IN REPLY TO: JESUIT FATHER THOMAS REESE:
"God is not all powerful in the face of human freedom. Our freedom limits his power. God did not want these children to die."

ANS:
The assumption seems to be, “therefore God could not prevent their death.” God will not take away man's Free-Will, but He is powerful enough to prevent the murdering of people if He so chooses. Namely, God has prevented many evils by interceding and preventing people to harm others or themselves. The history of Israel should be a sufficient example. St. Paul is another one.

No, God will not force anyone to do something against their will, but he can prevent them from doing it.

The shooters in Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and West Virginia all had the same problem. They didn't know God. Without God, there is no love, no purpose to be charitable except for one’s self-gratification, because God is All-Good.

The temporary good that man chooses dissipates and is not lasting. Man can never be satisfied in the temporal world. Thus, the atheist becomes his own God and fails miserably at it. He generates a self-aggrandizement, self-importance, frustration, depression and a loss of self worth. In the end, life has no meaning if there is no God.

St. Augustine says, “Lord, our hearts are restless until they rest in You.” Life without knowledge of God’s love is to live a life that is without a compass. Knowing we yearn for eternal happiness and can’t achieve it is a common frustration of the atheists and agnostics.

Without purpose, life’s encounter with tragedy is nearly impossible to navigate, and more impossible to rationalize. Without a God, a formation of benign madness ensues in the form of irrationality. The Godless seek a subterfuge to escape their madness. They seek to alleviate their frustrations and disappointments by seeking the vanities of the world, but the world fails them too. Hence, they flee to the Drug culture and the Sexual Revolution that has created more problems then they previously had.

To solve the catastrophes of the Sexual Revolution we’ve legally murdered over 48 million unborn. We are launching an assault on the embryo. That devalues human life, especially when you sell the aborted body parts on the open market.

When our culture can rationalize the plunging of a surgical scissors into the back of the skull of baby being born and then suck out its brains; when we can leave invalid born children in utility rooms to starve to death, when we can legally murder the defenseless like Schiavo, by dehydration and starvation, human life becomes of no more value than an animal.

Our Culture is metastasizing into a materialistic ethic that is transmogrifying a once theocentric society into an anthropocentric one. The culture evolves around self-autonomy and moral relativism of the individual. The agnostic and atheists’ lives are based on the vaporous and materialized wiles and vanities of a world. Human values have no meaning because they are transitory under a godless regime. When the vanities they trust in dissipate, the lives of agnostics and atheists collapsed with them.

In Victor Hugo's immortal novel "Les Miserables," Jean Valjean “the wretched,” found God and therefore Love; Inspector Javert, Valjean's nemesis, found the Law that had no Love or Mercy. The Law could not forgive. Javert could not forgive himself; his world collapsed and the world consumed him. His life was an odyssey based on a falacy. Javert had made the law perfect when the world harbors no perfection. In the end, the imperfect consumed him.

To the atheist man is a material being whose soul dissipates with one’s body. He has no eternal destination. Hence, he becomes a material imperfection without a promise of perfection, and incomplete being with with no way to be completed, a.k.a. frustration and depression, a.k.a. shooters.

However, quite to the contrary, man is an eternal being who chooses his destiny and is perfectible.

The shooters’ lives collapsed and they sought revenge. To them, their lives didn’t matter, so they attempt to make them matter by taking the lives of others that did matter.

Unfortunately, thinking Death would bring them fame, it brought them more misfortune, an eternal death. Instead of escaping Hell, they plunged more into Hell and into eternal torment, suffering they could never imagine. That is, if they weren't fortunate enough to ask God, a God they did not know, to forgive them before they died.

As to the tragedies of the young lives the shooters took with them, the loss is not the young’s loss; It's their reward, if they are in Heaven. The loss is to those who loved them. Hence, Francis Thompson’s “Hound of Heaven” states succinctly why there was a loss in these few lines.

“All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might'st seek it,
In My arms."

In the end, the shooters never valued their lives or the lives of others, because the value of all human life is in proportion to the value one places in God.

E. Favorite:

When people run out of logical reasoning, they attack the person. You did not interact with what I said about inductive/deductive reasoning; scientific proof and probability; as well as logic and the existence of God. Also, it is not a matter of your liking or not liking what Christian Denominations teach in their basic doctrines about the human condition both personally and socially. Nor is it a matter of weather you accept the Bible as scripture and God's revealed truth which from what I've read in other posts you do not. It is a matter of what the Bible teaches and how similar Christian denominations all around the world and down through history view the spiritual/social/individual, etc. framework in which we live. I'm not trying to impress. You can claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. That is your choice and one often used to discount someone and their ideas. However, I do know what I'm talking about and I know they are true. I gather from some earlier comments that from your perspective I am one of those clergy who is pulling the wool over people's eyes. Not so, it is the fundamentalist liberals who have been pulling the wool over people's eyes for years.

Hi, J Daly - if you're still around, I suggest you go over to the Einstein guest voice conversation. Your skills are needed there.

John Crowe – I just noticed your post of 4/25. As you can see, I’ve been busy responding to J Daley.

Regardless of the pedigree of your quote about living “in a world and society wrecked by sin” I’m not impressed. Like many people, I don’t accept the importance or validity of everything that’s in the Bible, just because it’s in the Bible.

Please be careful using terms like “pull the wool over our eyes” and “illogical”– I think your post reeks of these things. Shame on you for saying things you either know are not true, or haven’t bothered to check.

Hello J Daley – my response to your response –

Re: Sunday school - yes, I was reflecting negatively on the inculcators and I’d say it’s only recently, as atheists find their voice, that believers in the supernatural have been objects of ridicule. As believers form the majority opinion in the US, the ridicule has gone almost exclusively in the other direction, with atheists being perceived as having no morals and unfit for public office. Of course, part of that ignorance is the responsibility of atheists who choose to remain closeted. I just don’t buy that Christians take risks proclaiming their faith – in the old days sure, but not for centuries. I think it is inculcated in Sunday school (or conversion classes, perhaps – I don’t really know) and reinforced through life.

Re: numinous experiences – perhaps the supernatural can be a part of it, but the explanations of it that I found did not require supernatural involvement. My experiences fit your third definition “Inspiring awe and reverence; spiritual.” [I don’t equate spiritual feelings with a set of religious beliefs.] One experience even took place in a church – at the end of a Good Friday service. The beautiful music and solemnity at that church, that I just happened into, overwhelmed me. I felt unable to leave the pew, my arms limp at my sides, I was completely at peace. When I finally felt able to leave, I saw the world with new eyes – every petal of every flower glowed with beauty and goodness. And no, I didn’t feel closer to God. I realize other people would react differently -- These events are very subjective – not “suspect,” but individually interpreted. If I had been more religious, perhaps I would have attributed the experience to the presence of God. As it was, I attributed it to the thrill of finding myself in a beautiful, peaceful setting after weeks of grueling work. This kind of experience is human – open to all, regardless of religion of lack thereof.

