|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Religious Pluralism
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Geez, folks! This religion as marriage/sex metaphor can only take you so far.
[ 30. August 2006, 20:38: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I find myself in an interesting postion with respect to this thread. I am not one who would at all often argue in favour of "Biblical Christianity", or take as my texts the 39 Articles or Quicunque Vult. Rather, I understand the Church to be sat atop a three legged stool comprised of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
None the less, ISTM that this thread largely reveals an argument between orthodox Christians and the heterodox; between those willing to entertain doctrinal ideas that fall outside the New Testament vs. those who insist that the exlusive faith in Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ cannot be compromised with importations from non-Christian religions.
ISTM that everything else being argued here is really peripheral. This has nothing to do with acknowledging that there can be much that is good, true, and virtuous in other religions; nor with an acknowledgement that God is quite beyond the capability of our formulae to adequately describe and capture; nor yet that the Holy Spirit and the entire work of the incarnational atonement and sacrifice of Calvary don't also operate beyond the bounds of the community of the baptised.
However, I believe this thread essentially started with the implicit question: hey, is what this Christian priest is doing cool or what? The answer from orthodox Christians, I think, is emphatically, "No, it's not."
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
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?
I'm not dosey, but I can't resist. I believe that Christianity is God packaged by Christians. Hinduism is God packaged by Hindus, Islam is God packaged by Muslims and Buddhism is God packaged by Buddhists. (Disclaimer: My God isn't actually "personal", however.)
quote:
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.
All religions have another fundamental similarity: in order to survive for more than a generation, any religion must have a way to attract and retain believers. Whether it is true or not, "My God's better than your God" works very well as a marketing tool. And considering what we know about eyewitness testimony, it seems a bit odd to immediately assume God was lying just because different people have reported different experiences of God. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
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.
Ditto.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dosey
Shipmate
# 10259
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JillieRose:
Second, there is no need to insult me. I'm perfectly capable of coherent thought.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Sorrry, didn't mean that
Also, That really doesn't make him sadistic, he doesn't say
quote:
NOW GO OUT AND SMITE ALL THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN ME
all he is saying is don't place other Gods before me.
Posts: 72 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
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.
I accept this wholeheartedly AND I expect that "they" also both accept and respect that there a people in Christendom, like David Hart, who do not hold the same views on this subject as "they" do.
Hey there, WW. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your use of "they" in inverted commas - maybe you think I'm being disengenous by referring to myself in the third person.
The "they" I was thinking of primarily was some fairly strong themes within the Christian scriptures - I was trying to discuss them in such a way as to make it clear I'm not a "the Bible says say so that's that" kind of guy. What the Biblical writers accept and respect (in the present tense) is a bit of an odd question.
If you're asking me what I accept and respect, yes I accept that there are folk within Christendom who're saying similar things to David Hart. It's just that, IMO, and in my limited understanding of Rev Hart's own views, they seem quite noticeably out of step with the sorts of approach that the church has normally taken to inter-faith issues. I believe that the Christian community has been right to avoid the practice of syncretism, so in so far as Rev Hart seems to be trying to promote it, I think he's wrong.
Incidentally:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Buddhism is God packaged by Buddhists
I doubt that you would ever find a Buddhist who would agree with you about that. There are gods in some some forms of Buddhism, but Buddhism is essentially non-theistic...
[edited to fix code]
[ 30. August 2006, 22:36: Message edited by: humblebum ]
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
Incidentally:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Buddhism is God packaged by Buddhists
I doubt that you would ever find a Buddhist who would agree with you about that. There are gods in some some forms of Buddhism, but Buddhism is essentially non-theistic...
[edited to fix code]
Oh yes, I'm quite aware of that, but I did say that I do not see God as "personal". It would take too long for me to type "the search for meaning and purpose, both as an individual and as a member of humanity" every time. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
dosey
It is probably most helpful if I confine my comments to this single illustration. The website you referred to when comparing Krishna and Christ has this as one of its statements of belief.
quote:
That the systems of truth in the field of morals, ethics, and religious belief that we have studied are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time.
It is very clear that you believe that too, hence your response to this thread. Most self-declared Christians, and certainly those who uphold the Catholic, Orthodox or Reformed Traditions, disagree with that statement of belief. You can declare us wrong - or as Dave Marshall says, consider that as a result we speak twaddle. That is your privilege and his. But it is the root cause of the disagreements you are having with folks on this thread. You believe the Christian revelation is relativised and culturally driven. We believe it is true. We may have different takes on it within the three main traditions - and we argue endlessly over our differences. But not over the essential truth of the revelation.
The big mistake is to assume that, as a result, this makes all of us intolerant or repressive of other faiths. I guess the meaning of tolerance has changed somewhat in recent years; originally it meant the recognition of differences coupled with a desire to live peacefully with them, as far as possible, as far as it lies with us to do so. It is central to the revelation that we love our neighbour as ourselves. Jesus called peacemakers blessed. And encouraged love of enemies.
Thank you for your contributions to this thread. The information about the Krishna-Christ parallels is very interesting. There are of course many possible explanations for the parallel, which is not without precedent.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If it is possible for me draw or sculpt and image of a person that does not exist, why do you claim that it is impossible to draw or sculpt and image of a God that does not exist? Are you denying the possibility of artistic fiction? The possibility of spiritual fiction?
