The Changing Views of Modern Christians

[ok doser]

In your mind they do.

in most people's minds they do

But not in everyone else's.

correct

retarded people, for example, would struggle with them



(i clipped your struggle)

 

[Lon]

In your mind ... not in everyone else's. "Thou shalt not kill" could mean...Or it could...Or it could....Or it could mean...
Who decides..? .... we do.

:nono: God does. When in doubt, don't Romans 14:8,23

You have decided this for yourself.

:nono: "when in doubt" Romans 14:23

And that's fine. But having done so, you then just presume that your decision overrules everyone else's. That if they disagree with your interpretation of this vague dictum, they are disagreeing with God Himself.

Yes, most of us do. There is something wrong about ripping what God placed in a person, out. I've seen the videos. You've never seen an abortion video? Do yourself an enlightening favor.

And yet they are not. They are merely disagreeing with your interpretation of an ancient religious text, that God did not even write. (That, too, is an assumption on your part.)

You pulled the double here, that even if I proved it true, you doubt the veracity of even the scriptures themselves lain:

Everyone fills in the vagaries with their own imagined intent.

ONLY if you are not filled with the Spirit of God. Nick, John W, Delmar, Chrysto and I are from very different denominations. We all agree that abortion is murder.

And that's as it must be because the text is vague.

Romans 14:23

But that doesn't give any of us the right to then just assume that our interpretation of the text is the only and absolutely correct interpretation of it, and therefor anyone else's is wrong and immoral. Yet this is what you are assuming, isn't it.

Absolutely.

And the people who do read it don't always agree on what it means.
And yet nearly every word in the dictionary has multiple meanings. And even more-so when they have been translated from other languages.
God didn't write any words. That, too, is a presumptive interpretation of the text, by you, that not everyone shares.

I'm capable of diagramming a sentence. Most, sadly, cannot. Context is indeed, king.

 

[PureX]

:nono: God does. When in doubt, don't Romans 14:8,23

:nono: "when in doubt" Romans 14:23

Yes, most of us do. There is something wrong about ripping what God placed in a person, out. I've seen the videos. You've never seen an abortion video? Do yourself an enlightening favor.

You pulled the double here, that even if I proved it true, you doubt the veracity of even the scriptures themselves lain:

ONLY if you are not filled with the Spirit of God. Nick, John W, Delmar, Chrysto and I are from very different denominations. We all agree that abortion is murder.

Romans 14:23

Absolutely.

I'm capable of diagramming a sentence. Most, sadly, cannot. Context is indeed, king.

I think it's both sad and very weird that you were completely incapable of responding coherently to any of the points in my post. My guess is that you were not even capable of comprehending my observations because you are so thoroughly invested in the idea of your own unquestionable righteousness. It's kind of shocking, even though I see this all the time on TOL.

 

[ok doser]

lon responds to the points in purex's post:


in response, purex once again demonstrates his desperate need for a mirror:

..you were completely incapable of responding to any of the points in my post.

a mind is a terrible thing to waste :nono:

 

[Crucible]

I'm separating it from the "Jesus religion". I'm not saying Jesus is a myth, I'm saying that the story of Jesus that we read in the Bible is a mythical story. Meaning that it is intended to convey an ideal/revelation to those who read it.

I don't understand what in the Hell is keeping you atheists from realizing the simple fact that the 'story' is literal and the message is to you're stupid, bewildered face_

 

[PureX]

I don't understand what in the Hell is keeping you atheists from realizing the simple fact that the 'story' is literal and the message is to you're stupid, bewildered face_

Common sense … a reasonable comprehension of the fact of reality … a desire to be honest with ourselves and each other … it's not so difficult to understand, really.

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't understand what in the Hell is keeping you atheists from realizing the simple fact that the 'story' is literal and the message is to you're stupid, bewildered face_

If you're going to be condescending you might want to check your pronoun usage...though it's inarguably funnier this way.

 

[Lon]

I think it's both sad and very weird that you were completely incapable of responding coherently to any of the points in my post. My guess is that you were not even capable of comprehending my observations because you are so thoroughly invested in the idea of your own unquestionable righteousness. It's kind of shocking, even though I see this all the time on TOL.

Common sense … a reasonable comprehension of the fact of reality … a desire to be honest with ourselves and each other … it's not so difficult to understand, really.

