Who is God?

I have no objection whatsoever to someone mentioning something they have done, why should I? However, when the same good deed/kindness/generous act is mentioned time and time again it does become somewhat wearing.

I agree with Bags everyone is entitled to their opinion but not to attribute opinions, which have not been written, to other people. I have not critiscised any beliefs, I have not said there is merit is suffering in silence, I have not said that it is wrong to say that one has done good works but all of these seem to have been suggested as my views! None of you knows my opinion about faith, or lack of it, but some of you seem to have made assumptions.

I do think it is a shame, and harmful to GN, to be unkind to others just because they have a different opinion to one's own. It is especially unpleasant if it is done as a deliberate act. I do hope that is not the case but it does feel like it to me.

alison

Um, nanadog, why do you feel the need to apologise for quoting Douglas
Adams? [completely puzzled emoticon]

Was it the 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' post? If so, in retrospect it might have been wiser to quote your source at the time!

Yes, but still no need to apologise. People who take offence when a view is expressed that they don't like are the ones who need to toughen up and stop it. I bet they'd take offence if I said I took offence at someone saying Jesus was the son of god. You cannot win, or discuss meaningfully, with people who take offence when you disagree with their views. That, of course, is the idea – close down discussion. Censorship.

Anagram can you clarify what you mean about it seeming rare for GNHQ to delete a regular member's post, please? We don't want more arguments because of a misunderstanding, and at the moment your post looks as though you are implying some unfair play between GNHQ and regular members. Is that what you are saying? If it is, I would want to be part of a corporate request for this to be investigated, as I am sure would other Gransnetters. Thanks.

It's more likely that regular members have learned from experience how to phrase their comments so as not to breach forum etiquette.

Another example of someone's post being misinterpreted, when.
By 'regular member' I include all of us who regularly post, as opposed to a completely new poster whose post is obviously malicious or is in fact advertising. I'm not quite sure what you mean by unfair play between GNHQ and regular members. Why would I be implying that? Am I not a regular member?

The second paragraph of your post would seem to bear out my point that few posts included in discussions or even arguments are, in fact, deleted.

Thanks for clarifying Anagram. Your post read ambiguously, but it's not fair to leap to the wrong conclusion. Maybe there is something in us all being reminded how to post politely

I second that when

Vampire while it is true that there have always been some power hungry nutters who have used a religion to further their own worldly ambitions, I'm not sure your take on the medieval church is strictly accurate. There's a lot in the OT about Justice and Righteousness and a great deal in the NT about equality 'He has put down the mighty from their seat and has exalted the humble and weak' for example. When Christians acted on this, you got popular liberation movements from the the Peasants' Revolt through the anti-slavery movement to Civil Rights in the US. Not all equally successful, but they tried. And often got zapped for trying.

And what about The preferential option for the poor, the great rallying cry of Liberation Theology?

Never heard of Liberation Theology. Can you tell us more?

Well, yes, but I'm afraid I would need far more space than is possible or appropriate here. It is a theology which was articulated by a group of priests and poor in South America. Its starting point is the perception of scandals such as one billion persons living in absolute poverty, more with no access to basic medical care, illiteracy and more generally, collective oppression injustice and the denial of human rights. It was born when faith confronted the injustice done to the poor, that is, the collective poor and those exploited by the capitalist system, the unemployed, those pushed aside by the production process, the migrant workers and so on. It articulates the need to go beyond 'aid' and reformism which simply seeks improvement but always within existing social relationships and structures. Deep change of structures are necessary. This view is developed and transformed into political and social action. You may remember Archbishop Romero who was murdered at his altar by agents of the government. His 'crime' was to attempt to change structures.

If anyone is interested they might like to read

Introducing Liberation Theology by Leonardo and Clodovis Boff.

MiceElf - thank you for the references - liberation theology is to be applauded. But we must remember that its ideals are not only those of people of faith, and I am sure it was not your intention to imply that (I'm tiptoeing a bit here, given the delicate nature of the foregoing discussions!). Many non-denominational/theological organisations and people work for similar aims to the benefit of us all.

