Amandil
I really like the way you think.
Perhaps this thread needs to be abandoned and a new one started on the themes you have been debating over the past several pages, such as
Crusades and** Is Religion All Subjective**?
Let me know if you start a new thread. Thanks.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
As far as the Crusades go I am not one of those who try and white wash the Crusades as some great thing for Christendom. The only Crusade which I would even consider “successful” would be the first Crusade. Every other Crusade was a failure and several disastrously so. The Crusades are an extremely complex and nuanced history covering centuries and in regards to the persons involved both demonstrate the best and the worst of Christendom, true men of God like Godfrey De Bouillon and St. Bernard, and real scoundrels such as the Norman duke of Sicily and his sons Frederick II of Saxony (if my memory serves me right), and many others.
What I utterly object to is that the Crusades are the direct result of Christianity. That statement is not only absurd but is a position which is just as bad as those who white wash it.
As far as the second point the problem is that a subjectivist, even a religious subjectivist like Mr. Sheldrake, they would love to have the discussion and share their feelings and thoughts about it, but if you look at the preceding conversation you ought to be able to see that the issue for them could never be answered because there is no objective answer to be had. For them religion is “in us” and therefore so is God. The only real knowable content of God which can be observed or obtained is in us and through us.
The objective knowable content of religion(the Scripture, the Church, the Creed, sacraments and their effects, etc.) is secondary if not irrelevant. They reserve the right to decide for themselves what religion is, what is useful, and then ignore and discard what is not. They decide “what is good and what is evil” and they do “what is right in their own eyes.” Never mind the diabolical source of such an idea and the disastrous consequences that come from such a philosophy as already demonstrated in the Scriptures they ignore.
The fact that there does exist in religion objective knowable content in religion is sufficient proof that religion cannot be wholly subjective. That subjectivist objectively claim that religion is wholly subjective is another. Even the more subjective elements of religion, the Liturgy & prayer must not have come from someone else as its Source, but also have that same Other as its object. The Liturgy, the corporate worship of the people of God, is not a private “experience” but rather our participation in an objective fact-Christ’s Passion, death, and Resurrection and our reception of divine life in the Eucharist.
If the Passion, death, and Resurrection of Christ is not a real objective fact, what does that mean for the Eucharist? Is it or is it not “the mystery of Faith”? Is it or is it not the flesh and blood of Jesus? If its not objectively true, but merely a “belief”, is it an essential “belief” or a non-essential “belief”.
If its not an essential belief, then why bother with it at all?
If it’s an essential belief, how can we ever be certain, because apparently beliefs cannot be at the same time objectively true. And if we can’t even be certain of what Christ said is His body and blood, how can we be certain about anything He said and did?
Thus it seems that the whole idea of belief, even the belief in religious subjectivism, falls apart. If the source of all truth is not true but merely a “belief”, following Mr. Sheldrake’s view, you can’t possibly know anything. Which also means that what you claim to know, that religion is wholly subjective, crumbles because there’s no real certainty that that belief is even true.
This is why any subjectivism, including religious subjectivism, is ultimately self-contradictory.
