Who wrote the gospels?

[Thomas]

There is such a thing as a Liberal Fundamentalist?????? Who'da thunk! I always thought the two words mutually exclusive.....

Well there you go! If 'conservative fundamentalism' is an extreme, there must be its contrary complement.

 

[Thomas]

No, I didn't say I had a problem with theology, I indicated I had a problem with those that bend fourteen different ways from Sunday that try to prove this or that works by some circuitus work.

But you accused apologetics of doing it, rather than some apologists. If you'd have made that distinction, I would have agreed with you.

Should I take that as rhetorical or satyrical?

I would take it as a sign that blanket statements can be read to infer some order of fundamentalism.

I believe my own words were that it came from oral tradition, men and women telling and retelling the stories around a fire for years, decades for Christians ...

You may believe it, but is it true? Got any evidence? This 'fireside storytelling' seems like a handy piece of 'spin' to me, to make light of the whole process. The evidence, from all over the planet, suggests that the transmission of oral tradition was not a matter treated lightly. Campfire storytelling is a different thing altogether.

My 'rage' is (if you are correct) being lead down a path of confusion for decades ...

Then please stop diseminating your own brand of confusion. Or expect the rage of others (if that's what you see) as a natural result.

it pisses me off when I'm told stories that are claimed to be true....but are not.

And yet, you invent your own, highly unlikely, stories and assert them to be fact, because that's how it seems to you.

Millions of us believe in plenty, It is all quite pleasing, comforting.

Here's the thing:
Millions of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, whatever) believe ... It is all quite pleasing, comforting ... but it really pisses you off. So you seem to confound your own argument. Where's the difference? I'm sure there are those who have become disillusioned with Unity, and the kind of theology you espouse, for the same reason.

No not quite, It is a collection of various books, some historical fiction/hyperbole, some based on visions, others contain parables, mythology, mysticism, metaphor

Any possibility that the Word of God is in there, anywhere? Revelation? None? Not at all? That God does not know what He's dealing with? or He can't make Himself understood?

Skip discussion?? is that what ten thousand posts is?? skipping discussion?

When you skip over difficulties, ignoring evidence to the contrary to balance your opinions, and just continue to bang the same drum, yes.

You've stated this numerous times. And in my viewpoint, had the truths been discussed and brought out openly ...

They were never secret, Wil. There is no conspiracy to delude you or anyone else.

, the second largest denomination would not be nonpracticing Catholics...

I don't know who you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure the things you're getting steamed up about are your 'thing' ... not everybody's.

Again, so nonsensical it shouldn't even be addressed.

Oh Wil ... you mean you haven't got a comeback, so you'll just say it's nonsense? It's this kind of fundamentalism that makes me see the futility of posting. If you don't understand it, I'll be happy to explain?

It isn't what I am determing as authentic, it is what current scholars are considering authentic.

No, the conclusions you draw is what some current scholars conclude, but their conclusions are not exclusive, nor are they conclusive, and often so contradictory they just muddy the waters, rather than clarify it. You want to close the question where I say we can't ... it has to remain open.

Bart Ehrman when he actually got down to stuydying and questioning after years of religious education...the rug was pulled out from under him....he completely rejected it all when he disovered how much mythology and power moves were contained in the process ...

Quite. In his own words Ehrman recounts his youth as a born-again, fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error – Jesus Interrupted. His studies in textual criticism led to his disillusionment and eventual loss of faith. Yet there is no evidence to assert, beyond doubt, that there was any mythologising or power-playing as he suggests ... that's his rather extreme conclusion, extreme because there's a vast middle ground of well-informed scholarship between the Bible as an inerrant text he once believed in, and the falseified text he cannot believe in at all. That seems to me a pretty extreme reaction. He became a liberal Christian, but eventually agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering. The question of theodicy, not of textual criticism per se. One I struggle with myself, to a different but no less heterodox conclusion. I don't think God micro-manages the Cosmos half as much as Abrahamic orthodoxy insists, but I haven't lost my faith, or become selective about what I choose to believe and to dismiss.

But it's evident that Bartman has gone from one extreme to the other, and both, I would dare to suggest, infer a fundamentalism born of critical myopia. His commentaries were required reading on my degree course, and on the presentation of his materials he's very good (although somewhat selective, which scholarship frowns upon). On the conclusions he draws from them, he's on much less certain ground, and his agnostic agenda must be taken into consideration — he's declared it. I think your summation of him covers both of you, you've both polarised.

