In his remembrance day message this morning, our minister Robin Gamble at holy trinity idle described a visit to the Somme and referred to the inscription to all the men who had died unidentified, simply ‘known unto God’. a powerful moving thought. It also brings to mind a reason john piper in ‘desiring God’ gives for believing in heaven and eternity, that he finds it inconceivable that something as beautiful, complex and mysterious as the human personality, should at death simply cease to exist. Like the suggestion that there can be no ultimate or purpose or meaning in life because no God, the idea that death is the end, kaput, that’s it, is the kind of assertion made by atheists that stretches credulity because it flies in the face of what our deepest intuition suggests to us. The atheist of course can and does respond that this is a mere comfort blanket, that the believer is taking refuge in a delusion. But this is where the broad picture needs to be surveyed: the evidence that God has communicated, and the experiential testimony that he does prove faithful and meet need.
Robin also delineated three broad stages in the bible’s portrayal of and thinking about war: the accounts of apparently pretty blood thirsty behaviour in the early OT, around 3 and a half thousand years ago when the Israelites were carving out a place for themselves, and when cultural norms were very different. But then the later OT, the prophets, when a consciousness emerged in the jewish nation that they were called to model a radical peace - ‘swords into ploughshares’… culminating in the high point of Christ’s ethical teaching of forgiveness and love even for enemies. The question is, does this model of an evolving ethical consciousness have to conflict with the idea of a God who is eternally the same? Progressive revelation?
Saw some of the secret life of berlin on beeb 2 last night, about the years leading up to the fall of the wall. Struck by the prominent role of the churches in stimulating a peaceful revolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
10 comments:
A few brief points
referred to the inscription to all the men who had died unidentified, simply ‘known unto God’.
I have to say that I find this both patonising and sickening. It puts everyone who died under the banner of your god - irrespective of what they believed - or did not believe. Such is the insensitive arrogance of religion
for believing in heaven and eternity, that he finds it inconceivable that something as beautiful, complex and mysterious as the human personality, should at death simply cease to exist.
This is not an argument! Is this the same beautiful thing that the bible tells us is corrupt and deserving of death?
Is it the same beautifl thing that can rain down burning death from above? I really am taken back at the lack of reality shown here
the kind of assertion made by atheists that stretches credulity because it flies in the face of what our deepest intuition suggests to us.
Such self important arrogance! What does intuition have to do with it? Not only does reason compell me to be an atheist, but I also fee there is no god - would you accept my feeling as evidence?
The atheist of course can and does respond that this is a mere comfort blanket, that the believer is taking refuge in a delusion. But this is where the broad picture needs to be surveyed: the evidence that God has communicated, and the experiential testimony that he does prove faithful and meet need.
Sorry Bruce, which god are you talking about again? You just decribed what believers in all the other gods you dont believe in say too.
Robin also delineated three broad stages in the bible’s portrayal of and thinking about war:
You clearly are not reading the same bible as me - it was you god who commanded all the attrocities in the OT - wake up and see it how it really is!
No doubt, you will get back to me and provide some justification of your views
cheers billy, i'll do my best to, or at least build a response into future posts. thanks at least for reading tho, i did check out ur blog recently. sometimes i'm in a bit of a hurry writing a post, i never mean to sound patronising or arrogant!!
Or as the priest at the service I attended suggested : his prayer was that the sacrifice of all those who have died in war might in christ become a means of peace...
Billy would you like to point out the multitude of errors in this ?
Billy would you like to point out the multitude of errors in this
Would you like to point out what is right with it? The prayer is just absurd - how is jesus going to do that? Remember, free will excuses for the non action of god in the presence of evil.
That would also require interaction - some thing you kind of argue agaoinst with your vague notion of god.
To introduce any sort of religion to rememberance is not actually remembering the fallen. It is puting an agenda on it.
The men in frocks should STF up!
Many of us would like an end to war, but nonsense like this does absolutely nothing. How nice of your minister to respect the muslims who have died in Iraq with his talk of Jesus.
can't respond right now, but i think i was a bit TOO apologetic in my last comment, billy ur being thoroughly unreasonable!! :)
Bruce, it is about remembering the fallen. Hijacking it to put a religious spin on it is thouroughly disgusting. Lumping the unknown in with your god is narrow-sighted and disrespectful. Why cant you just remember the people without resorting to this mockery? The people who died had a variety of beliefs and values, yet here, you seem to be saying that your beliefs are the only valid one? How is that honouring anyone?
Would you feel it appropriate to group them together as "known unto Allah"?
billy, the point of the phrase 'known unto God', what makes it moving, is simply the acknowledgement that each one's life had significance, that like the fall of a sparrow as jesus put it, it did not go unnoticed or uncared for by the One who underpins the universe. now fair enough you may not believe in God, but neither the phrase itself nor what i said ties its import solely to the christian view of God. i'm sure if you asked a thoughtful muslim he'd find it moving too.
i do think sometimes like here you interpret what's said through your own spectacles and not v objectively or fairly. that's my view anyway :)
Bruce, that just doesn't wash. If they are important, then just say so. Don't use it a an opportnity to say that your god cares for them. This is also an absurd thing to claim cosidering the hell on earth many went through. The extended implication of what you have said is that they are under the judgement of your god - cant you see that?
There is also a possible implication that you may think that you need god to think of people as important. I hope this is not so.
As for the sensible muslim thing - well, this is the no true scotsman fallacy - if the muslim does not agree with you, then you deem him to be an unsensible muslim. It didn't answer the question of whether you thought "known unto Allah" would be appropriate (where like in christianity, infidels go to hell)
Hi Billy,
Do Muslims only refer to God as Allah? I've heard them say God myself. Is it not you making the assumptions about God here? It all depends on how you interpret things. You could have the same argument from a woman complaining of the masculine use of the word God. But God is love.
Carl, I thought my use of Allah was pretty obvious, but let me clarify. The term "Allah" implies a totally different deity to the christian one. No where did I say muslims only use the term Allah. I have heard Muslims say god too, but you can resr assured that they do not mean the christian god. I hope that clarifies things for you
Post a Comment