Else the temptation, as in revelationism, is to imagine that it is especially his role to reveal God the Parent when in fact he needs quite as much to be revealed as the Parent does. Conversely, neither is she the dependent God the Child who became one of us. Nor is that her claim. Excessive speculation about her inner- trinitarian relations risks invading her privacy but also distorting her inner- worldly image. She proceeds usward, toward the slavish orphans, with the gift of their own new childhood, starting with their faith.
In that faith lies their image, self-image as well as God-image. Else not at all. It requires little imagination to guess where she or Paul got that term of endearment for the divine Parent.
For Jesus very much had a mother, Mary. The one father he acknowledged, the only one he promised to others, is God the Father. But there is little enthusiasm for that, at least publicly. That pathos is hard to conceal and should not be trivialized, least of all by patriarchalists. But then that is not only humbling for all other, unreliable fathers or parents generally. It is at least as humbling for them as sons and daughters, as those who are to do the relying.
For in the suspenseful story of the Trinity, the one Father on whom God the Child is expected to rely, and wondrously does rely, would defy the confidence of even the most trusting human child. He has died of natural causes, or by suicide, or in the wars of the century. With the disintegration of the nuclear family, the symbol of the father as a dominant, or domineering, presence is fading away.
Whole sections of our nation are living in fatherless homes as a result of death, illegitimacy, divorce or abandonment. Even when he is physically present in the household, the father may be spiritually absent, separated from his children by the acceleration of the historical process in our time, particularly true in an advanced technological society and one with large immigrant enclaves. Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith , trans. Mackintosh and J. Stewart, 2d ed.
Edinburgh: T. Clark, , , Philip Clayton, Dialog 26 : Raymond E. Letty M.
Leonard Swidler Philadelphia: Westminster Press, , The book that in English has perhaps been most used recently to provide a trinitarian basis for a communitarian ethic is Jurgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom trans. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics trans.
Bromiley et al. Karl Barth, The Humanity of God , trans. Thomas and Thomas Wieser Richmond, Va. Cited in J. Rusch Philadelphia: Fortress Press, , Formula of Concord in The Book of Concord , trans. Theodore Tappert Philadelphia: Fortress Press, , Dorothy L. Eerdmans, , Athanasius, Orations , in The Trinitarian Controversy , trans.
Rusch, , , Rusch, ; and J. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines , Rusch, Richard A. Norris, Jr. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, , , Nestorius, Second Letter to Cyril , trans. Norris, Sandra M. William D. Watley Princeton, N. Walter J. Burghardt New York: Paulist Press, , These two works I find largely convincing. I hope that this does not sound like I am being defensive. Maybe a better understanding can be obtained by each of us being willing to address our fears. My own fear is to do with being bullied by those with a strong belief system. If their beliefs dictate my life in way that I find wrong, then my very existence might be threatened.
So I reject those beliefs. For the person with strong beliefs, there might be a fear of being proved mistaken in those beliefs. A scientific explanation is too rational, tiresome, obvious in the light of reasoning, yet inconvenient. Our survival instincts kick in to try and protect us from criticism, because we feel threatened. This, I suggest that the human yet instinctive reactions are common to all of us, believer and non-believer alike.
Understanding this might lead to less-defensive discussion. Gwenneth Leane: Your second comment indicates that you believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal talking snake. Clearly the gulf between our beliefs is too great to be bridged. My perspective is based on science. Venkatachan: I appreciate hearing from you.
I reported on the science. The conclusion was that the feeling that a Higher Power exists is an illusion. I explained what produces that illusion. Science can not explain everything, as I said, but that does not mean that the answer to the unanswered questions is God however you define God did it.
Catherine, I am very pleased with your take of this belief in God. You described it beautiful comparing with interesting facts of science and biology. It is true that Science can not explain everything. There are so many issues at which science fails and faith persists. It can not deny the existence of some Supreme Power behind all those wonders of the universe. Thank you Paula.
I'm glad to know that I am helpful to you. I have never been in your position. I hope Wathey's book can help you clarify some things. Go directly to the lat two chapters where he talks directly to believers and tries to help them deal with their conflict.
Then go back to the beginning. The author explains things so clearly. God did not wait thousands of years, he had a relationship with Adam and Eve but they used their freewill and chose to listen to another voice and broke the relationship. God then made covenants, he used men as prophets, and kings but the freedom to choose meant that these systems failed. Finally, God said, 'I will send my son, surely they will not reject him. But Today, some reject Jesus and some don't, nothing has changed in one sense.
During Old Test.
In the New Test. It is mind boggling that anyone could love to the extent of covering overlooking, wipe out the kind of rejection aimed at God. The book of Hebrews in the New Test. Hi Catherine Thank you for the fascinating critique of Wathey's book. Belief in God is Universal and persistent. Yet, despite it all for decades, I'm also convinced because of my incredibly high IQ, I doubted, questioned, searched and could not settle for what I'd been told.
It all seemed bigger than myself if you understand what I'm trying to say As a result, I have suffered immeasurably, feeling as though I have little control on the push-pull I'm getting into too much depth here, but somehow, I believe you can truly understand.
Becoming God's Children: Religion's Infantilizing Process [M. D. Faber] on alakovyzir.ga *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. M. D. Faber presents a. Editorial Reviews. Review. " compelling new arguments in the favor of scientific thought are Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ alakovyzir.ga
I, for one, thank you for your work. You and Paladin are 2 of my favorites. Peace, Paula. Thanks Lyn: I think the book I discuss just made everything I know about cognitive science and everything I know about religion to just come together with a loud click.. Thank you Paladin for the details of Fatima. I knew the whole thing was bogus, but I didn't have the details at hand. Clive Williams: The universe was not create by man--but that doesn't mean that God did it.
