I'm not sure what it means, either! The second sentence, which isn't directly connected with the first, was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I do think, though, from my observations while teaching English in universities, and when discussing and performing music with many different people, that there is an intuitive response to both poetry and music which isn't an intellectual response. Some people have it, some don't, and it can't be taught.

I was surprised he chose the St Matthew Passion because it is essentially a religious piece. I expect he had something to say about that at the time. I'd choose it, too, for reasons that aren't really to do with its Christianity. Please don't ask me to explain. I can't - it's intuitive

I think you'll find that the laws regarding food are far from 'made up stuff' and still make perfect sense for those living simple lives in middle-eastern areas. It doesn't help to lump the whole of the Bible together anyway: it's a collection of writings from various sources which were never originally envisaged as a whole. The Old and New Testaments have completely different intentions: it's perfectly possible to consider the O.T. as a historical, mythological and poetical repository combined with a survival manual for one specific group of people at a specific historical point.

Nowadays it's far easier for us to understand the world from a scientific point of view, but all ancient civilisations needed some view of their world and its creation to answer the questions that nearly all humans find themselves asking at some time or another; every mythology you care to examine will contain some version of the same ideas, but no other has been so well recorded and preserved.

My reading of the gospel is that the only requirement to enter the kingdom of heaven is that you accept Christ as your saviour.

That's the only requirement. Apart from that, do as you will...

(I'm happy to be corrected on that point. It's so long since I've read the full Gospels that I can't remember an exact citation to back it up.)

But the only way we can know of Christ's death and resurrection is from the Bible, which apparently can have more than one meaning...

If I were a Christian I would be worried that we were following the wrong meaning. Such as, for example, what if the resurrection story was just another parable and Christ wasn't really the son of God but was just using that "story" to illustrate a point, as he did in most of his teachings?

IRF - I always read your postings with interest, so you don't think we are having a quarrel.

These boards are not really the place for in-depth theological discussion, but I don't see what is the problem with a text having more than one meaning.  That is the whole basis of modern critical thought.

As a minimum, there was an itinerant rabbi from Nazareth in C1 Palestine, who was executed and after his execution his followers, who had deserted him at his trials, saw that death as a triumph and reconciliation with God, giving them the energy to preach to all the known world.

Whether or not that basis means anything to you, we all have to have some faith that life is worthwhile, and that we must put ourselves out to recognise other people's needs.  Many who are not Christians have that sort of faith, many Christians seem to fail lamentably.  But for me the two things go together, inadequate  though my response may be.

I think what finally put me off the Church (of England) was that they don't require pacifism of their members, but do require abstinence in certain sexual matters. Seems like twisted values to me.

Thanks, Don. Isn't it just!

It prompted me to order this...




Couperin, Stravinsky, Mozart and Delannoy (Delannoy? I don't know either but no doubt I'll find out.)