... where as millions of others myself and Bishop Spong types read the same informaton, study the same information, and it has increased our spiritual wonder, amazement and joy in following the teachings of Jesus and groking the Christ example.

By it seems to me you can't. It's stated by both of you that you dismiss the texts that don't conform to what you believe to be credible, at least that's how I see it.

So it seems to me that what you 'grok' is the Jesus of your expectation, not the Jesus of the Evangelist. You read onto the text, not into it. You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear, and dismiss the rest.

Yeah..that is what 'they' do...

I'm glad you see it, and hope you now see that we don't!

At the very least, on this subject it seems to me a case of the pot calling the kettle, or take the plank out of your own eye ...

 

[Aerist]

The real question then, and really it's the only one that matters, is was He mad, bad, or the Son of God, as C.S. Lewis posed.

And would our judgements of a living Jesus be valid, based on our interpretation(s) of such a being's behaviour and, well, aura? I suspect not.

I do like the way this quote's meaning has morphed with the passage of time. Mad has probably passed the time when it meant mentally ill or insane, being in common use now to describe an enthusiast, e.g. "I'm mad about brunettes." The Oxford English dictionary also includes an allusion to the effects of mercury poisoning, as in "Mad as a hatter".

Bad still means not-good when speaking of fruit, but in popular culture has developed a reversed meaning when spoken in an emphasised way e.g. "He's really baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad" would place the subject as a role-model (awesome q.v.)

 

[Thomas]

And would our judgements of a living Jesus be valid, based on our interpretation(s) of such a being's behaviour and, well, aura? I suspect not.

Evidently not, as some followed, some walked away; some tried to 'catch Him out', some tried to stone Him to death, some followed Him, to the same grim end ...

 

[wil]

Steamed up?? Me getting steamed up...it does happen, but not near as often as it used to....and not around here. I am sure Jesus said something...no frankly I am not sure of anything....pluto was a planet...I had to be sure of that in 5th grade to pass a test....much of what I got wrong on tests, got marked off on on tests in school has now been shown to be wrong, so my wrong answers right and I am petitioning to have my permanent record ammended.

That goes for religious studies as well as science.

Ya see Thomas, I am the experiential type...I believe something, I test my beliefs, and I am happily blissful, QED...

G!d is good, Jesus is G!d (although the bugger talks to himself often), We can do what he has done, we are all family...we are his brothers and sisters, we are children of G!d, we are the emanations, the physical representation of G!d aspects in 3d....we are G!d expressed...not as G!d, or as marionettes, but more like a glove is not a hand, even though the hand is in it...G!d is in you and me....like a wave in an ocean not like a raisin in a bun (thanx eric butterworth)

big hugz brother....we are one...

 

[Thomas]

... We can do what he has done, we are all family...we are his brothers and sisters, we are children of G!d, we are the emanations, the physical representation of G!d aspects in 3d....we are G!d expressed...not as G!d, or as marionettes, but more like a glove is not a hand, even though the hand is in it...G!d is in you and me....like a wave in an ocean not like a raisin in a bun (thanx eric butterworth)...

You are of course welcome to believe this, and to preach your beliefs, and promote your opinions here as 'fact', but please do not pass them off on the unsuspecting as 'Christianity' because, for the same reason that you get so angry about being misled about Christmas, Easter, what have you, so will those who receive the Gospel according to Wil when they realise it's a mythology of your own invention, without foundation in Scripture or Tradition.

That's all I'm asking: Do as you would be done by.

 

[wil]

Thomas, it is my faith, exactly as yours is yours. If I were a menonite, JW, Baptist or whatever I'd preach it, exactly as you preach what your Catholic Fathers have sunk into your sect...no different. My Catholic brothers and sisters here in the US have their chants to the saint of lost things, wear their St Michaels, have their mother mary in their front garden...my book says keep no idols...theirs does not. We all make our choices and none has the right to look down their sanctimonious noses as at another you know the old glass houses saw...

We are but ships on the sea my brother, sometimes using the same currents and winds and at others battling waves of our own creation. Every post is my belief, my understanding, my fact, just as every post you provide is no more than yours.

Now be a nice fellow and get us another pint, I'll buy.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, it is my faith, exactly as yours is yours.

Sadly, it doesn't come across like that at all. If only you knew.

If I were a menonite...