Re: Clergy – when I said some “make other accommodations” I did not mean to account for a “dramatic loss of belief” but with respect to how to handle their knowledge in the context of their faith and their ministerial duties. I don’t know the range of individual perceptions of it – I’d like to though. I think it’s very important to the future of organized religion. I think some of what you speculated is likely (“crisis of personal identity….”). By the way, I think the ministerial function – providing counsel, solace, guidance – is a very important cultural role throughout history and should continue (but without the supernatural component).

Re: individual experience being a sound basis for talking about the reality of God – in addition to “facts” Sure, but here’s the catch – in my mind, it’s the “feeling” of the reality of God. Neither believers or non-believers know for sure about God. Non-believers say no based on the profound lack of evidence; believers say yes based on feelings (and for some, the “facts” and “proof” that they think the Bible provides).

Re: the disciples – I didn’t originally understand the heart of your question, and I couldn’t honestly respond given your premise – that the disciples existed and had made great sacrifices for their beliefs. If we knew they really existed – of course – it would show great dedication to their leader. Even so, it wouldn’t necessarily mean such dedication was well placed. People through history have given their all for worthy as well as very unworthy causes. People have made themselves, or been made by others, into heroes without deserving it or wanting it. I do want to comment that I think “something…read in a book or learned in a class” is a valid way of gathering knowledge and could well be how you learned what you know about the disciples. It certainly reflected the sum of my knowledge until my more recent reading.

Regarding Christians giving out of love – no doubt. I’m saying those same people could and would give without the overlay of Christianity or any religion. The Church is a conduit – not the only one and not necessarily the best one.

Regarding revisionist history – you’re right – anyone can do it and many do. I think it’s important for it to be corrected. That correction is happening right now with the war on terror – on many fronts – I’m thinking particularly of the bogus, set-up “heroic” stories of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. Lynch, who is alive to talk about it, has denounced the story herself. Tillman’s family is livid with the Government for covering and distorting the story of Pat’s death by friendly fire. The corrections are happening with religion too, but it’s a bit more complicated, especially when a component of the religion involves disregarding or discounting facts.

I’d say both religious believers and humanists “rely solely on themselves and their intellect and capacity for cooperation to solve human problems.” Believers just run it through the filter of God – who is also human-made (according to humanists).

Re: what you think makes you a believer – Obviously, I haven’t had your exact life experience and even if I had, I might not react the same way to it. Nonetheless, I can easily say that I relate to much of what you say and have felt a lot of those same things irrespective of the status of my belief in God. I feel I appreciate life even more now, actually – grateful to have been born and to have loved and been loved my whole life. I feel a new affinity with the people who came before me and those who will come after. I’ve found joy – really- in learning about the origins and history of religion, and more joy knowing there are many like me who had been quiet up until now about their lack of belief. While doing my research, everything started to fall into place. No more accepting convoluted reasoning or trying to make sense out of things that made no sense -- realizing that taking something on faith often meant not questioning authority – for the benefit of authority. Realizing that things that you don’t understand aren’t “God” or a matter of faith, they’re just things for which there is no explanation - yet.

You imply that atheists approach matters strictly through reason, intellect and evidence. Perhaps some do, or think they do. Speaking for myself, I’d say that while atheists definitely use reason, intellect and evidence, other approaches, such as instinct, intuition and “gut” feelings also come into play. Certainly believers use all of these, too, but often express them using religious terms.

J – I’m glad to hear you’re going to talk more to Christians who use exclusionary tactics. I think you’ll be good at it – that’s why I’ve been suggesting it! Meanwhile, I consider our conversations to have been consciousness raising for you, me and whomever has been reading along. Thanks.

PS – if you want to hear another atheist and believer discuss their points of view, Andrew Sullivan (Catholic journalist and author) and Sam Harris (atheist author and neuro-science student) just finished a long email dialogue, available here: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

E Favorite: Thanks for the response. A few things I’d like to address.

“I didn’t make the point that lots of now-Christians went to Sunday school, but rather that many adult Christians have a Sunday school understanding of their faith.” I think what you said was that "pride in the unseen is inculcated in Sunday School and the ritual of Mass.” This statement sounds more a negative reflection on the inculcators than a reflection on the inculcated. Then, one of your next statements was that this pride in the unseen is what makes Christians special (i.e., “think they’re special”). Actually, in our society – as is clear from conversing with some atheists -- believing in the unseen is to risk being ridiculed and labeled as close-minded, stupid, ignorant, or too timid to face the world as it is. Taking these risks is a not badge of honor for most of us and doesn’t make us feel part of an exclusive club.

Taking these risks does, though, provide fellowship and community for those of us who are energized, excited, motivated and humbled by the loving unseen – by the palpable unseen we perceive in people, our Earth, etc. It provides community for those of us who, when we look inside ourselves, perceive a poverty that we lack power to address on our own. And yes, my Christian upbringing taught me to name what I see in myself “spiritual poverty” (which has nothing to do with self-hate, by the way, as psychologists would define it). Is there something wrong with using idiom that fits our circumstances, just because we learned it “at home?”

Re: numinous experience, numinous is defined as “1) Of or pertaining to a numen; supernatural;” 2) Indicating or suggesting the presence of a god; divine; holy;” and 3) Inspiring awe and reverence; spiritual.” I don’t quite understand how you could have had what you termed a non-religious numinous experience when you were religious, unless you were using the word as meaning simply “awe,” with no reverence or spirituality attached. I agree that such experiences are highly individual and many times culturally based…but does this make them somehow suspect? I had a powerful such experience as a fairly young child – the experience of a loving unseen presence. Maybe it was only later that I came to think of that presence as Jesus, since Jesus was the God of my family’s religion. I’m not sure. My point is that I believe that many such experiences – no matter what faith tradition one calls one’s own – are important, real and valuable. In addition, not sure I agree that one can’t have a numinous experience unrelated to one’s own tradition. I’m reminded of Carl Jung’s theory of archetypal dream figures, carrying common and consistent themes, experienced by people of widely varying cultures (that is, their psyche may be expressing something unconscious in terms not immediately clear to them). Tangential, maybe, but interesting as it relates to the numinous.

Re: the Bible, many Christians regard it as a “rule book for modern life” in the sense that the New Testament calls for love, forgiveness and service of one’s neighbor. Many of us don’t regard it as our only source of Christian authority…in fact, for Catholics, tradition is considered just as important. I know this is problematic for you, since “traditions” are often equated with hearsay, mythology and active deception. I don’t tell others that the Bible is the only needed authority. If this makes any sense, I think the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible contain what any person would need to live a moral and loving life. But I don’t think of it as the full extent of God’s revelation…I believe God speaks in many ways, and through many people (the Buddha, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Confucius, and millions of ordinary people.

