Boaz: suppose I am born to poor peasants in a Muslim country, raised as a Muslim with poor education. Suppose I lead a blameless, hard working life. I practice as a devout Muslim. I know little or nothing about the teachings of Christ or other religions. I know little of anything outside my family & village. When I die, I find that the Christians were right, even though I had no prior knowledge of what the teachings were. How will I fare on judgement day?

Pericles:

As you noted, Peter Sellick’s prose is “densely packed”. We must read it rather slowly, perhaps more than once, and take time to digest it.

In that particular paragraph the “historical event” Sells is referring to is the story of the cross and resurrection, not the expulsion. But he also points out that both the expulsion story and the event of the resurrection must be considered as "historical legend", not as empirical fact, even though they should be taken seriously. Please refer to paragraph 5.

You accuse Sells of an “act of aggression”. Did we read the same article? I cannot for the life of me find anything in the language or the content of the article that hints at “remonstration” of “other peace-loving people”. Peter simply draws a clear contrast between, on the one hand, the nature of peace as seen by the secular peace-movement, and, on the other, what peace means to Christians in the light of the cross and resurrection. He does not even imply judgement in doing so.

BOAZ-David:

I don’t share your worry about Sells’ treatment of the resurrection. Nothing “wishy-washy” about it. For me and many others as Christians, Jesus is a real, abiding presence and therefore the resurrection is undeniable. Logic and the five senses are not the only means of encountering reality. Lived inner experience is at least as powerful. In this instance we don’t need the body.

PK (thanx for the concern for my welfare.. just flat stick at the mo)

"What of the blameless non Christians"?

fair question, though most difficult to answer in a satisfying manner to our 2006 intellectual framework.
Actually, behind this question is another I think: "Is our Creator 'just' and is He "Loving" ?

This is one of those 'hard' questions when examples such as you posed are brought up. Personally, though I've had to struggle with this and other issues, my conclusion is as follows:

1/ We are called to proclaim reconciliation in and through Christ to the world.
2/ The fate of the unreached is not for me to judge.
3/ I have confidence that the God of all the earth will do right.
(Solomon concluded this)

Recommended reading if you have some time, is a careful examination of Pauls letter to the Romans Chapter 1 verse 16, up to the end of Chapter 5 at least, but by all means continue to chapter 12. Its a systematically developed treatise on the condition and solution of man.

Crabby

nice to know you classify yourself as Christian. I didn't mean my comments about Sells treatment of the resurrection to be taken as a put down, and I appreciate the resurrection is a reality in your life.
My only point, is that as per 1 Corinthians 15, without an 'actual' bodily resurrection "We of all men, are most to be pitied" (just ask Bishop Pericles :)
I trust that each day you and I will seek to know and honor and glorify Him in our lives. Debating here, on issues such as Islam and role of Women, Gender, Sexuality etc, definitely place before us a challenge to 'sound' Christlike, and while we are often accused of 'not' being so, I think Jesus was quite prepared to address evil and error as any reading of the gospels will reveal.

Well here we have a teddy (god) cheerleader in Peter Sellick spinning off stuff about one of these playpen fairy-tales and for myself it is a journey into a tragic, psychotic, twisted, imprisoned world.

This is belief not from a literal account of actual events but a scheming expression perceived to be truths from a deeper or more symbolic level where the psychological effect and primary message of this playpen fairy-tale is redemptive. Every phase of the narrative serves to reinforce the ideology of the status quo and convince us to perpetuate a particular ruling power structure. Creation myths may provide us with a window into the mindset and context of an earlier understanding of the natural state of the universe but will always be artificial control systems in some shape or form. But how can people in all seriousness continue to want closed mythical narratives with assumptions of imposed guilt cloaked as overflowing benevolence, control masquerading as friendship, intimacy with and all other things deriving from a self-existent entity that cannot exist whilst asking the flock to offer up the praises to this all powerful teddy?

Cheerleader, Peter Sellick, twists this evolving mythical narrative into " an historical event whose power reaches down through the ages". Where is the material evidence that this is an "historical event" other than the residual perpetuation of a teddy mind virus?

Thanks for the explanation Crabby, but it still doesn't excuse the flimsy connections or the dubious premises that Mr Selleck employs.

I assume you are drawing my attention to this:

>>[These texts] are historical in that they point to the real circumstances of human living not in that they are a description of the origin of the world.<<

I can accept that legends are "historical", in that man has historically provided education in the form of metaphor and allegory, but not that we then proceed to treat them as identical in nature and substance to historical facts, such as "William invaded England in 1066".

Mr Selleck tends to declare his own rules, and then demand that the conclusions drawn using these rules be accepted as self-evident and incontrovertible.

They are not.

The resurrection is part of the same mythology as the expulsion. The sources that describe it are inconsistent, from a purely record-keeping point of view, and also form an unrepresentative sample, statistically speaking. As a result, the event cannot be placed in the "William defeated Harold at Hastings on 14th October 1066" category of history.

I have no problem at all that some people believe in the "reality" of the resurrection. I simply have a problem that they use it as fact, to differentiate their faith from others, and to place themselves on some form of higher moral plane.

>>Christians point to an historical event whose power reaches down through the ages and is active in our midst.

So peace for Christians is no ideology but an established historical entity that exists with or without our consent. This may be contrasted to all of the good intentions of the peace movement...<<

Only by conflating the two meanings of historical - history-as-legend, and history-as-recorded - can Mr Selleck make this hang together. But they are clearly as different as fiction and non-fiction.

The implication of “[t]his may be contrasted” is that the position of the non-christian peacenik is somehow inferior. That is an act of aggression. “I'm right, you're wrong” is the original warlike posture.

Boaz-David,it's nice to hear that you 'have confidence that the God of all the earth will do right.' However, it sounds like blind faith to me and although you have avoided explicitly saying so, I think the example I have raised has exposed the limits of your faith and a weakness in your position. I wasn't asking you to judge non-believers, just to explain what you think the teachings of Christ tell us about how blameless non-believers will be dealt with. Now, I am far from a biblical scholar, but isn't it the case that the Bible contains several passages that demonstrate anything but tolerance for non-believers and adherants of other faiths? In fact, the Bible would tend to say that we non-believers will be cast into deep, dark, hell, with ignorance being no excuse, isn't that the case? If so, how can there be a 'reconciliation'?