I know you guys don't ever get this, but we indeed have a topsy-turvy definition of what is 'common' for sense, what is biblical, and what is logical. Don't ever let it surprise you again. Generally, it is the difference between what we believe the state of man is prior to God getting a hold of him/her. It goes "man is basically good" or "man is depraved, and his 'common-sense' is wrought with sin and injustice in his fallen state.
Learn this one thing and appreciate it lest we have to have you 'surpriosed at the lack.' My common-sense is to accept what God says is true and learn, "as the one created" to think like his Creator instead of trying to 'god it' on my own. This is ever the problem with you, you stand alone without a god when you appeal to 'common' sense. The world is fallen. "Common" sense therefore is what is shared among the fallen, including,but not as evident, the intellect.

 

[Zeke]

Ah the curse/spell of mental artificial spiritualism, A egocentric confused theology majoring on statues and codes/creeds projected from a Soul under bondage to Magistrate of fiction wearing a facade of God, a energy source that is ever demanding on its host.

 

[Selaphiel]

Actually, that's exactly what they are. Most myths contain accurate information that's been exaggerated and embellished to better serve their intent; which is to convey an ideal, lesson, or revelation of some kind. And that's exactly what the story of Jesus of Nazareth is, and is intended to do.

I do not deny that there are instances of embellishments in the gospels. However, if you reduce all of the extraordinary in the story, especially the resurrection, then it is nothing but a tragedy. Certain stories only convey meaning if they are in fact true in their central events, the resurrection is one of them. If it is true, then conveys great meaning, in fact it conveys the truth of God over against the truth of the world. If it is a myth, then it is a lie. The innocent and just remain dead and crushed by the world, ultimate reality/God says 'no' instead of 'yes' to Christ in that case. If you do not believe that Christ was raised from death, then the story is really a tragedy, not gospel.

We don't know that Jesus actually existed

I would say we know with every bit of certainty as any other famous ancient person whose existence is taken for granted.

. But that doesn't matter because whatever and whoever Jesus was, he is NOW the embodiment of an ideal. He is NOW the central character in a religious myth. That is his proper "context" from our perspective.

See above. If the central events did not actually occurr in some sense, the story conveys nothing worth preserving. Christ is the identifying word of God. If he was not actually raised, then there is no confirmation that that is the case at all. Jesus as an embodiment of an ideal is a completely anachronistic reading of the text, completely take out of the particular context the actual writers lived in and was a part of. When a reading would have rendered Jesus completely unrecognizable to his actual followers, then you are no longer talking about the same person.

But it IS a story, now. That's ALL IT IS, NOW. Because whatever reality there may once have been to it is now lost to us. All we have is the story, and the lessons/revelations that the story conveys to us.

Then why bother with it over any other story? "Christian" becomes a meaningless label at that point. Christianity is the belief that it remains a living word, that speaks to the church today as well thorugh the risen Christ in the Spirit.

The Jews of the time interpreted that lesson and revelation in the way that best made sense to them. As did the Christians who assembled the written texts centuries later. But I am not an ancient Jew, nor a medieval monk, nor even an orthodox Christian of today. So I feel no particular compulsion, nor see any logical reason for me to adopt their interpretations of the mythical story. And so far, I am not seeing you offering me any, either, except that you are shocked that I'd dare to interpret the mythical story for myself, and in a way that best serves my own needs and temperament. Which I find rather myopic of you.

You are missing the point. It is rather that the whole story is warped in its meaning if removed from its actual context. You can interpret it all you want, but I can point out that the interpretation doesn't make much sense given the historical and cultural context of the story. Christ simply is not a universal title, it is a particular title whose meaning comes from that world. The same with Jesus' actions and words, they make sense within his context of eschatological Judaism, as do the interpretation of his death and resurrection by the church.

You should do as you think appropriate, and I am sure that you will. But I believe that you will discover the Christ ideal of living through love to produce better results for you and for everyone in your life, over all.

It does? According to the story it doesn't go very well with Jesus himself. Doesn't go well with his followers either. If you view the resurrection as a mere myth, then his story is a tragedy. What happened to him for his troubles was that he suffered a torturous death. Same is the case with the martyrs. They died follow his teachings. In fact, his very teachings say that it will not go well with those who follow his teachings. Bonhoeffer was hanged by the nazis, Jon Sobrino was assassinated by the government he criticized, just to mention two modern examples of radical followers of those teachings. They will be in raised up with him of course, but if you write his resurrection off as a mere metaphor or myth, that goes out the window. Then all that is left is the persecution. Then it seems that the words of Ecclesiastes is more proper than the teachings of Jesus, better to be a live dog than a dead lion.

