A nicely balanced piece, Sells. I was tempted to say "for a change", but that would have been churlish.

>>...to compare these stories with the information about the physical world is ludicrous<<

Absolutely. Problems only occur - and this is by no means restricted to your own religion - when devotees try to insist that the stories are grounded in some form of historical reality, and therefore incontrovertible.

(Although I do have to take issue with your blind swipe at the modern novel being "mere journalism", simply because they do not ground themselves in some form of religious mythology. There is substantial moral examination by writers such as Koestler, Steinbeck, Butler, Nabokov and many others, that meet your requirement that they be more than "mere entertainment and to carry no other function than distraction".)

Having said that, I agree entirely with your view that:

>>... there is not one point of Christian dogma that is challenged by natural science. There are two different epistemologies here that do not compete for the same knowledge.<<

It would be a great step forward, if you could promulgate this message to your fellow-religionists. Who continue to insist that their "knowledge" is somehow superior to that - very different - "knowledge" held by atheists, agnostics, and other non-believers.

But if it is not the responsibility of science to disprove or diminish religion, nor is it the responsibility of religion to contradict science through reference to materials that - to use your own description of the Nicene creed - are nothing more than "obviously metaphysical statements".

I can comfortably side with you on your conclusion that Blakemore's programme overstepped the mark, in positing that science will ultimately cause religion to be redundant. Reliance on the metaphysical for comfort and reassurance is based on emotion, not reason. And in the same way that religion and science function independently, it will be emotional security rather than increased objectivity that lessens the hold of religious belief on humans, over time.

It will be interesting to see what your fan club makes of this article, Sells

Peter, I have read many of your articles on OLO, and you have a profoundly-demonstrated commitment to Christianity and aspects of its Good Book.
It seems to me that there is a need for your thoughts to be compiled, and brought to bear as a twenty-first century edition of the Christian Bible.

As Taslima Nasreen found in Bangladesh, such an exercise can meet with a degree of opposition from those committed to resisting change. However, if the worst were to happen it might elevate your status to that of martyr.
Science can chug along separately, rever-changing its understanding of matter and interactions as new elements of them are revealed by ongoing inquiry.

*sigh*... more guidance for Pericles needed ..a-gain.

//Absolutely. Problems only occur - and this is by no means restricted to your own religion - when devotees try to insist that the stories are grounded in some form of historical reality, and therefore incontrovertible.//

Pericles, your biggest enemy is yourself.

"Grounded in some form of historical reality"

Even the HARSHest critics concede that the Biblical sections which actually claim to deal with "History" are at least connected to real events, though they might offer that the event which happened is now faded and all we have left is the 'myth'.

Let's take just one example.

NAT GEO. Study of the plagues of Egypt.

Nile turns red with blood. Red algal bloom.
Recent studies have shown:

1/ The original course of the Nile passed by a particlar city, the name of which escapes me right now.
2/ Archeology showed that pottery exists 'up to' a particular point which is identified to be around the time claimed for Moses.
3/ There are no pottery examples or evidence from 'later' periods.

The city was abandoned.

The conclusion which is attractive is:

"The historical evidence and Biblical narrative coincide closely."

SODOM. The story about the events there is becoming quite well known..and the archology (after first being dragged kicking and screaming to even 'admit' that there was such a place) now confirms that a 'violent/firestorm' type disaster hit them.

Again.."Biblical narrative and Acheology coincide closely

So.. while we could go on..and on...and on..and on..... with example after example...after example..... let's not.

But it is most unfair to suggest that the 'some kind of historical reality' that Pericles poo poo's is actually quite strong and close to what the bible says.

More 'not so secret' mens business.

Pericles... you again... The Bible is a Book of books...it contains many literature types.

-Historical
-Poetical
-Apocalyptical
-Commands
-Biographical
-Prophetic
-Legal

and I'm sure much more.

The key is in knowing which type of literature you are reading, to whom that particular part was written, why, and when.

(Those are the tests I apply in my statements about the Quran, Muhammad and Hadith by the way)

Your primary problem is that you don't yet know the 'Author'... but we pray on.

Sells has a point, there is no conflict with science as long as the bible is not taken too literally.

