First Live Discussion Wed 8 Dec 2010: Gillingham School, Dorset

Previously Anonymous wrote:

in the past it suicide has been concidered a sin in the eyes of God. Is this theory within your belief or do you feel that christians now understand mentle health issues ?

Thanks for your very important question. God loves everyone for he created everyone in his image. Any attack on his image on anyone, eg racism, is not in his will for human beings. So since suicide is an attack on someone made in his image, this is not in his will.

My wife is a psychotherapist and we have discussed mental health issues a lot. God understands all the stresses people are under and is a forgiving God.

Previously Bishop Graham wrote:

Most people in the world are religious, in terms of the world population, and so most people in the world pray.

Since 9/11 religion in global politics has been seen to be very significant. So I see it as very important that people study religions to understanding what is happening in the world today.

</p Could it be however that religion is causing these evils in the world? Wars of religions? That 9/11 was acutslly subjective to a religious cause from a highly extremist group?

Previously Anonymous wrote:

What is your response to this Epicurian argument, to the unwillingness/ inexistence of God? If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent. If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil? If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God?

Thanks. The problem of evil is profound. I do believe that God is good, and is all powerful and that evil exists. I also believe that God has given humans the amazing gift of free will and is not a puppet master, manipulating us.

Since we have free will, we may exercise it against God's will, and so choose to do evil. He won't keep intervening each time to prevent things he is against, for that would take away our free will.

I can only point to the cross of Christ and show that God does not sit on the edge of the universe and twiddle his thumbs but is deeply involved in his own creation, in Jesus, and suffered. There is much more to discuss...

Previously Anonymous wrote:

What are your views on such sites that are fairly well known in Amercia such as www.Godhatesfags.com This particular site is blocked by the school network but you should be able to see it. I have looked on the site before and it is quite disgusting. They picket with signs such as "God Hates Fags" "Thank God for Dead Troops," "God Blew Up the Troops" "Fag Soldiers in Hell" Im not suggesting that all christians believe this because that would be a huge generalisation but i was simply wondering what your particular view on this subject was since it is quite a contaversial matter...?

Thanks. That is an awful and vindictive site, from what I have read about it. On the subject of homosexuality, God loves everyone - absolutely everyone - and welcomes everyone with his good news. Once welcomed and accepted by God through faith in Jesus, God urges us to follow Jesus and be transformed daily by his Spirit.

I personally think the Bishops Guidelines in the Church of England, 'Issues in Human Sexuality', form a good and balanced reference point. These state that those who are gay in their sexual orientation and wish to be vicars are welcome to be vicars but should be celibate. They do not say the same about lay people in the church ie that they have to be celibate. In all professions, leaders are held to be more accountable than others: judges and police have to have a higher standard of law keeping than others;  teachers have to have a higher standard of behaviour with young people than others; similarly acccountants concerning financial integrity. So, the above distinction between vicars and lay people seems to make sense to me. It is also worth looking at Paul's First Letter to Timothy chapter 3, where he says leaders should be the husband of one wife ie there were clearly people with more than one wife in the congregation, but those could not be leaders.

Oliver O'Donovan has written a fine book, 'A Conversation Waiting to Begin: The Churches and the Gay Controversy' (SCM Press, 2009)

http://www.scmpress.co.uk/bookdetails.asp?ISBN=9780334042105

This is a book of his online essays which may be seen here

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=130 

Again, a huge subject. Hope this helps.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Should I believe in God?

Thanks. It is not so much 'should' as 'I would encourage it'. From my experience, people who come to believe in God become more integrated and whole and less self centred. Not all, but many. So that would be an encouragement  - to be more fully alive. However, the key thing, as I see it, is that God is real and that he believes in you - which is even more important...

Previously Anonymous wrote:

What relevance do you think that the Church holds in our modern secular scoiety? Has science created the falling numbers in church attendance, and if so, is this not because it has really answered many questions that Religion originally stemmed from? Do we need religion? It is not our only source of morality as many Christians suggest.

Thanks. Sorry for the delay in replying. Yes, I do think the Church is very relevant to modern society - and that society may well not be as secular as people think...