The problem is you can't draw or sculpt an image of God. No-one can unless they categorise God, which is a category error. That's what your metaphor does. It assumes 'image of God' and 'image of woman' are meaningful and comparable concepts.
All we can do is use images we create or find in nature and adopt them as visual aids for imagining some aspect of God. The man Jesus is Christianity's ultimate visual aid, the whole incarnational and trinitarian theology the meaning the Church has derived from his story. It's generations of artistic fiction wrapped up in a mythology on which Christian faith is based.
Spiritual fiction would be belief that Ganesh actually was God. I don't think anyone's saying that.
quote:
Is it possible for a human being to make a God?
Is it possible for a human being to make anything that could not in some context illustrate an aspect of God?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Hey there, WW. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your use of "they" in inverted commas - maybe you think I'm being disengenous by referring to myself in the third person.
Sorry humblebum, my "they" didn't refer to your "they" at all. I was simply referring to the idea that there are people in what I will loosely call Christendom who do not fit the model that some here describe as the exclusive, eternal, non-negotiable criteria for fitting the model. Round pegs and square holes.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
(Woderick - your PM box is very full and a a few of us have asked you to clean house, pls!)
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
Sorry!
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
My parents and Sunday School teachers would always tell me, when I was young, that the more you learn about God the more you realize that you don't understand. Many of us here would agree that despite all that we believe to be true about God, there is a near-infinite vastness of knowledge that we will never attain about him.
That being the case, I recognize that my view of God, derived largely from scripture and the Protestant Talmud (as I like to call it), vastly under-represents the fullness of who God truly is.
If I were to someday be granted the opportunity to sit at God's feet as he dictated the remainder of knowledge that exists regarding him and compiled it into the billions of volumes that it would take to contain it, what would we find written inside those covers? I think many of us will only admit that we don't know the answer to this question under the provision that we are allowed to add, "But I sure as hell know what wouldn't be in there!"
But do we? Scripture reports that God doesn't tempt any man, yet that God tempted Abraham; that we should honor our father and mother, but that we should hate them; that no man has ever seen God, but that Jacob saw God face to face. I do not say that these are unresolvable contradictions, only that they require a hidden "unless clause" to aid in their understanding.
If these hidden "unless clauses" are required in so many places that we know of, how many more could exist throughout the Scripture? How many more would be uncovered as we paged through those Billion Volumes of Unknown Knowledge? How many would make sense of the various religions on earth, perhaps even of Rev. Hart's recent actions?
It is impossible for me to know or say. I suppose the answer, for me, is hidden somewhere in those Billion Volumes, and I look forward to a couple of long, splendid centuries of reading in Heaven.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Afghan
Shipmate
# 10478
|
Posted
I'd go along with what a few others have already said - respecting the faith of others requires that we acknowledge difference rather than pretending it is only semantic.
It seems to me that this rather PoMo urge to pretend that everyone else is a Christian really is an ugly consequence of 1,750 years or so of Christendom. For the vast majority of our history not being Christian was not acceptable. It placed you outside of society, it placed you outside of the moral structures of that society. A non-Christian was - in the view of past generations of Christians - a sociopath. And that habit has stuck. We have forgotten how to live in non-Christian society.
But the truly tolerant thing - perhaps the truly Christian thing - would be to accept that other people don't need to be Christian to be people we can talk with, work with, live with.
--------------------
Credibile quia ineptum
Posts: 438 | From: Essex | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Prof. Kirke wrote:
I suppose the answer, for me, is hidden somewhere in those Billion Volumes, and I look forward to a couple of long, splendid centuries of reading in Heaven.
And then there's that new book Mark Twain is writing! (Per the movie "It's A Wonderful Life".)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Interestly moslems never indugle in this sort of practice.
Not quite true ... Life of Pi is admittedly a fiction, but one that reflects my experience growing up in Ghana. Our family driver described himself as a moslem christian - and hedged his bets with a good few native deities, too.
While I personally would not take as syncretistic a step as Hart, I would join those who engage in processes of interfaith dialogue. Where interfaith acts of worship take place I believe representatives of each religious tradition need to be careful in observing the parameters of their traditions. There were sines quae non (if that is the plural, which i doubt!) beyond which our forebears-in-faith were nor prepared to tread and for which they were prepared to die. And i would be loathe to stride beyond them.
I would need to hear more about Hart's own views. If the Emperor Nero said to him "worship me or die" would he burn incense to Nero? If so I would feel he was sadly misguided, compromised in his faith (I'm not saying I'm brave enough in that context either: as I've said elsewhere we don't know until it happens). Here he has reached beyond a point atb which I would feel comfortable, but if I were to express concern it would not be with the vitriol that some of my christ-bearing sisters and brothers have done in the context of this thread.
Strangely, as One who has studied much in the areas of inter-faith dialogue, I would say that I have seen more christlikeness in people like Hart, Pannikar, Hick, Bede Griffiths and especially Klostermaier than in those who draw militant lines in the sand.
Two very good collections of essays (though nearly twenty years old now ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )with contrasting views on this field are the pluralist edition edited by John Hick and Paul Knitter, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: towards a pluralistic theology of religions (Orbis 1987) and the inclusivist essays edited in reply by Gavin D'Costa, Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: the myth of a pluralistic theology of religions (Orbis 1990). I happen to side strongly with the D'Costa et al position, but I don't do lightly - nor do the contributors to that volume.
