Hi Yuyutsu,

No worries :)

That last paragraph above, responding to Spencer: do you mean that, because everything IS God, and nothing exists outside of him/her/it, that it is degrading and blasphemous to think of him/her/it outside of, or apart from, the rest of the world ? Or vice versa ?

As a non-believer, I'm happy to replace 'God' with 'the laws of physics' in all that: that nothing in the universe operates outside of the laws of physics. Fair enough, no need for any gods in any of that. Us humans create meaning (or not) as best we can in order to live as meaningfully as possible. Then we die. Nothing afterwards but, hopefully, other people's memories of us. Fair enough.

Joe

OzSpen,

You have given me a review of the late Prof. Barbara Thiering's
book, "Jesus The Man," done by the Matthias Media publication -
"The Briefing." A monthly news and resource magazine for
Evangelical Christians who are committed to the Christian
Gospel message that Jesus is the saviour of humanity.

And you expect me to take the review seriously as seriously
as you obviously do?

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I found Prof. Barbara Thiering's book really interesting.

She provided a radically different history of the life of
Christ based on her 20 year research into the Dead Sea
Scrolls and the New Testament.

It gave us a new definition of scripture - that it is written
on two levels.

The publication of her book of course caused a great deal
of controversy - which is still continuing. However, I did
not find that she demeaned the figure of Christ in any way.

On the contrary - as already pointed out earlier - we see
how His courage, compassion, and wisdom are of timeless
relevance and continues to be the wellspring of our
deepest and most powerful values.

Prof. Thiering's background was impressive. After an early
deep involvement with the Church and then frustration
with certain of its doctrines. Prof. Thiering became more
interested in the history of religion.

She entered teaching after completing university with a
first-class honours degree in modern languages in 1951.
During the next ten years she married, taught modern
languages and raised a family.

She developed her interest in religion with a masters degree
in theology, followed by a PhD in 1973. She began teaching
at the University of Sydney in 1967 joining the School of
Divinity in 1976 and lectured in Old Testament, Hebrew Theology.

Her studies lead to the Dead Sea Scrolls and a
20 year research project which has produced
remarkable findings.

OzSpen,

I do not mean to suggest that the review that you have
cited is not worth reading. Of course it is, it gives
a subjective view which under your circumstances is
perfectly understandable.

However, I was hoping for a more objective discussion from
you. Have you even read Thiering's book?

Dear Joe,

«do you mean that, because everything IS God, and nothing exists outside of him/her/it, that it is degrading and blasphemous to think of him/her/it outside of, or apart from, the rest of the world ? Or vice versa ?»

It is degrading to consider God to be limited.

Even existence is a limitation, what more, it is God's creation and it makes no sense to speak of creation or any aspect thereof independently of God, or of God being subject to His own creation.

«I'm happy to replace 'God' with 'the laws of physics' in all that: that nothing in the universe operates outside of the laws of physics.»

So what gives rise and sustenance to the laws of physics?

If you are able to see God behind the laws of physics, to understand that the laws of physics emanate from God, then you may (despite it being a taboo in the Judeo-Christian tradition) worship the laws of nature as your chosen representation of God. They are NOT the ultimate Truth, but they could be more useful and practical for someone like you than an image of a Father in Heaven. Please, however, do not consider your choice of deity to be superior to the choices of others, including Christians: all representations help us focus on the One and only God beyond.

«Fair enough, no need for any gods in any of that.»

Almost everyone needs them, it is unwise to think of yourself as an exception. Without gods (such as the laws of physics), this world would not exist and without a world, how could you possibly progress?

«Us humans create meaning (or not) as best we can in order to live as meaningfully as possible. Then we die. Nothing afterwards»

This is, from a human perspective. Please try to look beyond this limited and temporary situation.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You are quite right, the word “nothing” has been bandied about to mean all sorts of things – even the opposite to the original sense of the word : no-thing, “thing” meaning “an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to” (OED).

“Corrupt” also has several shades of meaning. However, while it seems we agree that there is no morality in nature, I can’t say I believe, as you do, that there is some undetectable realm or dimension beyond nature where morality reigns.

I have no way of knowing if there is such a realm or dimension and until I do, I see no reason to believe that there is one. For the time being, it’s just a hypothesis like many others (including the god hypothesis) that remain to be clearly and irrefutably established as things that exist independently of ideas concerning them.

In the meantime, I consider that the only thing that is capable of going beyond reality (call it nature if you like) is our imagination.

You write :

« Let me just say for now that truth and information have practically nothing to do with each other »

You have my definition of “truth”, Yuyutsu. It has everything to do with information – only information – in all its forms and manifestations.

I look forward to reading yours.

.

Foxy,

<<You have given me a review of the late Prof. Barbara Thiering's book, "Jesus The Man," done by the Matthias Media publication - "The Briefing." A monthly news and resource magazine for Evangelical Christians who are committed to the Christian Gospel message that Jesus is the saviour of humanity. And you expect me to take the review seriously as seriously as you obviously do?>>

There you go again with committing a Genetic Fallacy: 'You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit', http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

Instead of lambasting the argument because of its origin in evangelical Christianity, you are advised to deal with the issues of the topic being discussed instead of resorting to a dumbing down of its origin.