I'm not sure that science has created falling numbers - that may be due to diverse factors - nor do I think science has answered many questions which Religion originally stemmed from: eg why is something here, rather than nothing (science can't really answer that); how should we behave towards each other and each others communities (science does not help here either - though 'quality of life' studies are very interesting, and now the World Health Organisation's definition of health includes 'spiritual health'.

Science tries to answer the questions concerning 'how?' Religion tries to answer the question 'why?' It is not so much whether we need religion, but whether God is real. You could ask 'do fish need water?': they don't know was waterless life is like but water is real. So I believe God is real, whether we need him or not.

Sure, Christianity is not the only source of morality, but I do believe Jesus of Nazareth provides the most authentic way of living.

Thanks, again. Great question.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

can you define God??

Thanks. Not really, but I'll have a go. Behind and beyond everything we can experience with our senses, there is an ultimate, personal and loving reality called God. He is deeply involved in our lives and in the universe and has come among us as Jesus of Nazareth.

Carl Jung, the great Swiss psychiatrist, wrote a letter to Laurens Van der Post, the novelist, which he quotes in his novel 'Yet Being Someone Other', p 351:

'I cannot define for you what God is...I can only tell you that my work as a natural scientist has established empirically that the pattern which men call God exists in every man and that this pattern has at its disposal the greatest transformative energies of life.'

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Do you believe in the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove and evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

Thanks. No, I don't. I believe in the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

What are your ideas on homosexuality? Also what do you think of the Church's condemnation of gay issues as well as the philosophical denial of it both biblically and through the means of Natural Law?

Thanks. See my reply to a similar question just now on this thread. I would also like to stress that I am against any form of verbal or physical violence against gay people. See the website and group, in which I am involved: 'Dont' Throw Stones'

http://www.dontthrowstones.info/ 

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Do you believe that some people hear Gods voice or are they just Schizophrenics who need serious help?

Thanks. Yes, I do believer some people hear God's voice. Sometimes they mishear him, and sometimes schizophrenics mishear him and they do need serious help.

The Hebrew prophets (in what we call the Old Testament in the Bible) certainly believed they heard God speak to them and through them to their societies. Today, I believe God still speaks, through his Scriptures, to mystics and to some modern day prophets eg Desmond Tutu. Maybe not necessarily hearing a particular voice, but sensing the will of God for communities eg God being against apartheid in South Africa.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Previously Bishop Graham wrote:

I am greatly looking forward to following up discussions with sixth formers at Gillingham School, Dorset, later this morning between 11.00 and 11.30am. www.gillingham.dorset.sch.uk

They began when I visited the school on Thursday 25 November 2010, and now we have a chance to continue the question and answer session we had then.

 

Are you looking for others to get in on the sharing of thoughts about a question or not?

Thanks for this clarifying question, which is very important.

These Grill a Bishop conversations are designed for young people and so, if you are not a young person, we are not looking for you to be involved in these. There are many other sites which have open discussions for all ages.

For young people who are not at the particular school mentioned in the title of that conversation, eg in this case Gillingham School, then we hope they will feel free to 'start a new conversation' - see top right box of the first page of Grill a Bishop.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

do you still believe that the Kings and Queens are appointed by God to rule over the peolpe, if so what do you think about their lack of power and influence they have nowadays?

Thanks for this thoughtful question. In the Old Testament, God appointed Kings (eg David) and Queens (eg Esther) to rule over his people. He also moved non Jewish rulers to act eg Cyrus, King of Persia, allowed the Jews to return to their homeland.

There was a concept of the Divine Right of Kings in England - and those on the Parliamentary side in the Civil War challenged this. Since my surname is Kings, I am not at all sure about this...

St Paul writes in Romans chapter 13 that God rules through the Roman magistrates, see v 4, but then in the Book of Revelation, the Roman Empire has become the Beast against God.

In Britain today, the Queen is a constitutional monarch and altough the Prime Minister and the Cabinet frame laws etc, she still holds some key power, even if limited compared with her predecessors. I realise that I am influenced by my own context in Britain, but I think our system of constitutional monarch seems to work well.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

What is your view on Richard Dawkins' book "the God delusion"?