The dialogue would be different, but you're not. I challenge you on your own ill-founded and ill-favoured assertions about what it is you think that we believe, or why you think us simple and misguided fools for believing it.

You have declared unconditionally that one can have no faith in the Canon other than to promote a fictitious message, you have declared unconditionally one can have no faith in the sacred scribe to come anywhere close to an authentic and unbiased testimony of their imagined experiences, if they had those experiences at all. You have declared unconditionally that the content of the sacred books is nothing more than self-serving fabrications of myths and legends of those bent on some personal agenda. Your declaration that 'everything's a miracle, robs the term of all its implication ...
... And yet you declare that you, and you alone, manage to pick the grains of truth from a tissue of fictions, and after every reason offered to refute the text, you then quote those self same texts as evidence of your inherent divine status.

Wil, if you applied just 10% of the critique to your own credo as you apply to mine, you'd find you'd be left with nothing.

But you never answer that, the most crucial question — on what basis do you dismiss the sources utterly, and the texts almost in their entirely...

... and yet construct an image of yourself, from those self same texts which a moment ago you declared fictions, if not deliberate deceptions, that stands in stark contrast to and refutes the content and context of those texts themselves.

So at best all you can say is you've built a faith on rambles, stories and outright lies of old men sitting round the fire ... ?

Texts, I might add, that share the one common factor of illuminating yourself in a most favourable light?

Or put another way: If I put on the Mind of Wil, I would be dishonest to myself if I did not put that book down, and walk away.

your Catholic Fathers have sunk into your sect...no different. My Catholic brothers and sisters here in the US have their chants to the saint of lost things, wear their St Michaels, have their mother mary in their front garden...my book says keep no idols...theirs does not.

That's the Wil I know: Never pass up a chance to kick a Catholic ...

We all make our choices and none has the right to look down their sanctimonious noses as at another you know the old glass houses saw...

And then accuse others of the very same thing, when they don't do it.

As for discussions between you and I, I thought this was a forum for debate. I thought you said you were here to learn. Sanctimonious? Glass houses?

I've responded to every criticism you level against the reason and rationality of my faith. I admit our errors, our uncertainties, I allow for a range of views and possibilities ... You have never done me like service, indeed all you've done is assert the single line of your own reasoning, even when that goes far beyond the sources you claim to endorse it ... without ever actually answering the question.

(How much do I rail about the conduct of your congregations? And how much do you rail at me about mine?)

We are but ships on the sea my brother...

Ah, the sophistry evasion. Ignore the question and make an impassioned appeal to sentimentality ... at heart all this says is 'I don't care what you think or feel ... just agree with me.'

I don't challenge where you are heading, I challenge when you seek to take others with you. You rail about the deceptions foisted upon you, and yet you show no qualm about foisting your own fictions on others.

Every post is my belief, my understanding, my fact, just as every post you provide is no more than yours.

Only mine have much more substance than yours.

In our discussions, I defend the truths I stand by.
You simply defend your right to say what you like.
There is a difference.

Now be a nice fellow and get us another pint, I'll buy.

Now who's being sanctimonious?

It was said of St John that he would not enter a bathouse while Cerinthus, 'the enemy of truth', was within. I'm afraid I'm obliged to leave the bar for the same reason, but enjoy your pint.

 

[wil]

I don't ask that you agree with me Thomas...never have. I simply ask that you allow me not to agree with you. I don't kick Catholics at every chance I get...My time spent with your brethren is simply more than spent with every other denomination on the planet...you simply slam me for making any statement, yet don't counter the statement made?

Of course I defend my right to say what I like!! and I defend your right to say what you like too!!

You can't rail about the conduct of my congregations....how many services have you attended?? Between various invitations from friends, weddings, funerals, national services and scouts I've been in Catholic services hundreds of times, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbytarians, Baptists...dozens each..Unitarians, Hindu, Apostolic, Buddhist a few each...and many others...never. But whilst there is a billion of you folks there is a less than a million of my folks....

Who cares if they are fictitious?? I surely don't. I believe much is based on fact, but they have been adapted for various purposes.. Heck we can see that in the gospels themselves. But who says we can't learn from or use myth, fable, parables in our own lives?? They are extremely valuable in my book.

And stating clearly that Jesus was NOT born on Christmas, NOR rose on Easter, NOR crucified on Good Friday...it benefits the reader, benefits the believer, to know that these are generic holidays, place holders for a greater happening, not a historic day, but the representation of a historic event....that is my view...you surely don't have to like it. It is my view.