Re: priests and ministers’ “holding back” their true beliefs about the resurrection or people going through seminary only to realize they couldn’t stand up every Sunday and preach things they no longer believed…I know these viewpoints are persuasive for you, but I don’t think it’s safe to assume that these folks’ feelings and opinions represent the majority of clergy (it depends, at least partially, on what kind of seminary they attended and how they’re reacting to their own life experiences). I also don’t understand why they’d feel pressure to live an employment lie...because of the power, prestige and big money they’d lose by leaving the church?! What you’re getting at must be not the employment loss itself but the crisis of personal identity that such a person would suffer, and the practical and relational consequences of it. I also simply don’t agree that as many people as you think “make other accommodations” for a dramatic loss of belief. I would say, though, that mature Christians change in their understanding of the faith.

Re: “efficaciousness of personal experience for purposes of religious discourse…” Sorry, I should have used the word “efficacy,” and what I meant to ask was, do you consider individual experience a sound basis for talking about the reality of God – in addition to “facts?” Objectivity, while critical in many things, is overrated in other arenas.

Re: fundamentalists influencing people away from mainstream religions and promising to be the Elite here on earth, could it be that, in such a dangerous, increasingly pluralistic world, a fundamentalist stance makes many people feel more secure? I am NOT defending violent fundamentalists or those who seek to legislate selected religious practices into law. I am simply pointing out that it’s hardly surprising – in a society marked by greed, extreme moral relativism and shameless self-centeredness (ours), and in others marked by poverty, desperation, deprivation and lack of development (some Middle Eastern nations) – that some people may find comfort in a such a strict code of belief and behavior. A relevant question might be, how can people work and maintain dialogue to help reduce the conditions that give rise to these attitudes?

Re: my ill-expressed comment about your concern with effects of fundamentalism in a liberal world, I was trying to say I found it hard to believe that you thought fundamentalism could overwhelm a world populated with clear-thinking, intelligent atheists like yourself. This was snide on my part; I’m sorry.

Re: divinity schools, I understand your point about those that teach fundamentalism. I worry about that, too. But I’m also concerned with big-name, mainstream divinity schools that turn out graduates who don’t seem to believe in the divine. I don’t attribute this to “evolution” in understanding, but to a bias toward seeing the material, physical world, and observable phenomena, as the only reflections of truth.

Re: your wondering whether I was aware that Christian authors had raised some of the same points I brought up, I am aware of that. But I do have a decent brain capable of relevant inquiry…at the same time, the points I raised are pretty basic. And the only response you made was that we couldn’t even be sure the disciples really existed – something you read in a book or learned in a class. You made no effort to respond to the heart of my question. How might you respond if we could “prove” the disciples existed? You don’t have to answer – just a rhetorical question.

Re: non-religious groups also aiding the needy, this is a great thing. But that wasn’t my point. I was saying that Christians give money out of love, not only to propagate their own beliefs and “give unwelcome lessons on Jesus,” which I interpreted as your major charge. In the case of Catholics, I know almost none who actively evangelize or “proselytize,” as I imagine you might conceive of it, as part of their charitable giving.

Re: “human” and “humanism,” my mistake. I was trying to say that, simultaneously, secular humanists and atheists recognize that we have deep faults and deficits – and cause great carnage – yet rely solely on themselves and their intellect and capacity for cooperation to solve human problems. I can’t see that this has gotten us much further other worldviews (including the admittedly heinous religious views and acts that have led to slaughter like the Crusades, etc.)

Re: revisionist history, I was talking about fact vs. story…that facts are used almost as widely as are stories – and rewritten and even twisted – to support a wide variety of different viewpoints. Relevant to discussion because the foundation provided by facts is often no firmer than are the intangibles we argue about, because facts are subject to interpretation, and their use to bias. This is not the province only of the religious.

Finally, about your reference to honest discussion with friends with whom you disagree politically; the effort to avoid the controversial subject most of the time; and the honest and understandable wish to try to change views. This I understand. I don’t think I’d be on this blog if I weren’t trying to say something I hoped someone would hear and take seriously. I also think I’m talking as much to myself as to others. It’s important to say what we believe and why. Many of us don’t get or take that opportunity very often as mature people.

I have believed in a loving God since I had a memory. Yes, I was raised in a Christian home, but I don’t think that’s why I’m a believer today. I haven’t led an unexamined spiritual life. But yes, there are just some things I believe without needing to prove. When you find you have encountered a great Love beyond your wildest imaginings…a Love that increases your regard for yourself and for others…that makes you want and work for good for others as much as you do for yourself…a “grace” that doesn’t seem like it could possibly spring from one’s wondrous but limited self…a deep well of joy that exists even through tragedy (to which I am not a stranger, on many counts)…a beauty and resilience in all life that doesn’t seem attributable to randomness or chance…Then I guess you’ve a believer. This may not be intellectually rigorous, but it’s very real.

Have discovered here that I have no wish to argue with an atheist. Life is too short. It isn’t too short, though, in talking with fellow Christians, to urge them not to drive people away from the Lord by exclusionary, judgmental words and actions. For this, I believe we will be called to account. Thanks, E Favorite.

J Daly - in answer to your questions:

>Why do you assume that lots of now-Christians went to Sunday school?
I don’t have stats on this, do you? I couldn’t find anything on a quick Google search. Besides, I didn’t make the point that lots of now-Christians went to Sunday school, but rather that many adult Christians have a Sunday school understanding of their faith. That’s simply what I’ve noticed – even among highly educated people. I would like to see information on the Sunday school experience of most “now-Christians,” as you put it.

>Can you consider that some of us may have had "a numinous experience" -- as children or as adults
Of course – I’ve had a few myself – but unrelated to religion – even when I was religious. It’s a great feeling, though very subjective and unrelated to specific truths of specific religions. I don’t mean to detract from these experiences, just to say that while they are profound, they are highly individual and culturally based – e.g., people raised in a Christian culture are likely to have a Christian-based numinous experience and won’t have an experience based on an religion unknown to them.

> Many of us try to counter what you say by quoting the Bible or referring to Scripture, which gets nowhere with a person coming from your viewpoint.
That’s right – For me and many people like me, Scripture is not enough. It’s parroting what people have learned and expecting others to accept it as the ultimate and only needed authority, even as people through the ages have interpreted the bible to suit their own ends. The bible was used to justify slavery in the South and is now being used to justify homosexual repression. The Bible has some good stories in it, some wisdom, poetry, etc., but as a rule book and authority for modern life, I think it’s sorely lacking – an opinion that is shared by many.

> Do you believe in the "efficaciousness" of personal experience for purposes of religious discourse? ….
Sorry, not sure what you mean by this passage

>[Regarding the resurrection] They're speaking of it in terms that make sense to them, and that they think will make sense to believers.
Maybe, but I also think ( based on my reading “The Dishonest Church” cited above, and recommended to me by a former priest) and talks with clergy and former seminarians, that they are also holding back to not shake up believers and thus shake-up the church and their employment status. I think some clergy are in denial about this and some are so accustomed to expressing themselves in a certain way, that they’re not conscious of doing it. This may sound wacky. It did to me at first, which is why I started checking it out. I first learned of this phenomenon from a university professor acquaintance whome I approached when first I started gathering information on Christian history. I had no idea that he had trained to be a minister. Much to my surprise, he told me that he went all the way through seminary and decided not to be ordained because he felt he couldn’t stand up every Sunday and preach things he knew weren’t so. Obviously, others react differently and make other accommodations. I’d like to know more about this. I’m still reluctant to approach clergy about it – it’s so sensitive for me and them.

