If god was other than an intangible concept there would be no necessary cause for the existence of apologists.

Hi Banjo

I don’t equate rational belief with belief only in those parts of the bible that describe actual historical events. Nor is faith-based belief indifference to the historical facticity or otherwise of the bible’s stories: whether from a fundamentalist refusal to accept science that contradicts biblical literalism; or by assuming the bible is only a collection of made-up stories with no relation to people’s experience in actual history.

The bible comprises many people’s reflections on humanity’s experience of its relationship with God. It uses history and biography, myth, allegory, songs, poetry, parables, polemic and legends to do this. Bible study generally tries to take all of these on their own terms, recognising that each book of the bible is a product of its author’s context and concerns. Sometimes these are alien or even abhorrent to us.

Rational belief asks whether these stories present a portrait of God that is coherent, compelling, and consistent with the experiences and teaching of the church and its members.

I do think that there was a historical person called Jesus, and that the early believers experienced something extraordinary and real after his death that caused them to commit their lives to proclaiming the good news of his continued existence and message of God’s love and peace. The nature of that continued existence was something beyond human experience, so they described it in ways that both affirmed its concrete reality (he ate fish) and its otherworldliness (he appeared and disappeared, and sometimes his friends didn’t recognise him). Both are pointers to an experience that was beyond human experience and beyond precise description. “Spiritual resurrection” is as good an approximation as any.

Christian liturgy does not commemorate an historical event, but celebrates and symbolises a present reality. This Sunday, many churches will celebrate Pentecost, the birth of the church. Perhaps the most important thing is not that Jesus was resurrected, but that he is resurrected. That experience is at the heart of faith. Rational belief is perhaps what Anselm called "faith seeking understanding."

Dear Banjo,

<<Unfortunately, those who profess to be fervent believers in the gospels are, almost invariably, exactly the opposite to what you describe>>

Obviously I cannot speak for Rhian, so what I wrote was only an example: Rhian may have a different rationale which could be equally valid. Suppose that as you claim, people who fervently believe in the gospels are opposite to what I described, but others who believe in the gospels not so fervently are as I described, then the rational conclusion would be to believe in the gospels - but not fervently.

Let me give you another example: suppose I try to be a good person, but I'm aware of my weaknesses and suspect that if I were able to, then I could be tempted to blow up those I don't like. In that case, believing that E=mc2 would be irrational on my behalf.

Suppose my choice is to try being a good person while another person's choice could be to be powerful and successful. Both choices are irrational, but based on them, believing that E=mc2 would be rational for them and irrational for me.

Another example: Suppose one has made the irrational choice to try keeping their body alive. If they just had a heart attack, then it would be irrational for them to believe that someone very dear to them died. Later on, once they undergo a heart surgery and stabilise, then it may become rational for them to believe so.

<<In any event, ethics and morality are, by no means, the monopoly of religion or religious faith.>>

You are very right. Religions (if worthy of the name) offer methods to help people improve their character. Now it's up to individuals whether to use those methods.

<<Materialists (those who support the theory that nothing exists except matter) are not necessarily more materialistic (considering material possessions and physical comfort more important than ethical or moral values) than theists or deists.>>

So true, but if someone who is not materialistic believes that nothing exists except matter, then I suspect that this belief of theirs is likely irrational.

Yuyutsu,

Again, that's still not rational. You're committing two fallacies here.

<<Suppose that as you claim, people who fervently believe in the gospels are opposite to what I described, but others who believe in the gospels not so fervently are as I described, then the rational conclusion would be to believe in the gospels - but not fervently.>>

Firstly, you're confusing correlation with causation. You also have the 'chicken and egg' conundrum. Your reasoning is utterly flawed and so it is in no way a reliable pathway to truth.

Secondly, your reasoning is a non sequitur. Just because a group of people who believe certain claims act in a particular way, it does not follow that you should believe those claims too, and the above demonstrates why.

Beware. This type of confused thinking can lead one to believe in gods that even they themselves admit do not exist.

david f: The imperialist European powers massacred and enslaved the indigenous people of the Americas, Africa and Asia. This was justified as bringing the benefits of Christianity. The Holocaust was the outcome of centuries of Christian hate. Christianity has been an instrument of unparalleled evil.

I doubt if anyone would deny that. It is entirely correct. How ever Christianity has moved on from there, with a few exceptions, (Hitler).

However the Islamic world started as violent from the get go & are still going at it strong.

The difference is that Christians have become Educated, Secular, Modern in their outlook. Where-as the moslims went from Desert Tribal to Educated, then back to Desert Tribal & have stayed that way ever since. For moslims the Earth is still flat & the Sun travels around the Earth.

They want to rule the World.

Since the Gospels were written by four people who never met Jesus face to face some 80 to 150 years after the supposed death of Jesus. All the Gospels are hearsay & therefore inadmissible in a Court of Law.

How say you AJ?

Some thing about the Crucifixion Day has always bothered me. The Romans never let anyone take a person down from a Cross. Why did Pontius Pilot let them take Joshua (Jesus) down? Death on a Cross is usually from drowning, taking up to three days sometimes.

The lungs fill up with fluid. The soldier speared Joshua (Jesus) on the left side. The spear point would have pierced the lower lung on that side. Hence the blood followed by the water. Roman soldiers are trained in the use of a spear & therefore would have known just where & how far in to keep Joshua (Jesus) alive. It would have allowed Joshua (Jesus) to breath again. Taking him down from the cross early would mean that Joshua (Jesus) was really still alive. Then he disappeared from Joseph of Aramathera's Tomb. Prearranged with Pilot? Maybe.

When Joshua (Jesus) was asked by Pilot who his father was Joshua (Jesus) whispered in his ear & Pilot then washed his hands of the whole affair. There is a suspicion that the real father of Joshua could have been Augustus Caesar. Hence the name Joshua ben Pentera(Jesus). Remember, Mary gave birth at 13 & was betrothed to Herod Antipas at 9. Augustus was Consul for Alexandria & Antipas was the Jewish Regent. They were friends. The Army Augustus Commanded was the Pentera. The Standard with a Leopard on it(Pentera). Antipas & Mary, at 12, went to Rome for Augustus inauguration as Caesar. The Suspicion is that she was Raped by Augustus & became pregnant. Antipas was murdered by Herod (his father) on his return.

Joseph of Aramathera was married to Joshua's (Jesus) mother, Mary. He was also Pilot's Administrators. Pilot took Joseph of Aramathera to Lyon in France as his Administrator of Mines when he was reposted. Where Pilot died of Malaria, later Joseph was sent to Anglesea as Administrator of the Tin Mines. Mary & John the Younger went with him. Constantine is a descendant of John the Younger.

I just love History.