And I will enjoy my pint! Cheers!

 

[Gordian Knot]

Thomas said
"Only mine have much more substance than yours.

In our discussions, I defend the truths I stand by.
You simply defend your right to say what you like.
There is a difference."

Thomas I am simply gobsmacked by this set of statements. You are simply defending your right to say what you like. Just like Wil. Your statements have more substance only in your little piece of reality. There are a gazillion other realities that prove you're reality is no better, or worse, than any other.

 

[Thomas]

I don't ask that you agree with me Thomas...never have.

That's not my point. I don't ask you to agree with me, either.

Let me say it again:
I contend that the dogmas you assert are you passing off way too much as incontrovertible evidence, indeed as 'facts'.

And whenever I challenge you to support your facts (as I do mine), you do divert the discussion and lecture me about the right to believe, etc., or that your 'facts' must be right, because look at the way Catholics carry on ...

Now you try and throw an arm over my shoulder in a show of bonhomie and divert me to the bar so you can buy me a drink and shut me up before anyone notices your 'emperor's new clothes' doctrine.

I suppose what amuses me the most is you choose to believe in something that, according to your own argument, cannot be believed.

+++

I don't kick Catholics at every chance I get...My time spent with your brethren is simply more than spent with every other denomination on the planet

OMG Wil! C'mon! I grew up in a majority AfroCaribbean community, so what if I go round blethering on about the mores and morals, the habits and practices of black people, using that lame excuse? Shame on you!

Your comment on Catholics:
"their chants to the saint of lost things, wear their St Michaels, have their mother mary in their front garden...my book says keep no idols...theirs does not ..."

A transliteration into a Caribbean context:
"their reggae and their Ras Tafari, wearing their locks, they have their baby-mothers in the front garden ... "
See? It's called 'casual rascism' because it's making sweeping judgements, founded on ignorance and assumption.

+++

Of course I defend my right to say what I like!! and I defend your right to say what you like too!!

And I defend my right to challenge what you say, as you defend your right to challenge what I say.

You can't rail about the conduct of my congregations...

I don't ... I rail at your conduct. I find it supercilious and prejudiced.

I've been in Catholic services hundreds of times

Really? You must get bored out of your brains. How can you stop yourself laughing? Or do you just pity the congregation?

Do they know how you think and feel about them. I hope they do, and I hope that one day you might realise that, it would be a lesson in humility for you.

Who cares if they are fictitious??

Is that what you believe?
I care very much about what I believe.

I surely don't.

So are you saying you're quite happy to believe in a fiction, and then pass that belief onto others, as 'fact'.

I believe much is based on fact, but they have been adapted for various purposes.

OK. I believe it's all based on fact, and has been adapted for various purposes.

My 'purposes' are the immediate needs of the community to which they are addressed (Mark to Gentiles, Matthew to Jews, Luke to both, John to the community at large.) Those 'purposes' are derived from the internal evidence of the texts.

Your 'purposes' are, if I recall, the hang-ups, agendas and self-agrandisation of the scribe? Can you prove that? What are the adaptions? How do we know that? And to what purpose was the text adapted, and how can we know that?

Heck we can see that in the gospels themselves.

Can we? See 'what' exactly? Or is it that some choose to interpret it that way, and you choose to accept their interpretations as 'fact'?

But who says we can't learn from or use myth, fable, parables in our own lives??

Who says the Gospels are just myth, fable and parable?
(This is the Bultmann position, BTW, and it's been demonstrated to be a false one.)

And who says the words and deeds recorded in Scripture cannot be true? And on what basis?

They are extremely valuable in my book.

There's the nub ... I think you have 'The Book of Wil', and then pick up bits and pieces from the other books that can be used to endorse and validate that book, even though you've declared those books invalid!

So the bits that are valuable are valuable because they serve you.

And stating clearly that Jesus was NOT born on Christmas...

See? You're falling into fundamentalist thinking again. He could well have been born in December, there's sound reason behind the argument. Or September, there's sound reason for that one, too ... so its an open question, not as closed as you like to assume.

... NOR rose on Easter ...

Sorry Wil, but just because you choose not to believe in the Resurrection is not sufficient reason from Christianity to change its Creed.

NOR crucified on Good Friday...

Yep ... we probably got that one wrong. It was more likely a Thursday. Or maybe even a Wednesday. We just choose to celebrate it on a Friday.

it benefits the reader, benefits the believer, to know that these are generic holidays, place holders for a greater happening...

