Evangelion

Mr Kirby -

Well not quite, I'm actually being a lot more specific than that. I'm saying that within a Christian context, it's radical...

• ...to disbelieve in the supernatural stories about Jesus

But I can see that there is good reason to accept your more general statement as well.

Cheers.

It may surprise you to learn that I subscribe to the former position.

Peter Kirby

Peter: One thing that I have found to be interesting is that Christians who do not place contravention of physical laws at the center of theology emphasize that what they do believe is a matter of faith; on the other hand, Christians who believe in the Virginal Conception and the Bodily Resurrection as a rule emphasize that there are good arguments for the factuality of miracles and that "faith" is just "trust in God based on rational extrapolation from verified facts." Of the two positions, I find the former one much more honest.

Evangelion: "It may surprise you to learn that I subscribe to the former position."

It does confuse me. You had written:

"But when we come down to the vital message of Christianity - that Christ died for our sins and was raised the third day - I find no good reason to reject the story, and every good reason (both rational and epistemological) to accept it."

Are you saying that the vital message of Christianity includes the idea of the physical resurrection of the dead flesh of Christ?

Are you saying that belief in this contranatural event is fully supported by reason?

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion

Mr Kirby -

Yes, absolutely. That's why atheists work so hard to prove that it never happened, remember?

Absolutely. What's irrational about it? Oh, I freely concede that it's not supported by empirical evidence. I freely concede that it's a position of faith, not objective proof. But is it irrational? No, I don't believe that it is. Why would it be?

Supernatural events are perfectly consistent with my world view. I believe that it is possible for them to occur. If I possessed a world view in which supernatural events cannot occur, and yet professed a belief in the resurrection of Christ, then yes, you would have every good reason to question the rationality of my position. But that is not my position. I accept the possibility of supernatural events, and I believe that one such event took place almost 2,000 years ago.

So regardless of whether or not you agree with my world view, I honestly don't see why you would suggest that my position is not a rational one.

Peter Kirby

Evangelion: Yes, absolutely. That's why atheists work so hard to prove that it never happened, remember?

Some atheists put forth heroic efforts to convince others that there are errors in the Bible. Does that mean that the inerrancy of the Bible is central to the Christian faith?

Evangelion: Absolutely. What's irrational about it? Oh, I freely concede that it's not supported by empirical evidence. I freely concede that it's a position of faith, not objective proof. But is it irrational? No, I don't believe that it is. Why would it be?

Supernatural events are perfectly consistent with my world view. I believe that it is possible for them to occur. If I possessed a world view in which supernatural events cannot occur, and yet professed a belief in the resurrection of Christ, then yes, you would have every good reason to question the rationality of my position. But that is not my position. I accept the possibility of supernatural events, and I believe that one such event took place almost 2,000 years ago.

So regardless of whether or not you agree with my world view, I honestly don't see why you would suggest that my position is not a rational one.

Please don't be offended. I'm not sure myself whether all my beliefs are rational ... and I didn't even say that your belief is irrational.

I was asking for clarification of the idea that a belief is both "a position of faith," not proof or evidence, and yet has "every good reason (both rational and epistemological) to accept it." If there's not a contradiction, there's certainly a tension between those two ideas.

If I claimed that I had every good reason to believe that Jesus was gay, I would expect to be queried as to what objective evidence I could put forward to substantiate the statement. If my response was, "hey, you might think that homosexuality is wrong and that Jesus was morally pure, but I don't share that assumption, so my belief is possible to me, and how dare you suggest I am being irrational?" If my position is that the belief can be proven to be possible and not much more, and if I held to its truth by faith, I wouldn't say that it is supported by "every good reason."

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

That is why I gave up literal adherence (or acceptance as a proposition of fact) to the Nicene Creed. I accept it on a functional basis as a part of my Christian identity but I realize there is no convincing evidence demonstating any of it. It would be self-delusion at this point for me to believe otherwise.

What does it mean to say "Jesus died for our sins"? What if Jesus didn't die for our sins? I'm just curious as to which brand of atonement theology you subscribe to. I have several articles up on this subject:

http://www.acfaith.com/soteriology.html

Vinnie

Vinnie

The absentee landlord of deism isn't even worth discussing, IMO.