The universe is not 10 000 years old, and evolution is generally accepted, so Genesis should be accepted as a parable. Likewise the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around.

Other parables such as "the good Samaritan", "the lost son" and "the virgin birth" are essentially there to provide guidance and not be accepted at face value.

This is the difference between modern Christianity and that of the fundamentalists of the dark ages that, like Islamic states today, flogged and executed heretics.

Now you are simply carping for the sake of it, Boaz.

>>Even the HARSHest critics concede that the Biblical sections which actually claim to deal with "History" are at least connected to real events<<

Connected, yes.

Historically accurate (i.e. "did they really happen as written?") no.

>>Study of the plagues of Egypt... Nile turns red with blood. Red algal bloom... "The historical evidence and Biblical narrative coincide closely."<<

Errr, yes. Except that no mention is made, historical-evidence-wise, of the role played by Moses and Aaron. And Yahweh, of course. Which unless I am mistaken, was the whole point of the story.

The event itself was, as you point out, perfectly explicable as a natural occurrence.

>>SODOM. The story about the events there is becoming quite well known..and the archology... now confirms that a 'violent/firestorm' type disaster hit them...."Biblical narrative and Acheology coincide closely<<

Errr, yes. Except that no mention is made, historical-evidence-wise, of the role played by Abraham, the three angel messengers, Lot, Lot's virgin daughters and Lot's wife. Which unless I am mistaken, was the whole point of the story.

London was ravaged by fire in 1666. It was suggested at the time (by the Dutch) that this was also divine retribution "because their sin is very grievous" - in this case, revenge for the destruction, by fire, three weeks earlier, of the Dutch town of Terschelling.

Events such as this will always be attributed, by some, to supernatural powers. It's what they do, when they want to underline a point, or explain coincidence, or justify a tragedy through the presence of a deity.

>>'some kind of historical reality'... is actually quite strong and close to what the bible says.<<

"Quite strong and close" is fine. I don't think many people have problem, historically speaking, with plagues of locusts in Egypt or the destruction of Sodom by fire.

It's just that I don't accept that either was an example of a divinity at work.

And as Sells points out, there is no need for us to imagine an intersection of scientific reality and biblical narrative, where none exists.

As a "non believer" I'm again struck by the Christian compulsion to insist that all non believers inhabit "the desert of autonomous rationalism with technological progress as the only hopeful glimmer on the horizon."

Is this is a contemporary method of telling us we're going to hell?

You need to define what you mean by "non believer." Do you mean those with religious beliefs other than Christian? Or do you mean those with no religious beliefs at all?

We look to history to inform us of the human condition, you write. In fact, we look to history to inform us of some aspects of the human condition. There are very many aspects of the human condition that will not be found in history, because only a select few had the power to create the historical records and much history has been omitted. This is gradually being redressed by scholars in many fields.

Views on morality and ethics existed long, long before Christianity. This reminds me of the argument against secular ethics being taught in schools - Christians maintain you can't have ethics without Christianity, therefore there's no legitimacy in non Christian ethical teachings.

How sad that you persist in your exclusivity - but of course that is one of the defining characteristics of some religions - you carve out an identity for yourselves partly on the basis of whom you exclude.

All institutions have the same fate, including the Christian - the institution becomes its own raison d'etre, and all energies are subsumed into maintaining it, and increasing its influence and power

Two books I found helpful on this subject were “The Death of Forever” and the sequel “Music of the Mind” . Both by the author, Dr Darryl Reanney, a molecular biologist probably made famous through his writing and presentation of the ABC series in 1982, Genesis. (for those whose memory can transpond the warp of time). Great stuff Dr Sellick, Great stuff.

One question though; I believe this question was really the embodiment of the Jewish problem with acceptance of Christ as anything more noble than a prophet “Is Christ also a myth”? This is the difficulty that Christianity has in its attempts to present doctrine as proof.

What does separate Myth from fact? (Two central questions)!

Briar Rose:

To be human is to follow the quest for truth. And the truth?; whatever turns you on really.

If you are not turned on by religious faith, choose to exist with no personal God, no anchor of moral values based on religious teaching from the great, noble and inspirational traditions such as Christianity, then go for it. In the end it all relates to yourself, your choice to be made alone.