>Regarding fundamentalists as a threat:
Yes to everything you mention – spiritually, the dangers of theocracy, practical and intellectual. But my views of religion are not unduly influenced by fundamentalism; my views are influenced by everything I’ve learned about Christianity in general over the last 2 years. I think fundamentalists intend to do great harm and are infiltrating the government and influencing people away from mainstream religions with their promises of being the elite here on Earth. So far the list of presidential hopefuls of both parties looks pretty good, except for Romney and Thompson. I’m hoping that the 2006 elections reflect Americans’ ongoing distrust of the fundamentalist mindset, but I’m not ready to heave a sign of relief and assume the battle is won. Zealots don’t give up easily.

> Regarding what you refer to as my “concern with the effects of fundamentalism when you seem to regard even moderate folks here as "anomalies" in a "liberal" world.” I don’t think this way and can’t find any reference to voicing this attitude or using the words you put in quotes (except for describing you as a “liberal” Christian).

> Regarding divinity schools – I’m not concerned with the university-associated divinity schools, or the Episcopal or Catholic Diocesan seminaries, my only concern is with the seminaries that teach a strictly fundamentalist view of Christianity, where both teachers and students have to sign a statement swearing that they hold the Bible to be inerrant.

>Regarding your arguments being “indeed basic and oft-offered” –
No problem, I just wondered if you were aware of being influenced the viewpoints of some Christian writers, and if so, which ones. I’ve read so much that I often can’t recall the attribution or if the thought I’m expressing is original.

> Yes, it does occur to me that religious denominations “make financial contributions to help ease the burden of the poor…,” etc.
That’s very good, but not a raison d’etre. Non-religious groups do the same and one needn’t be affiliated with a religion to do good works. Also, in some cases, a possibly unwelcome, unexpected lesson on Jesus comes with the good works that churches do.

>Regarding my summary of a Christian view: "There’s no easy explanation, so Jesus must be the Son of God"
I stand by it. I can respect a lot about any given person or group of people, and not respect a particular belief, preference or viewpoint of theirs. Some of my closest friends and I hold very different political beliefs. We’re aware of it, will tell each other candidly why we feel the way we do and why we feel the other is misguided. We’ll try to change minds, and then go on with our friendship, avoiding the conflictual subject most of the time. We still like each other, but we don’t respect the belief and would still like to change it if we could. I think this is common behavior among people with different views, with religion as a notable exception. (This I know is not an original thought – I read it in either Dawkins; “The God Delusion,” Harris’ “Letter to a Christian Nation”, or both). My “personal experience” is a result of thinking, reading, analyzing, researching, taking classes and talking with people. I value that highly. If you believe something so firmly in your religion that can’t be verified (e.g., has been proven false, or goes against the now established and accepted laws of nature), and have the company of millions of people with the same beliefs, I ask you to consider that respect of others with vastly different beliefs and means of accepting conclusions is not very important.

Regarding human/humanism. These words have the same root, but different meanings. According to Merriam-Webster, the adjective “human” means “relating to, or characteristic of humans” [that is, “persons”], while “humanism” is a philosophy that “usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.”

>Regarding comparing Christian revisionist history to updating textbooks, I’m not sure I understand the connection and you supposition about my view, or that I agree with your observation, so I hesitate to comment.

So J Daley, those are my thoughts. Whew. I hope this answers your questions. If I’ve left anything out, please let me know.

PS - go to the Cal thomas thread for a chance to engage with some fundamentalists and other atheists

E Favorite: No more questions for a while. And, respectfully, I have no intention of trying to "psych you out." I wouldn't give myself enough credit for the ability. I'm here talking about something of great importance to me and posing legitimate questions, as you are. I think we're both up to our ears.

J Daley – First – to clear up a couple of things: I did not say the disciples “all invited death.” The reference was to “early Christians” and I was thinking specifically of Christian martyrs. Jesus’ disciples were not Christians, per se – they were Jewish followers of Jesus. The term “Christian” didn’t come until later. Here’s an excerpt of my comments above: “Christianity was like a death cult, similar perhaps to the Branch Davidians, the James Jones followers, or those comet people. I don’t suppose you like being compared to those people, but I do want you to think about how easy it is for you to identify with the original Christians and how similar their beliefs are to people you don’t identify with at all. They all so firmly believed that dying would bring them to eternal life, that they invited death.”

Regarding John and Patmos – it’s another of those “traditions” that the John of Revelations is the same as John the Apostle. Biblical scholars generally don’t think so, including the one I took an NT class from recently. Scholars, including Catholic ones, think Revelations was the last book of the bible, written in 93AD at the earliest – making John the Apostle quite old indeed.

If you’re going to build a case of the apostles risk taking behavior as meaningful for Christianity, isn’t it important to know whether that actually happened? Lancelot and the knights of the roundtable took risks to rescue Guinevere. It’s a nice story, instructive, even, but everyone knows (or will be told, if they don’t) that it’s a legend. There’s no King Arthur in English history. This is not my perception of being a “slave to empiricism”

I do think there’s great value in myth, as I’ve stated before and am open to “unseen realities” also stated before, but not if they’re attached to a whole ancient story. The only thing “absurd” about the stories is that some people believe and have been taught to believe them as if they are facts.

The “emperor has no clothes” is a wonderful, instructive story that everyone knows is not a fact. So, why not make it more clear to readers that this is often (if not always, in my opinion) the case with the bible.

I did not opine that “the Bible holds no authority; it's not Scripture; it's just a collection of stories compiled by people seeking to perpetuate myths for various self-serving ends.” It certainly holds authority – look at all the people who consider it as such. I refer to the bible as “scripture” but perhaps that has a different meaning to you than to me. And while I do think some of the OT is pretty self-serving (and I’m not alone in that), I think the NT has a welcomed and needed message of love and compassion. Whether it comes from a flesh-and- blood or mythological Jesus, I don’t care and don’t think is important. The whole supernatural story with angels, virgins, wandering stars, resurrections, etc. is superfluous. I’ve also said elsewhere that I’d like to see the church survive without the supernatural component, because I think that’s ultimately it’s only hope.

If you prefer to trust “the witness of people who were there 2,000 years ago" fine, but please keep in mind that they were viewing matters through a lens that included little understanding of the universe as we now know it. They thought the stars were in the roof of the “firmament” and that God’s home in heaven was just beyond that. They thought hell was under the ground and they thought the earth was flat. Lacking modern medicine, miracles were often the only hope for a cure. (Now we count on miracles only when medical technology has no answer). Please consider that it was easier and even logical for people lacking this kind of knowledge to accept bible stories. Or maybe they didn’t see them as factual, but rather as allegories.

I’m enjoying this too and will address your other questions when I have more time. Please consider holding off with additional questions for a while – I’m up to my ears in your current ones.