[ 31. August 2006, 07:23: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Interestly moslems never indugle in this sort of practice.
Which reminds me of the three symbol thingie often seen here in various guises with, usually, an Om [in Sanskrit], a picture of the Kab'aa and a Sacred Heart of Jesus - these are sometimes seen in Moslem homes and often seen in buses with flashing lights around them - and seen in buses and owned and worked by people of all three faiths.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Numpty - I'm not "insisting" on anything, except having a proper unpacking of this question instead of a foaming-at-the-mouth denunciation without it. For what it's worth, I'm actually gradually moving to a position of not accepting syncretism of this kind. But if I do so, it will be because there's been a proper opportunity to test the issues involved.
And Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras, my beliefs are orthodox, and I resent your implications that as one of those who hasn't come down instantly on the "no it's not" side I'm some kind of left-field near heretic.
[ 31. August 2006, 08:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Oh yes, I'm quite aware of that, but I did say that I do not see God as "personal". It would take too long for me to type "the search for meaning and purpose, both as an individual and as a member of humanity" every time. OliviaG
I see what you mean, Olivia
I do think that's a rather vague common denomator to base a pluralism around, though. The major world faiths do have rather different answers (sometimes quite contradictory) to the question of this search for meaning and purpose. I don't think it's helpful to suggest that the differences are merely external.
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Scripture reports that God doesn't tempt any man, yet that God tempted Abraham
Does it? I remember being harangued about this by an atheist friend once. IIRC, when I looked into it, that was an inaccurate translation in the KJV and the more accurate word for what God did would be tested, as one would test the properties of a mineral.
[/tangent]
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
But the truly tolerant thing - perhaps the truly Christian thing - would be to accept that other people don't need to be Christian to be people we can talk with, work with, live with.
Welcome Afghan. And I agree very largely with your post. The only exception I can really see is mission. If I may give a political analogy, Democrats and Republicans should be people who can talk to one another, live together as neighbours, work together in the same places of work or on the same voluntary community projects. But come election time, its pretty unusual to find a Democratic working for the election of Republicans, and vice versa.
Which of course raises the whole thorny question of the conduct and acceptability of mission in multi-faith societies. But that is another thread, I guess.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There's another bit, though, where God asks for volunteers amongst the spirits in His court to go and tempt a king - I forget which one. It's almost like "God tempts no-one - He subcontracts the job"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's another bit, though, where God asks for volunteers amongst the spirits in His court to go and tempt a king - I forget which one. It's almost like "God tempts no-one - He subcontracts the job"
But he doesn't do a very good job of it, 'cause the prophet then tells King Ahab exactly what was going on in Heaven.
To come back to an earlier part of the thread, there appear to be two strands of thought in the OT concerning idols. The first one is "You shall worship no other gods besides me." The second one is "These idols are just inaminate objects which don't actually do anything." If Ganesh is a god (and not just an aspect of God) then Rev. Hart shouldn't be offering libations to him. If Ganesh isn't a god (not even an aspect of God) then the Rev. Hart is wasting his time. If Ganesh is an aspect of God, then that makes things more complicated. But I would still argue that we have the fullest revelation of God in Christ Jesus so why bother worshipping anyone else?
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Interestly moslems never indugle in this sort of practice.
In my experience, they do. I was in Tunisia for my holidays this year and noted protective symbols above the doors of most houses: a hand or two hands, and a fish. While no meaning was ascribed to them above the realm of superstition, the fish I presume came from Christianity, and the hand (the hand of Fatima, the prophet's daughter) is I am informed a kind of adapted symbol for Baal (yup, that Baal) which had three finger things and two curly bits each side. So it would seem a fairly clear indication of a fairly widespread (in that country) superstition in addition to their religion (irregardless of where the symbols came from).
--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HangarQueen:
But I would still argue that we have the fullest revelation of God in Christ Jesus so why bother worshipping anyone else?
. . . AND you are arguing from a Western Christian perspective. A Moslem or a Sikh or a Hindu or a Buddhist [or . . . or . . . or . . .] might well view things rather differently. Surely it is respectful to take one's own bias into account when discussing these things.
I don't think there is anything wrong with bias as long as we recognise that it is there!
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588
|
Posted
quote:
AND you are arguing from a Western Christian perspective.
Quick question, WW, isn't the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ a fairly common, for example, Chinese Christian or Nigerian Christian viewpoint too, and not just Western Christianity? Or have the biases been passed on?
--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JillieRose:
quote:
AND you are arguing from a Western Christian perspective.
Quick question, WW, isn't the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ a fairly common, for example, Chinese Christian or Nigerian Christian viewpoint too, and not just Western Christianity? Or have the biases been passed on?
The only answer I can give to that is that I honestly don't know. I think that following the paths of those churches and how they grew may tell us something about this. Churches in, say, most of sub-Saharan Africa grew up, as far as my limited knowledge goes, through colonisation during the years of the expanding European empires but I am not at all sure of the route Christianity took to places like China. I think, however, that there is a propensity to see Christianity as a Western religion rather than an Asian one, which is where it all began.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
DUH!!
Sorry for the double post, I missed the edit window and have realised that there is somewthing else I wanted to say.
You could also put a comma between Western and Christian in my earlier post as most folks here are coming from a Western perspective AND a Christian perspective and we need to acknowledge both those starting points and see the arguments in those lights.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
quote:
Originally posted by HangarQueen:
But I would still argue that we have the fullest revelation of God in Christ Jesus so why bother worshipping anyone else?