Thanks. I agree with the critique of that book by the theologian Alister McGrath and his wife Joanna Collicutt McGrath, who is a psychologist, 'The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine' (SPCK, 2007):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion 

I also Terry Eagleton's devastating critique and review in the London Review of Books, 'Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching':

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/?148

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Freedom to choose is given to man by God. Man has two main choices: 1) Accept the Love of God and, upon death, go to paradise for eternity 2) Refuse God and, upon death, just die, be utterly damned. How is that freedom of choice when it is the same thing as a gun to your head?

Thanks. Because you are free to believe it or not - and even ask questions, like this, about it.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Many of the ideals of the Christian Church are taken from Thomas Aquinas' Natural Law. The views on Contraception, The Sanctity of life (relevant to euthanasia and abortion) are all drawn from Aquinas. However in many of Aquina's works he proposed that Rape could indeed be more moral than homosexuality, how can you as a Church promote writings that contradict modern day sentiments and yet selectively choose other of Aquinas' work?

Thanks. Great question re Aquinas. Looking forward to answering it later. Have a meeting right now, so have to go offline. Apologies.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Many of the ideals of the Christian Church are taken from Thomas Aquinas' Natural Law. The views on Contraception, The Sanctity of life (relevant to euthanasia and abortion) are all drawn from Aquinas. However in many of Aquina's works he proposed that Rape could indeed be more moral than homosexuality, how can you as a Church promote writings that contradict modern day sentiments and yet selectively choose other of Aquinas' work?

Thanks. I am an admirer of much of Aquinas's work but am not an expert on it. In answering earlier questions about suicide and abortion, I was drawing more on the Scriptures than on the writings of Aquinas - though he based his thought on the Bible and also used the insights of Aristotle. I don't see the problem in agreeing with part of a theologian's thought and not with another part. The is a good interview with an expert on Aquinas, David Burrell 'The New Aquinas' in Rupert Shortt's book 'God's Advocates: Christian Thinkers in Conversation' (DLT, 2005), chapter 7.

http://www.dltbooks.co.uk/book_details.asp?bID=647&bc=2&sID=&Type=B 

Previously Anonymous wrote:

What are your view on the idea of indoctrination of children in religious schools? Do you think this is right? Do you believe there are benefits to a humanist view of education by which children are given the choice of religion when they have the maturity to make a full and respecting choice?

Thanks, See my reply to your question on the other Grill a Bishop conversation/thread 'Influencing Children - is that right?'

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Will people who have never heard even the name of Jesus be banned from the kingdom of heaven?

Thanks for this very deep question. No, I don't believe that, but do believe that anyone who is in the kingdom of heaven is there because of what Jesus Christ has done. I've tried to explore this further in this article, and hope you don't mind me pointing you to it, rather than trying to summarise it here:

'Jesus Christ, Salvation and People of Other Faiths'

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/?3

Previously Anonymous wrote:

why are people that are gay comdemmed the exact same way as people that are rapist and murders just for loving someone when they cant help it? isn't gods main principle love?

Thanks. This is a deep question and can't be answered fully in a short answer.

God's main principle is indeed love, but - using a different issue - not all actions based on emotional love are healthy or live giving, it seems to me. For example, if a wife is in love with a man who is not her husband and starts a sexual affair, the repercussions in personal welfare for both families are likely to be traumatic and fall short of God's glory.

I don't believe God automatically condemns gay people and I don't believe that all lifestyles are equal in the sight of God, nor that people don't have any choice in how they live out their sexuality. People may not have a choice about their sexual identity, but how that identity is lived out, I do believe they have a choice. I believe there are many ways of loving people which do not involve 'sexual relations'. This is worth discussing further personally with someone you trust.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

do you believe that even if you are not a christian, but are a good person, will you still get to go to heaven?

Jesus shows us clearly that it is not by being good that you get to heaven - for no one is good enough anyway - but by having faith in him.

 Lots of sinners and tax collectors flocked to him and followed him and most of the pharisees, the really so called holy good people, - did not.

God understands us better than we do ourselves and knows all our motives. I also believe that people of other faiths who are genuinely open in faith to God as they know him will be acceptable to him - not through being good but by faith.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

seeing as God believed in Agape, what is your view on abortion?

