one at that. It was very much like being an English Roman Catholic in the reign of Elizabeth I whilst we were at war with Catholic Spain. It was treasonous in the eyes of the authorities. We do not live in a time and a place where religion and national identity are so closely identified now, not in Europe, nor in India.

---

quote:

---

The message throughout the OT is pretty clear, and of course this has informed much of the Judaeo-Christian mindset over the last 2000 years. That is not to say that there is no value in deconstructing the whys and wherefores of it, and asking what it means today.

---

Very good of you to say so.

--------------------
humblebum

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by feast of stephen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And again I'm telling you the analogy doesn't work if there are no other women for there to be pornographic images of. Just the wife, with different hairstyles, in different moods, and wearing different clothes.

If you're not getting why the analogy doesn't work, please drop it.

---

If may say so I think that's a little pedantic.

In the OT it basically condemns worship of all other Gods except Him. God acknowledges that there are other Gods out there but he requests (strongly!)the isrealites not to worship them.

So are we to take it that you're saying the Hindus plethora of deities, even if they are all represenative of Brahman (which is debatable) is one and the same God as Our Father? Sure there's some similarities i.e. a kind of trinity etc, but I still can't see how you made that leap, given what the OT says. And presumably since Revd Hart decided to be a Christian and put himself forward for ordination, he acknowledges what the OT says about other Gods?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
...when the OT prophets invoked the first two commandments against the ancient Hebrews for incorporating symbols borrowed from Baal worship (such as Asherah's poles) into their temple worship, they would have needed to assert that a god called Baal exists. And as far as I can make out from the OT, they didn't do that.....

---

quote:

---

For the LORD is the great God,
the great King above all gods.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Within some or parts of, perhaps, rather than the whole? I am not nitpicking here, I am making an important point that there are some members of the Judaeo-Christian tradition who do not have that mindset.

---

I don't doubt that, WW. But the resistance is there within what is generally agreed to be some quite important parts of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and I think that we can't merely ignore them - we do have to do business with them if we intend to be faithful to the tradition as a whole.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The idols we really ought to be worried about are global capitalism and militarism.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
You appear to making a non-sequitur argument here, Karl. You say that politics are involved in such apparently religious actions, and you're quite right. But it does not follow that if you take away the political motivation, nothing of the religious or spiritual motivation remains.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Jillie - now you're getting somewhere with your version of the analogy. I am actually quite undecided as to whether Ganesh is a facet of the same God that Christians worship, or whether that very much depends on the individual worshipper. I'm not sure exactly how to apply your version of the metaphor. What has God said about how He wants to be worshipped? "In Spirit and in Truth"? What does it mean? I think there's a lot of potential exploration being done here and I'm rather glad we're able to do it despite the "He's not really Christian, should be defrocked, etc. etc. etc." knee-jerk reaction of some early posts.

---

quote:

---

No it won't be, becuase there is no such thing as a one size fits all religion. So really it would be appealing to different parts of that man. (This would mean that God is appealing to different cultures) The lust part of the man is interseted in the intelluectual part. You can never say one group of people are the same as another.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

So god has to slightly alter his message to fit in with different cultures.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The idols we really ought to be worried about are global capitalism and militarism.

---

False dichotomy. Unless you really think that we cannot be opposed both to paying ritual homage to non-Christian idols and to capitalism and militarism. And that would be an odd thing to be saying.

Your point is presumably that there are other types of idolatry than the technical one of burning incense to non-Chriatian "deity". Mine is that the one does not eliminate the badness of the other.

Just to be clear, Hart was paying cultic homage to an idol of a religion that specifically denies Christ's divine Person and his unique and once-for-all work. If that is not at the very least asking to be seen as idolatry in the obvious sense, then I can't see that idolatry is a meaningful concept at all. If that isn't (willfully and recklessly giving the impression of) idolatry then nothing could be.

The reason there appears to be so much heat in the reactions to Hart's behaviour is, it seems to me, because of the incredulity some of us feel in the denials we are reading that burning incense at the shrine of a non-Christian God is in any way idolatrous. It beggars belief.

If to burn incense at Caesar's shrine would have been wrong for Christians in the early Church, what makes it alright to burn it at Ganesh's now? It seems to me that precisely the same justifications could be dreamed up for the former as are being presented here for the latter. What's the difference?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The idols we really ought to be worried about are global capitalism and militarism.

---

Yes, and sections of the church are actively promoting them!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:

quote:

---

So god has to slightly alter his message to fit in with different cultures.

---

I am afraid I will have to disagree. I don't think God changes. The analogy works (for me) only if applied to the externals of religion.