One other thing – I notice that you are trying to psych me out (for lack of a better term) – that’s fine, I like to do that too. Meanwhile, please consider that I’m reacting not to a painful psychological jolt, but to a startling jolt of information. I ask you to consider it, not to accept it, because even considering it, you might be able to look at the information component of what I say more objectively.

E Favorite: Would like to address some of your points.

The disciples "all invited death." No, St. Paul said that while he wanted to be with Jesus, he thought it better to stay here and witness and teach. The Bible also indicates that St. John the Apostle lived into old age exiled to Patmos.

"Pride in things unseen is inculcated in Sunday School and at the ritual of Mass." Why do you assume that lots of now-Christians went to Sunday school? And can you consider that some of us may have had what the highly respected Swiss psychologist Carl G. Jung called "a numinous experience" -- as children or as adults?

Many of us try to counter what you say by quoting the Bible or referring to Scripture, which gets nowhere with a person coming from your viewpoint. In your opinion, the Bible holds no authority; it's not Scripture; it's just a collection of stories compiled by people seeking to perpetuate myths for various self-serving ends. When I mention the risks the disciples took because of their conviction, you question whether such people ever existed, because there's so little record of them outside the Bible.

Therefore, attempts to talk with you about the Bible are more in the character of appeals to the authenticity of our personal experiences and how they relate to what's in the Bible. Do you believe in the "efficaciousness" of personal experience for purposes of religious discourse? Yes, I know it's subjective -- you might ask, "If you expect me to attach any credence to your personal experience in regards to spirituality and Christian faith, why don't we regard the experiences of fundamentalists or unbalanced people as equally valuable? This is not logical." And you're right, it's not. Not everything is -- that's why I don't regard logic as the last word.

You also point out that not all of us can be "right" about the resurrection: Was it a physical event that happened to Jesus; was it a perception by the disciples? Was Jesus resuscitated, or do we regard the resurrection as the transformation of the body of the man Jesus of Nazareth into a "spiritual body," something we don't understand but accept? I don't see Martin Marty and others as trying to "dance around" this issue or deceive about it...They're speaking of it in terms that make sense to them, and that they think will make sense to believers. If you are interested in informed Catholic discussion of these matters, I'd recommend Notre Dame's Richard P. McBrien. And please give us Christians some credit for our own understanding, rather than holding Christian leaders responsible for our mis-education. I think you can see from the posts here that many of us don't blindly accept what leaders or any others tell us...We're not undiscerning about what our fellow Christians say, and we're not undiscerning about what an atheist says.

When you say fundamentalists are a threat, do you refer primarily to the spiritual "tearing down of others," or the dangers of theocracy and terrorism motivated by a desire to destroy infidels, or the effect of the U.S. religious right on American politics? Or all? Is your point not really a practical concern, but an intellectual objection to this kind of worldview? Or both? I regret that your views of religion have been unduly influenced by people with fundamentalist views. Yes, they can do great harm...but do you really think their influence is greater than most others'? Amongst the field of serious 2008 presidential candidates, for example, who do you see that would want to change our "precious secular democracy" to reflect their fundamentalist beliefs? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Rudy Guiliani? John Edwards? John McCain? I don't quite understand your concern with the effects of fundamentalism when you seem to regard even moderate folks here as "anomalies" in a "liberal" world.

From what I have heard about many of today's prestigious divinity schools, I'm surprised you're so concerned about fundamentalism. I don't know why many of these institutions are called "divinity" schools, because they seem little concerned with divinity. While I applaud their apparent emphasis on social justice, it seems that some of their graduates emerge with almost nothing recognizable as "faith." You may say this is because they are being told "the truth..." And "What reasonable person could possibly believe all these absurd stories after learning the facts?" But I would agree with the poster who said, last week, that I trust just as much the witness of people who were there 2,000 years ago as I do that of humans thousands of years hence looking at these matters through a completely different lens.

While the arguments I put forth are indeed basic and oft-offered, I believe they have value. Just because they "sound familiar," does that make them unworthy of consideration...and used only by people who are trying to "foster belief?" They're perfectly legitimate and, more to the point, practical questions.

Re: your point about people making "financial contributions to support 'these stories,' does it occur to you that most of us make financial contributions to help ease the burden of the poor, the sick? For social services?

As for "There’s no easy explanation, so Jesus must be the Son of God," I think that's a reductive (and frankly, condescending) way of summarizing what the Christians here are saying. Again, attach you no importance to people's (admittedly "unverifiable") personal experience? You clearly attach high value to your own personal experience and the conclusions to which it has led you. You trust your own mind. Can't we enjoy the latitude to do the same, without being intellectually belittled?

Re: "Even in our own time, political leaders who have been perceived as heroic and sent by God have eventually been seen as all too human." What does this, your own statement, do to your championing of "humanism?"

Thanks for engaging. This does the brain and heart good.

All: Want to respond to recent posts here but am at work. Will try to get back later. E Favorite, you intrigue me...You seem to be someone who almost "protesteth too much." You obviously care deeply about these issues or you wouldn't be on this blog. I am dismayed that an intelligent, sensitive individual would refer to much of what we discuss here as "absurd stories." Throughout history, story has been used to convey truth every bit as much as have "facts."

Are you enslaved by empiricism? Do you concede, while heartily disagreeing with much of what is expressed here, that there can exist unseen but powerful reality that we limited human beings (and devoted Christians) try to follow, though we don't "know all the facts?" And you, as one who has read and studied so widely, know that "facts" are just as open to interpretation as "stories." We've all heard of "revisionist history," and know, for example, that textbooks we used in grammar and high school and college contained material largely put together by people coming from a very specific viewpoint. You may say we Christians are doing the same...and we are. But so are you. I'm not criticizing...just making an observation.

Quick note: None of the points I made in previous post came from anywhere specific...These are my own wonderings. Yes, many others have wondered the same. And if C.S. Lewis -- who had a fine, sharp mind -- was one of them, that's OK with me. I only wish he were on this blog! Back later. Thanks to all.

Hello BigD - I just now noticed and checked out your links above. I see they are all criticisms of the Jesus Seminar, of which Marcus Borg is a member.

However, my quote from Borg is a description of his educational experience in divinity school which was long before the Jesus Seminar even existed. Your information does nothing to refute it.

E favorite:

What you call an assertion of my opinion "We live in a battle zone because we live in a world and society wrecked by sin” is classic biblical Christian teaching that I did not make up nor does it come from me. It comes from the Bible. One biblical teaching that is affirmed by Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Charismatic, Holiness, Pentecostal, Fundamentalists, and non denominational is the foundational teaching of original sin and its destructive impact upon all of creation. For sure, there are individuals and sometimes several who do not profess such basic Christian teaching.

Are you trying to pull the wool over our eyes by saying the reality of sin and its impact upon the world is possibly one not shared by all Christians? That is illogical.

Speaking of logic. It is foolish logic to say there is no God. How do you explain your own existence, the creation of earth, the origin of the universe. Is it just by chance that earth is just the right distance from the sun and has many other things just right for life on this planet?

