RE: MD On Faith

From: Scott Roberts (
Date: Mon Nov 01 2004 - 20:37:27 GMT

  • Next message: MarshaV: "RE: MD On Faith"


    > Clearly, you believe present theoligical thinking to be far advanced past
    > the point of the an omnipotent father-figure watching over us from
    > which I don't dispute, but I do maintain that the general, God-fearing
    > population, is not of that opinion and that observation alone has scarey,
    > violent ramifications for the rest of us.

    I agree. So why turn off those who are advanced?

    > As a result, the world is more dangerous, bloody, contentious than I can
    > remember in my lifetime..

    Oh come now. Worse than when the US and USSR were threatening MAD at each
    other? In any case, the US political scene has always been heavily
    influenced by conservative religious meddling.

    > So, Scott, assuming your proposal that enlightened theology rules the day,
    > why hasn't the church made any effort to communicate the new theology to
    > proletariat?

    Because, I would guess, the proletariat isn't interested. I suspect the
    Anglican hierarchy would just as soon let gays be bishops, but they've got
    17 million Anglicans in Nigeria for whom (to quote The Economist)
    "homosexuality is something between a sin and an impossibility." (And there
    are many lay Anglicans in the UK and the US who also feel this way). In
    other words, they risk schism. In general, a minister in a liberal,
    Protestant church would like to communicate the new theology, but risks
    being tossed out if he or she goes too far.

    The situation is different with the Vatican. There, the hierarchy is
    conservative, and the theologians more liberal (like Hans Kung). The
    Catholic laity is all over the map, though, especially in the US. But if
    the next pope were to adopt the ideas of the more liberal theologians, he
    would undoubtably run into the same sort of problems the Anglicans are
    facing now. While the US is probably split pretty evenly between liberals
    and conservatives, I suspect world-wide, it is more conservative.

    > Thus far, you haven't addressed that point, which is the seed from which
    > entire problem with the church has grown. So I'll take a stab at it.
    > Could it be...
    > Fear?
    > Fear of losing control, perhaps? Or political clout? Or possibly the
    > of a mass exodus of parishioners?
    > In essence, the church suffers from a lower level (social) institutional
    > phobia of losing ground to a higher level (intellectual) evolution of
    > individual consciousness.

    If the liberals all leave the church, where does that leave the church?

    > The church's fears the proliferation of 'Scott's actually--intelligent,
    > thoughtful individuals who take from Christianity what's of value and move
    > on to Gnosticism or Buddhism or Kabbbalah the MoQ or booze or sex or
    > whatever as a part of a natural progression, in search of more value via
    > holistic intellectual self-education and diversified experience.
    > The church doesn't want 'Scott's. The church wants pea-brained Bush deer
    > easily mesmerized by its high-beam Faith headlights. The Church prefers a
    > good soldier who will do as he's told and never question the tenets of
    > Christian dogma, especially if he happens to lead the free world.
    > As a member of the free world, I object!
    > Faith? Phooey!

    Read Hans Kung or David Tracy and see if you still feel that way.

    - Scott

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 21:08:27 GMT