Forget theology, stick to law
Published:Monday | October 4, 2010 | 12:00 AM
The Editor, Sir:
Re: Beliefs, myths & mind control (In Focus, October 3).
Gordon Robinson had better not give up his day job as an 'attorney' to become a theologian. What exactly is the point that he is trying to make in his long-winded and rambling article?
I think he is trying to say - judging by the title of the article - that many people believe a lot of religion, myths and lies. For he claims: ''All 'faith-based' religions (not only Christianity) suffer from the same fundamental flaws''. My question to him is: Which religions are these, and what are these fundamental flaws?
He then talks about facts, e.g. '... He [Jesus] did something really cool - He rose again (like Lazarus)''. But does Robinson realise that many people, even Christians don't believe this 'fact', and see it as a myth or an allegory? So who is Robinson, then, to decide what are myths and facts? Who is he to decide who is religiously right or wrong? For clearly, judging by his own statements, his own religious claims are 'faith-based', a method that he has already condemned.
He refers to 'fundamentals': These are for him, allegories; but can fundamentals be allegories? He says that the Church has misunderstood these allegories like the 'Last Supper', and made them facts. But if what Jesus did - eating bread and drinking wine - were symbolic actions having deeper spiritual meanings, then clearly why take issue with those who believe that actual bread and wine represents literal flesh and blood of Jesus? Aren't these people still applying a metaphorical gloss to their religious actions, as Jesus did?
Incoherent and unconvincing
Robinson says 'God has no specially appointed spokesman', that 'everybody speaks for God'; how can he be sure about such claims? So Jesus then, we have to assume, had no special claim to speak for God, for that would run contrary to Robinson's statement that Jesus while on earth was God. But Jesus did make such a claim - or his disciples did - that he was uniquely the messenger of God.
Robinson clumsily mixes Scriptures with 'pop' lyrics, and this makes his style amateurish; and his arguments incoherent and unconvincing. Such an essay would be lucky to escape with a C minus grade in a CXC composition examination.
I am, etc.,
GEORGE S GARWOOD