tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post112423779719833686..comments2023-10-18T03:53:59.377-04:00Comments on The Last Debate: What if God Were One of Us?Andyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1124467513078118582005-08-19T12:05:00.000-04:002005-08-19T12:05:00.000-04:00I've started reading a book called, "Open Christia...I've started reading a book called, "Open Christianity," and very much agree with what the author states so succinctly early on: that with regard to Christianity, we "pick our myth."<BR/><BR/>What he means is something I've realized for some time now, but hadn't found such a quick way to put it.<BR/><BR/>In brief, we know next to nothing as to matters of fact concerning the historical Jesus. The New Testament itself is a densely layered interpretation of a life that was authored mainly or entirely by persons who never met Jesus. They set down into writing oral traditions that had been circulating between 30 and 70 years after his death.<BR/><BR/>So this multi-authored accretion of stories about Jesus is far from a model of consistency and clarity. It makes us responsible, to use a favorite conservative term, for what we choose to emphasize in that good book, and what sort of interpretation we put on the life of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing "fundamental" about fundamentalism. It's one take. There are others that I, for one, find more compelling.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14770384445526387065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1124294444207768122005-08-17T12:00:00.000-04:002005-08-17T12:00:00.000-04:00Tin buddy: no, I'd have to say I reject "natural s...Tin buddy: no, I'd have to say I reject "natural selection." Yes, I accept that as creatures evolve, mutations occasionally give them advantages over previous populations that allow them to become dominant. However, "natural selection" is precisely the ideology that Cardinal Schoenborn warns against; it seeks to explain away God's role in nature through unscientific, untestable hypothesis that evolution through adapation and genetic mutation is random and undirected.<BR/><BR/>With regard to the appendix, you fell right into the rhetorical trap. Of course suggesting that the appendix may serve a future purpose isn't testable -- but so is declaring it obsolete.<BR/><BR/>And no, I respectfully disagree: I think I'm picking exactly the right battle. Christians need to be shown that, far from threatening our beliefs, science enhances our understanding of and respect for God, and secularists need to see that being a person of faith does not mean willfully ignoring obvious truths. Quite the opposite, in fact.<BR/><BR/>It's not about whether the existence of God can be proven, because if it could it would negate the necessity of faith. You don't have faith in the existence of oranges, you can hold them in your hand. The point is not to let secularists get away with saying that because science can't prove God's existence, it proves his non-existence. I know that's not your position, but it is for many.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your compliments! : )Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1124291285861869722005-08-17T11:08:00.000-04:002005-08-17T11:08:00.000-04:00Damn - your writing always blows me away, Andy.Oka...Damn - your writing always blows me away, Andy.<BR/><BR/>Okay, so I think I have a clearer idea of your views now. I am assuming that you believe in natural selection, but that God created the conditions for natural selection to lead to humanity. If that's the case, then (as I said in an earlier comment) I think it would be inaccurate to say that you believe in "intelligent design," because "intelligent design" conjures up a very particular worldview today.<BR/><BR/>And I think you're picking the wrong battle. The most relevant debate today isn't between religious people and secularists, but between fundamentalists and everyone else. Secularists and religious non-fundamentalists share so much common ground; it's fundamentalists who are the outliers today. It doesn't really matter, at least in political terms, whether evolution proves or disproves the existence of God.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you're just not going to be able to convince us secularists of God's existence by arguing your way there scientifically. This is not to say that you are wrong to hold those beliefs, but merely that the presence or absence of God is not testable by science. "What if God left [the appendix] there because He knows our descendants will need it again?" That's not testable. And the assertion that God's logic is not human logic ("Is that how <I>you</I> would have chosen to reveal yourself to mankind?") just assumes what it's trying to prove.<BR/><BR/>A vast majority of us share your moral views, most succintly encapsulated in the Golden Rule. But one doesn't have to be religious to hold those beliefs. That's why I think you're picking the wrong battle.<BR/><BR/>Again, though, very well done (as usual).