But “Bingo”, another question; “Who cares in the end”. The answer = Christianity cares. Its obliged to care, it’s the caring instinct of the religion, part of the projection of the myth into the physical reality of the present. Christianity does care and so moves along, and simply “IS”, as "IS" God.

Is it all really a myth? More questions than answers. But notice now, we have moved to the zone of faith! It is entirely the point Dr Sellick makes. If Christianity "Bogs-In", it ceases to work, it must hold to the myth to be useful to humanity.

It is interesting that Sells used the word DOGMA in the title of this essay.

What has dogma got to do with Truth & Reality?
Dogmas are institutionalized and propagandized ideas ABOUT Truth & Reality.

At best they may point to the Truth. So too with narratives.

What if the originating text of Christian-ISM, namely the Bible, has nothing to do with Real God, and is really a POLITICAL document put together by the church "fathers" to consolidate their worldly power against the other factions of their time and place (who were also competing for power).

This essay gives a completely different understanding of the origins and POLITICAL purposes of the Bible.

http://www.beezone.com/up/forgottenesotericismjesus.html

A quote from the same author.

"Anyone who seriously considers the modern Western intellectual and philosophical critique of conventional religion discovers that there simply is no basis in Reality for conventional religious presumptions and ideas."

A critique of what is usually called religion in this day and age:

http://www.beezone.com/up/criticismcuresheart.html

Diver Dan
where we disagree is that I do not subscribe to what to me is the illusion that there is one "Truth."

It is my impression that Christianity "cares" only when Christians have determined that there is something to be gained for their Christianity by this "caring." i.e. conversion.

As well, Christianity only seems to "care" when the object of its care is already compliant with its doctrines.

As Sells has stated, he believes that non believers are condemned to "the desert of autonomous rationalism with technological progress as the only hopeful glimmer on the horizon."

This sounds to me to be a dreadful judgement on any human being who does not subscribe to Christian doctrine. Or Sells' variation of it, because Christians don't seem to have achieved agreement on their own principles either.

I think that the present day Christian institutions bear little relation to the teachings of Jesus Christ, some of whose statements I deeply admire and draw sustenance from.

Sells arguments don't give me any sustenance at all. They alienate and exclude me. Is this what Christianity has become?

I think I'll stick with Jesus. As well as the many many other sources of moral information and guidance available to me since the world began keeping records.

These essays give an Illuminated Understanding of the all important relation between religion, science & culture.

http://www.dabase.org/christmc2.htm Einstein meets Jesus.

The above essay is featured in this book which was written with the distinct purpose of clarifying and illuminating the seeming never-ending cultural war between exoteric religiosity and scientism.

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/tableofcontents.html

This essay also does the same thing. Again it could be titled Einstein meets Jesus.

http://www.dabase.org/spacetim.htm

The Renaissance and the subsequent rise of the "culture" based on scientism and exoteric religiosity (which are two sides of the same reductionist coin), was a time when egoic meat-body man became the entire focus of knowledge, culture, and HIS-story. Rather than the presumption of the Divine or ideas about the Divine.

Put in another way the Renaissance was the collapse of the "God"-civilization that preceded it--the civilization based on mythologized presumptions of what was traditionally conceived to be spatially and temporally behind and above the world.

The Renaissance destroyed that earlier form of civilization. With the Renaissance, "God"-myth-based civilization was replaced with human-based civilization, or grossly bound ego-civilization -- or the civilization based on the myth of the separate (and separative) human ego-"I".

That ego-civilization came to its essential end in the twentieth century. That civilization idealized the grossly bound ego-"I", and it ended with a world of egos destroying one another. Exoteric religion also played its part in idealizing the separate ego-"I" (including its various collective or cultic forms).

Indeed, it is, principally, the combination of grossly bound scientific materialist anti-"culture" with widespread exoteric "religious" fanaticism that has produced the dark realities of this late-time.

Lemme see if I've got this straight. Christian belief has a different epistemology to natural science (I'm pretty sure you got that right!). Natural science is about physical laws, whereas Christian belief is about moral truths.