They are the language and ideological framework I've been given, in this culture, so they are the language and ideological framework I use. I simply disregard the ancient Judaic religious associations because I am not an ancient Jew. Nor even a modern one.

But then they are just words warped beyond recognition. When Peter professes "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", then it seems reasonable to understand the statement in light of what it meant to Peter.

I don't really care. I am not searching for the "truth" beyond a truth that 'works' in my life

Then you are contradicting yourself. You wrote: "But slowly, over a long time span, we humans do seem to be becoming kinder toward each other. Though sadly, here in the U.S. present, we have been falling back into moral Darwinism, again.". That statement makes no sense unless you postulate a scale of goodness. To say that someone is becoming more kind/good, you are implying a standard that is true. So say that someone is falling back to something, moral Darwinism in this case, assumes the same. If you deny such a truth, then moral Darwinism is no better or worse, just different. What is good is then determined by power, not by what is true.

 

[exminister]

I think it's both sad and very weird that you were completely incapable of responding coherently to any of the points in my post. My guess is that you were not even capable of comprehending my observations because you are so thoroughly invested in the idea of your own unquestionable righteousness. It's kind of shocking, even though I see this all the time on TOL.

In this case Lon could not see the forest for the trees and his response was ironic.
You made a very interesting case. Wish Lon could have addressed that instead.

 

[PureX]

My common-sense is to accept what God says is true and learn …

The problem, here, is that YOU are deciding what "God says", and YOU are deciding what God means by it. So that in effect, you are simply deifying your own understanding and interpretation of an ancient religious text. And that is a form of self-idolatry. And that self-idolatry forms the foundation of your religion, and your identity. Which is why you simply cannot allow yourself to see it for what it really is.

And that's why (I believe) you are incapable of responding to my posts and observation, coherently. They simply 'cannot compute' in your worldview. Because they question your unquestionable assumption: that your idea of God IS God.

I'm sorry, Lon, I'm just pointing out the obvious, here.

The world is fallen. "Common" sense therefore is what is shared among the fallen, including,but not as evident, the intellect.

When logic and reason become our enemy, ego becomes our ruler. And ego is just a clinical term for self-idolatry. The very thing you accuse everyone else, of, is the very thing you are doing yourself: worshipping your own idea of God as if it were not your idea of God, but God itself.

 

[ok doser]

When logic and reason become our enemy, ego becomes our ruler

and of course, you are blind to the fact that you have allowed "logic and reason" to be your ruler, oblivious to the fact that what you believe to be "logic and reason" are nothing more than your ego-based interpretation of what you think logic and reason should be


and so, while Lon's worldview is anchored by an understanding of beliefs that have a track record of being sound and valuable, your worldview is anchored by nothing


and you will, of course, be unable to understand anything of what I've just said

 

[Caino]

AMR posted an interesting link on one of the closed theology threads, and I found myself agreeing with many of the changes that are happening in the views that modern American Christians are expressing about Christian religious dogma.

First, here is the link: The State of Theology

And here are some of the findings presented in it:



I find myself agreeing with a number of these positions, and I feel it's a positive sign that others are considering Christianity in what appears to be a more realistic and functional light, than that of the past.



It's not at all surprising that the ideology of Christianity is changing. Even in spite of the many and ongoing efforts at thwarting change. But I am a little surprised to find these changes reflecting modern perceptions and values to the degree that they are. (Though I don't know why I should be, as I suppose it's only natural.)

Anyway, I see this as a positive sign, and I'm just wondering what others think.

The gospel began to change immediately after Jesus left, then Pauls new gospel reached a petrified point in the Roman church. Today the liberal spirit of Jesus is behind many of the positive changes taking place.

 

[PureX]

I do not deny that there are instances of embellishments in the gospels.

Which ones are they, do you think? And upon what basis are you determining this? On the basis of logic, and reason, and rigorous honesty? Or on the basis of what you want and need to believe to be true? Because I can't think of any reason to believe that walking on water and rising people from the dead and the various other feats of divine magic are NOT embellishments intended to convey the ideal of hope, and the ideal of overcoming our 'Earthly nature', except that I simply want/need to believe they are true.

