One problem which I have with nearly all of the so called 'World' religions is that they mostly claim that God made man in his own image. Could it not have been the other way around ? Even the Eastern religions place mankind on a pedestal eg. only people can become enlightened, why ? Why should God have created any sort of hierarchy ? If God is not, in fact, human then we have a big problem coming in the event of a judgement day. Another problem is that of scripture - how can the same books be interpreted in so many different ways ? How is it that the Protestant founders of the USA. saw the accumulation of wealth as being a sign of God's blessing ? Yet at the other extreme the first experiments in Communism had a religious background (and, no, the dream of communal living, and property held in common is far older than Marx - having roots in the Bible, the Khoran and in the Jewish tradition - the first welfare state was created by the first Moslem Caliph). How is it that the same book inspired the inquisition, but later many of the great social reformers of the 19th century ? The other problem which I have is when so many people repeat the dogma that religion and politics should be rigidly separated. If a person is a believer then this will influence his political opinions. The original Labour Party owed more to Methodism than it did to Marx. Religion cannot be a 'private' thing, because even the commandments of your respective religion deal with your interaction with the rest of society - and are thus, by definition, public. A complete separation of religion from state is only possible in a country where most people are atheists, otherwise the state must make laws which reflect back the religions found in that state. A person who belongs to one of the World religions lives by 2 systems of laws - those of his religion and those of his state - and if the 2 are in conflict then those of his religion will prevail (because God, otherwise known as the peeping Tom in the sky) sees everything, whereas the state doesn't - he also has many more 'punishment' possibilities. So the state has to avoid placing religious people in this dilemma.
Good post Cologne. In addition - if, as different religions have claimed for centuries, they were the one true religion then that makes the others false. That is a bit of a pity for anyone who happens to be born in part of the world where that particular religion is non existent. So has god arranged a world where the majority are born to not have the benefit of the one true religion. That is made all the worse if there is an after life punishment for not being a true believer.
If a person claims to have found the 'one true religion' then he has missed the point of what spirituality is. With spirituality there is no 'arrival', only a journey - and just as the scientist is always looking for evidence along his journey, so, the spiritual person is always looking for signs along his - the only difference being that they are non empirical ones. But in both cases there is no arrival as such. This is why Gandhi claimed to be a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Moslem, a Jew and a Christian all in one - because he was on a path where 'arrival' was not the goal. A really spiritual person would know that the ultimate truth cannot be found only in one dead book - a few signs maybe, but nothing more than that. Language cannot describe the infinite World - it cannot even describe nature accurately. When a person says that he belongs to this or that religion (and in so doing denies the others) then he has moved further away from religiosity than the most confirmed atheist.
Unfortunately the "I am right, you are wrong" mentality has been prevalent for most of recorded history. Once you "sign up" to a religion then you are saying you accept their teachings. Christ cannot be both what Christians believe him to be and what Muslims believe - it is either / or. To say I am a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim denies some of the teachings at least of other faiths and so makes them incorrect. That in essence is a major problem of "religion". However spirituality is entirely different. A person who seeks spiritual values is looking for pointers everywhere and can accept parts of "truth" from many religions.
I think you are being a little unfair to the 3 Abrahamic religions Leo. There are as many sects within Islam as there are amongst Christians - also these vary from mosque to mosque, many allow marriage between their members and Christians as they mostly see Christians as being people of the book. Jesus is mentioned in the Khoran, and his teachings are included within it - he is seen as a major prophet. The only thing which Moslems will not accept is that he was the son of God. But how important is this for most Christians today ? Is it possible to be a Christian without believing this ? The truth is that many Quakers manage exactly that. As to whether it is possible to be a Christian and a Moslem at the same time - I am not sure of this, but with some interpretations it may be possible.
Certainly not trying to be unfair to any religion - after all they are just something that people believe or don't. However it is undeniable that Christians, Jews and Muslims share one god and yet have been at war with each other for centuries. Also agree that within all three there are vast schisms and splits which themselves have caused bloodshed on an intolerable scale. (I do not overlook the good that also has come from all of them). I think you underestimate the importance of Christ to Christianity versus the view from Islam. They view him as Christians do earlier prophets as to them that is what he was. For Christians though Mohammed has no place whatsoever. I do not quite understand the position held by some modern Christians. Either he was or was not the son of god and did or did not rise from the dead - but if you deny most of the received wisdom about him then why exactly do you use the bible as your book of choice? Quakers themselves are in a slightly anomalous position - are they or are they not Christians? Do they or do they not believe in a personal and "participatory" god. Does it matter to outsiders? The details of what beliefs groups do or do not subscribe to are up to them it seems to me. Catholics used to believe that at Holy Communion the wine and wafer literally turn into the blood and body of Christ - I am sure many still do - but does the Pope - is it required? A question not for me but for a Catholic I guess. I am sure that if you take a laid back liberal position you can define your self as a mixture of many beliefs - whether or not the hard core supporters of one of them would accept you is another question.
