Peace On Earth

Bill

This is an important comment of yours...

"As you probably know, the concept of God has pushed toward greater inclusiveness several times in history."

While this is very true, I wonder why these efforts failed?  It seems historically that languages, pigments, and faiths have proved to be the foundation of class superiority thruout time.  Oh, I am not saying people of faith hate others because of difference, but I do believe there is an underlying sense of ego that sends a message.  Even the sincerest efforts to make mention of helping the poor, evangelizing the ignorant, and rescuing the fallen carries this unspoken message that we are not equal in each others' eyes. 

reido

Reido,

Similar to what you've already set out, It seems that the reason the efforts fail is that many, if not most, people want some reason to feel dominant, or better than others. Religion, philosophy, race, nationality, no-religion, social class, education, these all give us wide brushes for painting ourselves into a corner of haughtiness. It occurred to me that the language of fundamentalists, be they religious or non-religious, nationalist or globalist, environmentalist or industrialist, have commonalities of spite, contempt, and even hatefulness toward those outside of their corner. There is something about human nature that brings us back to this tribalism, no matter how “evolved” we become.

So, I agree with you that our “sense of ego” comes back again and again to twist each new inclusive message into an exclusive one. It's almost humorous that exclusiveness masquerades as inclusiveness. The smiley “come join us” convolutes into a “come join us against them.” “See how happy we are in our exclusive inclusiveness.” Or is it, “inclusive exclusiveness?” Either way, evangelism too often works by telling the bad news of remaining part of the other. And in the global politics, the same grouping of Us, Them, and the Rest, develops only on a much larger scale.

Reido wrote: Even the sincerest efforts to make mention of helping the poor, evangelizing the ignorant, and rescuing the fallen carries this unspoken message that we are not equal in each others' eyes.

Exactly! For good, we can only help others in a way that the left hand knows nothing of what the right hand is doing, or we start developing this same superiority stance and message. This is what Evangelicalism is to me, anymore. Yet I struggle with the same sense of superiority over those who don't yet “get it.” We go back to our roots—which is tribal.

bill

Bill

Your last post mentioned two groups who are generally not invited to the party.  When it stems from religion, faith (not Faith) is Exclusive -- translated in life as Opposition to atheists and secularists.  In response, I think atheists (I have not spoken personally with enough secularists to say) are as opposed to faith. 

However, I have atheistic friends with whom I communicate very well who could be called Naturalists -- that is, they believe in the natural flow of all things living.  Minus the "God" word, I have found atheists who are Moral people -- that is, they believe in morality contrary to what is often spread by the opposition. 

Is there room at the table for NoGod in the Commons of Faith?  I think so.  On what basis can such a statement be made?  On the basis of Inclusion rather than Exclusion. 

What are your thoughts along this line?

reido

Yes. I heartily agree. Unless we find room at the table for Atheists and Evangelicals alike, we can never claim to truly serve the One God of All. How?

It occurred to me that our concept of God must expand to heartily include Atheists. This contradictory concept may be no more contradictory than including Gentiles at the same table with Jews, in the first centuries BCE and CE. [Maybe Dr. Rao can tell us something of similar histories in India.]

Imagine that. Eating a meal together is probably the strongest metaphor for inclusion that has ever been. Well, besides intermarriage. The Eucharist must be inclusive, if it is to rightly model the meals that the early followers of The Way shared together in their homes. I'm convinced that this early movement was more of an inclusive movement amongst the Hellenistic Jews of the Diaspora, than what we have come to accept. Perhaps Jesus came out of a mixed community in Southern Syria to teach “his own” in Jerusalem.. It seems so from John's writings; and from Luke's “Acts of the Apostles,” which seems to anchor the movement to Antioch, where both Peter and Paul spent time. “They were first called Christians at Antioch.”

But Atheists want nothing to do with the concept of God, many will say. Nevertheless, I hope that some can be convinced that first, the concept is here to stay; and second, that it is still very useful for expressing the Mystery that brings us together despite our respective animosities for one another. The Sun, the original God of gods, brings us life through a delicate balance of enormous gravity and explosive outward force. A huge amount of energy is burned to maintain life to this planet, and similarly large amounts of effort are required to overcome our differences, and to reckon our similarities. The path to reconciliation may proceed from the same historical syncretism that religionists love to hate. It happened in the Mediterranean. It occurred in Asia. It can work again.

Does this make any sense?

bill

Bill

Yes, it makes complete sense to me.  But methinks the guardians of Eden would object strongly.  A passage comes to mind....

Mark 3:22-30

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons." 23 So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." 30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

I have used this passage myself in the past out of context to "Contend earnestly for the Faith".  But now I see something different afoot.  The accusation really does not have anything to do with orthodoxy or heterodoxy -- rather, it has to do with the frame of mind that leads to finding fault with ideologies and actions that intend no harm.  Why did they accuse Jesus of being of the Fly God of  the heathens?   Because he went outside their borders of belief -- he broke the boundaries and included a person who should have been excluded. 

In affect, is Jesus granting their argument, or is he speaking tongue-in -cheek about their own house?  We might ask, why does a lie fail?  Because it is a lie.

reido