I believe those ideals are true, too. But I don't logically need to believe that the story's embellishments are not embellishments, to do that. And I don't think it's healthy for other adult human beings to do that, either. It's like being an adult that still insists on believing that Santa Clause is a real person. And who claims that if Santa Claus in not a real person, then the ideal and practice of expressing love, friendship and generosity through gift-giving, that his mythical myth of Santa conveys to us, is a lie.

The truth is not dependent upon the myth. The myth is simply a means of expressing and conveying the truth amongst ourselves. And adults that can't or won't understand that are intellectually stunted, and are intellectually stunting themselves. They are being childish, and deliberately ignoring of the facts of their own reality.

This is not healthy behavior. And it's not honest.

The reality of Jesus' existence is hidden from us in the mists of time. We will very likely never come to know that reality, now. All we have, now, is the story of him and of his existence as a divine/human being. And that story has clearly been embellished to help convey to us a great truth (which many of us have come to hold sacred).

It is that truth; that ideal, and the hope that it promises that really matters. NOT the facts of Jesus' existence. Because the story of Jesus' existence is only the means of conveying the ideal and the promise of 'Christ'. To admit that the story is embellished takes nothing from the ideal and the promise that the story conveys. To call the story mythical takes nothing away from the ideal and the promise that the (now mythical) story conveys to us.

And it is the ideal and it's promise that is the truth. Not the story. The story is just a mythical story to us, now. As the fact of Jesus' existence is lost to ancient history and has since been subjugated to convey the message of Christ. But the truth of the ideal his story conveys is not lost. Nor is the promise that comes with it. The ideal and promise we call 'Christ' is real, here and now, and is available to anyone who wishes to open their heart and mind up, and experience it's reality.

You keep trying to insist that if the story is not historically accurate, then the ideal and promise of Christ is not true. But the truth of Christ is not dependent on the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Nor should your faith in that truth, be. Especially when making your faith dependent in that way forces you to choke, stifle and retard your own intellectual honesty, and causes you to propose that others do the same.

 

[Selaphiel]

Which ones are they, do you think? And upon what basis are you determining this? On the basis of logic, and reason, and rigorous honesty? Or on the basis of what you want and need to believe to be true? Because I can't think of any reason to believe that walking on water and rising people from the dead and the various other feats of divine magic are NOT embellishments intended to convey the ideal of hope, and the ideal of overcoming our 'Earthly nature', except that I simply want/need to believe they are true.

Have you tried? What effort have you actually made in trying to discern such a thing yourself? Which commentaries and theologians have you read?

Writing it off as either impossible or writing it off as willful disbelief without having done proper studies makes such a claim rather insignificant.

I'm afraid it is a little bit more complex than that false dichotomy. We have historical-criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, textual criticism etc. to examine such questions. We can also compare the stories with other contemporary literature and thought systems.

How exactly does it convey hope if it didn't happen? That doesn't make much sense. The story of the resurrection conveys no hope if it did not actually happen in any way, shape or form.

I might as well claim that a story where US armed forces invade some imagined place and meets no resistance upon arrival because they were handed help from military inteliigence conveys the reliability of the US military intelligence. But if in reality they got no such information and met heavy resistance and suffered causalities, then the story is a lie and actually conveys the opposite.

If the resurrection is a symbol or metaphor that did not actually happened, then there is no gospel, it is a tragedy. The gospel is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. If the real story was that Jesus of Nazareth was captured, tortured, crucified and buried and remains dead, then the real truth is that Rome and the collaborating Jewish religious elite won.

I believe those ideals are true, too. But I don't logically need to believe that the story's embellishments are not embellishments, to do that. And I don't think it's healthy for other adult human beings to do that, either. It's like being an adult that still insists on believing that Santa Clause is a real person. And who claims that if Santa Claus in not a real person, then the ideal and practice of expressing of love, friendship and generosity that his mythical existence conveys to us, is a lie

The ideals might be correct. But the story would be redundant.

The truth is not dependent upon the myth. The myth is simply a means of expressing and conveying the truth amongst ourselves. And adults that can't or won't understand that are intellectually stunted, and are intellectually stunting themselves. They are being childish, and deliberately ignoring of the facts of their own reality.

This is not healthy behavior. And it's not honest.

