(continued)
relda,
There are applied theologians, who are mostly concerned with the application of Christian tenets, like there are applied mathematicians who are mostly concerned with applications of (pure) mathematics. Applied mathematicians need many conceptual shortcuts to be able to quickly and effectively use selected parts from the richness of maths. Similarly applied theologians, and Reinhold Niebuhr was one of them (c.f. also K£vin's recent posting). But even he agrees that the Christain position is much more complicated than it might appear to an outsider who wants to separate religious beliefs from faith: "... the final expressioin of hope in the Apostolic Creed 'I believe in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting' is a much more sophisticated expression of hope in ultimate fulfilment than all of its modern substitutes. It grows out of a realization of the total human situation which the modern mind has not fathomed. The symbols by which this hope is expressed are, to be sure, difficult. [Beyond Tragedy, Charles Scribner's Sons 1937, p. 306]. Well, to put it bluntly, if you mean that no TV camera would have captured the act of resurrection to be seen by all atheists, then I suppose I should agree. However, there is much more to it: a belief in Christ's resurrections is indeed pointless and futile if taken outside the faith that it is part of.

Keiran,
Your recent posting is certainly different in tone from the one I felt I had to react to the way I did. I am afraid these too posting of mine are all I am allowed, so you'll have to wait another 24 hours before I can reply.

Hello George,

1. THEOCRASIA

"Because even the rationally most sophisticated (religious) models of Ultimate Reality, do not take their inspiration out of the air but have to draw from pre-rational, mythical models and narratives."

Particularly the last part of our your sentance referes to theocrasis. Through borrowing and melding relions meld: Amun-Ra (one god), Amun and Ra were originally separtae gods. Christ, Mythas and Dionisius as what objective researchers call "ancient mystery religions: Here, think about three Venn diagrams with large parts of each of the three areas intersecting. The gods shall the same characterics in theorcrasia. Squares and cubes, srtaignt lines and angles,and, circles and spheres have curved lines in space-3; Likewise, one can cluster religions from sets of characteristcis, say share/not share the same creation story, the god did/dont ot became man, virgin birth etc. Metaphorically, what Sells appears to say is that squares are the only figures with straight lines cannot be lumped to gether many other shapes with. If one knoes a little history it plain the (NT) Christian faith shares so much with, 300 BCE to 100 CE Mystery cults, it is hard from an abobject stance to not put it the same bucket as the others.

2. GODHEADS

The explicit OT that was a Counsel of El with a different godhead than the (interpreseted) NT.

3. WHEN I READ THE BIBLE

When I read the Bible there are different gods:

- Abraham
- Moses
- Jesus (historical)
- Jesus (Pauline)
- Jesus (Other makeovers)

Yahweh was a tribal member of the Council of El. He has a "father". Yet Yahweh, "god the father" if the feld of the godhead, in the IT. Theorcrasia is, fro god, like playing LEGO. Same blocks different configurations. Some times evolutionary (OT-NT). Political a Pharoah of the upper AND lower Eygpt...

George,
“..a belief in Christ's resurrection is indeed pointless and futile if taken outside the faith that it is part of.” Which is why any of the biblical miracle stories point to something well beyond mere empiricism – ‘proof’ becomes a pointless exercise outside of the faith. Jesus did not ‘appear’ to Pontius Pilate, nor to any of the Jewish High Priests - he was apparent only to ‘believers’ – which is not to suggest mass delusion nor delusional thinking (although there can be a fine line drawn here).

As Niebuhr said, "Religions grow out of the real experience in which tragedy mingles with beauty and man learns that the moral values which dignify his life are embattled in his own soul and imperilled in the world." As the one who wrote the famous serenity prayer (as adopted by Alcoholics Anonymous) he also demonstrated an ability to communicate religion to the secular.

"Civilization depends upon the vigorous pursuit of the highest values by people who are intelligent enough to know that their values are qualified by their interests and corrupted by their prejudices.” – even if insufficient to reveal his depth of thought, Niebhur extends a common thread for atheist and believer alike.

Undoubtedly, Niebuhr had his critics but his paradoxical reasoning about the world, God, and human nature made him hard to classify ideologically. His constantly interpreting phrases of Jesus, such as "You have to lose in order to gain" or, "You have to give things up in order to get things" gave him similar irony and paradox. His words still reverberate today. His belief translated into social and political action. His strong conviction was, as he matured, " that a realist conception of human nature should not be made into a bastion of conservatism, particularly a conservatism which defends unjust privileges" - here faith and social responsibility are shown to integrate (not wholly secular, nor wholly religious)...
Cont’d…

Cont’d…
The faith, as expressed by Niebuhr, led to both that of a peacemaker and defender of the weak or defenceless. He identified for many years as a pacifist then vigorously argued for American engagement in World War II. He became a staunch cold warrior, but he rejected the war in Vietnam as an extension of that conflict.

Niebuhr innovated the term "Christian Realism," a middle way between idealism and arrogance – a stance, whether wittingly or not, many of us take. On reflection, I really don’t think we’re all that far apart. A genuine article of ‘faith’ tends to unite rather than divide, transcending any level of ‘comfort’ we desire.

Keiran,
Of course, you can offer critical thoughts in a debate. However, a debate is meaningful only if (a) the participants agree on the meaning (definition) of the crucial terms used, and/or (b) those who are not sure about these terms ask those who are knowledgeable (preferably with diverse opinions) without being emotional or even offensive. Offensively formulated questions should not be asked, emotionally loaded ones (that e.g. communicate "intimate details") belong more to a therapy session than to a matter-of-fact debate. I do not know what a Trichomonas is, but if I wanted to know I would have asked you and would not get emotional just because it happens to remind me of something unpleasant in my life (which is not likely to happen with a Trichomonas, but happens often with terms associated with religious faith).

The main topic of Peter's article was the bodily resurrection of Christ. That can be debated by pious believers, who have a common understanding, albeit mostly rather naive, of what it means. Or by theologians, who can quarrel about what it actually means (and they do, as relda pointed out). For the rest of us it is either meaningless or we have to accept an explanation by a specialist. An illustration: Some time ago I read a Letter to the Editor in an Australian newspaper where the writer was getting outraged about how taxpayers' money was being wasted: his niece, a PhD student in pure mathematics, studied knots, and when asked, whether she meant knots like the sailors use, she said yes. Well, knot theory is a part of mathematics that you need to be at graduate level to understand properly what it is, and what are its applications e.g. in genetics (DNA strands), but yes, for a layman the best way to explain this is to refer to sailors' knots. A mathematician, or somebody who accepted a mathematician's explanation on authority, could have calmed the outraged taxpayer. (ctd)

(continued)
Nobody speaks about "belief in belief for its own sake", but it is true, that belief - acceptance of some experimentally untestable statements about outer reality - is hard to consent to without a prior faith or at least the fiducia part of it (Paul Tillich). You see, the English language has this distinction between belief and faith which e.g. the German language does not have, causing some problems when translating texts about religion or philosophy of religion between these two languages.

Yes, there are many silly people in the USA (and elsewhere), religious or not, with naive ideas about what religion is, as there are many people who have rather naive ideas about mathematics (and consequently about what the latest (cosmological) speculations about our material world could mean). This only implies that the meaning of Christianity/mathematics should be preached/taught better, not that these as such are useless or even harmful vehicles of our contacts with the outer reality. Anyhow, thank you Keiran for this opportunity to better formulate my thoughts.