Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Archbishop of Canterbury not sure about God.
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
He said: "There are moments, sure, when you think, 'Is there a God?' 'Where is God?'"
"The other day I was praying over something as I was running, and I ended up saying to God 'look this is all very well, but isn't it about time you did something, if you're there?'
"Which is probably not what the Archbishop of Canterbury should say."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29255318
Is this the emergence of "secular Christianity"? 
.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
When it becomes okay to say "I don't know if God really exists or not", and still be considered a Christian, that'll be a step.
People who admit uncertainty won't seek to push their beliefs on others. It's the sure ones, sure they're correct and doing God's work/will, that want it legislated.
At this point they still need to do damage control, like they do with the Pope: "The remarks were made in the context of an event at Bristol Cathedral during which the archbishop spoke extensively about why he believes in God and how his faith in Jesus Christ has transformed his life. The comments in question were made in response to a specific question about whether he had ever struggled with doubts." (bold mine)
They can't even leave any doubt in the minds of readers! How deliciously ironic!
I loved this bit:
"The other day I was praying over something as I was running, and I ended up saying to God 'look this is all very well, but isn't it about time you did something, if you're there?'
"Which is probably not what the Archbishop of Canterbury should say."
Mother Teresa openly admitted that her faith had been deeply shaken, and that she had serious doubts.... I personally think it's a real sign of genuine humanity, when a person in a prominent religious role admits that it's not only ok to have such thoughts, but it's natural....
The Church of England seems quite laid back these days.
Maybe it's maturing?
Yes, I think this is probably due it's role as being the established church in an increasingly secular and multi-cultural society.
Could devoted Buddhists learn something from the archbishop et al? Something is incomplete where doubt cannot come and go freely.
Or that's my take.
Yes, that's why we have "secular Buddhism".
.
Even though I doubt and am skeptical of claims we can't test, I doubt I could be considered secular.
I am agnostic when it comes to most things but especially my own "theories".
More in line with the o/p, if one isn't allowed to doubt but believe anyways there would be no need to go on about faith so much.
If one has doubts, they can lean on faith or look closer.
Not to be rude but the Abrahamic religions never made a lick of sense to me.
Belief in God isn't the measure of Christianity. Belief in the divinity of Jesus is. There are no churches that I know of, that are only about belief in a supreme deity, without the Jesus cult. It would be nice if there were. There are a lot of people who have vague ideas about a Creator, but who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. It would be nice if they had a place of worship to congregate.
Buddhism is secular, anyway, except for the rebirth part.
Belief in God isn't the measure of Christianity. Belief in the divinity of Jesus is.
What's the difference in a Christian context? Doesn't divinity require God?
Buddhism is secular, anyway, except for the rebirth part.
That's a pretty big part for a secularist though.
.
Nah...your thoughts are reborn every second...
...
I don't think that quickly.
.
If only things were as simple as that. The founder of Christianity wasn't really Jesus, it was Paul, and if you read Paul's writings he rarely referred to what Jesus taught. Christians really should be called 'Paulians'.
And Jesus wasn't a Christian either, he was a Jew and his belief seemed to be that the world was going to end (within the lifetime of his disciples) and that we should live here on Earth as we would live in the coming Kingdom of God.
But as we're taught in Buddhism, a 'Christian' is a concept with no inherent existence; the term 'Christian' will mean many different things to different people.
I'm not sure what you're asking, exactly, but belief in God doesn't require belief in Jesus as the son of God.
IDK, Tosh, it's pretty hard to take the "Christ" out of Christianity. Christmas and the Resurrection (Easter) are pillars of the Christian faith and church. If you don't believe in Jesus, it's pretty hard to participate in church services, because that always comes up. The fact that he was a Jew is secondary to the fact that he's believed to have been the son of God. Christians don't believe he was just a Jewish healer or prophet. They believe he was a divinity.
Yes, I agree, but remember that you're providing the mainstream concept of Christianity; Paul's version really.
I've been listening to a series of lectures by a guy called Professor Bart Ehrman*; a professor of early Christian history, and there's loads and loads to this story.
In the New Testament there's 27 books, 13 of them are written by Paul (or ascribed to him) and two other books are about him. And Paul rarely ever refers to the teachings of Jesus. And Paul and Jesus don't reconcile in many places.
Jesus was almost 'Buddhist' - a hippie who broke bread with sinners and taught people to forgive their enemies; Paul agreed with slavery, said women should shut up in church, and said homosexuality was wrong; just the kind of stuff any right-minded Roman would agree with. Jesus and Paul don't reconcile.
And it's not even clear if Jesus said he was Divine.