. . . AND you are arguing from a Western Christian perspective. A Moslem or a Sikh or a Hindu or a Buddhist [or . . . or . . . or . . .] might well view things rather differently. Surely it is respectful to take one's own bias into account when discussing these things.
I don't think there is anything wrong with bias as long as we recognise that it is there!
Presumably a muslim would flat out disagree with me about the nature of Jesus. And that's o.k. by me. But we're talking about a C of E vicar who is worshipping Hindu gods. Now if he's a non-realist, as someone mentioned above, then presumably in his mind there is no conflict between worshipping Jesus and worshipping Ganesh, since neither are objectively real anyway. I'd disagree with him on that, but that's probably a subject for a seperate thread.
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Numpty - I'm not "insisting" on anything, except having a proper unpacking of this question instead of a foaming-at-the-mouth denunciation without it.
I'm some kind of left-field near heretic.
I'll tell you what then. If you would remove the 'this guy's a conservative evangelical and therefore slightly thick' tinted spectacles, then I'll remove my 'this guy's a liberal relativist and therefore an evil heretic' tinted specatcles too. We could then try to understand the other is coming from on this very interesting subject. Deal?
[ 31. August 2006, 12:16: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HangarQueen:
If Ganesh is a god (and not just an aspect of God) then Rev. Hart shouldn't be offering libations to him. If Ganesh isn't a god (not even an aspect of God) then the Rev. Hart is wasting his time. If Ganesh is an aspect of God, then that makes things more complicated. But I would still argue that we have the fullest revelation of God in Christ Jesus so why bother worshipping anyone else?
As I understand it, Ganesh is neither a god, nor an aspect of God. Ganesh is an archetype -- a set of symbols that reflect how Hindus understand God (or gods, depending on whether you think Hinduism is monotheistic or not). Ganesh is represented with certain physical characteristics, because these are believed to be representative of the Divine nature in some way. He has an elephant's head because the elephant is a symbol of strength (physical and intellectual). He has only one tusk because he represents non-dualism. Representations of Ganesh are loaded with symbolism of this kind. Ganesh is represented in different ways and with different attributes in Hindu iconography, because it is what he symbolises, not what he looks like that is important.
I guess that it is at least possible that there are some Hindus who see a statue of Ganesh as an idol; that is, they believe that the physical object bounds a god, that it has mystical power in its own right. Moreover, I guess that there are Hindus who believe that the various stories that are told about Ganesh -- how he was born, how he got his elephant head, etc -- are historically true, rather than allegories.
But this isn't how my Hindu friends see things. To `worship' Ganesh is to worship the divine principles of which Ganesh is an archetype. Christian frequently analogise God as a father, a rock, a whirlwind, a lover, etc; this doesn't seem very different in principle to analogising God as an elephant.
That doesn't mean that I have, or want, statues of Ganesh in church, or even in my house. Ganesh is not part of my culture, and the symbolism doesn't really work for me. The image of the Good Shepherd, or the Rock of Ages, means more to me than the image of the elephant of divine wisdom. Others may, indeed obviously do, see things differently.
As for the Rev. Mr Hart, I find the idea of a CofE minister doing Hindu stuff a bit unsettling; but perhaps it isn't entirely bad to unsettle people from time to time.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
. . . but perhaps it isn't entirely bad to unsettle people from time to time.
By the accounts we are given Jesus did quite a lot of it!
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Numpty - I'm not "insisting" on anything, except having a proper unpacking of this question instead of a foaming-at-the-mouth denunciation without it.
I'm some kind of left-field near heretic.
I'll tell you what then. If you would remove the 'this guy's a conservative evangelical and therefore slightly thick' tinted spectacles, then I'll remove my 'this guy's a liberal relativist and therefore an evil heretic' tinted specatcles too. We could then try to understand the other is coming from on this very interesting subject. Deal?
Numpty, I've never considered you slightly thick, whatever else.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JillieRose:
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.
Seems to me that this distinction - between the message and the externals, between the essence and the cultural packaging, is an important part of what we're discussing here.
Is strewing rose petals over a statue of an elephant-being contrary to the essence of Christianity, or is it just a culture-thing (if you'll pardon the shorthand)?
Some here are saying that this action constitutes worship of another god, a god who is not God, and is therefore contrary to the essence of Christianity.
Some are saying (if I've got it right) that although this is a culture-thing, it isn't actually all that respectful to the culture that it borrows from, because it implies that the borrowed element is is a non-essential that can be detached from the essentials of that culture.
Neither has yet made a case that convinces me. The former is clearly the more serious charge. (The latter seems to me to misunderstand what culture is).
I sense a double-standard in those to whom strewing rose petals or burning incense in front of a statue of Ganesh necessarily constitutes worship of Ganesh, but who don't bat an eyelid at Catholics placing flowers before and burning candles in front of statues of Mary. If we're willing to give the benefit of the doubt as to what is actually going on inside the person's head - what the action means to them - in one case, then it's not clear to me why it would be wrong to withhold such benefit of doubt in the other.
(And incidentally I wonder whether these traditional devotions to Mary are not an analogous adoption of cultural practices from goddess-worshipping sub-cultures in the ancient world.)
quote:
Originally posted by JillieRose:
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?
This seems to be asking "what if God strongly wants to be worshipped in exactly the way that our tradition worships Him" ?