Thanks. Agape is the greek word for love and yes, God not only believes in love but is love. Again, he creates every human being in his image and attacking his image in anyone - even in the womb - is not part of his will. So I am not in favour of abortion, except in extreme cases such as rape.

I realise that going ahead with the pregnancy is a difficult calling, and there are many advice centres that can offer help.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Ever since I joined a Chruch Of England primary school a question has always been very foremost in my interest, the question being whether you belive it is fair to preach the benevolance of god to children as young as 5 at such a age they are suseptable of new ideas and views and thus have not had a chance to experiance over options apart from christianity, do you believe this is unfair?

Great question. It seems to me that children are naturally religious - they don't need to be taught to be so. So discussing with them at early stages questions about God is naturaly. In the context in Britain, I don't see a problem with Christianity being the main religious tradition to share with children. As they grow older, other faiths also need exploring.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Christians say that everyone is capable of redeeming themselves in the eyes of God, however if God will 'Turn the other cheek' to virtually any crime, then what is the point, surely this only encourages criminal activity as people dont think there will be consequences.

Thanks. However, Christians don't say everyone is capable of redeeming themselves in the eyes of God - for we believe that no one can redeem themsevles. Only God can do that. We can't pull ourselves up by our own shoe laces. The heart of our belief is grace, God's initiatvive before our response of faith.

Voltaire said with wit 'God will forgive: it's his job' (metier). However, it is not that easy or simple or presumptuous. God longs for everyone to be redeemed by with their free will, not everyone responds in faith. You only understand the amazing idea of God putting us right with himself not because of what we do, but because of what he has done, in Christ, when you ask you key question ie does this not encourage criminal activity. Paul raises this question himself  in Romans chapter 6. Have a look. Yes, there are consequences and God is just.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Would you agree that science changes its views depending on whats obvserved whereas Religion is the denial of observation to preserve belief. For example, Evolution.

Thanks. Yes, the basis of science is that it adapts its theories in the light of discovering new facts. However, I disagree that Religion, eg Christianity, is the denial of observation - for just look at the centuries of observation, study and interpretation involved in theology eg in the universities of the world.

I believe God created human beings through evolution: I am a theistic evolutionist. Some Christian leaders were scared of the implications of evolution and countered it fiercely. The more thoughtful ones in the 19th century, eg John Henry Newman, saw it as discovering how God created humans.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Surely if one thing from the bible (e.g creation story in Genesis) isn't interpreted literally... then how can we interpret anything else in the Bible literally?

Thanks. I don't interpret anything else in the Bible literally. What is poetry - and there is lots of it in the Bible - is poetry. 'God rides on the wings of the wind' is in the Psalms. How cool a metaphor, but weird if literal. So we need to ask, 'what sort of literature is this particular part of the Bible I am reading?'

If poetic myth eg Genesis chapter one, then as myth. If history eg Luke 1:1-4, then as history. If a proverb eg Proverbs 15:1 'A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger', then as proverbial wisdom.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Would you class Atheism as a religion, as some people do?

Interesting question. Probably yes and no... Atheistic states, ie based on the categorical denial of God's existence such as Albania before the liberation brought about by the fall of the Berlin Wall, are involved in worship eg of key leaders, including statues of them, and preservation of their dead bodies and even songs celebrating them. So in that sense, 'yes'. But in the sense of 'organised religion' with sacred books and clergy and places of worship, maybe 'no'.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Doesn’t the inherent subjectivity of morality prove that God does not exist?

Thanks, Not necessarily. Only if you believe in your premise ie that all morality is inherently subjective - which I don't. If you believe that, then maybe you define God into non-existence... If there is an ethic of goodness embedded in human life which is given and - well yes, objective - such as it is not good to murder people - then not all morality is inherently subjective, nor, I believe, merely the sum of lots of individually subjective moralities. We are part of each other, each others communites.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

If god is all powerful then surely he could make a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it...but then if he cannot lift it, he is not all powerful....explain

Thanks. Neat question. There are some things God can't do eg go against his own character. There are also some questions which confuse categories eg 'is brown square?' confuses the categories of colour and shape.

So God can't answer the question 'is brown square?' since it is a non-question. So also, although I laughed when I read it, is your question. It is like an electrical extension cable which is plugged into itself rather than into the socket on the wall - it just goes round in circles but without power.