Dear Banjo,

Why should people define themselves by whether or not they believe that God exists?

There is no shortage of examples of people who believe that God exists but live their lives as if He doesn't; and of others who do not believe that God exist, but conduct their lives as if He does.

Surely the criterion whether or not one entertains the particular thought of "God exists" is about as shallow as the colour of one's shirt!

As for being a Christian, my definition is that a Christian is one who follows the teachings and the example of Jesus Christ. In other words, a Christian would be willing to sacrifice their life on the cross (or in an equivalent manner as required) for their love of others. I suspect that we all here fall short of this standard.

Similarly, a Muslim is one who completely surrenders themselves to God, forgoing all personal desires, preferences and comforts in favour of doing God's will. Here again, I suspect that we all fall short.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« Why should people define themselves by whether or not they believe that God exists? »
.

They, or should I say, we don’t usually. But in debating religious topics on this forum we all tend to project images of ourselves in our reactions, the opinions we express and our choice of words. Sometimes those images are misinterpreted. I find it helpful if we clarify matters so that there are no misunderstandings at this level. That’s all.

Anything we can do to avoid or eliminate misunderstandings improves communication and the quality of the debate.

In addition to that, I find that getting to know something about an author’s personal life and circumstances is often a useful key to a deeper and more significant understanding of his writings.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have another way to define a Christian and a Muslim.

Christians are defined by what people who call themselves Christians do.

Muslims are defined by what people who call themselves Muslims do.

There is a difference between the ought and the is. The ought is what some think one ought to do. The is is what they actually do. The ought is an ideal. The is is reality.

I think it better to define religionists by what they do rather than by what is in their sacred books.

In the Civil War in the United States many Christians fought and died to preserve slavery. Currently almost all Christians oppose slavery. The sacred books of the Christians accept slavery. In that respect I think current Christians are far better than the example in their sacred books. Jesus never spoke against slavery in the New Testament. Jesus also supported the breakup of families to follow a religious ideal.

The New Testament contains the vile words of Jesus: Matthew 28 "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." Most Christians currently support family unity.

In some respects the reality of current Christians is better than the ideal of Jesus.

Dear Dan

Sorry for the late reply, I was offline on the weekend.

Luke’s genealogy includes names from the Hebrew Scriptures because they are the source he used to compile it. Luke wrote a gospel, not a history or biography, though he includes both historical and biographical material.

Many first century Jews believed the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied that the Messiah would be a descendent of David, born of a virgin and born in Bethlehem. Luke and Matthew compiled two different and incompatible birth narratives to place Jesus in this tradition. Their (inconsistent) genealogies establish Jesus as a descendent of David and of other key figures in the Hebrew Scriptures. This makes the theological point that the story that began with Adam/Abraham culminates in Jesus. Mark, the earliest Gospel, shows no interest in Jesus’ origins. Nor does Paul, the earliest NT writer. John’s Gospel has a high Christology and ignores Jesus’ earthly origins – he is Son of God and pre-existent Word.

I do not believe in bodily resurrection. If you read the Gospels closely, all point to the resurrected Jesus not being his old body revivified. The original ending of Mark has no post-resurrection appearances at all. The other Gospels all have elements of doubt and non-recognition that would not be plausible if the resurrected Jesus inhabited his old body. In John, Mary Magdalene does not recognise Jesus at the tomb until he speaks to her. Peter does not recognise him in Galilee. Luke gives us the Emmaus road story, in which Jesus walks and talks with two of his disciples for several hours and they do not recognise him. They recognise him only when he breaks break with them – a clear allusion to the last supper and communal meal of the early Christian movement (and ours!). Matthew tells us that even some of the 11 doubted that they were seeing Jesus (28:17). Paul clearly believed in the resurrection, but equally clearly his own encounter with the risen Christ was not with a physical presence. These stories suggest both continuity and non-continuity with the Jesus they had known.

Aidian: Many first century Jews believed the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied that the Messiah would be a descendent of David,

It's not hard to be a descendant of David. In fact I probably am too.

I'm doing my Genealogy. The furthest I got back is to 620 BC to an Egyptian Pharaoh. Moving forward to Ruth in the Bible. Several Caesars, Siegfried, Beowulf, Roland, Somerled, Canute, Mary Magdalene to the Mogovian Kings & the Pepin the Great, Alfred the Great, Blue Beard, William the Conqueror, The Stewarts, Plantagenet's & on & on & on it goes.

In fact "You" are more than likely to be related down the line to the very same people. So being related to David in the Bible is more than quite likely too.

.

Dear Rhian,

.

You wrote :

« I do not believe in bodily resurrection. If you read the Gospels closely, all point to the resurrected Jesus not being his old body revivified. The original ending of Mark has no post-resurrection appearances at all. The other Gospels all have elements of doubt and non-recognition that would not be plausible if the resurrected Jesus inhabited his old body. In John, Mary Magdalene does not recognise Jesus at the tomb until he speaks to her. Peter does not recognise him in Galilee. Luke gives us the Emmaus road story, in which Jesus walks and talks with two of his disciples for several hours and they do not recognise him. They recognise him only when he breaks break with them – a clear allusion to the last supper and communal meal of the early Christian movement (and ours!). Matthew tells us that even some of the 11 doubted that they were seeing Jesus (28:17). Paul clearly believed in the resurrection, but equally clearly his own encounter with the risen Christ was not with a physical presence. These stories suggest both continuity and non-continuity with the Jesus they had known »
.

You provide rational arguments to justify your non-belief in “bodily resurrection”, presumably, of Jesus.

Should we also presume that you believe in the “spiritual resurrection” of Jesus ? If so, what rational arguments can you provide to justify that belief, rather than simply qualifying the gospel narratives of the resurrection (of Jesus) as pure myth ?

If your (presumed) belief is based on faith alone why are you concerned with rational arguments at all – whether it be for or against bodily or non-bodily resurrection or any other possible forms of resurrection ?

In other words, what role do you attribute to rational argumentation in determining your belief (faith) in the gospel narratives of the resurrection (of Jesus) ?

.