So you claim, but you have given very little evidence that you have made much effort at studying or understanding serious theologians who believe that the resurrection was a real event. Was Wolfhart Pannenberg intellectually stunted? Is Robert W. Jenson intellectually stunted? Wolfhart Pannenberg was an incredibly well informed person. His former doctoral students wrote in his eulogy about how ridiculously much he gave of himself to intellectual pursuits (they reported that at the most intense writing periods, he read 1000 pages of academic literature a DAY). He believed in and defended the resurrection as an actual event.

The reality of Jesus' existence is hidden from us in the mists of time. We will very likely never come to know that reality, now. All we have, now, is the story of him and of his existence as a divine/human being. And that story has clearly been embellished to help convey to us a great truth (which many of us have come to accept).

It is that truth; that ideal, and the hope that it promises that really matters. NOT the facts of Jesus' existence.

Then you do not hold to any recognizable form of Christian belief. Jesus Christ is a living reality, that speaks in word and sacrament to the Church. If he didn't exist, then you might as well keep your ideals and attribute them to a bunny named Otto in a story you wrote yourself.

Because the story of Jesus' existence is only the means of conveying the ideal and the promise of 'Christ'. To admit that the story is embellished takes nothing from the ideal and the promise that the story conveys. To call the story mythical takes nothing away from the ideal and the promise that the (now mythical) story conveys to us.

This is where you are very much mistaken. It is the same error you find in naive humanism. You live in a culture with Judeo-Christian values, values we got from accepting the claims of our religion. They still hang on, but they lose their ontological foundation if you deny those stories. This is what makes Nietzsche such a brilliant critic of religion, because he understood that. Those ideals are every bit as much a fairytale as the stories they are based upon, if you deny those stories. This is why he attacked the humanists as well for living in the 'shadow of the Buddha'. They want to hold onto the ideals of a story and worldview they no longer believe in.

But the truth of the ideal his story conveys is not lost. Nor is the promise that comes with it. The ideal and promise we call 'Christ' is real, here and now, and is available to anyone who wishes to open their heart and mind up, and experience it's reality.

It is not. If the central events of the story are in fact not true, those ideals are not true either. Then the truth is the 'will to power' and the strong will always dominate the weak. It is pure naivete to believe that ideals that follows from a particular ontology are transferable upon the dismantling of that ontology. If the core events did not happen and Christ is dead and not alive. Then what REALLY happened in that story was that empire won, Caesar/Pharaoh/World is the true God, not Jesus Christ. You cannot just write a story and pretend that it dictates reality irregardless of what really happened.

You can of course write a myth that portray what you hold to be ideals, but the myth itself is insufficient to actually demonstrate that said ideals are in fact true. You have given NO reason as to why anyone should believe those ideals over for example the ideal of the will to power, to dominate and control others to your favor, that whatever you do you do for your own gain. "It works for me" is not such a demonstration. Being a horrible genocidal tyrant has worked pretty well for many a dictator.

The Christian can say that is true because "The powerful, represented by Rome and the temple elite, killed Jesus of Nazareth, but God raised him up". That is the gospel. If that last part is just a metaphor, then reality is simply "The powerful, represented by Rome and the temple elite, killed Jesus of Nazarath".

Of course, Christianity may be false. But then so are its ideals unless you can actually demonstrate their validity in how the world actually is. Buddhism might be correct, but only if the Buddha's analysis of reality is ACTUALLY correct. Islam might be true, but only if Muhammad actually received revelation from Allah and that said revelation of historical incidents and moral claims are actually true.

And of course. Atheism and physicalism might be true. In that case, it has consequences for what ideals and what kind of morality might be true (if morality, as opposed to mere description of behavioral patterns, is possible in physicalism). In short, ontologies matters.

 

[ok doser]

Because I can't think of any reason to believe that walking on water and rising people from the dead and the various other feats of divine magic are NOT embellishments ...

well, let's apply your "logic" and "reason" to the miracle of walking on the water, as an example

your "logic and reason" tells you that a man, like yourself and everybody else you know, cannot walk on the water because you believe that walking on water would violate the laws of physics


the flaw in this reasoning is that Jesus was not a man like yourself and everybody else you know

He was/is God, for whom the laws of physics do not apply


again, this is a concept that you will reject, because your pride and ego won't allow you to consider that Jesus, as God, is capable of things that you are not, because you have made your "logic and reasoning" your god

 

[Zeke]

Which ones are they, do you think? And upon what basis are you determining this? On the basis of logic, and reason, and rigorous honesty? Or on the basis of what you want and need to believe to be true? Because I can't think of any reason to believe that walking on water and rising people from the dead and the various other feats of divine magic are NOT embellishments intended to convey the ideal of hope, and the ideal of overcoming our 'Earthly nature', except that I simply want/need to believe they are true.