I think Panentheism would fit in with your views as well. I believe God works now and has done so historically. Prayer is just one example. But since God is not viewed as "a being out there" but as "being itself" all the complications and insurmountable difficulties with supernatural theism (and contranatual events) get bypassed

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Vinnie: The absentee landlord of deism isn't even worth discussing, IMO.

Why don't you discuss why it isn't worth discussing?

Vinnie: I think Panentheism would fit in with your views as well.

I might believe in panentheism, if I understood what it meant. What makes it different from pantheism?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Because panentheism is so eloquent and superior

I share Marcus Borg's view (TGWNK, p. 23) that, "There is very little difference between a distant and absent God and no God as all." Deism along with pantheism might as well be atheism. I think the real reason there are deists is because the most common alternative is supernatural theism. All of the problems with this outlook on God usually force one to retreat into a deist outlook. One of my good buddies is a deist. I layed panentheism on him in an email recently but he didn't respond to it yet.

Pantheism (in a nutshell) says that the universe is God. Panenetheism affirms that the universe is God but it goes futher, God is more than the sum-total of all the parts of our universe (transcendence). Think of it like this:

Draw a circle mentally (or physically with a crayon if it is too compelx to imagine)

The universe is the circle.

1. Atheism has just the circle.
2. Pantheism has God equivalent with the circle or calls the circle or nature God.
3. Deism calls the circle creation and has God existing stationary outside the circle.
4. Supernatural Theism calls the circle creation and has God outside the circle but interacting with it (violating the laws of physics and making asses talk and axeheads float and other strange things like letting the Holocaust happen).*
5.Panenethsim is equivalent with panethism in one regard but it goes further:

Draw another circle but draw this one around the first circle.

The inner circle is existence as we know it (the universe) and the outer circle is God. God is the ground of our being. In him we live, move and have our being. He (or she) is in everything yet God is more than the sum total of all parts. That is panenethism in a nutshell. It does not force us to believe in an absentee landlord and it has the best qualities of supernatural theism without all the difficulties. It has the best of both worlds with none of the difficulties.

This is why I believe prayer works. Lets look at prayer in the 5 scenarios above. First I define prayer as "comminucating with God" and separate it from certain types of meditating.

1. Atheism--prayer may be good for meditating and orienting oneself or whatever but it is self delusion to pray to God as God does not exist. I could't pray to a non-existent God.

2. Pantheism--praying is good for meditating and orienting oneself but praying to the universe (mostly empty space) isn't all that appealing to me or many people. I can't see praying to an inanimate object

3. Deism. God may hear your prayers but he doesn't act on them outside of already established laws of nature (e.g. prayer has the effect of orienting or centering a person). The communication is all onesided as well. God is seen as distant and absent.

4. Supernatural theism--God hears, interacts amd responds to our requests. This view sounds the best thus far but the problems with this view (especially the latter aspect) are too numerous to get into here. I have a five part series on prayer here:

http://www.acfaith.com/pray.html

5. Panentheism has God as the ground of being. When we pray we are not praying to the universe (an inanimate object), an absentee landlord, the deity of supernatural theism or a non-existent deity (atheism). We are praying to a God who is right here with us. We pra6y to the one in whom we live, move and have our being.

This is from the final section on my site on the efficacy of prayer:

Panenetheism is just a different way of seeing God. Many of us think of God as a "being out there". Panenetheism brings God "right here".

Marcus Borg discusses pananethism in The God We Never Knew. I'll be picking up some Tillich soon as well.

Vinnie

*This relationship can become slightly more complex depending one who you ask as Christian- supernatural theists sometimes are smart enough to stress immanence as well as transcendence.

Vinnie

I suggest Studying the Synoptic Gospels by E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies

Celsus

Brilliant! I have to qualify, because Blenkinsopp's book assumes a familiarity with the traditional Documentary Hypothesis (since it is covering a lot of the latest developments but can't afford to cover 150 years of scholarship in detail), so something like R.E. Freidman's Who Wrote the Bible? (I haven't read it myself) would also have to be on there as well.

Joel