Furthermore, the scientific idea of proof means it can be demonstrated over and over again. Other types of proof based themselves on probability which depends upon how strong or weak the evidence is. For example, there is external evidence which supports a high probability for the reliability of the Bible.

The Gospels and Epistles were written very closely to time of the actions described.

Other ancient documents, accepted as reliable, are not written closely to the actions described.

So, while we cannot always logically speak of scientific proof, we can think logically about the probability of something being proven based on the weight of the evidence. This requires an inductive approach of having an open mind in looking over the evidence.

Inductive reasoning in looking for and over the evidence for something's probability of proof is quite different from the deductive approach of making a decision about something and then going to find 'proof' to support it.

There is a place for deductive reasoning in figuring out the application and implications of something. However, without open minded inductive questioning, observation, and research, the fruits of deductive reasoning will be short sighted.

I'll give you one quick illustration of how this played out in the last century. Julius Wellhausen developed a Documentary Hypothosis based on deductive reasoning in sear of proof while ignoring the findings of archeologists to the contrary. The fruits of the documentary Hypothosis was the undermining of people's view of the OY which in turn hurt their view of the OT. Many of the seminary professors who bought into this have been pulling the wool over seminary students eyes on this subject. Unfortunately, not everyone has learned how to think critically nor do all seminary professors want their students to think critically. To the contrary a professor and author told his class one day about applying the Docementary Hypothosis to his books and articles for over 20 years. He laughed saying according to that Hypothosis, he would not be claimed as the author of all those books, but he was.

We certainly have different ideas of what is logical. And when it comes to religion, people seem to decide for themselves, regardless of their religion’s official teachings. My Catholic friend, like many Catholics, including J Daley, has an individual interpretation of religion. J Daley doesn’t think I’m going to hell (assuming I’m a good person), but my Catholic friend who thinks the resurrection is a metaphor and who knows I’m a good person, thinks I am going to hell. Maybe you think the resurrection is physical and people like me go to hell.

The whole thing gets quite complicated and illogical, in my opinion. You can’t all possibly be right. Here’s another scenario – it can’t be proven, but at least it’s logical – there is no God and there is no hell.

I meant the quotes as too often used excuses. I didn't take them right out of your text but I can quote neraly identical arguments in your prior post:

"..seems like quite a stretch to me." (You already told us you weren't an expert in this area so this isn't much of a valid argument)

"I just learned today that one of my oldest friends from childhood, a practicing Catholic, has always thought of the resurrection as a metaphor and can’t imagine how anyone would think anything else." (Your practicing Catholic friend must net be practicing too well. Even with a basic understanding of the faith Catholic's do not believe the resurrection was metaphorical)

While you did make a couple attempts to answer some of J Daley's points with other logical points - you also did resort to these types of arguments which don't show much of anything. You were right in calling me to task for using the quote marks if it seemed to come across as I was quoting you. But you are guilty of making these arguments which are not based on logic or backed up with fact.

My point was this is often the case. When someone like J Daley posts some very basic and simple logical arguments to support Biblical teaching they get tossed aside without an equally logical response. These logical arguments are very well known and should be easily countered if they aren't accurate.

Hello BigD - I searched this discussion for your quotes: "I find it hard to believe.." and "this guy I know who was..." and didn't find them.

Perhaps they're in another discussion?

J Daley -

Isn't it amazing how often logical arguments are thrown aside for the: "I find it hard to believe.." and "this guy I know who was...". I find it amazing - anyway still liked your post earlier. Keep up the good work.

Hello, John Crowe – I’m not sure what you beg to differ on – my general point of view or my thought that you might want to know my opinion, or something else. Also, I did not later “modify” my comment. I made a completely different comment on the same subject to another person.

I stand by what I said to you, though, especially in light of your continued response. You obviously put a great deal of thought into God’s role in your own life. I’m not surprised by this – many Christians do it. You also make assertions, such as “We live in a battle zone because we live in a world and society wrecked by sin” as if it’s a known, accepted fact. It isn’t. It’s your opinion, perhaps your belief, and possibly one not shared by all Christians. I realize that clergy are used to giving sermons. This forum is a different venue.

Nice to have you here.

Hi, J Daley – first of all I want to clarify – I am not clergy and did not go to Union Seminary – that was a quote from Marcus Borg, a well-known Biblical scholar. I credited him, put his whole passage in quotes and provided a link to the original source, but like BigD, you assumed I was discussing my own experience. I’m flattered if you think my writing style is similar to his. You can read his essays here at the “All On Faith Panelists” link.

I can’t really answer all the questions you raised, in part because of the big assumptions some of them make. For instance, “Why would ordinary people like the disciples have been compelled to take such enormous risks -- leaving their jobs and families, traveling widely, and many ultimately being put to death -- …” There is no historical record (meaning outside the bible) of the disciples. Having 12 disciples was a common theme in pagan myths. There are “traditions” surrounding the disciples’ deaths but there is no historical basis for the information and except for Judas, the only biblical account is about James, Acts 12:1-2 - "It was at this time (of great famine, possibly around AD44) that King Herod laid violent hands on some of the Church members. James, John's brother, he executed with the sword .....").
Also, you say,” If He were just a myth, wouldn't his following have probably lost steam a long time ago?” Not if you have the whole Roman empire behind you for political reasons – as Jesus eventually did. Even in our own time, political leaders who have been perceived as heroic and sent by God have eventually been seen as all too human. (No slight intended to Jesus).

I don’t know, but I’d say that a lot of people in the first century, DID believe that what they heard about Jesus was “true.” But the fact that a lot of people think something is true doesn’t make it so – Just think of all the urban legends floating around today. And It’s pretty well documented in Roman history that the reason Christians were willing to die for Jesus is because they really believed that as martyrs, they were going straight to heaven– like the suicide bombers today (again no slight to Jesus).

As to some of your other questions, they seem to be begging for the response – “There’s no easy explanation, so Jesus must be the Son of God” which seems like quite a stretch to me. For other things, such as: “If writers (and subsequent editors) had been making up a story, wouldn't they have painted a rosier and less complex portrait than this?” This answer is, “Maybe, but that doesn’t mean the story is true.” And of course, “truth can be stranger than fiction” but that doesn’t mean it is in the case of Jesus, or any given case. Some of your questions sound familiar. Are they from Stroeble’s “The Case for Christ” or Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”? I haven’t read those books completely, but have skimmed them. If a person reading these books is already inclined to believe, I have no doubt the books foster belief – that is their purpose.

You ask, “Can you see that many Christians are “intelligent, thoughtful people who understand some of the points you are making but choose to be people of faith in a power that we perceive as being ‘higher’ than we are on the continuum of reality.” Certainly I can. What I can’t understand (and don’t think can be explained rationally) is how that “higher power” comes with a whole life story of virgin birth/Jesus/resurrection etc., etc. or Joseph Smith/sheaves of gold or Allah/winged horse, plus the expectation that the faithful make financial contributions to the human organizations that support these stories. I’m not so concerned about intelligent, thoughtful people like you who still choose to believe that Jesus could have physically resurrected from the dead (assuming that’s what you think), but I am concerned about the fundamentalists who think everyone should believe it and that our precious secular democracy should be changed to reflect their beliefs -- and I fear that people like you don’t see them as a threat, but simply as your “brothers and sisters in Christ.” Instead of urging non-believers not to be insulting to Christians (which is how our conversation began) I wish you’d urge fundamentalists to keep their religion out of government.

