The main tenet of Christian doctrine?

Christian Humanist sounds interesting.

I shall discuss it with my friend the vicar when I see him for lunch later today.

jO5. I may not always agree with you, but I'm with Ariadne, Nightowl and petallus on this one.

I was brought up in the Church of Scotland and knew (still know) the Bible fairly well. According to St Paul: 'If Christ is not risen, then is your faith vain'. Which means that to him at least the resurrection was what validated all the teachings of Jesus and the doctrines of the early church. And, as I cannot believe in the physical resurrection - and that belief is part of the Apostles' Creed - but willingly follow the ethical teachings of Jesus, I call myself a Christian Humanist.

Thank you Ariadne, nightowl and petallus. And the two posters who PM'd me. You've made me feel better.

Was just a bit of a shock last night.

Nor me, jingl.

I can't believe it either jO5

Bags I've just noticed you recommended a book on Richard 111.

Thanks!

I've downloaded a sample on my Kindle.

I'm not surprised you can't believe it jO5.

The remark was, in my opinion, unjustified and rude.

I have just seen a remark dorsetpent made about me on here.

I can't bel;ieve oit.

It's a bit like those who say they ask themselves when faced with a dilemma - "What would Jesus do?". You can imagine or guess what he or anyone else would do, but how can you really know?

Yes, always making the correct ethical decision is hard, but it's mainly because things which require ethical decisions are complicated and it isn't always clear what is right, or righter, than something else. If god's will were 'quite clear' that wouldn't be a problem — it would always be clear what was the right thing to do. It isn't therefore god's will is not clear either.

Not that I believe there is such a thing as god's will, but even supposing there was.... the idea simply doesn't work.

I'm sure you do, Mishap. The second point I think I already covered in saying that there's a sizeable literature on it. And my comment was a little frivolous. The fact is that human beings can't possibly understand or envisage God and so imagine a variety of persons they can.

Leading a good life is a challenge for non-believers too lilygran and we care just as much about it. I am sure you realise that.

If god is made in man's image, how can you work out what god wants? - presumably he/she wants what man wants, if god is a human projection.

This is a genuine attempt to clarify belief, not a dig at anyone. It has been heartening to see how this thread has for the most part been conducted with respect on either side. Well done g'netters!

Of course God/ gods are made in man's image - that's because of human limitations. And I don't think the problem is in working out what God wants. The problem is following it. Being 'good' all the time, always doing the ethical thing, making the right decision is very hard work. And it's much easier to do what one wants. I speak as one who fails all the time. Often people who don't feel they can believe say how comforting it must be to have faith ('the opium of the people'). Well, yes. But also demanding.

crimson Yes, I did watch that series about how much light there was in the "dark ages" It was fascinating, not least about the amount contributed by Islam and the Norse legends.

The images of the early church were of Christ coming physically in majesty to rescue mankind. At that time they believed that the end of the known world and the final judgement were imminent, so they were working tirelessly to convert and save as many people as they could. The Christ they needed was a charismatic leader who would take them forward in a political way as well as a spiritual one. The artistic models were the classical statues of Greece and Rome.

It was when time went by with no cataclysmic second coming, but plenty of trouble and persecution from the establishment, who did not want to be abolished in favour of some provincial (and supposedly dead) preacher, that the emphasis changed to a spiritual leader who would change the inner life, not the outer one, and set an example of self-sacrifice.

I ageee, mishap, that a person may think/believe that god's will is perfectly clear to them. But they do need to remember that that's only a personal opinion and nothing more.

If god's will were 'quite clear', there would only be one religion but history shows that different cultures have generated different religions with different numbers of gods, let alone gods' wills. This alone suggests to a logical mind that religions are manmade, not godmade.

vq - it is simpler to presuppose the non-existence of god than to get bogged down in all those questions, to which there are no answers. Assuming that it is unlikely that there is a god explains a lot.

We can still do our best to live honestly and kindly even though "the concepts of doing no harm and doing good are open to interpretation" as petallus says.

I love the image of Jesus as a beautiful young boy.

Going back a few posts but, Elegran did you watch that wonderful recent series about the Art of the Dark Ages? The first programme showed the changing depiction of Christ over the centuries starting out, as you mentioned as a beautiful young boy? I found it fascinating.

I don't think God knows what he wants. He sends vague messages that can be interpreted in many ways then sits back and watches the proverbial hit the fan whilst blaming it all on free will.

All loving....all forgiving....hmm...then everyone must be welcome in heaven..but no because you can only come to God through Jesus. Does that mean no matter how good you are or how sorry you are, you can't go to heaven if you don't believe in Jesus? Seems a bit unfair but then when is God ever fair?

All he has to do is send a proper sign. Something that can't be mistaken for anything else. Not Our Lady appearing to some simple minded girl in a cave in France or to a group of children in Medjugorje or at Guadalope or Knock or any other relatively obscure place. A straightforward in our faces sign is what we need. But he won't do that. He refuses to prove he exists because he demands faith. Why? The church says it's freewill. OK but if something is proven to me and I choose to believe in it then I have still exercised my free will.

I think God plays games with us for his own pleasure just like the Greeks and Romans believed their gods did.

This isn't an attack on any beliefs others hold or their faith. It's simply my take on the nature of God.

JO5 there are times when the things you say leave me breathless - and all the comments you've made here are incredible in their stupidity.

And then, of course, the concepts of doing no harm and doing good are open to interpretation.

Sometimes people mean to do good and do great harm.

I have to agree with bags here - if there were a god, his/her will is entirely opaque. This is one of the reasons why I cannot believ in a deity - if there were a god, it makes sense that he/she would ensure that the creatures created had a very clear idea what it was all about and what their purpose was.

I long ago decided that the purpose of each of our lives was to do as little harm as possible and as much good as we are able. That way society is stable and people can be as happy as is possible in what is a very neautiful but very cruel world.

So many people have intertpreted the will of god and the resulting multitude of ideas has just created conflict.

I know what lilygran is saying - she is of the opinion that the christian interpretation of god's will is clear to her - but unfortuantely it is not the only interpretation.

If god's will were "quite clear" we would never have any moral dilemmas. We have lots.

There have been multiple interpretations even just within christianity, and there still are. That does not reflect clarity.