Reading the bible as your book of choice does not mean accepting every single part of it in equal degree. Most people who call themselves Christians have not read the book in its entirety - there are, for example, at least 20 passages in it which refer to communality of possessions as the right way for Christians to live. Passages which have certainly been conveniently ignored by most. There are not only different sects within each religion, but also very different levels of belief, and I think there must be many Christians around who feel it is enough to live by his teachings - but do not necessarily believe in such things as a virgin birth. Nore do they find it necessary to believe that their saviour needed to perform wonders like walking on water, or turning it into wine (anathema to most Moslems) in order to get himself noticed.
I think you are focusing on a very modern view of Christianity. Apart from the fact that I suspect 90 something percent of Christians were brought up in the faith and did not adopt it as a book of choice, for centuries they could not read it or write about it but relied on the clergy for its message. Until very recently a fairly literal interpretation was standard. Parts were conveniently overlooked, other parts were used to get conformity but certainly the average Joe did not pick and choose. The Bible was studied as scholars do - certainly in the times of the Reformation. To suggest anyone could interpret it as they wished was literally heresy.
Not necessarily modern Leo, the Catholic church has always picked and chosen what it wanted from the bible - they always glossed over the bit about 'It being harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle'. In fact there was one Pope (13th Century) who ordered that effigies and pictures of Jesus should be made with him wearing a purse dangling from the waist - thus showing that Jesus approved of private property - this happening at a time when the Benedictines and followers of Fra Dolcino were preaching poverty as the only Christian course open to the Church. They have always tried to neutralize parts of the bible for their own benefit in this way.
But that is my point - the Church set what people believe - the people could not even read a bible as it was not in their language - they relied on clerical teachings. I am not saying the church has not used the message to its own ends.
What was a problem of the past for Christians is, unfortunately, a current problem for many Moslems. Translations of the Khoran are still frowned upon - although there are extensive translations into Turkish, Urdu and Persian the only country where classical Arabic is not used in the Mosques is in Iran. Only around 17% of all Moslems are Arabs and of those around 90% speak spoken dialects of Arabic which are markedly different to that found in the Khoran - most Moslems worldwide recite long passages in the mosques in a language which they can pronounce but not understand. It is safe to assume that most of those who have gone to IS belong to this number. Moving on from this Leo, if I may. How far is it legitimate for churches to express political opinions, or to act in a political way ? At present there are 222 Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany giving sanctuary to 411 refugees who are threatened with deportation (under the Dublin agreement). If they step outside the limits of their sanctuary they will be arrested - but there is no German policeman or government which would violate this sanctuary. Does this still exist in England ?
First -I don't know the answer to your question and am not sure that "sanctuary" has any legal support in the UK. I am pretty sure police have entered at the very least Mosques in a terrorist quest. However actually the concept of Sanctuary in a religious place does appeal to me as an idea. I would not like to see it as compulsory - but if those responsible for the religious place agreed to give sanctuary and no threat were made to anyone then it is mostly harmless. A bit like the use of Embassies. On the wider issue I think religion and politics are inextricably mixed. Nobody could claim Jesus acted a-politically. However I believe the state should be secular - nowadays not least because of multiple faiths and non faith. If a church or member of a church though acts in a political way then they should be subject to the same laws as others and no special favours should be given to them due to faith alone. I would not have bishops in the Lords. Actually I would not have Lords in the Lords. Actually I would not have the House of Lords
First, it's great to see serious debate on here without resort to insult and stereotyping, so I'll take a hesitant step back into the arena Personally I've never believed there's a god and while I understand and use the word spirituality it's not a concept that lends itself easily to verbal explanations. For me it's hard to pin down, but music, art, literature, landscape and the relationship I have with the people I love bring experiences which are uplifting but which words can't do justice to. As for churches and politics, any church is only the product of the individuals within it and each of them is free to express a point of view. I find it less comfortable if a significant church leader appears to be using their position to suggest that all believers should follow their political lead, but then I suppose they are free to ignore it. It's probably a question of how much the religion elevates its leader. Are they merely figure heads or are followers expected to accept their wisdom without question? The question of sanctuary is an interesting one. In states where there is widespread persecution of those whose views oppose the government it would be welcome. If it were the UK and was granted to those facing deportation it would probably not win much public support, though it might draw attention to individual cases where circumstances suggested the judgement had not taken full account of the facts.