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the vast amount of Catholics I know. We're not nearly so fundie about things as you are.

Tell you what, pick a favourite day to celebrate the birth of Christ, say a day in September, which seems to tick most of the secular boxes, and then petition to have Christmas moved ... and see how much support you get.

So OK. Your views are couched in prejudicial terms, the thinking is flawed and rather assumptive, the evidence and most scholarship often points in quite a different direction ... but it's your view, an extreme one in its own way, but I'm OK with that, I've heard worse.

Then, after all this, you promote your view of what Christianity means, based on the most flimsy and insubstantial argument!

So every criticism you level at orthodoxy, does not apply when it comes to you.

The more I read you, the more I have come to realise just how fundamentalist 'liberal Christianity' is — apart from being a dogma of the absolute minimum with regard to the evidence, it allows for no other opinion than its own.

I rank it along with the other extremes, like Creationism, as both operate by the refusal to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary of one's own fixed position.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I'll not get into Wil and Thomas discussion, I have my thoughts on it but it's getting more and more personal and I don't want to sound like I'm picking sides.

Thomas said
"Only mine have much more substance than yours.

In our discussions, I defend the truths I stand by.
You simply defend your right to say what you like.
There is a difference."

Thomas I am simply gobsmacked by this set of statements. You are simply defending your right to say what you like. Just like Wil. Your statements have more substance only in your little piece of reality. There are a gazillion other realities that prove you're reality is no better, or worse, than any other.

BUT, I believe there is a distinction here based on how they choose to believe. Since Wil don't necessarily thinks that a lot of the scripture is true but lay the importance in what he personally take from it he can't and don't have to defend the reasoning behind is believes and interpretation. Thomas on the other hand follow a tradition that has argued and written about the scripture for a long, long time. Thomas lean on previous arguments that has been tested by time, when challenged he provide these.

So yes, they both defend their right to say what they want, but Thomas also provide the reasoning behind it. Wil don't have to.

Your statements have more substance only in your little piece of reality.

This is only true if you don't want to connect your reality to his. Which there could be reasons for. I personally want to connect to both Wil and Thomas, and my reality will only be greater for it.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas said
"Only mine have much more substance than yours.

In our discussions, I defend the truths I stand by.
You simply defend your right to say what you like.
There is a difference."

Thomas I am simply gobsmacked by this set of statements.

I can believe that ... but only because you follow a similar line of reasoning thatI happen to think is deeply flawed.

You are simply defending your right to say what you like. Just like Wil.

Not quite. I am defending what I believe as a received credo of the text, as reasonable and rational, attested to by the text itself, the Tradition that produced it, and the informed commentary, of all shades, upon it. My beliefs are balanced and moderated by all the arguments, not simply dogmatically asserted by some of them.
Wil is defending what he believes, arguing from the text (where he accepts it, with no offered reason why this text is not as spurious as the rest), but it is a belief refuted by the text in all its parts, by the Tradition, and often in the face of reasoned and rational argument to the contrary.

Your statements have more substance only in your little piece of reality. There are a gazillion other realities that prove you're reality is no better, or worse, than any other.

No, this is quite wrong.

Objectively, not all 'realites' are equal. Some are surely too fantastic to be 'real' (here faith plays a part), some are transparent fantasies — that Christ came from Sirius, or some other star, that his teachings are a heterdox message drawn from travels to Tibet, England, America, or elsewhere. Most occupy a middle ground between faith and certitude, prejudice and incredulity, fiction and fantasy.

Subjectively, if Wil argues for his right to believe in Scripture as he so chooses, then so is everyone else, and they are as free to express those views suffering his condescensions and accusations of perpetuating falsehoods in the pursuit of an agenda.

In short, Wil's declared 'non-theist, panentheist, Christianity' is riddled with contradictions.
Christianity cannot be defined as 'non-theist' when the text, and the Hebrew Tradition from which He sprang, and the traditions that sprang from Him, all assert theism. All the Abrahamic traditions assert God as Father, an idea realised in the image of an old man sitting on a throne ... there is no better image ... old because he is eternal, father because He is the source of all.

Panentheism as Wil promotes it, as 'the divine spark within' is essentially dualist. Its the product of broad speculation, often said to be Hellenic, but in fact much broader ... but it is a dogma that has no root in the Hebrew nor the Christian Scriptures.