To see how clergy express themselves about the resurrection, I suggest you read some of this “on Faith” discussion http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/04/remains_of_jesus/all.html especially Martin Marty and Thomas Reese. I think both of them very skillfully dance around the question of the resurrection –never actually saying they believe in it, but leading believers to assume that they do. See what you think. I think it’s a form of doublespeak that works for them -- They can comfort the faithful without getting into the sticky details which might cause some people to feel they’ve been duped. I suspect they’re grateful for people like you and BigD who don’t hold them responsible for your education. I hold them responsible for your continuing mis-education. Irrespective of the actual information that exists on religious history and dogma, it seems like people can pretty much make up whatever they want. It’s odd. I just learned today that one of my oldest friends from childhood, a practicing Catholic, has always thought of the resurrection as a metaphor and can’t imagine how anyone would think anything else.

Something I learn from these conversations is how proud people seem to be about their faith in what now seem to me to be absurd stories. I know from my own experience that that pride in having faith in things unseen and inexplicable is inculcated in Sunday school and in the ritual of the Mass. It’s part of what makes Christians special. In the conversations on this forum, I think it’s also more than that, but I don’t know what. I can see that it might have made sense 2,000 years ago, when a lot less was understood about the world and people oppressed by the Romans were in a hopeless situation. In those circumstances It could be easy to be convinced that death, followed by eternal life, was a logical solution. In those desperate days, Christianity was like a death cult, similar perhaps to the Branch Davidians, the James Jones followers, or those comet people. I don’t suppose you like being compared to those people, but I do want you to think about how easy it is for you to identify with the original Christians and how similar their beliefs are to people you don’t identify with at all. They all so firmly believed that dying would bring them to eternal life, that they invited death – something the great majority of all types of Christians today would never dream of.

E favorite:

Your first comment on my sermon "Tragedy and Prayer" was

E favorite:
John Crowe - I know you're trying to help by posting that sermon, but personally I think people would be better off if they didn't spend time trying to figure out what God's role was in a tragedy and instead just concentrated on comforting each other.
Posted April 19, 2007 11:47 PM

Then you modified it to:

E favorite:
J Daley -
Regarding your comments on John Crowe’s post, please note I didn’t question the appropriateness of his remarks or his right to express them here. We’re all expressing our opinions here. I thought he might like to know mine.

Posted April 20, 2007 10:49 AM

I beg to differ.

Also, in reading many other blogs, people are either questioning or proclaiming various view about God and this tragedy. Although, this subject may not matter to you personally, helping people with finding how their faith in God relates with all this mess does bring comfort into people's lives.

I really didn't say anything about God's role in all of this. I just pointed some help in how prayer to God can help in, through and after this tragedy.

I've spent a great deal of time online dealing with two extremes. One pronounces this young man was demon possessed. The other pronounces that God predestined him to kill these people who were predestined to die on that day as well as kill himself and in it all bring great shame and pain to his family along with bringing an enormous amount of pain to others.

BTW, My conclusion is this. We live in a fallen world in which God gives us some degree of choice. Being a Christian does not exempt us from unexpected tragedy as if we are someone special. Our faith in Jesus does not mean that he will make everything in our lives turn out just right so that we reach the American Dream. That is a santa clause view of God. In the midst of all sorts of tragedy and suffering, our minds will never be able to figure out exactly why. Best of all God is with us.

How else can I live with unexpected, previously undiagnosed, and in no way preventable changes inside my body that placed me on disability before reaching 50. If it were not for modern medicine, I'm certain that I'd be dead by now. So, if God predestined various parts of my brain to stop working or not work right (as has taken place), then is modern medicine standing in the way? No, that is dime store theology as well as stupid. Satan works through the deadly tragedies of life to pull us away from God. On the other hand, God is at work in both the valley experiences of life and in the mountain top ones to draw us closer to himself. Life is a battle. We live in a battle zone because we live in a world and society wrecked by sin.

Sometimes our own sin or the sin of others or just the overall death inflicting of sin as a whole is why horrible things take place. Not everything that happens to us is for our good. ( I would not have chosen any of the medical problems that I have nor could I have prevented them by better care of my health.) However, God is at work even in the face of the most hell like tragedy to help us through which may mean rebuilding a life quite different than what we lived before which mine is.

I still like what a seminary room mate said once is wrong "Too much sin, too much stupidity, too much dime store theology, and too many living in a fantasy world."

Do you want me to continue? The assertions made by the Jesus Seminar – that you brought up here are not even close to what THE VAST MAJORITY of Biblical Scholars would call good scholarship. I do hope readers of this blog – if there are any left – do check out the FACTS for themselves.

(Quotes above come from the last hyperlink)

Joel Belz, editor of World magazine, observes that a review of the sayings attributed to Jesus and the ones which are not reveal how "loaded the project was" with "social engineers" with a doctrinal, not theological social agenda (World, 25 December 1993, p. 3).
Dr. Jacob Neusner, professor of religion studies at the University of South Florida "refers to the Jesus Seminar as 'the greatest scholarly hoax since the Piltdown Man'" (The Lutheran Witness, April 1994, p. 5). The great Oxford University scholar N.T. Wright deems the seminar's findings a 'freshman mistake" and notes that recent books denying the Biblical accounts of Christ as well as the Jesus Seminar have no credible explanation as to the willingness of obviously sane, reasonable, and extremely ethical disciples and followers of Christ to be willing to die for the cause based on the resurrection of Jesus (Christianity Today, 13 September 1993, pp. 22-26).

Dr. D.A. Carson, New Testament professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, notes that "one of the most striking features of the press releases of (Funk's) Westar Institute" is that "the words 'scholars' and 'scholarly' are almost always attached to the opinions of the Jesus Seminar and detached from (the opinions of) all others" (Christianity Today, 25 April 1994, p. 30). Carson writes that the "doctrinal redaction criticism" approach is "repeatedly criticized."
Carson states that to say Jesus, a first century Jewish man must not sound like his disciples or contemporaries, that his sayings must by nature be idiosyncratic; or to say that Jesus' sayings must not sound like the older churches views, "is to assume that the most influential man in history never said anything that the church believed, cherished and passed on is blatantly reductionistic" (Ibid., p. 32).
Carson, whose Ph.D. is from Cambridge University and who is a member of every prestigious, scholarly society including the Evangelical Theological Society concludes, "for all its scholarly pretension, the Jesus Seminar is not addressing scholars. It is open grab for the popular mind, for the mass media" (Ibid., p. 33).

http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseTeaching/jesusseminar.html

Dr. Richard Hays, New Testament professor at Duke Divinity School (certainly not the bastion of conservatism) has written a very strong critical analysis of the Jesus Seminar and its product, The Five Gospels. He writes that the seminar was "sponsored by not one of the major scholarly societies such as the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, or the Society of Biblical Literature." Also, he observes that "This self-selected group, though it includes several fine scholars, does not represent a balanced cross section of scholarly opinion. Furthermore, the criteria for judgment that are employed are highly questionable" (First Things, May 1994, p. 44).

http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~echong/pubs/apologetics/jesus-seminar.pdf

http://seminary.cbs.edu/content/events/nlc/1999/papers/The-Jesus-Seminar.pdf

http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html

E Favorite - Here it is - if it ends up on here twice I apologize - there are going to be several reference posted individually because I can't get them up all at once:

Here is a listing of just some simple posts on information that discredits all the assertions made by the Jesus seminar as unscholarly work:
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/unmaskingthejesus.htm

E Favorite -

All the links and references are coming. It seems it might be a lot of info to post. I just sent it up. If it doesn't show up in the next few hours I'll break it up and get it up here.