But the rubber's got to hit the road somewhere, because we are physical beings. So far as the moral precepts apply to humans, there is a potential for, and are in fact, conflicting truth-claims. If the facts are wrong, you'll end up with the wrong theory; or the idea that truth doesn't matter to claims about morality. The question is whether we resolve them by reference to observation of nature and the use of reason, or by appeal to jumbled incoherent theistic codswallop.

The moral vices of Christians through the ages have their origin in this intellectual vice: starting from factual propositions that they either know to be wrong, or should know to be wrong.

By the way, the book of Genesis doesn't start out with a statement by the author saying who he is, and that the purpose of the book is only to exemplify certain moral principles by stories. The fact of the matter is, we don't know
a) who wrote it,
b) what his motivations; for example, whether he intended it as a work of fiction, or non-fiction, or whatever.

It is perfectly plausible that the author did consider himself to be writing a factual account of the origin of the world. It is only later, when science showed the errors in his explanation as a matter of astronomy, geology, biology and human sexuality, that Christians shifted ground and claimed that the whole thing was just a moral exemplar.

I believe that the Genesis author's primary motivation was to gain a sexual and reproductive advantage in his own society. That seems far more plausible to me than that an invisible super-superhuman directed or inspired him to write it.

Briar Rose

I agree with and admire many of your posts. I tire of Sellick being the only regular religious contributor on OLO, particularly because his writings are alienating to many people who either do not interpret Christianity as he does, subscribe to other religions or are not religious at all.

His bald proclamations that non-belief, particularly in Christianity, results in a lack of humanity, a life devoid of meaning, is unbelievably insulting and arrogant. Every day I am greeted by a morning chorus of birds outside my home, my cats are clearly happy to see me beyond just providing them with food, my neighbours' children greet me, I am known by name by my local shop traders, I have a stunning view from my verandah, I am loved and cared for by my friends and family - I have an abundance of such wonder and wealth in my world, even though my mother's health is poor her mind is as sharp as ever and we still have wonderful discussions from the latest political debacle through to the hilarity of shows like Spics and Specs.

I and grateful for simply being born in a country like Australia, yet people like Sellick, Runner, Philo and AGIR condemn me as lacking - what utter rot.

Sellick believe what you want, but respect the right of others to disagree and realise they have equally valid philosophies to yours - if not more so.

I am very heartened by the comments this month to what I regard as an easy and obvious article. I had thought that this had been well explained. A couple of things come up that I might address. Jardine insists that “rubber's got to hit the road somewhere” and he is perfectly correct. That is the point of the incarnation, the enfleshment of God. One thing that we cannot give away is the existence of this man Jesus and his death under the Romans. It is crucial that we understand the words of the creed “Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered death and was buried” as an actual historical event. The name of Pilate gives us an anchor in history. It is likewise crucial that we recognize that Israel was an actual nation that had to deal with its political situation. What we have in the bible is history based narrative that, while not telling us what exactly went on, conveys the important nuances. It is interpreted history in a pre-scientific age.

The other way that the rubber hits the road is the kind of communities that arise under the auspices of this narrative. While I know that there is no a straight extrapolation and that the church has been wrong on many things, it has produced the major institutions of our time and has nurtured numberless individuals in living good and faithful lives.

I was concerned by my insistent use of the word “moral” that that would produce the impression that Christianity was all about ethics. That is far from the truth, the faith is about depth and truth of being, ethics flows out of that depth. The great mistake in the nineteenth century particularly was to understand Jesus as the good teacher of a new and more demanding morality. Rather, Jesus is the Word made flesh, his being is in his acting, his acting breaks down our misconceptions about who we are. His “being” confronts us and transforms us. It is only then that we can be truly moral. Naked morality as such can only produce self deceit.

Severin.
The accusation that I am exclusivist is a constant complaint in this section. It seems that you have me cornered. For me the faith is at the centre of life and my motive for writing these articles comes from an urge to share that with others. This means that I write out of my experience as a Christian, I hope with humility. I am not Buddhist or any other thing, I am a Christian. If that is exclusivist so be it, I can not be other than myself. It is unrealistic to insist that I study all of the world religions and give a balanced view. The world religions can only be understood from the inside, that is why I think comparative religious studies are a waste of time.

