2005-01-04
2005-01-03
god's tsunami?
Of course this makes us doubt God's existence (Rowan Williams, Sunday Telegraph, 2/1/05). Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The question: "How can you believe in a God who permits suffering on this scale?" is therefore very much around at the moment, and it would be surprising if it weren't – indeed, it would be wrong if it weren't. ...
If some religious genius did come up with an explanation of exactly why all these deaths made sense, would we feel happier or safer or more confident in God? Wouldn't we feel something of a chill at the prospect of a God who deliberately plans a programme that involves a certain level of casualties?
The extraordinary fact is that belief has survived such tests again and again – not because it comforts or explains but because believers cannot deny what has been shown or given to them. ...
The odd thing is that those who are most deeply involved – both as sufferers and as helpers – are so often the ones who spend least energy in raging over the lack of explanation. They are likely to shrug off, awkwardly and not very articulately, the great philosophical or religious questions we might want to press. Somehow, they are most aware of two things: a kind of strength and vision just to go on; and a sense of the imperative for practical service and love. Somehow in all of this, God simply emerges for them as a faithful presence. Arguments "for and against" have to be put in the context of that awkward, stubborn persistence.
What can be said with authority about these terrible matters can finally be said only by those closest to the cost. The rest of us need to listen; and then to work and – as best we can manage it – pray.
I admire his honesty and courage in confronting the issue "how can you believe in a God who permits suffering on this scale?". But I remain a non-believer, more so than ever.
The editors of the Daily Telegraph have this (Faith in plain language, 3/1/05) to say about the article:
The archbishop's purpose here ... was to say that the Christian faith should not be upset by natural disasters, because it is a faith that is not "bound up with comfort and ready answers". But what a convoluted way of putting it.
His prose is so obscure, his thought processes so hard to follow, that his message is often unclear.
Well, may be the reason why the article is so convoluted is that despite Mr. Williams's will to confront this burning issue, he does not have a good answer, and he knows it. And yet, he is the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he is supposed to be able to come up with a good answer.
Read the article, and judge it for yourself.
From Australia, God's will comments horrible, says dean (Lisa Pryor, Sydney Morning Herald, 3/1/05)
The dean of St Mary's Cathedral, Neil Brown, has criticised religious leaders who say the tsunami disaster is the will of God.
The comments came after the Anglican Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen, said disasters were part of God's warning that judgement was coming.
At a Mass dedicated to victims of the tsunami, Father Brown told a congregation at St Mary's yesterday that humans could not know the will of God. "It [that such disasters are God's will] is not a Catholic belief, and it's a rather horrible belief when you begin to think about it," he said.
Mr Jensen yesterday confirmed he had told a journalist that "disasters are part of His warning that judgement is coming". However, he said the statement was taken out of context, and it now was the time to help victims of the disaster; philosophical debate should be left until later. "Our first task is to pray [to] the sovereign God who rules all things, and secondly to give generously to help people in their hour of need, and thirdly, down the track, to think about and talk about what it's all about."
----------
Watch Rev. Tom Honey, the Canon Pastor of Exeter Cathedral, on: How could God have allowed the tsunami?
The question: "How can you believe in a God who permits suffering on this scale?" is therefore very much around at the moment, and it would be surprising if it weren't – indeed, it would be wrong if it weren't. ...
If some religious genius did come up with an explanation of exactly why all these deaths made sense, would we feel happier or safer or more confident in God? Wouldn't we feel something of a chill at the prospect of a God who deliberately plans a programme that involves a certain level of casualties?
The extraordinary fact is that belief has survived such tests again and again – not because it comforts or explains but because believers cannot deny what has been shown or given to them. ...
The odd thing is that those who are most deeply involved – both as sufferers and as helpers – are so often the ones who spend least energy in raging over the lack of explanation. They are likely to shrug off, awkwardly and not very articulately, the great philosophical or religious questions we might want to press. Somehow, they are most aware of two things: a kind of strength and vision just to go on; and a sense of the imperative for practical service and love. Somehow in all of this, God simply emerges for them as a faithful presence. Arguments "for and against" have to be put in the context of that awkward, stubborn persistence.