As for Christian, the only evidence we have of that are, in Wil's eyes, a collection of highly dubious texts spun together for the self-glorification of their anonymous authors, about which we know nothing, and yet seem still able to level the accusation of falsehood against them — accusations which, by virtue of his human nature, Wil would have to accept of himself: What role does his is his agenda, his hang-ups, his self-aggrandisement, play in his doctrine?

(I see plenty of firm evidence to dispute his views, and offer it at every turn, but Wil refuses to offer any support other than they are his views, as if that validates anything. I'm discussing the reading of evidence, not opinion.

I have not offered anywhere near an objective criticism of Unity dogma as Wil offers subjective criticism of the Catholic faithful. Were I to do so, I would say it reflects contemporary enterprise of saying what we want to hear to draw in the widest catchment. It's a sentimental and egoic message based on a flimsy philosophy. And I think I can argue that objectively, without resorting to opinion.

The glorification of the self is something which every prophetic utterance, every oracle, every insight of all the world's sacra doctrina warns against, again and again and again.

+++

Put together the texts that Wil presents me with often, that we are His equal in every respect, that we are His brothers and sisters, that greater things (than He) shall we do, that the Kingdom is ours by virtue of our inherently divine nature, that we are gods ... these texts are offered, stripped of their contextual meaning, and bent to serve another purpose, a subjective one which Wil brings to the text.

My faith is founded on no such assumptions, I had those taken from under me when I began my studies — I can only make vague assertions about who the Four evangelists were, and none with regard to their sources — I am obliged to accept the doubts and uncertainties, although not necessarily the conclusions in every case.

I believe, for example, that it's evident in the text that Our Lord did proclaim His divinity, exclusively, in word and deed. If you read it from a Jewish sensibility, it's as plain as day.

I believe, for example, that Paul's conversion was not in a 'blinding moment', but the fruit of many years examination and contemplation.

I believe the miracles happened because they are the realisation of the words in concrete realities. If the words are true, the miracles are not impossible, they are natural signs. I believe it is possible for the Supernatural to communicate through nature, and do not limit this communication to ideas.

I know, for example, that many instances where history has declared the scribe to have made a factual error, have subsequently been revised to admit the scribe was in fact right, and his account is true and accurate in that regard. So not all criticism, nor all apologia, is infallible.

I know, for example, that Paul did not write the entire corpus attributed to him. I do believe it follows the theological course set by him.

I also happen to believe that Paul was, in many ways, no saint. He caused a great deal of trouble. Just the other day, I was laughing at the idea of a possible first draft of his letter to Corinth that began: "You ungrateful bastards ..." His scribe put down his stylus and said, "Paul, with all due respect, you can't say that ..."

I know we don't know on what day Christ was born, or crucified, but I believe that Dec 25 is a viable date based on speculation according to Hebrew (and indeed universal) mystical tradition. I'm a symbolist, so I would, it's the way I read the world. Same with the Crucifixion.

But I also know that to say that Christians adopted Dec 25 from the pagan calendar is wrong. All the material evidence refutes it. I also know that, for example, All Souls is an appropriation of Halloween, but then that seems justified to me, as I see nothing wrong in the remembrance of the dead.

I know that Christian doctrine does not idolise the Blessed Virgin, or saints, or icons, as Wil asserts. I also know that it's quite possible, indeed probably likely, that some Christians indeed might, but no-one is perfect, and that does not invalidate the doctrine.

I know the disputes, and I follow many of the arguments, but I don't necessarily follow to the conclusions drawn. Some, like Ehrman's journey from evangelical faith to agnosticism, seem somewhat extreme to me. Others, like Bultmann's declaration that the Gospels are substantially myths, have been shown to stand on a flawed logic. Pagels' view of gnosticism, which is very popular, is not shared by scholars, and seems coloured by certain tragedies in her own life.

I reason it out and try and stay even-handed. I wish Wil would do the same, then I think we really could have a fruitful discussion.

 

[wil]

Thomas, I guess I'll have to do some Catholic kicking and bashing....after all, I wouldn't want to make you out to be a liar...I'll do my best to provide evidence that you are correct in my anti catholic beliefs.

sheesh.

You say you defend everything with your facts...I make a statement about idols, you don't deny or defend...you shoot the messenger. I actually think your chants and idols are interesting, I find it very similar to what my Hindu friends do. But I also find it contrary to what the book says on the subject. Hell, I'd love to hear your viewpoint, tis why I bring it up.