But your real concern is my odd throwaway line that suggests that anyone not of the faith is living an inauthentic life. For this I apologise, I cannot see into the hearts of men. I certainly would not want to draw the conclusion that Christians live better or deeper lives than non. The history of the church and the experience of Israel is that they have at times been shamed by the outsider. Read, the book of Jonah for a diatribe on the faithlessness of the insider and the faith of those outside of the faith.

Your claim that I am arrogant has some truth to it. This arrogance is born of my experience that the Christian tradition is so rich when it is properly understood that I cannot see why anyone would turn their back on it let alone pillory it. This experience simply does not let me say that there are many ways, that other traditions are just as deep, just as true, when I do not see this.

I am sure that you have a lovely life and that it is in no way a simulacrum of hell. What I would like you to do is to drop your guard and think deeper about the tradition that has been central to making that lovely life possible.

"Naked morality as such can only produce self deceit."

And nakedness without morality is even worse, I take it?

But seriously:
1. How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will take as important, or intended to be factual, and which not? How could the criterion ever be anything than one's arbitrary and variable opinion? How do you know the important part wasn't when God commanded whole peoples to be wiped out, and the rape of innocent virgins to preserve their father's honour? I'm from the smiting and slewing school of morality myself - so long as the slewing is of my sword through the guts of the unjust that is.
2. Since at least some interpretation is required, why not cut out the middle-man and lead good and faithful lives without reliance on the dubious guidance of the Bible?

No sir the whole thing is too morally and intellectually bankrupt for words.

Try this:

Imagine religion as the numerator in a fraction, underscored with the denominator as the subjective. Followed with the mathematical symbol for division . Now build a fresh fraction, science as the numerator and objective as the denominator, equals “x” plus “Y”, where “X” is apples and “Y” is oranges.

Science is for physics as religion is for ethics. One is apples one is oranges. It is a totally mute argument that insists on scientific proof for the validity of the Bible, and other facets of debate on relativities of scientific truth versus biblical lore. Apples and oranges grow on different trees,of course.

In my post above, I referenced two books by Darryl Reanney who achieved a remarkable outcome and came as close as anyone has, I suspect, at mixing the apples and oranges of the science and religion debate, in a somewhat unsuspecting way.

But hang on Diver Dan. That assumes that religion has something sensible to say about ethics as it applies to physical beings, namely, humans.

But religion has no more presumptive competence to speak on ethics than any other branch of knowledge has. In fact, it has less, because, starting from nonsense, and gobbledegook, and fictions, and confusion, and blind faith as to propositions of fact, things don't get any better when it goes from such premises to its conclusions about morality.

Take out of the Bible all the parts that refer to physical facts, and what is left is the undisputed relevance of the Christian religion to human beings.

I have some sympathy with the position of committed Christians as they try to come to terms with sacred texts written thousands of years ago, and apply them to contemporary circumstances involving enormous scientific advances, in a way that makes sense of those texts without rubbishing their religion. This is no easy task when unaided by some more recent & reliable spiritual clarification. It requires a significant move away from a literalist approach to these texts, even though the words used in those ancient texts must be to some extent rooted in a historical framework. Gradually Christians are finding ways to reconcile these texts with confirmed scientific discoveries: eg evolution. This increasingly involves the acceptance that what might have once been regarded as a material fact in those texts may be inaccurate as such, and that that which was literally described as a material fact may rather have a very significant spiritual meaning or a primary spiritual meaning. But this is very difficult if there is no acceptance that there is no conflict whatsoever between true religion and proven science, and that they both approach the same matters from different perspectives using different methodologies. You simply cant use the scientific methodology to determine metaphysical, spiritual or moral issues, just as you cant use the spiritual/metaphysical approach to determine scientific facts. A constructive, enlightened approach can be the only result of an acceptance that the two aspects are in all cases complimentary rather than in competition. This is the necessary starting point. It is in fact taught by some more recent religions - eg the Baha'i Faith. It does not deny the great value of these ancient sacred texts as religious and moral texts, given the time & state of learning within which they arose. But it does allow the present believer to move on and and value religion in modern society, recognising its essential contribution given the limitations of the scientific approach and its potential for abuse, but only when religion is shorn of all superstitions, false interpretations and out-of-date human accretions that still hold it back.