I believe those ideals are true, too. But I don't logically need to believe that the story's embellishments are not embellishments, to do that. And I don't think it's healthy for other adult human beings to do that, either. It's like being an adult that still insists on believing that Santa Clause is a real person. And who claims that if Santa Claus in not a real person, then the ideal and practice of expressing love, friendship and generosity through gift-giving, that his mythical myth of Santa conveys to us, is a lie.

The truth is not dependent upon the myth. The myth is simply a means of expressing and conveying the truth amongst ourselves. And adults that can't or won't understand that are intellectually stunted, and are intellectually stunting themselves. They are being childish, and deliberately ignoring of the facts of their own reality.

This is not healthy behavior. And it's not honest.

The reality of Jesus' existence is hidden from us in the mists of time. We will very likely never come to know that reality, now. All we have, now, is the story of him and of his existence as a divine/human being. And that story has clearly been embellished to help convey to us a great truth (which many of us have come to hold sacred).

It is that truth; that ideal, and the hope that it promises that really matters. NOT the facts of Jesus' existence. Because the story of Jesus' existence is only the means of conveying the ideal and the promise of 'Christ'. To admit that the story is embellished takes nothing from the ideal and the promise that the story conveys. To call the story mythical takes nothing away from the ideal and the promise that the (now mythical) story conveys to us.

And it is the ideal and it's promise that is the truth. Not the story. The story is just a mythical story to us, now. As the fact of Jesus' existence is lost to ancient history and has since been subjugated to convey the message of Christ. But the truth of the ideal his story conveys is not lost. Nor is the promise that comes with it. The ideal and promise we call 'Christ' is real, here and now, and is available to anyone who wishes to open their heart and mind up, and experience it's reality.

You keep trying to insist that if the story is not historically accurate, then the ideal and promise of Christ is not true. But the truth of Christ is not dependent on the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Nor should your faith in that truth, be. Especially when making your faith dependent in that way forces you to choke, stifle and retard your own intellectual honesty, and causes you to propose that others do the same.

These are excellent points, I have concluded also that the physical requirements has been perverted beyond its original intent, which was to portray a conscience principle that is personally experienced through life.
Luke 17:20-21, Galatians 4:23-28, give merit to another possibility concerning this story, that has been shown to exist in prior cultures which debunks the originality claimed by the Christians religion, that has also disregarded Hebrews 13:8, that points the being in the moment instead of the past or perceived futures.

 

[PureX]

Have you tried? What effort have you actually made in trying to discern such a thing yourself? Which commentaries and theologians have you read?

Commentaries by theologians are the last place I would look, as they are clearly going to be biased and opinionated. That's their job, after all. Nor would I cross reference the various versions of the story, to compare them, because it's not the story I'd be seeking to illuminate, it's the reality of a man that inspired the story.

And of him, there is nothing. No objective evidence at all. No bones. No real-time historical documentation. Nothing. Just stories, written years after the fact, containing obvious exaggerations, lots of religious interpretation, and very little actual information. We don't even know if he was married, or had children. Apart from the story, we have nothing. Apart from his being the character in the story, we can't even say for sure that he existed.

We can know that a specific Roman emperor existed because emperors were very famous and powerful people who effected the lives of many others. And they were referred to in the writings, sculptures and architecture generated by people who were alive to personally experience the emperor's existence. But Jesus was not wealthy, powerful, or even famous. There would have been no reason for anyone else to refer to him in his own time. No one would have written of him, or carved sculptures of him, or built temples to hold his bones. That's why there's no such evidence to find. Nothing exists of Jesus but the religionist's stories and the opinions of theologians.

You accept those as proof because you have to. But I don't have to. I don't need to believe in divine miracles to believe in the truth of the ideal and promise of Christ that the story presents.

I'm afraid it is a little bit more complex than that false dichotomy. We have historical-criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, textual criticism etc. to examine such questions. We can also compare the stories with other contemporary literature and thought systems.

Those are all about the mythical story of Jesus of Nazareth, not the reality of man that the story is about. But there is no reality of that man, left, for anyone to study.

How exactly does it convey hope if it didn't happen? That doesn't make much sense. The story of the resurrection conveys no hope if it did not actually happen in any way, shape or form.

