Unbelievalbefaith.com received the following email from an individual named John.

Dear Editors, My name is John. I came across your blog(s) while browsing
Plese find a completely different understanding of Real God and everything else via this essay by Avatar Adi Da Samraj.
Plus related references.
1. www.dabase.org/Divhscrt.htm The Divine Heart Secret of The Person of Love
2. www.dabase.org/dualsens.htm on the Dual Sensitivity of the Divine Way
3. www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html on the naive mommy-daddy creator “god” of exoteric religiosity.
4. www.kneeflistening.com The Incarnation of Conscious Light
5. www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm The Secret Identity of the Holy Spirit of God—critical essays on Christianity
6. www.dabase.org/noface.htm Real God Is The Indivisible Oneness of Unbroken Light
7. www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2 The Taboo Against the Superior Man—conventional “religion” is built upon and reinforces this taboo
8. www.adidabiennale.org/curation/index.htm The Rebirth of Sacred Art
9. www.ispeace723.org Not Two Is Peace: the necessary politics of the future               John

And My Heart-Truth Is Obvious,
If The Heart Itself Is Seen With Open Eyes
Chapter 7, The Dawn Horse Testament
“Consider This. True Religion, or The Real Spiritual, Transcendental, and Divine Way Of Life, Begins With The Transcendence Of Awe and Wonder. Conditional Existence Naturally Evokes Awe and Wonder (and Even Terrible Fear and Stark Bewilderment), but True Religion, or The Real Spiritual, Transcendental, and Divine Way Of Life, Begins With The Free Heart-Response To What Is (Otherwise) Awesome and Wonderful. (more…)

In a short while, one of our upcoming episodes will address the question of divine sovereignty asking:

“Assuming, of course, that God exists, how does God interact with her creation?”

“Did God create as a single event, and then take off, leaving her creation to fend for itself?”

“Is God so involved in her creation, that she dictates almost every event such that it conforms to some grand scheme?”

Anyway…these will be interesting questions to explore, particularly because such questions will determine how God’s nature is to be understood and whether or not we could see such a divine being as Good, etc. To get the wheels turning already, I will include a quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams:

“It should be a rather exhilarating thought that the moment of creation is now – that if, by some unthinkable accident, God’s attention slipped, we wouldn’t be here. It means that within every circumstance, every object, every person, God’s action is going on, a sort of white heat at the centre of everything. It means that each one of us is already in a relationship with God before we’ve ever thought about it. It means that every object or person we encounter is in a relationship with God before they’re in a relationship of any kind with us. And if that doesn’t make us approach the world and other people with reverence and amazement, I don’t know what will.”

- Rowan Williams, Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Westminster John Knox Press, London, 35.

 

 

                                          ?

 

 

 

 

 

In this third episode we continue our debate about religion, but do so by looking through the lens of Atheist and Religious interaction throughout history and in modern times. As the subtitle above suggests, we will explore whether or not atheist and religious interaction must always end in antagonism, which side often breeds the antagonism the most, and perhaps we will attempt to point to a way in which Atheist and Religious interaction could see a sustained peace and open dialogue even amongst their far reaching disagreements.

Please post comments in the forum.

This episode is one hour and five minutes long.

[podcast]http://unbelievablefaith.com/wp-content/audio/UFaithEp003.mp3[/podcast]

I am finding the recent controversy over Atheist Ad Campaigns quite fascinating. CTV news had an article covering the campaign which has apparently been approved for buses in Toronto.

The news release can be found here:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090116/atheist_ads_090116/20090116?hub=Canada&s_name=

In response to these campaigns, the United Church has responded with a campaign of their own, which can be found here:

http://www.emergingspirit.ca/probably_a_god

What I really like about the United Church’s campaign, is that it hints at both the real motive for the Atheist Ad campaign, while also presenting a counter-theology to the bankrupt theology that the Atheist campain is primarly aimed at.

What I mean when I speak of bankrupt theology, which is also the likely motive for the Atheist Ad campaign, is a theology that presents religion primarily as a reactionary and sacrificial system that requires one to deny the sensual, bodilinessness (is that word?) of life, and in turn embrace a life of complete denial of anything remotely considered to be enjoyment. Also, this bankrupt theology is often focused on the utter hopelesness of this life in anticipation for the glory of escaping this life. This is most evident in modern fundamentalist and (some) evangelical presentations of Christian eschatology, most “poignantly” (or perhaps, painfully) expressed in the Left Behind novels. I truly believe that the Atheist Ad campaign is aimed at this kind of Theology.

What the United Church has done, however, is presented a Counter-Theology of Beauty; a theology that says that God has created us as bodies; as creatures on a creaturely and creative planet that is inherently good, but can obviously go very wrong too.  This counter-theology that the United Church has presented is also a theology that affirms that God desires to redeem all of creation, not just the few specialized Christians who know the lingo; a God who in the end, interrupts a world of fear and sacrifice, to re-create a world of peace and gift.

I may receive some criticisms for my assumption that Atheist Ad campains are ONLY aimed at one particular stream of religious thought (what I have termed bankrupt theology), and not the whole of religion itself. Yet I stand by my interpretation, as I believe that much modern atheistic backlash against religion simply doesn’t take into account theologies that very often, mirror atheist concern about the enjoyment of life!

Thoughts?

Just something to provoke some thought on a Monday. The scale is in reference to something I said in episode 2.

‘Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.’ by Victor Stenger – RichardDawkins.net.