Aslan, do keep up.

"What the...? Where on earth did you dream up that completely warped story?"

Philo was simply re-telling one of the many different versions of the history of Jesus' birth. This one doesn't have the stamp of approval from the church, but it is still a narrative that we can consider and discuss. I particularly like the slightly different angle provided by the "Jesus, son of Isis" faction:

"Jesus was sent by the [Daughters of Ma]. He was the result of the artificial insemination of a priestess of Isis, named Mary. He was sent by his Mother, not his father. His disciples were female. His supporters were female"

Makes interesting reading.

I thought I would return to these pages after the dust has settled and my accusers have become bored with them. I must say that I feel vindicated in my original thesis that the rage against Jesus has not subsided but continues in the mouths of “the cultured despisers”.

There are a few points I would like to make.

Some of the commentators took the familiar strategy of claiming to know what Christianity is. They purposely take the worst view possible and then proceed to demolish it. This is the strategy of the straw man. When I propose that Christianity is something quite different, particularly, the Christian understanding of God, there are howls of protest that I am not talking about real Christianity. When I suggest that these people read some theology in order to educate themselves they take the populist attitude that it is all commonsense. This outlines again the woeful state of knowledge of theology that has been produced by an education system from which it has been expunged.

Populism in theology is the attitude that no special training need take place to understand theological concepts. We do not take this attitude to the disciplines of philosophy, history, chemistry or car maintenance. We recognise that training is necessary. But why do we not recognise that training is also necessary in theology? This is part of the process of secularization that insists that religion is private and hence not a topic we can discuss in academe. There are such things as theological mistakes. If the comments I received were part of a theological examination they would be marked down just as surely as a student who did not know that force=mass x acceleration. There are theological faculties in Australian universities, more than you might think, and the academics who teach in them stand in a long tradition of scholarship that reaches back to the early church. If there were no basis for such a discipline, as there is little basis for astrology for example, then these faculties would not be able to maintain themselves in the modern university

There was an underlying theme in the comments that indicates an insistence that we believe in nothing, at least nothing that smells of religion. Two things come to mind. Firstly, modern men and women do believe in something, they believe in progress, unlimited freedom of choice, the ability of medicine to save their lives, and their own ability to work life out for themselves unaided by ancient traditions. These are truly beliefs because they cannot be grounded in empirical data and reason and function just as much as religion as the religion they despise. The second thing is that the time is coming when we will meet the “hollow man” who will really believe nothing at all, not even in the secular religions that surround us. This is a more honest position than the former, at least it is understood that there are no foundations. We are yet to see what this new man will do, they are the true nihilists.

In my article I stated that it takes a trusting spirit to explore Christianity. Alas, I did not find that among the commentators. Rowan Williams would describe this as a lack of charity, a lack of the willingness to go some way along the road. How would the chemistry student learn chemistry if she doubted it’s very basis? As in all subjects we cannot rely on logic alone, the student must concede that, despite not having seen it, the sodium ion does exist. My prediction that unless trust were present the conversation would go nowhere was vindicated.

I must admit that my experience of the comments section for this article has been an unhappy one, that is why I spat the dummy. There is a limit to the number of times you can attempt to answer a question, seemingly sincerely meant, and then have it torn apart in pure ignorance; that tends to seep into the soul. In the future I will be more cunning.

Sells: “Some of the commentators took the familiar strategy of claiming to know what Christianity is.”

Sells – YOU claim to know what it is.

I, and many other posters, do not claim to know what Christianity is – we simply question those, like you, who claim to not only know Christianity but to affirm that it is the only true path of religion.

Do you not ever sit back and reflect upon your own arrogance?

You dismiss those who challenge your beliefs as disingenuous and then attempt to avert any argument by asking “But why do we not recognise that training is also necessary in theology?” This is an attempt to confine the debate to theologians and exclude the (by your standards) undisciplined, the uneducated. Cheap shots indeed. I don’t need training in astronomy to know the sky is blue.

Ultimately, you hide behind double standards and hypocrisy – as demonstrated by your own posts to your own thread.

I am prepared to listen to anyone’s philosophy/religion provided it is presented in a manner free of condescension and paternalism.

Sells I fully understand your position, like many biased Christians you apply a certain standard to your faith but don’t grant the same consideration to the others.

So you want us to go off to study theology before we can make an informed judgment? Well I suppose that means you have to send yourself off to study Islamic theology, Buddhist etc etc etc……. as well, & that you must go there with a trusting spirit, so you can go some way along their road before you can have an informed opinion.

(BTW it would seem few Christians know what Christianity is, there are more sects than you can point a stick at.)

I tell you what Sells first have a debate with Aslan and creation science loons and show them the error of their ways, then with all the Christian sects and then when you are finished with the theologians of the others faiths come back to us we’ll be waiting to see whether you can up with anything better than rationizations.

Better still write an essay for OLO on how pluralism is intellectually weak and that all other faiths are human constructs and that your version of Christianity is the ONLY TRUE FAITH.

At least I will admire your honesty while the religious moderates hide behind political correctness and say nothing, but still think their's is the only true faith.

The trouble with modern Christianity is a simplistic sales pitch. Jesus said there was only one way to God and that was through him/Him. We all take this superficially. I think he was getting to a far deeper idea and one that did not deny the essence of many religions at the time. Basically we cannot get to the other side unless we get our feet wet and learn a lot about ourselves and how we look with our duds off.
The Church has misconstrued this point for 2 millenia. He spoke in riddles.The Church filled the message with light weight cream puffs and worshipping of relics..Christian superstition under another name.
Go get a St Christopher medal. The Greeks believed in similar fetishes and had gods for all sorts of stuff...travel, fertility etc.
I also think the people is classical times had a far more 3D picture of the after life and all that. It is now all airy-fairy waffle. Devil...no Devil...Hell...no Hell....other universe...7th dimension or whatever....all one happy family up there.
Is the silence and peace of Oblivion so bad after all. I have seen countless men and women die...If death is so fantastic for Christians why all the hoo haa...why wear black. Underneath it all I think all Christians still have a sneaking suspicion it all could be...I suspect even some honest Muslims may too.
Why endow God with gender...why not just desex him and make him gender neutral...this is all very Freudian.
There is not enough room in the cosmos for a plethora of all powerful dieties. If there is, we have Greek polytheism... Zeus is God and Athena....the Blessed Virgin...need I go on.
Cicero said about everything Paul said in his de Officiis. Even the Church thought this. A man before his time.