Yup, you are correct. While I admire the construction of the churches and cathedrals, contemplate the money and effort spent to build them, when I courteously attend the services at the bequest of a friend for this event or that (christenings, weddings, funerals, holidays, hapen to be in town whatever) in the past i was a little put off by what I see as hypocrisy. The same hypocrisy that other denominations that I attended turned me away from religous services...that turned me away from all church for years.

In reality though today I can watch and listen and enjoy it, just as I do the bible, just as now I will Christmas, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter...as pomp and circumstance celebrating an occasion, not as actual events which coincide with either the calendar month or day or day of the week, but as markers for the events, for the concepts displayed.

As to arguing the mountains of evidence you provide, discussion of conjecture by the ancients and the fathers doesn't trump reality by archeologists, historians, scientists. Not in my book. But again, just because something isn't entirely factual, does not decrease its value to me, as a collection of books that I find worthy to assist in my thoughts, my trials and my 'salvation'.

It all started hear when I said short answer...we don't know who wrote the gospels...you gave me crap for that....even though that is entirely correct.

 

[Gordian Knot]

ACOT said "This is only true if you don't want to connect your reality to his. Which there could be reasons for. I personally want to connect to both Wil and Thomas, and my reality will only be greater for it."

I understand your desire and also have a hard time imagining how it can ever be achieved. The two paths are not compatible. At least not in any way that I can see.

Thomas said "I can believe that ... but only because you follow a similar line of reasoning thatI happen to think is deeply flawed."

I can see where you would believe my line of reasoning is similar to Wil's. I suppose the line of reasoning may indeed be similar, but the foundations of my reasoning are very different from Wil's.

If I understand the difference between the two of you it is in how scripture should be interpreted. But you are both working from the same foundation, the scripture.

For me, the divinity of the scripture is itself suspect. I don't know that it is false. And I don't know that it is true either. If scripture is mere mythology, much of it borrowed from earlier mythologies, then your reasoning is actually opinion based on false assumptions.

If the scriptures are of divine origin, then your reasoning is on more solid ground.

You believe the latter, and you believe there is a history that proves the divinity of scripture. My reasoning would indeed be flawed. If you are right.

You cannot know you are right, and there is the rub. You can believe you are right. And I know that you do believe that. But you cannot know you are right. There is simply no proof; no solid unimpeachable proof that scripture is divine. This is where I believe your reasoning is flawed.

Your belief in the divinity of scripture is a choice you made. And everything else that follows does so because of that initial choice. But if the first assumption is false? Isn't everything that comes after flawed?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I understand your desire and also have a hard time imagining how it can ever be achieved. The two paths are not compatible. At least not in any way that I can see.

No they are not, and my goal is not to make them so, I simply wish to comprehend them fully, and to do that I need to expand my reality, my understanding and knowledge of the world, to be able to include theirs. They will only be connected indirectly through my understanding of them.

You cannot know you are right, and there is the rub. You can believe you are right. And I know that you do believe that. But you cannot know you are right. There is simply no proof; no solid unimpeachable proof that scripture is divine. This is where I believe your reasoning is flawed.

I call for definition of knowing and believing. I'm not speaking for Thomas now, but knowing in your heart that something is out there is more akin to what you would call believing. I would put down the glasses you use for the natural sciences when observing faith, because it generally know, even to Christians(!), that the divine can't be proven.

Thus I question what is flawed in his reasoning. A theologian dose not set out to prove God, in the way that a biologist desires to prove evolution. They are two different sciences.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thus I question what is flawed in his reasoning. A theologian dose not set out to prove God, in the way that a biologist desires to prove evolution. They are two different sciences.

No, they are not. Science is predicated upon intersubjectively verifiable tests with the potential of falsifying an hypothesis.

 

[wil]

Everything is of divine origin. Desire, of the father, our desires are essentaily divine....we may warp them with materialism... A divine book/idea may get warped with the notions of power and control...but as G!d is within everything (my belief) as the Christ (krishna/buddha/pure) consciousness is within our grasp, it is our choices that make the difference.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

No, they are not. Science is predicated upon intersubjectively verifiable tests with the potential of falsifying an hypothesis.

I used science in a wider definition, incorporating all methods for gathering and understanding knowledge.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I used science in a wider definition, incorporating all methods for gathering and understanding knowledge.

Ahh - "wider definition" ...

Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

I trust that you pay the word exceptionally well.