Sells
>It seems you put me in an impossible position…. 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.

With due respect Peter, the reason you are in an impossible position is because this dilemma goes to the root of your position. Stating you case carefully doesn’t avoid the dilemma.

Theologically Christianity is incompatible with other world religions.

Neither can both be right.

If Christianity is true the others are cultural/theological constructs.

If other human cultures are capable of constructing viable theological constructs and mistake them for real then it is apossibility Christianity is also a human construct and Christian do not know it.

Having honestly acknowledging this a Christian would ask how do I know that this isn’t just another human construct?

You cannot rely on faith because you are in the same position that the other human construct religions, faith can lead you anywhere, it is not able to tell you that you are in a created construct.

Nor is theology amenable to rational validation within itself, the same problem as faith.

What have you left to check the validity of your religion?

>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.

Only in extreme cases on a physical level , as by the Christian theology the Hindu worldview is untrue but that has no relation to how they interact with the physical world. The creation science people believe in an ‘untrue’ account of physical laws and they seem quite successful in interacting with reality.

Peter, Philo FACT our democracy –Pagan Greeks - or the rule of law, separation of powers, these are not the sole work of Christianity. What about the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and Humanism, does this play no part in the creation of our modern societies? Or the fact that without the Muslims passing on the pagan classics we would not have the modern scientific society we have today?

"This is the crucial thing, the medium by which God reveals himself is history"

Sells you refer to god as 'he'. How do you know the sex of god?

A confused nine year old boy goes up to his mother and asks, "Is God male or female?"
After thinking for a moment, his mother responds, "Well, God is both male and female."
This confuses the little boy so he asks, "Is God black or white?"
"Well, God is both black and white."
This further confuses the boy so he asks, "Is God gay or straight?"
At this the mother is getting concerned, but answers none the less, "Honey, God is both gay and straight."
At this, the boy's face lights up with understanding and he triumphantly asks, "Is God Michael Jackson?"

I have been urge by a friend to expand on the difference between the ontotheological concept of God, that is the God of the philosophers who has the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence (knowledge, presence and power) with the concept of God that comes out of the bible, the Trinitarian God who is three in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It seems that most of our problem with God centers around this confusion, especially that of the rule of God that manifests itself as “a resentful anthropocentric requirement of God to justify himself”. It is the construction of ontotheology by the Enlightenment that excludes Christ and only has the background of nature rather than history as its source that has made modern atheism so prevalent and so irrelevant.

If the judgment of the world happens on the cross, what then happens to the three divine attributes? Christ does not reign from the cross because he has all knowledge, indeed as Paul says: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe.” (1 Cor 1:21 NRSV)

While the ontotheological God is said to be everywhere, the scandal of the gospel is that He is in this particular man and is only universal as a particular man. The church celebrates the presence of God in particular acts of worship, the sacraments, the preaching and the prayers on a Sunday morning.

While the ontotheological God is said to be all powerful, Christ on the cross is totally impotent. His strength exists only in his weakness. It is in handing himself over to the powers of the world as a lamb to the slaughter that he overcomes the power of the world.

The reason it is so difficult to speak to the questions in these pages is that we are constantly at cross purposes, both with those who believe, and perhaps believe too much, and those who do not believe and use the ontotheological God to beat me over the head.

Yeah right Sells,

following on from the facetiousness of trinity,

so god is male?

Cool - I'm a bloke

Kinda reinforces the old patriachy then?

Peter,
“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.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this premise. Religion is very much culture-based. If followed through, you might agree that Islam, being a result of it’s culture has as much validity as Christianity. Can it be that both Christianity and Islam are reflections of each other, subject to cultural influence? Is it possible that God wants respect and acceptance of each other’s view? Religious communities readily agree that these two religions (and Judaism) are branches of belief in one God. Is it possible that each is a result of the culture from which it came. If so, then why do Christians (such as BOAZ_David, Reality Check, Viking, etc on this site) revile Islam and deny its validity. Given this premise, what then separates the beliefs of Hindu, Tao and other religions? Are they simply reflections of a common belief system, based on cultural influence?

I won’t go into the debate as to whether God exists. I agree with XXX that man could develop ethics and moral guidance without God. It is in our nature to find rules for the world. That seems to be our fascination with scientific endeavour (and philosophic discussion?) – finding answers. Isn’t that part of the so-called ‘free will’ given to us by God? Find our own way and hopefully find ‘the right way’?

Whether or not one is religious, spiritual or atheist is not important – why should God care? A being all-powerful wants praise and glory? Wouldn’t that being already be comfortable with its position? Praise and glory are human desires. An all-powerful being would have concepts outside our understanding. If we consider high morals a standard, lets focus on getting there rather than who’s there first.

Peace and luck with the journey.
JustDan