J Daley -

Excellent post! I wasn't sure anyone was still reading this one.

E Favorite: Was glad to read Virginia Bain Allen and BIGD's posts. All scholarly considerations aside (because I'm not qualified to make them), what about the following questions:

Why would Jesus have been put to death if something he did, or something he said about himself (e.g., identifying himself with God or claiming the power to forgive sins) hadn't been considered profoundly blasphemous? The Gospels seem clear that Jesus's aim was not to be a political leader -- the kind the Jews clearly expected, so it doesn't seem he would have been threatening on that level or "eliminated" because of it.

Why would ordinary people like the disciples have been compelled to take such enormous risks -- leaving their jobs and families, traveling widely, and many ultimately being put to death -- unless they knew and believed something absolutely extraordinary and unique about Jesus? Unless He had uttered words and effected deeds that compelled them beyond human fear to proclaim him as One we should follow? Why would millions of people, from then until now, follow this One -- even if they aren't history experts -- unless they found in Him something that could be found nowhere else? If He were just a myth, wouldn't his following have probably lost steam a long time ago? (And you may claim it's losing steam now in some parts of the world...but I don't think I agree with this point overall. I don't have numbers, but I don't agree).

Why, when the Gospels were written, would Jewish people of that time have been willing to record details that -- unless they believed they had witnessed and participated in something absolutely unique and "saving" -- would subject them to danger, ridicule, torture, death, loneliness and many other things most human beings try mightily to avoid? Why would they have recorded accounts of their "own" -- fellow Jews (Pharisees, Scribes, the Sanhedin, etc.) -- that were so unflattering? Why would they have told of the significant role of women in Jesus's ministry and, Christians believe, in witnessing to His Resurrection, when women had such a low place in society? Why would they have openly reported that the man they believed to be the expected Messiah befriended "sinners" and "unclean" people of every description -- and their own surprise at this? That he was clearly not a military leader who would restore their nation through military might? Why would they have recorded that the disciples "didn't understand" when Jesus first told them he must suffer and die and would rise again (and any number of other things)? If writers (and subsequent editors) had been making up a story, wouldn't they have painted a rosier and less complex portrait than this? The very fact the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John contain differences lend these books authenticity. We might remind ourselves that truth is stranger than fiction.

Not all Christians claim that the Bible is entirely "historical" -- many of us view it as a mix of history and story -- an "inspired mix." Most of us respond much more deeply, and "get a point" much more effectively, when someone tells us a story in illustration instead of laying out lists of "facts." And why do people tell stories? Because they're trying to impart something important -- the essence of a matter.

I'm trying to say that there is something very clearly compelling here in peoples' encounter of Jesus -- then and now -- something at the heart of the matter which engendered faith and belief even in the midst of human disagreement about the historical Jesus of Nazareth (Gnostics, Arians, etc.), what He said, how it was recorded and by whom; the Church's formulating and propagating doctrine over centuries, etc.

I am NOT discounting what you were taught at Union (Union Theological Seminary in New York City?) But I think that, similar to your points about ultra-conservative seminaries, there are those that teach in ways that all but take the Christ out of Christianity. It seems to me there are extremes on both ends.

I don't think most Christians are given to willful ignorance of history. Nor do I think lots of priests and ministers are. I think that, what a lot us say is, in effect, "Tell me what time it is -- don't tell me how to make a watch." And this in the sense that some of us -- due to our life circumstances, our temperament, our intellectual abilities and inclinations, etc. -- want to live and work with the heart of the matter discussed above -- focusing on the Love. I feel as if you feel you were "duped" in your childhood and want to convince others that were, too. Can you see that many of us are intelligent, thoughtful people who understand some of the points you're making but choose to be people of faith in a power that we perceive as being "higher" than we are on the continuum of reality (I wouldn't call it "natural" and "supernatural," because this is a construct of the limited human mind). This power, for Christians, is the Trinity, with Jesus being the Person of the Trinity who came to live among us as a man, and the Holy Spirit poured out on us, we believe, when a resurrected (NOT resuscitated) Jesus returned to his Father.

Perhaps people who object so strenuously to this way of thinking fear that those of us who choose this life and outlook are harming others or wittingly or unwittingly keeping them in "ignorance," or somehow contributing to fundamentalism that can be harmful to our world in scores of very real ways. But I don't see myself this way. Yes, fundamentalist Christians are my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I have no trouble expressing disagreement with the way many of them see and express things. And I agree with BIGD that we are all responsible for educating ourselves.

Thanks for listening. And thank you all for your rigor -- it is much appreciated.

Please provide references for your "assertions do represent the majority of accepted Biblical scholarship." For instance names of scholars and divinity schools.

That way people can check credentials for themselves. Some fundamentalist divinity schools make professors and students sign a statement that they accept the bible as the inerrent word of God.

E Favorite -

My apologies if I asserted these points to you. Marcus Borg is a founder of the Jesus Seminar which has very little scholarly support outside their own circle. They caused a big fuss when they came on the seen but MOST scholars now do not view their work as the best in scholarly research.

If people do the research I believe that they will find my assertions are much more backed up then the points you illustrated. While there maybe some bad divinity schools out there teaching people like Marcus Borg inaccuracies. My assertions do represent the majority of accepted Biblical scholarship but definately not the scholarship of the Jesus Seminar.

Even if there were handfuls of people still alive around the year 60 AD that personally knew Jesus, or at a minimum knew a close realitive that knew him, I trust what they said about Jesus more than someone doing speculative studies almost 2000 years later.

BigD - please keep in mind that when you're commenting on those 10 points, they are not mine, they are from Marcus Borg (as I referenced), a theologian and essayist here, who is describing what he and other students learned in divinity school.

Also, everything I've read myself says the first Gospel - Mark - was written in the late 60's, so there weren't too many people still alive from the time that Jesus died in 33. Life spans were much shorter then, about age 50.

The assertions you make are not backed up. If you want to "believe" them, fine, but it they don't represent acccepted Biblical scholarship.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide information here. I didn't expect it to have an impact on your thinking, but perhaps others reading here will be interested enough to follow up on some of the internet links and books I've mentioned in these discussions, to further their own exploration of their faith.