You're hoping that you'll exist forever, even after your body dies. Jesus died, and yet he still exists in the minds and hearts of billions of people, more than two millennium later! He has long 'outlived' even the most famous emperors in all human history. His spirit is still alive within the spirit of billions of other people.

I'd say that's a pretty good reason for you to be hopeful. Because your spirit already shares a great degree of commonality with mine, and with everyone else. And through that commonality, your spirit will remain alive in mine and in others for a very long time. And the more you are willing to share your spirit with us, the more true that becomes.

If the resurrection is a symbol or metaphor that did not actually happen, then there is no gospel, it is a tragedy.

You seem to be confused about what is real and what is not. Your spirit is the most 'real' thing about you (according to Christian ideology). Your physical body is what is temporary. Jesus never promised that your body would last forever. He promised that if you align your spirit with the eternal spirit, it will live forever. And that's quite literally true. Because that eternal spirit exists in all of us, and we in it.

The gospel is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. If the real story was that Jesus of Nazareth was captured, tortured, crucified and buried and remains dead, then the real truth is that Rome and the collaborating Jewish religious elite won.

"Won" what? What did they win? They had no effect on Jesus' spirit at all. They certainly did not kill it, as it lives on inside of you and I and billions of other people even to this day!

The ideals might be correct. But the story would be redundant.

A lot of people need the story to help them understand the ideal. The same way children need the story of Santa Claus to help them understand the ideals we practice through the ritual of Christmas. It only becomes "redundant" after we become adults, and come to understand the truth of those ideals represented by the mythical story.

So you claim, but you have given very little evidence that you have made much effort at studying or understanding serious theologians who believe that the resurrection was a real event.

I'm not looking for proof that it was a "real" event. Why would I? I don't need it to be. The promise of Christ proves itself. The 'evidence' is all around us, once we open our eyes. The spirit is eternal. We all live on in each other. Just as we all need each other to live, even in the here and now.

Was Wolfhart Pannenberg intellectually stunted? Is Robert W. Jenson intellectually stunted? Wolfhart Pannenberg was an incredibly well informed person. His former doctoral students wrote in his eulogy about how ridiculously much he gave of himself to intellectual pursuits (they reported that at the most intense writing periods, he read 1000 pages of academic literature a DAY). He believed in and defended the resurrection as an actual event.

That tells me that he had very serious doubts about it. Why else would he have expended so much time and energy defending it? You're overlooking the obvious.

Then you do not hold to any recognizable form of Christian belief.

Well, you are not the determiner for what is a recognizable form of Christian belief for anyone but yourself. And I can't think of any reason why I should cede to anyone else's idea of what I should believe to be a Christian. Can you?

Jesus Christ is a living reality, that speaks in word and sacrament to the Church. If he didn't exist, then you might as well keep your ideals and attribute them to a bunny named Otto in a story you wrote yourself.

You're being a little childish, here. I actually agree with the first sentence of that statement. But being 'in Christ' and being 'in the Christian Church' are two different things. They may overlap, but they don't have to.

This is where you are very much mistaken. It is the same error you find in naive humanism. You live in a culture with Judeo-Christian values, values we got from accepting the claims of our religion. They still hang on, but they lose their ontological foundation if you deny those stories.

I'm not denying any stories. I am affirming them for what they are, and for what they give is. I'm only denying the intellectual dishonesty involved in insisting that we pretend they are factual when they are clearly mythical. Myths often contain factual information, but they are not intended to be factual and they often contain fantastic exaggerations to better convey their message. They are intended to convey revelatory lessons and ideals, not historical facts.

You can of course write a myth that portray what you hold to be ideals, but the myth itself is insufficient to actually demonstrate that said ideals are in fact true.

That is correct. The myth presents us with the revelation of some truth. The proof of that truth must come from it's application to our experience of being.

You have given NO reason as to why anyone should believe those ideals over for example the ideal of the will to power, to dominate and control others to your favor, that whatever you do you do for your own gain. "It works for me" is not such a demonstration. Being a horrible genocidal tyrant has worked pretty well for many a dictator.

There are "reasons" that we might follow either of these paths (universal love or individual selfishness). But one of those choices leads to eternal joy and gratitude, while the other leads to eternal damnation. Remember, it's the spirit that lives forever.

 

[journey]

I give thanks that I'm not a victim of humanism, atheism, or the thought that God's Word is a myth.