*Professor Ehrman was a Christian fundamentalist who went to a religious college to learn how to read Bible the copies of the earliest Bible texts in their original language. He learnt Greek, Aramaic (and another language which I can't remember) and during his 30 years of study he changed from fundamentalist to agnostic. If you've an interest in this area, I recommend reading some of his stuff.
Yes, I agree, but remember that you're providing the mainstream concept of Christianity; Paul's version really.
OK, I get you, now. I didn't understand your first post on this subject. I get you, and I'm with you!
. And all that you say doesn't even get into the books of the BIble that were rejected. So I'll check out that author, thanks. Have you read Elaine Pagels, another Bible scholar? She discusses the apocryphal books of the Bible and their significance to Christianity.
So, are there any "alternative" churches that present a non-Pauline tradition?
@Dakini, Yes, I've read the Gnostic Gospels by Pagels, and another which escapes my memory; she's great.
@Tosh Would you recommend "Misquoting Jesus", or "Jesus Interrupted"? The latter is the newer book, and I'm guessing they have similar content...? But one is more updated? Or are they completely different books? Should I get both?
I've read Misquoting Jesus, but not Jesus Interrupted; so I can't recommend one above the other. I would guess they're different though. Misquoting Jesus is about how we have the Bible we have; how texts were produced, copied, distributed and the many problems that stemmed from that. Erhman says that the original works may have been the work of God, but the subsequent copies (like Chinese whispers) are the works of man. He compares different texts from different time periods with what we ended up with in the mainstream Bibles today. He does a good job of explaining how the KJV came into being and why some folk think it's the gold standard of Bible translations (it's not). And lots of other stuff. And although he's an academic, he's easy to read, with many interesting anecdotes.
Jesus Interrupted seems to be something different to that.
Maybe the real problem here is that God is not too sure about the Archbishop of Canterbury.
"Secular" Buddhism means contemporary Buddhism, not so much Buddhism without the superstition, religiosity and bells and whistles of dogma. Your point is still 'made' though, as the word 'secular' is almost always infused with antipathy toward superstition etc.
I'm not sure about God not being sure of the Archbishop that's unsure of God.
I can't recall the exact quote, but within the past month I read something to the effect of "Doubts are not God testing your faith; they are Reality trying to set you free."
Actually, it does mean Buddhism without superstition and dogma. Check out Stephen Batchelor's Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, and his struggles with dogma in the first monastery he lived in. If there can be said to be a formal movement in Secular Buddhism, he spearheads it. Not that he ever set out to do that or would want that responsibility, exactly, but just by being himself, and by writing, doing guest lectures, and occasionally organizing groups, he's cast in that role. And quite a few Westerners who study on their own and avoid the superstition and dogma consider themselves Secular Buddhists, too.
Check out Stephen Batchelor's Confession of a Buddhist Atheist...
See - there are atheists everywhere these days!
.
No wonder church attendance is dropping off! No wonder the Archbishop is confused!
When I go into a Jesus House (heritical Jewish cult temple), I tend to sit on the benches and do Buddhist meditation. I may end up in the Purelands/Christian hell or eventually dead for such a travesty.
I once went on a Christian retreat for those thinking of becoming contemplatives. We were shown the film 'Oh God', with George Burns in the title role. God is asked who his son was, funnily enough, Jesus and the Buddha get in the short list . . . :thumbsup: .
Of course by GOD I mean "Great Original Dharmakaya."
Jesus, like the Buddha was a non-dualistic teacher:
And the Christian version of no self is here:
The speaker is a Catholic contemplative (Richard Rohr) and he pokes a lot of fun at his own religion. I quite like making a cup of tea and listening to the guy.
Richard Rohr's church is in the state where I live now. He's quite the phenom, and very ecumenical. He occasionally puts in an appearance in my town on Sundays. How can I tune into his weekly "teachings" online, Tosh?
Sorry, Dakini, I don't know. I've just listened to his stuff on youtube and a few downloadable talks on the internet. I do manual work (self employed), often alone (ish), so it's easy for me to load up an mp3 player with stuff I'm interested in and spend the day listening while I'm working.
Wow, that was spookily like listening to a Buddhist teacher!
He's studied Buddhism, and that influences his thinking. He aims to "teach" more on the ecumenical side of things, and bring faiths together.
In one of his talks, before he says something 'heretical', he says to his congregation something like, "And look, don't go running to the Bishop to tell him what I've been saying!"
Made me smile.
But he certainly shows that there's a depth to Christianity that many of us are not aware about.
Oh, and A.A.'s 12 Steps have also influenced the guy; he's even wrote a couple of books on the subject.
In one of his talks, before he says something 'heretical', he says to his congregation something like, "And look, don't go running to the Bishop to tell him what I've been saying!"
