jbernier

Is there a philosophical necessity for God? No. Does that mean that God cannot be relevant to peoples' lives? Equally, no.

Speaking from an explicitly Christian perspective I think that the idea that God became incarnate in the body of a human person contains a powerful basis for ethics. It suggests the possibility that the human can become like God through the imitation of the God that became like the human. In short it provides an optimistic view that says that human beings, for all our shortcomings and tragic mistreatment of our fellow human beings, can - through the imitation of Christ - transcend those shortcomings.

My argument would be that there is a desperate need for good ethical positions in the world today. I believe that the Christian tradition can provide this. It is the only basis for good ethics? No. Can it be one, though? Yes. I think that much of my theological work has been essentially an attempt to say that we do not need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Mageth

That is simply not in the account. Nowhere does the story indicate that God gave anyone a chance to repent.

"Might makes right", eh? The kind of thinking that arises from a literal interpretation of myth. Either God is merciful or he's not.

Umm...Magus...it's a myth. That plot ploy was necessary for the story to make sense.

Besides, the only Hitlerian act in the account is attributed to God - even by you. Might makes right, not obligated to show mercy, if He deems judgement is necessary and justified, He has every right to do it - genocide of all but eight people on earth.

If taken literally, the story makes the Holocaust pale by comparison.

doubtingthomas

I'm well aware of the context of the verse in question. I doubt however that this was written with future Christians in mind.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

You are correct when you say that Peter is considering the last days in this passage, but I fail to see where he directs this to those in the future. In fact one could make a strong argument that he intended it specifically to those alive at the present time.

Notice the first verse in this chapter:

1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

Now you claim that this was written to people in the future. However, Peter states that this is his second letter, and that it is addressed to the same people as his previous letter.

Now look at 1 Peter 1:1

1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:

So it would seem to me then that Peter was addressing this to the people he wrote to in his first letter, which was a certain group of people living at his current time. Not, as you say, the church 2000 years later.

Mageth

Mixed in with a liberal dose of Greek philosophy.

Indeed. Interstingly, the most imaginative, creative and innovative religious thinking of the period, when Western Christianity in Europe was basically stagnating, was done by Muslim and Jewish theologians and mystics - at least some of which later influenced Christian thinkers.

Indeed, Christianity must adapt or die (or become increasingly irrelevant). In addition to Armstrong, see Bishop Spong's writings, and/or read Joseph Campbell, in particular his book Thou Art That.

I agree - though it's nice to occasionally find the Christian who is not afraid to ask the hard questions of themselves.

As an atheist, I'm certainly not afraid of thinking of, and asking, the hard questions. My interest in various theological subjects and authors should indicate that.

I'd also note that there is a third category - what one might call "Christian atheists" or "atheistic Christians", or perhaps more broadly "atheistic mythicists" - including those who recognize the value and meaning of myth but do not think the interpretation of the myth need presuppose the actual existence of the God that is the target of the myth. See Campbell and Spong, for example.

Conversations with an atheist friend of mine are what finally got me over the hump of god-belief.

Mageth

But God, of course, can be relevant in people's lives whether he exists or not.

And all this can be accomplished even if one accepts that the incarnation is mythical and symbolic and not actual. Again, read Campbell and Spong.

If you believe in a literal incarnation, then perhaps one should consider this belief in light of your comments concerning those that insist on literal, infallible interpretation of the scriptures. It would seem that even you might be holding on to at least some core "literal" beliefs. Maybe I'm wrong on this...

And many have kept the baby (Christian ethics and mysticism) while successfully disposing of the bathwater (literal belief in the stories and, yes, God).

Clivedurdle

This thread is about contradictions. A biggy is whether there should be a kingdom or a republic. As I remember my OT God was very much against having a king, but the NT uses classic monarchical language "king of kings" is an ancient title, king of the Jews, kingdom of heaven, compare this with priesthood of all believers, holding everything in common. Pompey in 64 BCE (still Roman Republic) stormed the Temple in Jerusalem and went into the inner sanctum. He was perplexed to find it empty!

Maybe there never was a baby in the bathwater! The Jewish religion could be seen as a move towards making gods extinct! The ecosystem of God is pretty weak when reduced to one or is it three!

blt to go

Nicely put, Mageth.

I have enjoyed the conversation very much

Wish I could join in and state something poignant and pithy. But alas, no.

My problem, jbernier, was when I could no longer determine the difference between the baby and the bathwater.

Or, perhaps, as Clivedurdle stated, I could not find the baby at all.

Clivedurdle

Strongly agree - see Rawls, all the various UN charters etc.

Problem is that xianity does not provide a strong ethical background. It is based on concepts of human sacrifice and atonement for sin. It was abhorrent for Abraham, why is it OK for God to sacrifice his son? Was God unaware of the Nuremberg judgement - obeying an unjust order is wrong. Got to do it to atone for sin? Hmmm.

Xianity makes it more difficult to make ethical choices, because it brings in criteria that prevent us making clear judgements on the facts. Fundies being anti gay or abortion are extreme examples.

To be blunt, if God does not exist, to postulate reasons for doing things because God said so and so is to lie, no matter how beautiful or ethically sound the things God is meant to have said are.

jbernier

In the "Why assume inerrancy?" thread I have argued that the work of the theology is largely the critical engagement with such texts.

I think that one sees the ethics of the gospel come through in Paul, when Paul is at his best: There is neither female nor male, Jew nor Gentile, white nor black, gay nor straight in Christ Jesus. This, I think, is the founding point for Christian ethics and all else that Christians say must be evaluated by this standard. This means that we very often do not live up to this standard - neither, perhaps, did Paul himself when he said that no one who has sex with members of the same sex will inherit the kingdom of heaven. However, in this vision of communal reality I see an ideal worth believing in and worth working towards - and I would argue that it stands at the very core of what Christianity should be. However, I will be the first in line to say that this vision has very rarely been achieved in reality.

diana

Then Jesus' own words, perhaps?

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Mar 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

I invite you to check out the context. Moon turning to blood and stuff like that.

Bit of a problem you have there, my friend.

d