Graham N

That looks suspiciously like bait-and-switch, Sells.

>> It is crucial that we understand the words of the creed “Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered death and was buried” as an actual historical event.<<

When you referred to the same Creed in your article, the excerpt you used ended with "and became man". A key point, I suspect, that moved the narrative from the (to me) tarradiddle of "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made etc.", into the limelight of the real world's stage.

What happened to your assertion that "This series of statements are [sic] obviously metaphysical statements"?

It now appears that you have nominated a point at which history intersects with science. And suddenly, science goes out of the window.

Yes, it is highly likely that there was a Jesus. I'm not - necessarily - disputing that. And yes, there is a possibility that he was put to death by the Roman satrap.

But to make religious sense of your "actual historical event", would it not also be necessary to buy into the whole Lazarus/loaves'n'fishes/cured lepers bits too?

So do we have an example of historical reality - that Boaz will latch onto like a demented leech - or do we simply have an extension of the metaphysical world that you previously described so neatly?

The one that makes it unnecessary for science to ask awkward questions about surface tension on the Sea of Galilee, for example.

Stephen Hawking has just published a book in which he demonstrates that there is no god, that the universe created itself because of gravity. This fact tends to make many of these comments rather silly.

God is a figment of man's imagination, one combined with large amounts of wishful thinking.

Get over it and live in the real world. You might be surprised how good it is!

P.S. Anyone who suggests that religion is necessary to generate a moral compass is clearly deranged.

Peter,

You have discovered the Enlightenment. Good.

The problem is in the debate between episte and mythos, it is the Chtistian Church that was to draw first blood claiming to be the custodians of knowledge going way back to the fourth century, when the other gospels were desrtoyed to hide the debates over the trinity and the divinity of Jesus.

Up until c. 190 Jewish Christianity was not especially dogmatic. Dogmatism came about with institutionalisation leading to Nicaea and beyond. When the Bishoporic grew large more organisation was required.

I do agree with you that ancient scriptures (not only Christian) need be read in their context and many of the stories and myths are allegorical, Though, many Christians do take their Bible literalliy still.

I think George's mature comment (if reprenent him correctly) holds that the non-naive Christian will NOT look to the God of the Gaps. Once science has explained the origin of the physical universe, life and consciousness; the non naive Christian or other theist must look beyond science in way that God competes with other theories for where reality is bounded/limited. The theist we see that extra step. The atheist and sceptic will see the explanations of sceince a closed boundary.

Though a sceptic, I do think the transcendal thought embedded in religion and myth allows to adopt a template to think beyond the classical mechanics of the nineteenth century. Herin, we can substitue more esoteric realities (e.g. quantum mechanics) in lieu of the thousands of religions.

"To say that before the Enlightenment men thought that the Bible was the only source of knowledge is to mistake the kind of knowledge that it represents."

Well, let me ask once again the question that never seems to get an answer: WHAT knowledge? All I want is one agreed-upon fact derived from religion which could not have been derived from reason, logic and common sense. Just ONE? Peter? runner? Diver Dan? Just what is this wonderful religious knowledge that reaches the parts other knowledge cannot reach? Surely you can provide one single example?

"An insight given to us by Iris Murdoch is that the reason we have such a fascination with 19th century English novels is that the characters that are portrayed are set against a moral background that was a residue of Christian faith. This makes the narrative interesting to us because we see what virtue and vice are like."

But of course 99.9% of all the novel written in the Victorian era are completely unread today, at least partly because many of them have a heavy-handed paternalistic moral absolutism which makes us cringe in embarassment and distress. If Murdoch's point was that much more nasty and appalling things can happen to people in theocratically-dominated societies, then I totally agree. Burnings at the stake, public humiliations and being outcast from society are much more entertaining to read about than, say, no-fault divorces. But that doesn't mean that any of us want to bring them back.

Sells -
You advise Severin to "drop his guard and think deeper about the tradition that has been central to making his lovely life possible."

I'm assuming you're referring to the Christian tradition, of course.

Sells, I would like to understand how you account for the "lovely lives" that were lived prior to Christianity appearing in the world. How do you explain the capacity for human happiness BC?

