Monday, 24 March 2014

Divine or Man-Made?

Whiskey Tango FoxtrotMarch 23, 2014


“Religion is founded on a notion that it has teachings or scriptures from a divine (supernatural) source, and this source is provides insights into ultimate truths which can not be discerned by mere mortals investigating nature.
Any religious institution which believes it needs to modernise its beliefs is admitting that its beliefs have never had such a divine source – they are man-made and, like all man-made things, need to be modernised periodically. Consequently, that institution no longer represents a spiritual belief system, but is simply a political organisation which pretends to be founded on spiritual beliefs.”
Indeed! Churches are supposed to be like prophets crying in the wilderness, calling on “polite society” to repent. Welby, Schori & their ilk have completely turned the tables. Rather than seeking to reform and amend our lives to God’s plan, they are working overtime to change God to fit their own little boxes." (emphasis mine, JK)


Says a lot, I think,


Take Care,


h/t MCJ

4 comments:

Warren said...

LingoStu, to whom the comment can be traced, is a self-proclaimed atheist. How do I reconcile this with your last post? :-/

John K said...

Hi Warren,
Not quite sure what you mean. I think the post stands on its own, no matter who it came from. Discounting it because of its author is an ad hominem, is it not?

John K said...

After all, even atheists can be right sometimes, can't they?

Warren said...

John,

We're in violent agreement. One of the biggest beefs I have with "conservative evangelical" blogs is the prevalence of ad hominem arguments - and the unwillingness of so many onlookers to call the bloggers to task. You are one of the least guilty in this regard (although I catch a whiff from time to time), which is why I keep coming back. ;)

I know I'm often obtuse, but, to elaborate my original point, had the blogger who first picked up LingoStu's comment done more homework and found out that he was an atheist, I doubt that he would have posted it. And, had he posted it with the caveat that the author was an atheist, I doubt it would have gotten much circulation. I may be wrong, but I think it is hard for many Christians to admit that an atheist can say anything worth listening to regarding religion (and Christianity in particular). Did I just make an ad hominem argument?

That said, I'm not sure I'm in 100% agreement with the text you bolded. I suspect it comes down to the definition of "modernize". Although they may not be core doctrines, there are many things that Christians of today don't believe that were held as true in the middle ages.