What can be said with authority about these terrible matters can finally be said only by those closest to the cost. The rest of us need to listen; and then to work and – as best we can manage it – pray.
I admire his honesty and courage in confronting the issue "how can you believe in a God who permits suffering on this scale?". But I remain a non-believer, more so than ever.
The editors of the Daily Telegraph have this (Faith in plain language, 3/1/05) to say about the article:
The archbishop's purpose here ... was to say that the Christian faith should not be upset by natural disasters, because it is a faith that is not "bound up with comfort and ready answers". But what a convoluted way of putting it.
His prose is so obscure, his thought processes so hard to follow, that his message is often unclear.
Well, may be the reason why the article is so convoluted is that despite Mr. Williams's will to confront this burning issue, he does not have a good answer, and he knows it. And yet, he is the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he is supposed to be able to come up with a good answer.
Read the article, and judge it for yourself.
From Australia, God's will comments horrible, says dean (Lisa Pryor, Sydney Morning Herald, 3/1/05)
The dean of St Mary's Cathedral, Neil Brown, has criticised religious leaders who say the tsunami disaster is the will of God.
The comments came after the Anglican Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen, said disasters were part of God's warning that judgement was coming.
At a Mass dedicated to victims of the tsunami, Father Brown told a congregation at St Mary's yesterday that humans could not know the will of God. "It [that such disasters are God's will] is not a Catholic belief, and it's a rather horrible belief when you begin to think about it," he said.
Mr Jensen yesterday confirmed he had told a journalist that "disasters are part of His warning that judgement is coming". However, he said the statement was taken out of context, and it now was the time to help victims of the disaster; philosophical debate should be left until later. "Our first task is to pray [to] the sovereign God who rules all things, and secondly to give generously to help people in their hour of need, and thirdly, down the track, to think about and talk about what it's all about."
----------
Watch Rev. Tom Honey, the Canon Pastor of Exeter Cathedral, on: How could God have allowed the tsunami?
Haruki Murakami writes about love, earthquakes and mackerel raining from the sky
Found in translation - an interview of Murakami Haruki (Stephen Phelan, Sunday Herald, 2/1/05)
He is also entirely self-possessed, inscrutable, and often enigmatic. Certain words are totemic in his speech patterns: "Dream." "Darkness." "Kindness."
Murakami's answers never really explain anything, but they are never disappointing either. "The world is a metaphor," he says at one point, although he doesn't say what for, and I don't think he knows.
The narrators of most Murakami novels have been semi-employed, half-awake, disengaged free-thinkers in their late 20s. He has always drawn backdated inspiration from that blurry time of life, but he feels sorry for anyone going through it, including me.
Murakami once described his stories as "mysteries without solutions", which you could read as a universal metaphor for life itself. Everything passes. Nobody gets anything for keeps. Who knows if the causes are natural or supernatural? What's the difference?
----------
He is also entirely self-possessed, inscrutable, and often enigmatic. Certain words are totemic in his speech patterns: "Dream." "Darkness." "Kindness."
Murakami's answers never really explain anything, but they are never disappointing either. "The world is a metaphor," he says at one point, although he doesn't say what for, and I don't think he knows.
The narrators of most Murakami novels have been semi-employed, half-awake, disengaged free-thinkers in their late 20s. He has always drawn backdated inspiration from that blurry time of life, but he feels sorry for anyone going through it, including me.
Murakami once described his stories as "mysteries without solutions", which you could read as a universal metaphor for life itself. Everything passes. Nobody gets anything for keeps. Who knows if the causes are natural or supernatural? What's the difference?
How to have sex with a ghost / A wild cat chase with the boy in bloodstained clothes
Tim Adams is touched by Kafka on the Shore, Haruki Murakami's surreal and hallucinatory novel of a boy's oedipal quest (The Observer, 2/1/05)
A wild cat chase with the boy in bloodstained clothes (James Urquhart, The Independent, 2/1/05)
----------
A wild cat chase with the boy in bloodstained clothes (James Urquhart, The Independent, 2/1/05)
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)