This is a very simple question, very simply posed. Perhaps it is too simple for you to bother with. I've noticed that when I've asked this question of other Christians, it has been ignored. I am still seeking an answer.

It's clear from your prose that your beliefs are deeply and ecstatically felt. I have no wish to ridicule your experience, which sounds quite mystical. However, there are many many ways to enter a mystical experience, and many are just as authentic as the Christian pathway.

It just isn't good enough anymore, Sells, for Christians to continue to claim exclusivity in these areas - it is arrogant, it is dismissive, it's divisive and it's just plain ignorant.

As you point out, you cannot enter into other belief systems because you are too powerfully committed to your own. You are therefore uninformed, your position is entirely personal, and whilst it is perfectly acceptable for you to honour what works for you, it is not acceptable for you to dishonour the experiences of others.

Severin - thank you for your compliment.

Pericles... I'm mildly warming to your tone this time....

You say:

//And as Sells points out, there is no need for us to imagine an intersection of scientific reality and biblical narrative, where none exists.//

and I concurr 100%! but your problem is you seem intent on throwing that poor defenseless intellectual baby *out* with the bathwater.. poor little blighter!

The corollary of your conclusion is that when there IS an intersection between the Bible and History.. for crying out loud.. "let" it speak...and don't condemn it for the sake of bias or argument.

One great example of the intersection, which I've explained to you many times is the Lukan account of the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry.

//1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.//

Which year? (15th)
Who's reign? (Tiberious Caesar)
When? (when Pilate was Governor of Judea)
and
Herod...
etc
etc
etc

There is so much history packed into that one paragraph it aint funny.
Now.. you could be a meany and just 'declare' it a 'lucky coincidence' or.. you can accept it as 'well founded history' in the most academic of senses.

If you want to take issue with "The Word of God came to John the Baptist".. that's your choice.. and your harvest.
You and all who read it..would do well to consider seriously the words of John and the 'Word' he preceded, who's way he prepared.

"There is so much history packed into that one paragraph it aint funny.
Now.. you could be a meany and just 'declare' it a 'lucky coincidence' or.. you can accept it as 'well founded history' in the most academic of senses."

And what about Ivanhoe? It mentions Richard I, and Prince John, and Saladin, who were all REAL PEOPLE! And it's set in England and Palestine, which are REAL PLACES! And I'm pretty sure it has a date or two in there somewhere. So obviously Ivanhoe is a real guy and all his adventures actually happened, no?

If you want to make something sound authentic, you make sure the factual part can be checked. That doesn't mean the rest wasn't made up. Duh.

ALGOREisRICH,

The only catch is any name can be substituted before the historical tome:

Fred Nile //1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.//

Actually, according to Brabara Theiring there is historical evidence of baptism. The baptised entered the group and a small fee went to pay for Herod's palaces.

The calandar, the birth of Jesus and the Herod the Great being alive are out of sych. Herod the Great was dead in the first year of the common era.

As well, Christianity only seems to "care" when the object of its care is already compliant with its doctrines.

False, Briar Rose, given that 'Christians' all believe differently, many are not 'religious', many are not indoctrinated.

Quite a few OLO contributors entirely mix up Christianity with Religion. Following Christ and/or God's ways are interpreted differently by people, whether people are Christians or Christians who are religious.

Therefore, one cannot generalise and state 'Christianity only seems to care, when the object of its care is already compliant with its doctrines.

Doctrines are followed by the religious.

we are unique -
If only Christians who hold your point of view would write articles for OLO -
At present, we seem to hear only from the "indoctrinated."
I know there are many Christians with a variety of practices.
Unfortunately they are not very vocal about this, and I can only respond to the ones who claim their public voice.
These Christians don't acknowledge other Christians like you, who think and act differently from them.
I wish more of you would speak out, because unless you do, you'll continue to be lumped in with the religious and the indoctrinated.
I think the responsibility rests with you - I'm pretty sure most posters on OLO would welcome another Christian perspective.

Yeah, Brier Rose, that just what the world needs, another Christian perspective. The world is drowning in conflicting religious perspectives and, all over the world, people are being killed because they hold different views (Christians versus Muslims, etc).