For example, the Gospel is the same message it was yesterday, and will be the same tomorrow. However, it is not necessary that we present it while wearing, to pick a random example, eighteenth century corsets or first century rabbi outfits. Nor does it require us to present it in Ancient Greek, nor in King James English.

But the message of Jesus is unchanged. "God came down, died, and was resurrected. This was for your benefit." and so on. In any language, to any culture, that is the message.

The externals of presentation change, but the message and the God behind it, in my opinion, do not.

Otherwise it would be a different religion, wouldn't it?

(ETA: Thank you for reexplaining it.) (I can spell. Honest.)

---

Well, I certianly can't spell, but that me,

No, it doesn't change. Culture is a unique thing that will die if tampered with. Look at native Americian culture it pretty much died with the arrival of missionaries. After all totems were a form of idol worship according to them.

So really just becuase god repackages religion for different cultures doesn't make the religion different.

There are many similarities between Christ and Krishna (different God I know, but Krishna is one of the biggies for hindus)

#6 & 45: Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
41 & 42: Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
64: Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
66: Both were "without sin."
72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
76, 77, & 78: They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
83, 84, & 85: Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
86 & 87: Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
101: Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
109 to 112: Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
115: Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.


Can look at the orginal text at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

So really the message is the same, just done by different people, and they all came down for us, died for us, and livied for us.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And again I'm telling you the analogy doesn't work if there are no other women for there to be pornographic images of. Just the wife, with different hairstyles, in different moods, and wearing different clothes.

If you're not getting why the analogy doesn't work, please drop it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:
So, dosey, if I've got this right, what you believe is that Christianity is just Hinduism repackaged, which is also Islam repackaged, which is Buddhism repackaged, for example?

If that is what you believe then I would completely disagree because, for example:

- Buddhism does not (AFAIK) believe in a God per se.

- Islam believes you need to follow its rules and believe in its tenets, and that it's the only way to get into Heaven.

- Christianity requires a personal relationship with Jesus as The way, truth and life, the only way to get into Heaven.

- Hinduism is different again.

There are fundamental differences between all major religions which makes them incompatible with each other. They have similarities, yes, but if they all (or most of them) claim they are the One True Way and that all other ways are wrong, then somebody has to be wrong. They are lying, or they are mistaken. And if they are not lying, then the God who created them is lying because He or She said that to each different religion.

To change topic slightly, to take your example about Native American culture, this is a perfect example of my culture differences point. Christianity, AFAIK, has not taken off with people who want to retain their Native American roots because missionaries have not been able to help them adapt it to the culture: that is, they have not known how to facilitate people into being 'Christian Native Americans' rather than 'Christian Irish' or 'Christian Indians' or 'Christian Chinese'.

Obviously, as Christians they would not participate in idol worship, but there is no reason for the parts of their culture which do not run contrary to Christianity to be kept.

A person's adherence to their culture will change if they become a Christian: their primary concern will shift from 'me' to 'Him' and that changes outlook. But if culture is so fragile as to shatter if a new viewpoint is brought in, then I would say it's probably either 1) not a strong culture, or 2) that maybe the new outlook wishes to destroy the culture outright.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
There's nothing wrong with the metaphor; the problem lies with the relativistic frame of reference through which you filter the analogy. I said images of women; not photographs or film. It is quite possible for an artist to draw an erotic image of a woman who does not exist, Manga pornography is a good example. You wouldn't suggest that all imagery of the feminine is equally valid regardless of what that imagery 'says' about women. That would be a very dangerous concept Karl, very dangerous.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

And? If you have a brain than you realise that at leat 5 billlion people are destined to hell becuase they do not accept that God as the one supreme lord.

---

quote:

---

All of them say that just to instill greater devotion, IMHO.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

(posted by Dave Marshall) Twaddle. If there is only one God, any image that is represented as illustrating an aspect of God has as much validity as any other. It's usefulness will depend on how meaning is ascribed to it and derived from it.

---

quote:

---

(posted by Dave Marshall) The only danger I can see here is if people seeing God through a different image to you appreciate God differently to you and you feel duty-bound to attack them because of it.

---

quote:

---

(posted by Karl)And again I'm telling you the analogy doesn't work if there are no other women for there to be pornographic images of. Just the wife, with different hairstyles, in different moods, and wearing different clothes.

---

quote:

---

(posted by me) What if, to borrow your analogy, the wife wishes to be made love to when she is dressed like herself, wearing her own clothes and her own hairstyles and not clothes borrowed from her friends? What if she sees having to borrow others' clothes to entice her husband to sex as humiliating, or as whoring herself?

---

quote:

---

Whatever absolutist frame of reference you think you're filtering the metaphor through is nothing of the sort. You have no certain knowledge of God any more than the rest of us.

---