People will always believe in God because they have no knowledge of total existence. The Earth, the Firmament, the soul, the ocean is all a mystery. It was not created by man then Actually, I'm somewhat familiar with the supposed "miracle" of Fatima, and there's nothing to suggest that anything "miraculous" happened there.
The basics of the event are that a group of small children were supposedly visited by the Virgin Mary, who was supposed to then appear at Fatima on a certain day. She did "appear," of course, but for some strange reason, was visible ONLY to the children who started the whole racket in the first place -- NOT to any of the thousands of adults who were there in waiting.
What people DID see was a cloudy day after a rain playing tricks with the sun, which was interpreted a hundred different ways by those who were there I can even provide a link to pictures of this perfectly ordinary sky, if anyone's interested. The only thing out of the ordinary about this otherwise humdrum day was that it occurred in the middle of World War I. So the visitors to Fatima, exhausted by years of war, death and destruction, were desperate for some ray of light in the darkness. What they got was just another rainy day. But apologists continue to cite the event as something extraordinary.
Ho hum. There are no real miracles. I thought I was clear about that. If not, there is nothing more I can say, so let's consider this conversation concluded. Jack Lee: You are getting off topic. I explain miracles as 1 misinterpretation of perfectly natural events and 2 stories having more and more mythical "facts" added as they get repeated, 3 fraud, and 4 the willingness, and even yearning, to believe that a miracle has occurred. Catherine, I am an engineer and a scientist by training. I have personally witnessed small miracles that cannot be easily explained away. Also, how do you explain an event at Fatima?
I can't think of one scientific explanation that will suffice. Jack Lee: I explain miracles as misinterpretation of events. Our brains create miracles when they fail to understand science, math like the probability of coincidences , cosmology, biology, etc. Not everything is self-evident at a glance. By the way, if you do read the book "Sapiens," you will find it a very easy read. Complex ideas are made very simple. Slarty O'Brian, interesting theory on your part but them how do you explain miracles?
Our brain, as powerful as it is, cannot create miracles. We can only experience it and try to explain it. The reason I bring up the supernatural is that it does play an important role in religion. Miracle events do happen and is still happening today. Science has not been able to address them adequately.
If it wasn't for religion, they would have to come up with some other name to explain these events. Paladin: Thank you for letting me know that you enjoyed my "book review. You are right about "cutting the fat". The book is pages long. I finished it months ago, but I kept putting off writing this essay because it seemed like it would be too difficult to explain his work in words. I barely skimmed the surface, but I am glad that I was able to provide enough information to enable you to understand the gist of his research.
Jack Lee: I agree. Religion may be necessary. The "social root" as I explained was needed to keep order as humans moved beyond the village into large communities. Also, I have never denied that religion gives people comfort, security, and purpose. I have tried to show that these feelings come from human biology and not from a supernatural entity that some call God.
I am reading another very interesting book, "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari. The author shows shows how our shared beliefs allowed for human progress. I recommend that this book be read either before or after Wathey's book. Thank you FlourishAnyway for your compliments. I don't think non-beleiers are lacking a gene, although I sometimes use that expression as a metaphor. I think that somewhere in our life we learned to use reason to understand ourselves and the world around us.
I guess it is possible that our brain "wiring" is a little less strong. I have never felt "the presence of God. Alan: "The Illusion of God's Presence" was a real eye-opener for me too as I try to understand why religion has such a powerful hold on people. I don't think non-believers are missing the gene.
Wathey says he felt the "presence of God" twice in his life when he was under severe stress. It didn't turn him into a believer. It motivated him to research and write this book in order to understand that feeling. Gwenneth Leane: I appreciate your comment. Your comment illustrates the point I was making. It feels so natural to believe in God because our neurobiology predisposes us to believe.
If Christianity is the one true religion, why did God wait so many thousands of years to reveal it to mankind? The "sun-worshipers" were just as sure that their religion was the one true religion. I believe it is. We are made in the likeness of God, so in a sense we are part of him and that is why society seeks a religion of some sort.
Society must have a God to worship. In my opinion being ;born again' is not becoming a baby again it is being made over as if we'd never sinned,' Which means we cannot displease God, it means we still have a freewill to choose how we will live. The sacrifice of God's son Jesus is not an example of what God expects from us but an example of God's love to overlook our rejection of him and restore the relationship between him and the believer. It is easy to place Christianity on a level with a sun-worshiper or another sect.
Christianity becomes just another religion. It is the relationship between a person and God that is the issue. The real issue is a personal relationship with God. The relationship is not about what we can do for God and trying to make ourselves better and please him, it is accepting what he has don for us and has made us that counts. I suggest reading a reputable version of the bible would answer many questions. Excellent and fascinating account. Lots of food for thought.
Helps me to be much less critical of avid Christians. Thank you! This was a superbly written article and raised fascinating questions. There are research studies that suggest that religiosity is at least in part genetically linked. I didn't get that gene but my siblings did even though our parents are both non religious. It is a story in which fictional characters with various motives and traits work through the obstacles between themselves and their goals. It is a theatrical showcase that can entertain and inspire audiences with its plot, music, and the performances of the singers and actors.
It is neither a sermon nor a profession of Christian faith. Santa Barbara: Praeger, Graham Robb. Victor Hugo: A Biography. New York: W. Norton, Beautifully written, Michael…but, as you might have guessed, I disagree — at least in part. Before the Creator we ARE infantile, whatever our protestations to the contrary. I have not read Ms. These things said, I will continue to read you with respect and affection. Skip to content.