No Robots

I would just add to what I said above that I know that Gamera personally exerts himself to counter mythicist arguments, and for that I am truly grateful. But I see a real problem in the indifferentism that underlies his approach.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.

I see the same situation with Chris Weimer. His concern for scholarly integrity is most laudable, and I am grateful for his persistent opposition to mythicist distortion. However, I also feel that we must acknowledge the consequences of our scholarly discoveries. What does it mean for an atheist scholar that Christ lived? What are the implications for our lives and for the lives of our fellow men? I think this has yet to be faced by the vast majority of scholars who acknowledge Christ's historicity, whether these scholars be Christian or not.

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.

andrewcriddle

I think it is obvious that the Jesus whom Christians worship goes beyond the Jesus who can be firmly established by detached secular inquiry.

The Jesus whom Christians worship is a Jesus apprehended by Faith as well as by historical inquiry.

Andrew Criddle

sometimesisquint

I don’t really have a “dispute”, I’m simply trying to figure out your position as I was unaware it was an angle any Christian would or could take.

I’m not sure it matters. But, then, I’m not a Heidegger scholar. It seems that "truth", by it's nature would be absolute (or apodictic). I'm not a relativist on any level. It's not a question of social or cultural context and therefore I don't understand how this applies to the issue.

If something is black, it doesn't matter whether Jesus says it's black or Hamlet says it's black or Newton says it's black...it's always going to be black. However, that doesn't mean that we should follow Peter Cottontail with the same fervency as Haysoose simply because he also agrees that said object is black.

Again, I’m not sure it matters. The elements of truth in those stories don’t have a relative tone. They’re still applicable to a person’s practical existence. However, not many Christians would presume that Shakespeare is on par with Jehovah, regardless of how many existential truths abound in his work.

There aren't many Hamletians either. With all due respect, the moral lessons or existential elements available in a general “story” are not the “dispute”. The question I have is whether the Bible is to be looked upon with the same integrity of purpose and foundation of “truth” as, say, Harry Potter. By your own admission, it could, (all those “The Gospel according to Harry Potter” books, notwithstanding). I’m not sure many Christians would be in a position to agree with your idea of Christianity.

If Jesus isn't real, then why would most Christians bother with assuming there is a God at all? Why trust that anything else in the story is worth spending time trying to understand? Rather, why not simply accept whatever aspects of Christian philosophy you see as true existentially along with various other religions which have nuggets of (existential) truth? Really, if Jesus isn't real, why call it "Christianity"? Why would you ever want to call yourself a Christian?

I just don't see how that matters. Nobody accepts the truths of Hamlet's message with religious impulse.

Fine. Accept.

Clivedurdle

I understand the power of this salt to come from myth - it is psychological, archetypal.

Without a vision the people perish.

It is very dangerous and misleading to dilute this salt by asserting something is real when it is from the dream world. The dreamworld, the world of myth and fantasy and of art must be approached using its own language and symbols.

Chris Weimer

Does not the same apply other historical personages? There is some good things said in the Gospels, but he is not the only person who has said something wise, whose moral indications were favorable. I happen to not like the Jesus I reconstructed - a Jewish apocalyptic. Some things I admire, but certainly not everything.

I'm more favorable to Lao Zi.

Chris Weimer

"There's more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Oh? What do you mean?

Clivedurdle

And as a pentecostal I have been brought up on this - your young men shall dream dreams, the if I speak in the tongues of angels is about the danger of being so mystical you are no earthly use - as is Mary and Martha the opposite story.

And there is nothing specifically xian about this - this is an understanding all humans have - Martin Luther King - I have seen the promised land.

Varieties of religious experience tells of a novice nun who was so prayerful she didn't do her kitchen chores!

sometimesisquint

Merely that no religion is based upon Hamlet. Are you suggesting that there is?

Chris Weimer

I don't follow your logic in what you're saying. Why is that relevant?

sometimesisquint

The relevance is apparent in the context of the entire exchange.

If Hamlet is "like" the gospels (in that their truths are as applicable and as highly regarded as biblical ones), they would have the same relevance (at least to Gamera, as her implication suggests). Under such a scenario, works such as Hamlet and Harry Potter would have similar relevance (again, it seems to me, according to Gamera's position) with regard to religion.

Nobody accepts the truth of Hamlet enough to start a religion based upon it's message, as would be the scenario with a version of Christianity based upon the story of a figure who never was real. It negates the comparison in my mind.