|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/595
Fulcrum Subjects: Theology, Biblical Studies / Theology, Systematic Other articles by Elaine Storkey are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 6 comments on this article Meeting the odd god of atheism by Elaine Storkey Originally publised in Church Times 28th January 2011
I was intrigued to find that I didn’t want to contest his statement. In fact, I could quite see his point. Conceiving of such a being, divorced from any experience of relationships, emotion, moral decision, prayer and wonder, would require a substantial amount of imagination! And supposing we did find someone who could conceive of a supreme being with these attributes. Would that enable her to live a better and more purposeful life? The question for my colleague boiled down to whether he could give intellectual assent to the existence of a Deity, as rationally defined and described. He could not give assent, so was therefore an unbeliever. Yet judged on these criteria, many believers would also be ‘unbelievers’. They would find it difficult to imagine a supreme being in the abstract terms which he outlined. This would not necessarily be a failure of faith, however, but more a failure of language and imagination. The Church has recognized since the thirteenth century that the concepts we form and the language we use about God are deeply inadequate. Theologians have struggled with how to speak of an ineffable God, how to express the inexpressible, how to picture One who is so infinitely beyond our finite human powers of conceptualisation. In an attempt to get away from rationalist abstractions, we are frequently invited into worship and silence as more reliable ways of encountering God. For God, we are often told, can be known, but not pictured; experienced, but not imagined The problem in conversing with my colleague was that he and I seemed to be talking of different things. He saw belief as a mental process. I see it as intrinsically relational, as trust.. He saw belief as a ‘tag-on’ to real life. I see it as the lens through which I experience all reality. He saw belief as conferring access to a privatised spiritual zone of religious rituals and language. .I see it as relating to a material world where God is disclosed by every bird in the forest, and the cattle on a thousand hills. He saw God as remote. I see God engaged in everything around us. So is there any point of contact? Yes. From my perspective it is everywhere. We live in the same world, share a common humanness, recognize the same needs and emotions, experience the same longings for wholeness. Whether he acknowledges it or not, my colleague, like me, is made by a God who is love and who invites us into loving, healing relationships. So the first step is to explore belief in a relationship of mutual respect and openness. There, rather than argue about how to define or describe God we can enter the narrative of the Christian faith. And as we experience the implications of the Word made Flesh, we might even find that Christ begins to bring God within reach. Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 6 February 2011 - 06:41pm Hi Pluralist I agree with you that once we are dead we are dead "physically speaking" I do not in "ordinary" circumstances believe in ressurection for "all" human kind in physical form either. Which i know is at odds with our Hindu friends and others, in choosing to remain a Christian and not defect to mormonism , hinduism, or any other faith. However Jesus it has to be said was different, and what ever you believe surrounding the physical ressurection of Christ and however simply this event may be explained away. The Physical reality is that people die and though their body may change form it does not disappear ever. eventually it ends up like the wind a part of the atmosphere and shares our space. For some that will be a terrifying thought, I respect that, for me it is a comforting thought. I think of my late husband, and i think of all the people who have had a positive impact on my life, i then facilitate that spiritual life in memory. I think of the rainbow and on a couple of occassions it appeared at unusual unlikely times, once two together vertically in the sky, I think of colorful people with their colorful faith, and you see them and hear them in your mind. No i have not just had a joint nor have i been drinking. This is the creator God i know. The God that taught us to utilize our senses that we might find him in times of need. Though i can do this, though i still know that the pain of death, is difficult to accomadate. There are the dead who spiritually are more alive than the living, and there are the living who are more dead than the dead, but there bodies are here. Do i understand it in its entirety no! do i know it in entirety yes. The scientist I am sure can explain why Jesus came to life after 3 days, There are others who have experienced it. But what is more important is the message that Jesus bought us, and the offer of hope in through and after life, it is a fragile thing to hold onto. Have you seen read or sung the chorus "Purify My Heart" You see does God need us to know him, when he knows us so well?. Living life needs to be purposeful, the opportunity to be complete or whole, comes in the afterlife. The afterlife is eveything which is left in another for another which creates the conditions we live in, if you lived your life with the Lord in your heart, then the afterlife will be an enriching place to be. Waterangel Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Sunday 6 February 2011 - 03:32pm The evidence for resurrection is not overwhelmig at all. Rather, it has all the hallmarks of a community writing after the event of a series of contradictory incidents that 'make resurrection language work' for the community and its rituals - thus, for example, a person on a road, isn't recognised, but as soon as they have the eucharist, they 'see' him and at that point he disappears. In other words, it is all about whether you get the theological point or not. It clearly does not involve a revived person. Resurrection is the last miracle. If Jesus is human, fully human, then his brain rots at the same speed as anyone elses. Once dead you are dead. The rest is literature and belief. Posted by: Monica Sunday 30 January 2011 - 08:41am We cannot prove God in an intellectual, human way. We can however experience him like we can experience wonder, awe, love, joy and surprise. And when time and time again he seems to be there for us helping us through difficulties and suchlike. However, the evidence, based on human evidence, for Jesus' resurrection is overwhelming. And if this is so, it must logically point to the existence of a loving God. Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 30 January 2011 - 06:54am Happy New Year Pluralist, I thought Elaine Storkeys article was perceptive in its stating of what to me is the obvious. "the concept of a creator God" "In the beginning was the word and the word became flesh" The creation being that of communication between human beings, which may have began as inaudible babble, but on understanding became the vehicle of human emotion expressed, which in turn led to feelings, which either could or could not be contained, whether to create peace or to create war. Of course God could create the conditions, but whether people are able to respond is the test as to whether a creator God can finish the task. So in this instance communication becomes the key as to whether Gods creation can be fulfilled. As Gods intentions are Good the onus is purely on us to seek to understand. In much the same way as an artist with a paintbrush whether abstract or otherwise, the ability to enter into the emotion of the creator is the key to understanding. We know that we can understand what we see, what we dont know is what the artist was thinking and feeling when they created it, or indeed if the emotions changed in the process. Of course we are told in Genesis that God reguarly sat back during the creation period and reviewed its progress telling us at 24hour intervals that after each it was completed it was good and that he was pleased, ie what he did and how he felt about it, this created our invite to respond to firstly his creation and how we feel about it, thus this then created our emotion. ie to the Creator God. Sometimes Pluralist inquizitiveness and the desire to prove theories one way or another can cloud the vision of the most intelligent people. Darwin and other evolutionist can explain only so much in terms of creationism, what they cannot explain is why in the same conditions people either do or do not respond, or why they may respond differently. The Creator God puts perameters on that. In Peace Waterangel. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 29 January 2011 - 10:13pm The fact that we live in the same world, share emotions etc. is no proof or basis for "Whether he acknowledges it or not, my colleague, like me, is made by a God who is love". Whether Elaine Storkey acknowledges it or not, there ain't no such creator God. 
Posted by: Jody
Saturday 29 January 2011 - 08:48pm
Dear Friends we have just published 'The odd god of Atheism', by Elaine Storkey. please use this thread for discussion. blessings, Jody |
LATEST
|
Meeting a former university colleague I noticed with interest how some of his previous views had changed. This wasn’t surprising, for maturity challenges many of our attitudes and ideas. What was more surprising was that when he began to talk about religion, his views were exactly the same as they were twenty five years ago. He was still an atheist. What’s more, the reasons he gave for his atheism were identical to the justification he had offered then. He simply couldn’t conceive of a disembodied superior being, invisible but all powerful, who knows everything, wills whatever he wishes and existed before time began. To him, ‘God’ seemed an abstract and unnecessary concept, one quite irrelevant to what he knew to be ‘normal life’.