Whilst I would be the first to agree that many of the tenets of Christianity are (as I understand it) about compassion, equality and concern for the poor and needy, sadly all religions are open to corruption by power seekers and in general this appears to be what happens.

However there is much in the OT which is contrary to these ideals.

My own opinion is that (given that we can be sure about nothing when it comes to the big questions in life) there is merit in steering clear of these corruptible organisations and, as many have said, concentrating on the challenging task of living as decent and kind life as possible.

bags I was accused of being the catalyst for all this unpleasantness by Jingl when I posted a mischievous quote, which with hindsight I ought to have acknowledged. Methinks the thread was destined to be explosive anyway, but heyho, my back is strong!

Any organisation is corruptible. The fact that it is secular is no safeguard. And members of faith organisations or faith-supported ditto have some additional motivation in that they believe they are serving a higher power as well as their fellow humans.

I certainly didn't want to suggest that the church has a monopoly of great ideas or aims. And indeed, all organisations are open to corruption by power seekers. However, I do not think that avoiding organisations, be it the church, a political party or voluntary organisation is the way to effect change. If one avoids becoming involved with organisations then it's possible to live ones own life well and according to one's principles, but it's only by organising and working together and collectively, that change happens.

For me, it's Liberation Theology and Feminist Theology (and a number of organisations such as Amnesty International, Mencap and Marie Curie) which enable me to move outside my own life and family and do my small bit to try, at least, to make the world a better place.

For those without a religious belief it will be other organisations and structures which give a shape and inspiration to their lives.

The OT of course is a collection of books consisting of chronicles, proverbs and poems, myths and so on which are the writings of a group of people living in the Middle East centuries ago. They can be, and are interpreted in many ways, but a fundamentalist reading is not helpful, I think.

Posting politely and unambiguously is, it seems what we should be striving for if we do not wish to cause hurt, offence and discord.
I do apologise Alison if I completely misinterpreted your posts - I know it is hard sometimes to stop and re-read and see what others might be perceiving from one's words.
It is clear though that the virtues of humility and suffering have both been very strong themes in Christianity through the ages - so no reason why someone would not be putting forward such views on a thread about religion.

Not sure what you mean by the last bit of your last post, MiceElf. Justice (whatever it's called) is such a strong theme in both the OT and the NT that I think it has to be taken as very important. Another different and interesting consideration is the extent to which the humanist views of many modern secularists have been influenced by the Christian tradition. Although I accept that 'Do as you would be done by' is pretty universal.

Yes, Lilygran you are right. It's so difficult to develop a point in a few words. Indeed there are great themes running through the OT - the oppressed poor in slavery in Egypt, for example. But there are also some pretty horrific stories of vengeance and murder. It was a fundamentalist, literal interpretation, decontextualised, that I was attempting to point to in response to Mishap's comment.

The Church taught that things happened because God willed it. So if you were born a serf then that was because God had decided you were to be a serf and if you were born a king then again that was God's decision.

There was a simbiotic relationship between the secular and religious powers. The Church helped keep the king in power and the king rewarded the Church with lands and wealth.

Thank you JessM for your apology. I know some people find it hard to admit they may have made a mistake but you are not one of them.

vampireq some interpretations of mediaeval European society would suggest that the church hierarchy was modelled on that of society, not the other way round. And the church provided food and care for the poor, healing and care for the sick, education for all ranks of society and a path out of poverty for both sexes. Some bad things have been done in the name of the church, we don't need to misrepresent the rest of it.

You are quite right, lily, but I find the correlation between the increase in secularism in "the West" and the decrease in poverty interesting. In those places where religion still holds more sway there is still, in many if not most cases, massive poverty of the masses. It is only an observed correlation, admittedly.

*Lilygran, it is true to say that humanism owes much to the Judaeo Christian tradition in Europe. As I humanist, I wouldn't deny it. I call myself a Christian Humanist because I accept the ethics of the New Testament but reject the metaphysics of religion. I think (but can't find the reference) that even Richard Dawkins would accept this.