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1124286861556662992005-08-17T09:54:00.000-04:002005-08-17T09:54:00.000-04:00Very well written. My only comment would be that ...Very well written. My only comment would be that Religion, in all its many forms, has never been about Christianity, at least not primarily. It has been about power. It still is about power. Julia is right when she talks about the ethos of fear. That is how Religionists get their power. Making you afraid of God gives them the ability to control your life. So belief that Jesus Christ literally died so you can have eternal life(the basis of Christianity), and the desire to live a life that follows the path of Christ's is a long way from what the "fundamentalist" Christians are teaching and preaching. Which begs the question, are they Christians at all? Or does the idea of Intelligent Design actually reinforce the belief in a Savior, and show that there is a Plan for our stay here?bohicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10110016798798784735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1124278657029373392005-08-17T07:37:00.000-04:002005-08-17T07:37:00.000-04:00The unfortunate hallmark of Christianity, American...The unfortunate hallmark of Christianity, American Style, is its ethos of fear -- the fear of learning and discovery, the fear of dissenting viewpoints that threaten its tightly-constructed worldview. However, secularists counter that fear with another, opposing fear -- the fear that the universe contains mysteries that cannot be grasped, seen, or explained. For the fundamentalists and the secularists alike, the introduction of what they fear -- whether that is new scientific knowledge, or the acknowledgement of divine mysteries such as miracles or Christ's bodily resurrection -- introduces a frightening instability into a world that is made safe by their respective belief systems. I think the hostility to science from the fundamentalists and to religion from the secularists shows the fragility of our whole social psyche. Is everyone afraid that the world they have worked out in their heads, the world that is controllable and rationally explained by their belief systems (for fundamentalism and secularism are both inspired by a misguided rationalism), will turn frightening and unpredictable if they admit that there are things outside the purview of those narrow systems? Perhaps the world is really full of mystery that cannot be explained by either faith or reason alone.<BR/><BR/>As a Catholic (who believes in the Immaculate Conception, literal resurrection, Christ's divine intercession and all kinds of other things I could never explain), I am grateful for our centuries-long tradition of being at the forefront of learning and scientific discovery (the suppression of Galileo is something I may address in a later comment). I appreciated Cardinal Schoenbron's op-ed piece, because it marries faith and reason, an approach John Paul II, and now Benedict XVI, both endorsed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1124278510437007762005-08-17T07:35:00.000-04:002005-08-17T07:35:00.000-04:00Matthew, thanks for your question, and, as always,...Matthew, thanks for your question, and, as always, your readership. : )<BR/><BR/>I do, absolutely, believe in the immaculate conception and the literal resurrection, the forgiveness of sins and judgment before God.<BR/><BR/>But my point in de-emphasizing those aspects for now is twofold: one, I believe that the people who function as the "public voice" of Christianity these days have gotten the Gospel wrong; the "Gospel" literally means "good news," but you don't hear "good news" coming from James Dobson or Jerry Falwell. George W. Bush claimed his "faith" guided him to blame a country for an atrocity it did not commit and invade it for weapons it did not have. I think it's of vital importance to correct that and show that the Gospel contains a message of hope, encouragement and deliverance.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, I am at sea in a world of skeptics who believe that atheism is an enlightened state of being, as well as people who've been seriously damaged by religion. I want to show them that Christianity is often not what they think it is, that it is nothing to be afraid of, and that in fact they already agree with most of the message. I think helping people get to that point will prepare them spiritually to begin to recognize God in their daily surroundings. Purely from a strategic point, it's better to present Christianity as non-threatening and already familiar, rather than bombarding those who have closed their eyes with stories of miracles that they are not ready to accept yet anyway.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1124257619673670182005-08-17T01:46:00.000-04:002005-08-17T01:46:00.000-04:00I know I should really comment on the actual subst...I know I should really comment on the actual substance of your post, but I'm just blown away by the elaborate formatting. Font mixing? Pull quotes? Illustrations? <BR/><BR/>Very impressive.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm intrigued by your description of your beliefs. As I pretty much agree with you on the intelligent design issue, I'd like to ask about your description of how you see Christianity in this whole debate. I'm pretty clear on the value structure you're going for, but I'm curious as to how much else you adopt. What about immaculate conception, literal resurrection, Christ as the divine intercessor for your sins and ultimate judge? These aspects of Christianity definitely cross the line from “a way of life that holds patience, compassion and forgiveness as ultimate virtues”. It seems to me that any secularist could also agree to the same values you are describing here. Do you see Christianity as the philosophical ideals represented by the teachings of Christ, or do you also include concepts like performing of miracles, atonement for sins, etc. etc. ?Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15873264637235332589noreply@blogger.com