It's a bit hard to discount this possibility on grounds of truth. Is it implausible that God has such a preference, has expressed it, and the faithful have responded in constructing the traditonal Christian liturgies ?
It seems to me rather an issue of goodness - that behaving as if we have divine mandate for our own traditions, our way of doing things, doesn't treat others as we would like to be treated.
Which seems to me is much closer to the heart - the essence - of Christianity than any proposition about liturgy.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588
|
Posted
quote:
Seems to me that this distinction - between the message and the externals, between the essence and the cultural packaging, is an important part of what we're discussing here.
I agree.
quote:
Is strewing rose petals over a statue of an elephant-being contrary to the essence of Christianity, or is it just a culture-thing (if you'll pardon the shorthand)?
Some here are saying that this action constitutes worship of another god, a god who is not God, and is therefore contrary to the essence of Christianity.
Some are saying (if I've got it right) that although this is a culture-thing, it isn't actually all that respectful to the culture that it borrows from, because it implies that the borrowed element is is a non-essential that can be detached from the essentials of that culture.
Er, pretty much. Also, some are saying that even if this is attempted worship of the God who we claim to be worshipping, that God perhaps does not wish to be worshipped as an elephant-headed statue.
For example, the Christian tradition speaks of God as Rock of Ages, but this doesn't mean we imbue rocks with attributes of our deity and worship before them. Would this be an analogous case?
quote:
I sense a double-standard in those to whom strewing rose petals or burning incense in front of a statue of Ganesh necessarily constitutes worship of Ganesh, but who don't bat an eyelid at Catholics placing flowers before and burning candles in front of statues of Mary. If we're willing to give the benefit of the doubt as to what is actually going on inside the person's head - what the action means to them - in one case, then it's not clear to me why it would be wrong to withhold such benefit of doubt in the other.
(And incidentally I wonder whether these traditional devotions to Mary are not an analogous adoption of cultural practices from goddess-worshipping sub-cultures in the ancient world.)
Pass. Personally, I'm not a big fan of worshipping in front of statues of anything, mostly because for me at least the temptation would be too great to see the statue as the object of worship.
quote:
This seems to be asking "what if God strongly wants to be worshipped in exactly the way that our tradition worships Him" ?
Yes and no. It's saying, 'what if God has ways in which He wishes to be worshipped, and ways in which He doesn't?' And if the answer to this is 'yes' then what are those ways?
quote:
It's a bit hard to discount this possibility on grounds of truth. Is it implausible that God has such a preference, has expressed it, and the faithful have responded in constructing the traditonal Christian liturgies ?
I don't think it's totally implausible. It's also not impossible that we've gotten bits/large chunks/the whole thing wrong. But I hope that it's bits rather than the whole thing.
quote:
It seems to me rather an issue of goodness - that behaving as if we have divine mandate for our own traditions, our way of doing things, doesn't treat others as we would like to be treated.
Which seems to me is much closer to the heart - the essence - of Christianity than any proposition about liturgy.
Er...I'm a little unsure as to exactly what you mean, though I think I have the general idea. Maybe. In either case, I think it would be a mistake to assume that traditional liturgies are the only way to worship. But that if God has given us guidelines and if those guidelines include 'do not worship idols' and if what the Rev. Hart was doing constitutes idol worship then that's too big a difference.
As opposed to the differences within a tradition: for example, high and low church, praise bands or organ, liturgy or on the fly, standing up, sitting down or kneeling. Those are differences and people prefer one to the other, but mostly people are convinced that none of them violate God's guidelines for worship.
--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
posted by crooked cucumber
quote:
As I understand it, Ganesh is neither a god, nor an aspect of God. Ganesh is an archetype -- a set of symbols that reflect how Hindus understand God (or gods, depending on whether you think Hinduism is monotheistic or not). Ganesh is represented with certain physical characteristics, because these are believed to be representative of the Divine nature in some way. [snip]
Yoiks, another level of complexity is added to the discussion ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
If that is the case, then it's rather similar to depicting Jesus as the Lamb of God or in iconography. Is this how the majority of Hindus understand it though?
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
I'm neither Hindu nor can I speak for the majority of them (or any one else) but Crooked Cucumber's take is exactly how I was taught to understand the various Hindu Gods.
It's the same here - the various Animals aren't even called "Gods", they are called Archtypes, and represent certain characteristics of the divine. The way it was exaplained to me by an elder long ago - "Christians have Saints and Angels, we have Raven."
Comet
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
I discussed this thread with a friend at lunch the other day and he suggested the crux of this issue is whether or not we view scripture as revelation of God from God to man. I think he's nailed it.
If Christian scripture is nothing more than religious folklore or propaganda, then the commandments that believers not worship other gods have no force behind them, nor are they of any greater validity than any such commandments from other religions, and the entire Christian canon is merely a set of books.
If Christian scripture is revelation from God, then the commandments not to worship other gods do have force behind them and orthodox Christians have a duty to take them seriously.
In one sense, Hart's worship of Ganesh and all of our responses to it have nothing to do with culture and everything to do with one's view of the claims of Christianity and the status of scripture.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
I discussed this thread with a friend at lunch the other day and he suggested the crux of this issue is whether or not we view scripture as revelation of God from God to man. I think he's nailed it.