As far as I know the question of church sanctuary disappeared in England during the time of Henry the 8th. Previously it had been given to anyone wanted by the law as long as he had not killed anyone, and as long as he had commited no crimes on religious grounds. But I cannot recall a case of it being legally used since the 16th Century. In some other countries it is different and the separation of church and state operates in both directions ie. they do not meddle in politics and you do not interfere with their inner doings. The sovereign authority of the German government ends when within the Cologne Cathedral - authority there lies with the Archbishop of Cologne. His authority stems from the Vatican - so is the interior of the cathedral considered as part of the Vatican ? I honestly don't know. The exterior is renovated using state money (because few tourists would come here without it). Will the rules of asylum apply also to the huge central mosque being planned for the city (paid for from Turkey) ? In England asylum has no legal status, but I think that if a criminal ran into a church then an English bobby would stop, scratch his head, and await orders before doing anything. Interestingly the German asylum rules (which are not official, but are still observed) - were even observed by the Nazis (they pretended it didn't happen). The first chancellor after the War, Konrad Adenauer, spent his war years in the monastery of Maria Laach. Nobody wants to see top figures in the church saying 'how' you should vote - and they don't do it, just as the Queen doesn't (but the Sun and the Mirror do ?). Yet they are free to criticize the government if they consider its actions to be anti Christian eg. with refugees, or if engaged in war. But if sanctuary is considered as being outside of the realm of secular government then which other things are also purely internal church matters - are they eg. allowed to pay their employees under the minimum wage, because their premises are outside of the secular hand ?
Church leaders may don't say how anyone should vote but when they publicly identify with or oppose policies they may do so by implication. While I can imagine circumstances in which I might see sanctuary as a valuable protection for the vulnerable, I think the law of the land must be observed everywhere. So it's hard to see how sanctuary can be more than a temporary position, allowing an individual case longer consideration.
Yes - spirituality cannot really have a definition can it? For me though certain things do the equivalent of creating a tingle down the spine. Sometimes that could be an art form, more often though, a view or other experience generally with nature - and never least viewing the stars. All seem to create a difference of perspective between something "enormous" and little old us. I do like the idea of Sanctuary -even for someone who is accused of committing some horrible crime. I like the idea that a church will take a god's eye perspective and not judge the person - leave that to their god to do. If the person in some ways abuses the sanctuary given the church should be able to withdraw it - that knowledge could keep those offering sanctuary more safe. I have no sympathy for those who would not approve of sanctuary for asylum seekers etc - sanctuary should be above petty political squabbles. Ultimately it would be limited by the ability of the church /community to provide what is required - state aid would not be granted to those in sanctuary. A person in sanctuary is effectively in a benign gaol
I see the church as in a similar position in giving its opinion as say a Union. It's opinion can be given but those hearing it will judge from what stance it comes and hear it accordingly. If the church were to think it had a special status in giving opinion then I would disagree. I would not consider sanctuary as outside the law - more as a location where an individual were unable to be taken by civil authority. The laws of the land would apply in every other respect to church property.
Not sure about the last part Leo. In England it may be different - but in other countries, where there was no dissolution of the monasteries,and other church lands, different laws may apply. Just as the Vatican City is not subject to the laws of the land (ie. Italy), the same may be said for property which is under the authority of those ordained by the Vatican. Sorry to go back to my old example, but I don't think the interior of eg. Cologne Cathedral is subject to the laws of Germany - subject to international laws yes, at least those pertaining to human rights. I also like the idea of church sanctuary - but should other religious groups have the same right ? In the Netherlands this would be the case because every religion with more than 5% of the population as adherants has the status of a state religion there, and asylum there is possible in a church, mosque or synagogue.
I'm not getting involved in the religious debate, I've done my time arguing with ardent religious people and I don't think this forum is the best place to do it. Cologne, how do you tie up your beliefs with the hatred of gay people and abortion? This is a fundamental part of the teachings of most religions. Is it fair to hate/discriminate against people because of their sexuality or their (potentially awful) life choices? As an advocate of diminishing the human population for green reasons, how can you support an entity which requires every fertilised egg to be as important (or less in some cases) as living people (who believe in the correct faith). I'm all for people believing in the guidelines of religion, as they all have their ups and downs, but they are, in essence, divisive and alienating to most of the population.
