George,
Thank your for your thoughtful post and the unusual outbreak of politeness that you have evoked in this thread.

As a scientist I agree that natural science promises to give us knowledge of all physical causality. As a theologian I begin from a different point than you. My jumping off place is the primacy of Christology in theological discussion and not belief in God that can be shared with other monotheists. Indeed, I think that having the incarnation at the centre of the faith, and how can one not, considering the witness of the NT, makes Christianity incomparable with other religions. My dispute with the Roman Church is that they almost always begin with an idea of the universal God received as an innate idea, philosophically supported with arguments about the origin of the universe, integrated with nature. You can see this clearly in Aquinas.

To understand this you need to know something about the Swiss theologian Karl Barth whom Pope Pius XII described as the greatest theologian since Aquinas. Barth broke the connection that natural theology assumed, that God was available to us in a natural way. He was responding, in part to German Christians under Hitler claiming that God was the God of the Fatherland and of the Arian race. To do this they had to use a general understanding of god and not the God revealed in the face of Jesus Christ. In response, Barth placed Christology at the beginning and end of theology, insisting that he "broke into human life vertically from above" or words to that effect. This move produced the Barthian revolution that has influenced Catholic theologians like Urs Von Balthasar.

This is why I think that a general idea of the existence of god is dangerous, because it is simply a receptacle of our own hopes and fears as Fauerbach so ably pointed out. This is also why I insist that arguments about the existence of God lead us nowhere and that a more fruitful discussion between believers and unbelievers is about the truth of the gospel.

David,

“It is possible to look into the face of a person who may never have lived and if he ever lived is now dead and see truth?”

Firstly, the consensus among historians and biblical scholars is that Jesus did live and die (under Pontius Pilate, a verified historical figure). That may be the only historical fact about him that we know for certain, the details of the gospels are preaching rather than history.

But on a more serious level, your statement would appear to cancel out any understanding of the dead. I use “look into the face” as a euphemism for knowing in a way similar to knowing Shakespeare, or Isaac Newton etc. Having said that, there is a difference. Christian theology is all about the presence of Christ, in the Word preached, the sacraments celebrated, the church as the body of Christ. Presence is the work of the Holy Spirit without which the Church would be a memorial society for Jesus. Presence is the message of the resurrection, this man may be physically dead, with all that that entails, but he is present whenever two or three are gathered in his name.

To understand that you have to let go of scientific rationalism and use your imagination. Your posts show the usual imaginative restrictions of someone trained in scientific rationalism for which if there is no evidence and the evidence cannot be tested then it cannot be true. If you miraculously became a Christian from your present state you would be a biblical literalist, a fundamentalist.

Christians live within the hermeneutic circle, they know what they believe and believe what they know. This is heresy for science and rightly so, but for faith it is the only way, because skepticism does not get you very far. The problem is that scientific rationality has trumped all other kinds of rationality and led to an impoverished understanding about what it means to be human. Let us leave scientific rationality to what it was designed for, the investigation of nature, and not apply it to the conundrums of human existence

Dear Sells,

I know that Christian theology is all about the presence of Christ. As I pointed out in my post Christianity is only one of several theistic religions. Other theistic religions do not posit a divine humanoid figure. That is found in the polytheism of a previous age. Pontius Pilate was a historical figure, but that doesn’t mean Jesus was. Pilate was discharged because of excessive cruelty. That differs from his portrayal in the Gospels.

If there is a God than it seems reasonable that that God would be a presence which would be no more likely to be in human than in walrus form.

IMHO the major flaw in Christianity is its concentration around a humanoid figure. Both Islam and Judaism seem much more reasonable. Christianity in personifying deity is a retreat from monotheism.

I regard Christianity as an effort to create a religion that would appeal to the subjects of the Roman empire in the first century. To do that they had to adopt elements of paganism and put them together with elements of Judaism. A key element of paganism is a God in human form.

Other key elements in paganism are the eucharistic communion, a sacrificial figure taking on sins and the resurrection. Mithra, Apollo and other pagan deities had some or all of these features.

Most primitive societies have creation myths. Genesis incorporates a couple of those myths. There are two stories of the creation of man tacked together. In one woman derives from man’s rib. In the other they are created separately. In Sumerian the word for rib and mother are the same. The first creation story preserves the Sumerian pun though the words for rib and mother are different in Hebrew.

Plato had the concept of the fall. The ideal forms are perfect, but their representations on earth are degenerate. This was incorporated in the Genesis story and emerged in the form of Original Sin in Christian theology.

Buddhism, Judaism and Islam do not incorporate much of the above nonsense found in Christianity and do much less violence to reason than Christianity.

What would a post from Sells be, without its doublethink moment.

>>To understand that you have to let go of scientific rationalism and use your imagination. Your posts show the usual imaginative restrictions of someone trained in scientific rationalism for which if there is no evidence and the evidence cannot be tested then it cannot be true<<

Truth, it would appear, lacks any rational foundation, and is purely a product of the imagination. Any use of logic or scientific thought disqualifies you from ever arriving at an understanding of what can be true, since these are "restrictions".

How convenient.

How very... odd.

davidf you write

'Buddhism, Judaism and Islam do not incorporate much of the above nonsense found in Christianity and do much less violence to reason than Christianity.'

you left out atheism, darwinism and humanism which really exposes your Christophobia.

Dear Sells,

In your enthusiasm to differentiate your particular view of Christianity from the more widely held view and understanding, through your denial of monotheist teachings, you not only do a grave disservice to Christianity but you deny the very basis of your own belief - in denying the Father. Jesus, as the incarnation of the Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, exalts and gives direct evidence of the Father - and Jesus' teachings and miracles are held to be through the power of the Lord and the Word of the Lord, and not of Man. God is the Father, and Jesus resides with, or in, Him. Such is the general understanding.

You may well exalt Jesus, as the Son of the One True God. To do otherwise is to recognise Jesus only as a man, albeit a Prophet.

Jesus was a Jew, and recognised and taught His interpretation of the religion of Abraham. Hence, He forged an unbreakable link with the God of Abraham, and with the Old Testament as the origins of the New. He came to an oppressed people, to give them hope and a means to bear their burdens with integrity and humanity, to express and to demonstrate the power of love and forgiveness. We would do well to recognise and embrace the whole of His works and intentions, and not to nit-pick those which support our own predilections or purposes.

God is the God of All, and His Son His representative to All.

Man is imperfect, and hence bears the burden of original sin - the sin of imperfection. Man's task is to overcome, for the good of All, in compassion and understanding, and not in prejudice and division.

David f, a walrus?