If Christian scripture is nothing more than religious folklore or propaganda, then the commandments that believers not worship other gods have no force behind them, nor are they of any greater validity than any such commandments from other religions, and the entire Christian canon is merely a set of books.
But there are a wide range of views between those two. It's not a binary proposition.
quote:
If Christian scripture is revelation from God, then the commandments not to worship other gods do have force behind them and orthodox Christians have a duty to take them seriously.
And even with a less "high" view this is still the case. What needs unpacking is what "worshipping other gods" means - what it meant in the OT, and what it means now.
quote:
In one sense, Hart's worship of Ganesh and all of our responses to it have nothing to do with culture and everything to do with one's view of the claims of Christianity and the status of scripture.
I disagree. It has a lot to do with whether we think that Scripture can just be applied as a rule book or whether we think it needs careful unpacking before application - at least in my case. I'm getting a little pissed off with the implications that my reluctance to join the automatic condemnation of Hart is down to not accepting or believing Scripture as revelation; it's a lot more complicated and nuanced than that.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
In one sense, Hart's worship of Ganesh and all of our responses to it have nothing to do with culture and everything to do with one's view of the claims of Christianity and the status of scripture.
I am not sure that you can say that that is a "culture-free zone" - surely the culture impinges on those claims.
[I just had a flash of the Dead Bishops sketch by Monty Python
"It's a fair cop but society is to blame."
"That's all right sir, we'll be charging them later."]
I don't think it is easy, I'm not sure it's even possible, to divorce ourselves entirely from our culture, even if we want to do so.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
why does Christian scripture have to be reduced to "folklore or propoganda" to make room for these other ways of worship?
For me, I have no problem seeing the bible as the word of God. But does that therefore mean that all other means of worship are not the word of God also?
Christianity only came here a little over 100 years ago. Natives here had no option to become christians, no one had told them. does that mean that all of their ancestors for thousands of years were wrong? did they all go to hell? I don't believe God would do that to good people.
Perhaps the traditions here were not as fully realized as Christianity (I only say this for those who will want to cut me down) but must they not also be Of God? If your culture and world view has no room for angels or demons, wouldn't God come to you as a Raven, so you could understand him? Or as an Elephant-headed symbol, even?
Why the hell not? I don't believe God is lacking such creativity, or the ability to speak to people worldwide in a way they will understand. Why send angels to the Indians? It makes no sense.
So, if God is communicating to us all in the best way we can "get it" - then aren't all paths leading to God? I'm not saying every loony nut-job "religion" is on track. Some established religions, though, have enough history and enough "golden rules" in common that I feel they do no harm. and perhap can even help us understand our faith better.
I don't believe there is an elephant headed being out there, flushing blockages out of my head. but I do believe meditating on the idea, the concept of Ganesh, can help me come to a better understand of my relationship with God.
And to me, it isn't any different than meditating on Mary, or Peter, or Aristotle!
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JillieRose:
For example, the Christian tradition speaks of God as Rock of Ages, but this doesn't mean we imbue rocks with attributes of our deity and worship before them. Would this be an analogous case?
I'm sorry if this sounds glib, but aren't many churches (in the UK at least) made to resemble rocks? What is a pile of stone, after all, but a man-made rock? Aren't the size, grandeur, and endurance of church buildings bound up with the way we view God?
Of course we don't (I presume) worship church buildings, but my point is that objects (or at least some objects) associated with worship have characteristics which reflect the way we conceptualize what it is we worship.
For example, I have seen many carvings of eagles and lions and whatnot in English churches (I don't know if you see this elsewhere in the world, or if it's an English thing). These animals have symbolic importance but we don't (I assume) venerate or worship them for their own sake. They aren't idols. But I can envisage that it might look as if they were to somebody unfamiliar with the cultural context.
So is a statue of Ganesh more like an eagle carved into a church lectern, or more like a graven image of Baal? I guess that would depend on what was going on in the mind of the worshipper.
My gut feeling is that it falls somewhere between these two extremes for most Hindus. Many Hindus do, in fact, venerate statues of Ganesh -- in the sense that they perform rituals which make these statues objects of veneration. But don't Christians venerate Christian objects objects-associated-with-worship in a kind-of similar way? We perform rituals in front of crosses, but we don't believe that the cross is God, or has divine powers (well, I don't, anyway).
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
If Christian scripture is nothing more than religious folklore or propaganda, then the commandments that believers not worship other gods have no force behind them, nor are they of any greater validity than any such commandments from other religions, and the entire Christian canon is merely a set of books.
But there are a wide range of views between those two. It's not a binary proposition.
I disagree, I think it is binary, once you strip away conditions, beliefs about culture, etc., and reach the foundation of your view of scripture. I believe at that point, after clearing away the modifiers, any waffle words, backdoors or diversions; facades and hedgings, it's a simple "Yes" or "No" answer to the question, "Is the Bible revelation from God?"
IMHO, sooner or later every Christian with a healthy faith will have to ask himself what scripture means to him. What about inerrancy? Divine inspiration? Authority? Canon? Even if the believer doesn't come to a solid conclusion, these issues will have at least to be considered.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
If Christian scripture is revelation from God, then the commandments not to worship other gods do have force behind them and orthodox Christians have a duty to take them seriously.
And even with a less "high" view this is still the case. What needs unpacking is what "worshipping other gods" means - what it meant in the OT, and what it means now.