That's what I like about his teachings. He gets so much more out of it, and kind of pushes the envelope, really gets a lot of philosophical mileage out of the Bible. What a gifted person!
So is there such a thing as a "ChristoBuddhist" I wonder?
.
This guy's cool. I was just checking out his website. He gives teachings on the "false self" or "separate self" (ego), and says Jesus taught about this. (Jesus ends up sounding an awful lot like the Buddha in these teachings.)
This describes briefly the 7 basic themes in his ministry. You can click on each topic and get a 2-minute-teaching. The ones on the "separate self" and "There is only one Reality" are interesting.
https://cac.org/rohr-inst/ls-program-details/ls-themes Longer podcasts available for purchase.
>
I would think so:
.
(Original credit to lobster for that one!)
You are right in part (which doesn't mean you are 'wrong' in another part) . . . I am very familiar with Stephen Batchelor, and John Peacock -- these two are 'responsible' for the beginning of my practice
.
I can't remember if it is Batchelor or Peacock that wrote about the 'saeculum', and described secular-informed Buddhism as a product of our more materialistic preference in this day and age. Secular MEANS contemporary -- but 'contemporary' has come to mean 'a more materialistic bias' than being willing to buy metaphysical explanations. Secular is without superstition and dogma but only because that is where we ARE.
Five hundred years ago, secular would have meant something very different. And either Batchelor or Peacock is the fellow who made this distinction.
@Hamsaka Interesting. (And how great that you got introduced to Buddhism by S. Batchelor!) I tried to look it up, and didn't find your interpretation of "secular" anywhere. Except that "saeculum" referred to a period of time roughly equal to a long lifetime. I can see how "contemporary" might be extrapolated from that, i.e. "within our lifetime". But it's not a dictionary-based usage or common understanding. That may be Batchelor's unique take on it.
sec·u·lar/ˈsekyələr/
adjective
--denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
--(of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a *monastic or other order.
--of or denoting slow changes in the motion of the sun or planets.
--(of a fluctuation or trend) occurring or persisting over an indefinitely long period.
--occurring once every century or similarly long period (used especially in reference to celebratory games in ancient Rome).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum
Here's more on "secular":
Origin
Middle English: from Old French seculer, from Latin saecularis, from saeculum 'generation, age', used in Christian Latin to mean 'the world' (as opposed to the Church); (early 19th century) from Latin saecularis 'relating to an age or period'. "Worldly" vs. "of the Church".
Secular Buddhists don't even concretely agree on what that means. The best I've heard is that it's taking Buddhism in a "naturalistic context", which does seem to make people doubt such things as multiple-lifetime rebirth because there's no causal mechanism or necessity to be found. It's basically what I've always done... taking Buddhism as a tool to see reality clearly, instead of as a belief system or replacement worldview with its own cosmology and everything. If it shows reality to have such attributes as multiple-lifetime rebirth and hungry ghosts, so be it! If not though, those are just "articles of faith" (which I'm not big into). People can take it however they want, but it seems a lot more are choosing to identify as "secular" these days.
It's like the use of the word 'secular' has gotten itself a few other implicit meanings over the years. "Contemporary" means a period of time, roughly the length of a human life, why not? that happens to be occurring right NOW, for instance. This is also the original meaning of the word 'secular' (with some old and new context differences).
That secular ALSO tends to mean 'a naturalistic context' as @AldrisTorvalds says is more about a change in the meaning of the word 'secular' that implicitely includes our contemporary modern preference for 'naturalism' maybe, or at least non woo-woo
.
Our preferred point of view these days is more scientific than past points of view, AND, secularism is more about how we participate in this POV rather than a description of it. Wow, that sounds totally obtuse . . . :buck: . But it's interesting to explore, to further flesh out our experience
.
Kia Ora,
And God said unto the Archbishop, "Without faith...I'm "Nothing" !"
Metta Shoshin .
..
I can see how "contemporary" might be extrapolated from that, i.e. "within our lifetime". But it's not a dictionary-based usage or common understanding. That may be Batchelor's unique take on it.
Yes it's Batchelor's unique take on it, for some reason he's trying to redefine "secular" to mean contemporary ( it doesn't ). Though actually I don't see why he has a problem with the accepted meaning of "non-religious". Isn't "non-religious" Buddhism exactly what he advocates?
"Naturalistic Buddhism" might be better, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue and might be confused with nudists I suppose.
.
People can take it however they want, but it seems a lot more are choosing to identify as "secular" these days.
Sure, western society is increasingly secular, so it's not a surprising development.
Secular Buddhists, Atheists, Nones... all increasing, and all good I think. No surprise at all.
Yes, it's those atheists who are to blame!!
.