![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thoughts About St Michael's, & etc.
Last Sunday visited St. Michael's Uniting Church where the service was on the cheery subject of cancer. It was a essentially humanist presentation albeit with a small component of Christian ritual, but concluding with a brilliant Chinese opera singer. It was apparently a quiet day - there was only 350 people in the congregation. After the service I attended the new member's gathering, and last night a class on Dr. Francis McNab's "New Faith" - which is essentially using the myths of religion (yes, he and his colleagues call them "myths"), tied with the insights of psychotherapy.
There are inevitable comparisons with the Melbourne Unitarian Church, a place where I have hitherto spent so much time and energy. Aesthetically of course, St. Michael's is far superior, an absolutely stunning heritage-listed building. They are much better organised with a sophisticated distribution of powers, responsibility, with extensive qualified and professional staff. Unsurprisingly, their attendance and their finances and assets seem to be vastly superior (apart from the Church there's a small office block as well). Not sufficiently researched at the moment is their overall governance along with their charitable and social justice programs, although I think I recognise the name of the person who co-ordinates the latter.
On the Sunday returned to the Unitarian Church Philosophy Forum to hear Rick Barker give a presentation on "The Prehistoric Human Settlement of Sahul (intro paper, PDF), which was well attended, apparently better than the service, I have been reliably informed. Have since discovered that there is also a boardgame on the subject! Finally, will be speaking on November 13 at the Melbourne Atheist Society on "The Importance of a Secular Political System", which will have a couple of surprises to what is a seemingly obvious title.
There are inevitable comparisons with the Melbourne Unitarian Church, a place where I have hitherto spent so much time and energy. Aesthetically of course, St. Michael's is far superior, an absolutely stunning heritage-listed building. They are much better organised with a sophisticated distribution of powers, responsibility, with extensive qualified and professional staff. Unsurprisingly, their attendance and their finances and assets seem to be vastly superior (apart from the Church there's a small office block as well). Not sufficiently researched at the moment is their overall governance along with their charitable and social justice programs, although I think I recognise the name of the person who co-ordinates the latter.
On the Sunday returned to the Unitarian Church Philosophy Forum to hear Rick Barker give a presentation on "The Prehistoric Human Settlement of Sahul (intro paper, PDF), which was well attended, apparently better than the service, I have been reliably informed. Have since discovered that there is also a boardgame on the subject! Finally, will be speaking on November 13 at the Melbourne Atheist Society on "The Importance of a Secular Political System", which will have a couple of surprises to what is a seemingly obvious title.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Dr McNab's "New Commandments" remind me a little of Thich Nhat Hanh's reworking of traditional Buddhist teachings into the Five Mindfulness Trainings and Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings.
no subject
This said, in reference to your links, I am more than a little wary of the form of Buddhism that seeks to isolate itself from sensual reality with all its complexities, difficulties, and imperfections.
no subject
That's why i like TNH's approach - more practical and life-positive than some.
no subject
no subject
Thich Nhat Hanh. I was lazy. :)
no subject
For what was mostly non-controversial, I found this problematic. I am more orientated towards using the noble path as a means to directly deal with the suffering arising from empirical facticity (dukkha nirodha gamini patipada magga), rather than trying to avoid that facticity.
no subject
Well, that passage appears to be specifically for nuns and monks, which has always involved renunciation of worldly life and its entanglements, while the lay path is there for those who prefer to deal with those sorts of complexities (even if the former seems to be usually presented as superior).
I perhaps have more of an issue with the corresponding part of the Five Trainings, which includes an affirmation that "sexual activity motivated by craving always harms myself as well as others". While i can see the problems it *can* cause, i'm not convinced that it's fair to say it *always* causes harm, at least in my experience. Then again, being Buddhism, i guess anything motivated by craving is seen as harmful (though Thich Nhat Hanh's approach generally seemes lighter on the "desire is bad, m'kay?" aspect than others).
no subject
PS - what do you mean by suffering arising from empirical facticity?