How much unpacking does the word "worship" really need? Well, let's whack away at it, then:
From dictionary.com- 1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
- 2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage....
- 3. adoring reverence or regard....
- 4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
- 6. to render religious reverence and homage to.
- 7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
- 8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.
Worship practices (even Hebrew ones) during the OT fit somewhere on this list. Worship practices during our contemporary times also fit somewhere on this list. I don't see why the definition of "worshipping other gods" would change over the centuries. Hart's actions fit into definition nos. 2, 3, 6, 8. (I can't see his emotions so I don't know what he feels when he lights a candle to Ganesh.)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
In one sense, Hart's worship of Ganesh and all of our responses to it have nothing to do with culture and everything to do with one's view of the claims of Christianity and the status of scripture.
I disagree. It has a lot to do with whether we think that Scripture can just be applied as a rule book or whether we think it needs careful unpacking before application [....]
I'm not trying to make scripture a rule book--everyone interprets the Bible and there are issues where sincere believers can come down on opposite sides. This is not such an issue, IMO. I'm also trying to keep the discussion away from the stereotype of petty moralistic bookkeeping that accompanies such an allusion. My whole point is in this one situation, Hart's adoration/worship/homage/veneration of Ganesh violates clear, unequivocal guidelines set forth in scripture. I did a keyword search on "idol" in the OT and got 201 hits. I scanned through them and it's clear God doesn't like idols nor His people worshipping at them. They piss Him off. (Just like injustice, greed and hypocrisy.)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
- at least in my case. I'm getting a little pissed off with the implications that my reluctance to join the automatic condemnation of Hart is down to not accepting or believing Scripture as revelation; it's a lot more complicated and nuanced than that.
No more pissed off than I am that because I disagree with Hart's actions, I'm hateful:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The negative comments on this thread don't seem at all charming and humorous to me, but curiously extreme. I smell hate.
[ 31. August 2006, 17:09: Message edited by: KenWritez ]
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
As I understand it, Ganesh is neither a god, nor an aspect of God. Ganesh is an archetype -- a set of symbols that reflect how Hindus understand God (or gods, depending on whether you think Hinduism is monotheistic or not).... Ganesh is represented in different ways and with different attributes in Hindu iconography, because it is what he symbolises, not what he looks like that is important.
Thanks for explaining my sig, CC! OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
..I have seen many carvings of eagles and lions and whatnot in English churches (I don't know if you see this elsewhere in the world, or if it's an English thing). These animals have symbolic importance but we don't (I assume) venerate or worship them for their own sake. They aren't idols. But I can envisage that it might look as if they were to somebody unfamiliar with the cultural context.
So is a statue of Ganesh more like an eagle carved into a church lectern, or more like a graven image of Baal? I guess that would depend on what was going on in the mind of the worshipper.
My gut feeling is that it falls somewhere between these two extremes for most Hindus. Many Hindus do, in fact, venerate statues of Ganesh -- in the sense that they perform rituals which make these statues objects of veneration. But don't Christians venerate Christian objects objects-associated-with-worship in a kind-of similar way? We perform rituals in front of crosses, but we don't believe that the cross is God, or has divine powers (well, I don't, anyway).
Thought provoking post Crooked Cucumber.
I have only been to one Hindu Temple, one in Neasden, North-west London. From what I observed there, I believe that most of the Hindus attending were venerating Ganesh and the other statues of the deities present in the central room of the temple complex in a way that Christians do not do with statues of Jesus, Mary or the Cross.
Christian churches do not simply house statues where one might venerate God by venerating a statue/s. They host regular services, hymns, sermons, holy communions etc. Churches are not merely Temples, where one goes to venerate a statue of Jesus that symbolises God, offer him some food and then leave, Christians go there to celebrate God via singing, taking communion, listening to a sermon etc. And as has been pointed out before, the statue of Jesus represents the Jesus that has been revealed to us in the Bible and by the Holy Spirit. The Bible and the Holy Spirit have not (so far!) revealed Ganesh to me.
I take your point about cultural context, obviously the Hindu culture does not have the same problem with idolatry that Judeo-Christian-Muslim culture does. But given that Revd Hart understands the cultural context of Christianity, where idolatry is unacceptable (I wholeheartedly agree with Chesterbelloc and JillieRose's views on this), and Hinduism, where it is acceptable, he then tries to perhaps marry the two. From a traditional Christian perspective this is unnaceptable.
Perhaps he wishes to move Christianity on from it's traditional understanding of idolatry, and for it to become more like Hinduism. If so then fair enough, but he should explain himself to his congregants and to his superiors in the Anglican Church if so. Or if he wishes to convert to Hinduism, then perhaps he should do so.
To put it another way, he seems to be alot more flexible with his interpretation of what he can do as a Christian priest, than Christianity the religion (as per scripture, tradition) is.
His decision to accept Ganesh as a representation of the same God as the Christian God contradicts the Christian faith itself. And since he is a Minister of said faith, how can this contradiction be accepted as valid? If he weren't a Minister or a Christian, then it would be valid, but as a Minister of the Christian Church, it isn't, imo. I really feel it's as simple as that. Not because I'm trying to simplify things, but because the Christian religion itself has made this topic simple.
[ 31. August 2006, 22:22: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
--------------------
"A man who does not think for himself, does not think at all" Oscar Wilde
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Feast of Stephen
I have only been to one Hindu Temple, one in Neasden, North-west London. From what I observed there, I believe that most of the Hindus attending were venerating Ganesh and the other statues of the deities present in the central room of the temple complex in a way that Christians do not do with statues of Jesus, Mary or the Cross.