Religious belief induces a kind of mental derangement, a dangerous kind of derangement. The believer holds views that have no scientific basis. He or she cling to myths like life after death and living forever. I know what religion does because once I too was a believer.

But I started to ask questions and there were no answers. One of the questions I asked was: why does this God of love create children with cancer or severe physical or mental handicaps? Another was: how come there are so many gods all claiming they are the way, the truth and the light?

I escaped from religious derangement. Others, it seems, aren't so lucky.

Oly.. refer sources b4 speaking :)

"Herod..Tetrarch of Galilee"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod

# Herod the Great (c. 74-4 BC), King of the Israel who reconstructed the Second Temple (Herod's Temple) in Jerusalem.
# Herod Archelaus (23 BC-c. AD 18), ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea
# Herod Antipas (20 BC-c. AD 40), tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, who was described in the New Testament as ordering John the Baptist's death and as mocking Jesus
# Herod Agrippa I (c. 10 BC-AD 44), king of Judea, called "Herod" in the Acts of the Apostles
# Herod II, sometimes called Herod Philip I, father of Salome

Nothing wrong with Luke's account old son..but I would not say the same about Barbara Thingymejig.

That's not a "corollary", Boaz.

>>The corollary of your conclusion is that when there IS an intersection between the Bible and History.. for crying out loud.. "let" it speak...and don't condemn it for the sake of bias or argument.<<

That is just special pleading.

While it may be historically "accurate" to state that there is a high likelihood that Jesus actually existed, there is no support - other than the books that supply your religious foundations - for the suggestion that he walked on water.

That isn't an "intersection". They are parallel paths.

As Sells pointed out in his article, there is actually no need whatsoever, for Christians to require proof that Jesus walked on the Sea of Galilee.

In precisely the same way that it is utterly pointless for a scientist to explain that the surface tension would be insufficiently strong for this to occur.

The two travel down parallel paths. They do not, and should not, intersect.

It doesn't matter to me that you believe that the feeding of 5,000 people with five loaves and two fishes was an actual event. If it is important for you to believe that it is, that's great.

The friction only occurs when you try to pass it off as having some kind of basis in historical reality. No matter how you cut it, science has absolutely no place in that story. Whatsoever.

Parallel paths, do you see?

No intersection.

Sells

I take issue with your pronouncement I should "drop (my) guard and think deeper about the tradition that has been central to making (my) lovely life possible."

How do you know I don't?

No, I don't follow any formal religion, but that does not mean I do not engage in deep introspection, meditation or profound appreciation for my life and the wondrous universe which surrounds and sustains me. Thus I have no conflict with each new discovery my by the scientific community. (Who were, in your belief system, created by your god).

As Briar Rose said:

>>> How do you explain the capacity for human happiness BC?

This is a very simple question, very simply posed. Perhaps it is too simple for you to bother with. I've noticed that when I've asked this question of other Christians, it has been ignored. I am still seeking an answer. <<<

This question holds much truth for me and others. Including before Moses, before Abraham, there were people (not just in the Middle East) but populations of people all around the world living in as much peace and conflict as humans do.

There has been no significant change in human behaviour as a result of JC with regard to levels of peace and conflict, rather we have begun to reach towards a higher level of understanding and sophistication through learning about the natural world. Realising that other animals have a great deal more intelligence than previously thought, knowing that the probability of other earth-like planets increase with every advance of astronomy.

Knowing that women were never created from a male rib, that the only parthenogenesis (virgin birth) is by creatures other than humans and result in females not males. So even if a female human had had a virgin birth the progeny would've been a girl.

Such does science reveal. The question that requires asking is can Christian dogma keep up?

At present, my answer would be a resounding "NO".

funny enough it is pseudo science that has had to write and rewrite their textbooks. No shame or embarrassment ever shown for past failed dogma. Past attempts to explain origins are nearly as embarrassing as their current attempts. The Word of God however does not change and is is still far superior than anything else ever written. God had to first laugh and will have the last laugh at corrupt men's pathetic attempts to deny/ignore/hate Him.

runner, the word of God has changed from the Olde Testament to the New (with many Christians now virtually disowning the OT), and it changed again when He dictated to Mohammed.