Sells,
>.biblical literature is a mixture of legend composed in historical context and history composed in a theological context.

In this way Peter you have taken the same line as Spong that the bible is written in midrash and is not meant to be taken literally.

There must be though, a kernel of objective fact that stops you going that step further as do the Christian religious humanists like The Sea of Faith movement and saying while it does some worthwhile religious wisdom it is a human construct where there is no divinity or objective validity just like any other religion which are also human constructions which must be the view from Christian theology.

Could you make clear what that is?

So Davd Boaz are you saying you aren’t a creation science supporter and are at odds with Aslan?

Garra, Philo like many Christians find it hard explain why atheists aren't out their killing and raping to our hearts content nor it seems that any society can have laws and order if it isn't connected to Christianity.

Philo fact, many societies developed laws and order without any connection to Christianity, Chinese Confucian values for instance.

Fact, our current western society developed from many influences, including pagan democracy and pagan Roman law as well as Christianity

Sorry to disillusion you but the humanity didn't crawl out of ‘barbarity’ solely due to Christianity.

Neohuman said: No Peter, but your doctrinal centrality of Jesus, and the theology that goes with it, sin, Trinity etc must by it’s nature invalidate most if not all other religious traditions. For Islam Jesus is not the son of God but a prophet, karma and reincarnation is meaningless, the myriad Hindu gods become social/cultural creations.

It seems you put me in an impossible position, If I say that my belief is contingent on all other beliefs I will be accused of being a relativist, if I simply say what I believe I am excluding other truths. I think all we can really do is to state our position as carefully as we can and let those positions rub up against who they might.

I do think there is a functionalist argument to be made about Christianity. If we believe untrue things we will interact with reality in less than efficient ways. Religious belief can be tested on how accurately it describes reality. In saying that I leave myself open to scorn at the biblical miraculous, but these must be taken in their context as written by a pre-scientific culture. The reason that a video witness to the life and death of Jesus would be of no help to us is that it would not have shown him walking on the water or raising the dead. Biblical scholars are used to looking below the surface of these stories to see the writer’s intent, they did not write them to illustrate a nature miracle. Of course Christianity did not reveal Newton’s law of gravity for us but it did set the stage by affirming the existence of the material world and of us being a part of that world. This is quite different from some Asian religions in which the object is to escape from that reality or even deny its existence. There are real reasons science rose in the West under the domination of Christianity, despite Galileo’s little problem with the church.

>>"Brazuca, I'd be interested to learn your reasoning in arguing that ethics presupposes divine revelation."<<

Can you imagine it any other way? I'd be interested to know how one could divine ethics out of materialism. (I assume you're a materialist.)

>>"This strikes me as a quite extraordinary logical supposition, but I am open to correction."<<

I find it more extraordinary that someone could even imagine that logic itself could be possible in a materialistic universe! After all, if all there was consisted merely of matter in motion, then what are we to make of the thoughts that come from the grey matter known as our brains?

>>"That apart, your argument about divine omnipotence seems to be rooted in Saint Anselm's logically-suspect ontological argument for the existence of god, and is hardly the lay-down misere you seem to believe it to be."<<

As far as I know, my argument is not rooted in any Saint Anselm's ontological argument or whatever.

>>"And please, would you mind telling me why an objective moral standard is necessarily of divine provenance?"<<

Like I said before, how could it be any other way? Do you, for example, abide by a standard of morality? If so, is it objective or is it subjective? If the former, what makes it objective? If the latter, then how does one know the correct one of two (or more) competing subjective standards of morality?

Neohuman. Did you hear the one about…. Archeologists digging near Jerusalem came across the tomb of Jesus and they phoned the Pope with the news. But there was one problem, the body of Jesus was still in it. Deeply troubled, the Pope phoned Rudolph Butlmann and told him the news, there was a shocked silence on the other end followed by “So, he really did exist!”.

I find myself somewhere between these two positions. If Jesus did not exist then the incarnation is nonsense. On the other hand if the resurrection means that the resuscitated body of Jesus walked around Jerusalem then the resurrection is nonsense. All kinds of problems arise, like what did happen to the physical body? Is it in low orbit around the earth following the ascension? I am not an admirer of Spong, I find his writing more fitted to 1960s liberalism that lost the guts of the gospel. Neither am I a fan of Cupit and the Sea of Faith movement, it fails to take a stand anywhere because of its commitment to skepticism about the truth. I guess you could call me postliberal, I admire Karl Barth, Stanley Hauerwas, George Lindbeck, Rowan Williams, William Placher etc.

Is Christianity a human construction? Yes and no. Yes because it is an aspect of culture, obviously. The bible has a human history. No, because that construction was formed under the impact of reality or the truth. This is the crucial thing, the medium by which God reveals himself is history, actual human experience, pondered upon, written about, made into legend. This is why Christianity cannot float free from the truth that surrounds us all. This is why Israel had to be a real nation and Jesus a real man. In this way Christianity is empirical, its traditions grew from the experience of men and women. When Israel relied on God to win their battles they lost. Lesson: God is not that kind of God. Religion that relied on that thinking was a dead end.

Garra,
You seem to misunderstand the revelation of God; His eternal principles have never changed no matter who spoke them. You mistakenly think I attribute all relevant truth to the historical Jesus. The fact is the principles you identify are spoken of in the Bible, and supported by Christ. So your claim that the principles of Christianity are outdated, and past their use by date; assumes there is another truth more relevant and you have not proved that by your reference to the past history of society. Again I ask what is your new revelation for building a model society, apart from principles found in the Bible??

*****

The Bible is not fables and myths, though it contains allegory and parable to identify the human relationship with the divine. The Spirit identified in the words, life, character and attitudes of Jesus demonstrated the principles Christians believe is the mind, word and Character of the Creator. God is one and Jesus expressed exactly the Spirit of that one Eternal God. That does not make his humanity God. He is not part of a three person Trinity. Trinity is a mathmatical term to satisfy Greco spatial minds. God is spirit revealed in character, his creation, and acts observed by us

Thanks Philo.

Since those are actually the 'Four Pillars' of the Greens political party, I'm sure they'd revel in the hordes of newfound fundamentalist Christian support - if only the principles' supposed biblical derivation wasn't so nebulous. I'm fascinated by the intricate intellectual and linguistic gymnastics that some of the religious zealots in these forums employ.

According to the various interpretations of biblical texts that one is deluged with in these forums, it is apparently possible to attribute anything and everything to the Christian God. All you have to do is believe.

The only trouble with that is that it doesn't allow for those who don't share those beliefs, nor those who believe in other gods.

I think I'll stick with the straightforward humanistic principles that progressive groups in our society like the Greens espouse, without the hocus-pocus and mumbo-jumbo, thanks.

Oh, and I really really don't want to change my mobile phone plan :)