Are you talking of how statues, etc. are venerated, etc. in Britain? If so I’d agree with you but if you look how statues are venerated in other parts of Europe or Latin America or here in India then I’m not sure there is that much difference.
quote:
Christian churches do not simply house statues where one might venerate God by venerating a statue/s. They host regular services, hymns, sermons, holy communions etc. Churches are not merely Temples, where one goes to venerate a statue of Jesus that symbolises God, offer him some food and then leave, Christians go there to celebrate God via singing, taking communion, listening to a sermon etc.
In my community of faith we sit in silent waiting so again this is dependent. In most temples organised puja will occur at set times during the day.
quote:
Perhaps he wishes to move Christianity on from it's traditional understanding of idolatry, and for it to become more like Hinduism. If so then fair enough, but he should explain himself to his congregants and to his superiors in the Anglican Church if so. Or if he wishes to convert to Hinduism, then perhaps he should do so.
He may well have had conversations with his superiors about this; we certainly have no evidence to suggest that he hasn’t.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Afghan
Shipmate
# 10478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Welcome Afghan.
Thank you!
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And I agree very largely with your post. The only exception I can really see is mission. If I may give a political analogy, Democrats and Republicans should be people who can talk to one another, live together as neighbours, work together in the same places of work or on the same voluntary community projects. But come election time, its pretty unusual to find a Democratic working for the election of Republicans, and vice versa.
I don't know. This is tending towards a rather adversarial understanding of mission. Winning souls for Christ rather than bringing them to him. In bearing witness to what God has done for us, for explaining our reasons for believing as we do, we don't have to engage in a competitive sport. If nothing else, I simply don't see that approach is that effective. Helping someone to understand what it is to be a Christian is an end in itself. That requires us to observe and respect both the similarities and the differences. It probably requires us - if only out of courtesy - to try to understand what it is to be a Hindu.
And if they decide to convert on the basis of the understanding we help them to reach, they haven't lost. They've won.
--------------------
Credibile quia ineptum
Posts: 438 | From: Essex | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
I don't know. This is tending towards a rather adversarial understanding of mission. Winning souls for Christ rather than bringing them to him. In bearing witness to what God has done for us, for explaining our reasons for believing as we do, we don't have to engage in a competitive sport. If nothing else, I simply don't see that approach is that effective. Helping someone to understand what it is to be a Christian is an end in itself. That requires us to observe and respect both the similarities and the differences. It probably requires us - if only out of courtesy - to try to understand what it is to be a Hindu.
And if they decide to convert on the basis of the understanding we help them to reach, they haven't lost. They've won.
Fair point, Afghan. And it may get to some of the underlying differences of attitudes on this thread. A recent post referred to a book on the "myth of Christian uniqueness" and journeying towards a more pluralistic theology. Well, I don't know about that. There are of course plenty of moral, ethical and spiritual parallels to be found, but ISTM that Christianity is unique amongst world religions. I celebrate our distinctives - which is not rhe same as "putting down" anyone else. Its very difficult to avoid the accusation of competitiveness if
a) some Christians are actually being competitive
and/or
b) folks of other faiths see faith-sharing in that light.
In a way, I guess I "asked" for your response by my analogy. The point I was trying to make is that good neighbouring can very easily be a shared experience and opportunity involving people of different convictions. (A clear implication of the parable of the good Samaritan). Good neighbouring may lead to a closing of distance between folks of different convictions. But perhaps the most important modification of belief it seems likely to make is the challenge to the false belief that folks of different conviction are somehow natural enemies.
This does bring us pretty clearly to the difficult question of the ethics of mission in a multi-faith environment. I'm not entirely clear about methods - but in principle the social, moral and spiritual requirement to be a good neighbour do not preclude proclamation. Indeed, they seem likely to be a vital part of it. There is something profoundly important in the notion of earning the right to be heard. Also in the notion that actions may speak louder than words. In any case, at least in my understanding, conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. We are just messengers.
[ 01. September 2006, 08:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Also in the notion that actions may speak louder than words. In any case, at least in my understanding, conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. We are just messengers.
Yes, I so agree. I love the old Quaker adage:
Let your lives speak
As is said in AA the importance is not to talk the talk but to walk the walk.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
How much unpacking does the word "worship" really need?
More than you've given it by reaching for the dictionary...
IIRC the word "worship" has the same root as "worth". To worship someone or something is to attribute to them ultimate worth. Money (or sex or status or anything else) is your god if it is the thing that has most worth, the thing that is truly important, within your view of the world.
What or who has worth for Rev Hart ?
My reading of the situation is that he would answer "God". Is he devoted to Ganesh ? No - like you and I and everyone else in the west he believes that Ganesh has no more existence than Mickey Mouse.
If he uses an image of the fictional character Ganesh to focus his mind on God the Father for whom no visual image is enything like adequate, that's not worship of Ganesh. He thinks he's found a way of expressing his worship of God which fits in with the culture of the people around him.
I don't think you need to insist that God is against idol-worship; I imagine that everyone posting on this thread fully accepts that.
What's at issue here is the other part of your chain of reasoning - the part where you seem to assume that certain activities performed in front of a statue can have only one possible meaning in the mind of the person performing them.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
