Harry Potter and God

[Geoff Bannister]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger <no.limberger at ...> wrote:

> >Geoff wrote (to md):
> > (SNIP) it also suggests from your biographical detail that you
> >were never introduced to the real Christian faith.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> Which Christian denomination represents the "real Christian
> faith"?  Let's see, that could be one of the following:
> Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian,
> Mormon, Church of Christ, Church of God, Evangelical,
> Pentecostal, Baptist, Southern Baptist, and the list
> just goes on and on and on ad nauseum.
> 
> The bottom line: every Christian denomination or sect views
> itself as the "real Christian faith" and says that the others
> are not.  So, while you may claim that your beliefs are
> the "real Christian faith", the vast majority of Christians
> would disagree not only with you, but with each other as
> well.

Geoff:
My answer to your question "Which Christian denomination
 represents the `real Christian faith'?" would be "most of them".

If you look at Christian churches, they nearly all have a basic 
statement of faith in which  they acknowledge that Christ was 
God in human form, was crucified and carried the sins of mankind, 
rose from the dead and granted eternal life to those who believe 
in him.

I agree that in some cases – the Catholics and high Anglicans 
come to mind – basic statements have rather buried  in routines 
and rituals to which they attach great store. This is reminiscent 
of my tennis analogy in that they have got the fine courts and 
best rackets etc. whereas we should mainly be concerned with 
those who can actually play the game. That also harks back to 
my comments yesterday on what we mean by "believe".

> >No.Limberger:
> >(in response to md's post)
> > I couldn't agree more. When something has been experimentally
> > demonstrated or repeated multiple times, or when there is overwhelming
> > scientifically-gathered data to support a theory, then there should be no
> > issues in accepting these as being sound.
> 
> >Geoff:
> >I'm not quite sure I see the tie-in with what md wrote but what you
> >are highlighting are concrete, measureable facts.
> 
> >You cannot use this approach when you dealing with things which
> >cannot be quantified in this way. you cannot use scientifically gathered
> >data to deal with concepts such as love, faith, conscience or hope – to
> >name but a handful.
> 
> No.Limberger:
> If you believe in something that cannot be tested and
> qualified, then you have no idea whether it is factual.

Geoff:
You therefore do not believe in the existence of love, faith, hope, 
conscience since these cannot be qualified or quantified?

That seems to suggest  a very austere and loveless life style.

No.Limberger:
> Some Christians are bent on the teaching of creationism
> as if that mythological belief has, in any way, any scientific
> foundation as evolution does.  

Geoff:
Many scientists raise questions about the total validity of 
evolutionary theory. I am currently in the middle of reading 
a book called "The Selfless Gene: Living with God and Darwin" 
written by Charles Foster, a Christian. On the one hand he 
looks at the ultra-evolutionary theories proposed by such 
people as Richard Dawkins and conversely the neo-creationist
ideas propounded by what I would call the fundamentalist 
Christian right. On the one hand, he points out that the Dawkins 
camp have chosen to ignore many of the provisos put forward 
by Darwin himself in his writings and glossed over gaps in the 
theory while he then uses to great advantage a scholarly analysis 
of the first couple of chapters of Genesis  to show that evolution 
can just as easily been at the command of God. If you are not 
entrenched totally in one camp or the other, it is a fascinating 
read, but not a light or easy one.

No.Limberger:
> Some Christians refuse to
> obtain medical care for themselves and/or their children
> because it goes against their belief that they have to pray
> to be cured.  

Geoff:
I have a suspicion that you might be referring to the Jehovah's
 Witnesses, who are not usually considered a Christian group.

The rest of your comments have been very succinctly commented 
on by Alla and I leave those replies without further addition from 
me.

md:
> I had every manner of religious faith around me, we were baptized and taught
> to pray and told bible stories, my Grandmother is deeply religious and my
> mother insist my Atheism is a phase I'll grow out of (hmm, I'll be 36 this
> year, after 20 years you'd think I'd grow out of it already!) Had a
> girlfriend who was trying to find a church and we tried them all. 

Geoff:
This goes back to George Carey's Christianity and "Churchianity", 
to which I referred yesterday. People *can* be deeply religious, 
baptised etc. but if they do not have belief (and also love according 
to Paul) that is not the answer.

I must commend your faith in atheism. I think that to believe that 
this life with all its imperfections, its manmade unfairness and 
uncertainty is all there is, which would create an utterly bleak 
and Sartre-like world demands a very firm, unwavering and 
humourless stand.

md:
> I could of course argue that Christians have never been truly introduced to
> logic and reason because faith clouds their minds. 

Geoff:
If you look at some of the leading scientists in today's world who 
are also evangelical Christians, I think that your comment is an 
insult to these logical, reasoning -  and faith-filled – intellects.

Following my earlier remarks in this post, I believe that faith, hope,
love etc, cannot be analysed by logic and reason because you cannot 
define their parameters.