relda,
this is a well known but very powerful "comfort factor" you are offering Kieran and others who have problems with religious models of Reality. It should help them overcome their existential anxiety reflected in Kieran's posting. Of course, you are right, Christians (and adherents of other religious world views) have their own "comfort factors", that, if needed, help them overcome their existential anxiety. Some are based on the bible and speculations thereon, some on historical facts and anthropological factors like the ones you refer to, and some on interpretations of 21st century science and suitable metaphysics that goes with them (my favourite).

Relda and George,

With myth, storytelling and spirituality, should we regard these entities, as Ends of more fundamental processes? Herein, if we understand those processes, science can find new horizons and life enriched. Look at the object, not the reflection.

Regards.

Boxgum,

We must go away? Burnt at the stake? Despite your heartfelt animosity; being a true humanist, I still hold you and Sells in "unconditional positive regard" regard, even you think too narrowly. Moreover, West and I, we seek dialogue, not self-rhetoric.

All-along, starting with the "How Does God Exist?" thread [The Architecture of God], religionists have been coaxed to consider a revised research programme, more suited to a forum and not a closed reference group. Reasonable? Addressing Sells’ question requires, we don't START with Jesus. We need to work through many ANTECEDENT matters, first. Reasonable?

Martin [from another thread], did fly away, after it was shown “his” question, seemingly from a Christian theology paper, could be readily answered substituting Aten and historical Egypt.

As George [A Christian] notes, as West notes, as I note, Christian theocrasia is bedded in myth. This should place the OT into review-mode regarding OT-NT continuity on matters like, El. Moreover, Mythras and Dionysuis and Christrian have very similar brushstokes. These are not small matters of knowledge.

Lakatos states, words to the effect; we are born into a world of pre-existing knowledge. We should spend our lives questioning it. Herein, the modern secularist listens to divergent opinions. Contrarily, many modern Christians seems too closed to look at alternatives to Jesus. Inquiry becomes arrested. Centripedal forces overwhelm centrifugal forces, knowledge becomes, stale, self-confirmatory and affixed. It’s Sells World!

Instead, any “tentative” belief in Jesus or Cheese should rigorously tested. [The latter with a good port.] This requires a complementary, degraded research programme: e.g., trying to show against conviction, the person of Jesus castes a VERY SIMILAR social constructionist shadow as other gods, potentially helps us to realign preconceived knowledge. [Finding a 15 billion year old star in 13.7 billion year old universe creates like problems.]. Likewise, the atheist should have a shadow (degraded) research programme

Oliver,
We are the reflection and, for the purpose of this discussion, 'God' is the object.

"I am reminded of how useful imaginary numbers are in mathematics. Everyone knows that there can be no such number as the root of minus one. But this gives rise to the idea of imaginary numbers that are very useful. Could it be that the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ is similar?"

To me Jesus' resurrection metaphor serves 2 purposes:

1. the transmission of understanding of Jesus' logic - of how why he felt it necessary to resist violence with non-violence. Within his cultural milieu, this was, at that time, a unique concept/understanding for him to have had. Jesus believed that pacifism was the highest human state in human relations. When this is understood by others then the consciousness of Christ is metaphorically speaking, resurrected in others - but only when truly understood and adhered to - hence the practice of the Romans throwing Christians to the lions to test their faith.

The resurrection metaphor was a vehicle whose purpose was to initiate/awaken in others the idea that the only way to truly overturn such oppression of other people (free the downtrodden) - as practiced both by the Romans and the unforgiving, domineering Sanhedrin in, was to resist the bullies peacefully - even unto one's own death if necessary.

2. It is also a pointer to the concept of reincarnation (which is believed in a number of other faiths - Buddhism most notably). Jesus makes several references to reincarnation himself.

Without the concept of reincarnation, there is no logic to Jesus' teachings or example. However, if he was right and we do all reincarnate, then, unless we stem the violent nature in man, we will continue to be reborn into an increasingly violent world. History bears this out. However, his vision was, if we could all reach a point where more people say no to violence and are prepared to die without retaliating (like he did), eventually there will be a paradigm shift - more pacifists than killers - eventually leading to a world where no one kills - ever and eventually:

"the peacemakers will inherit the earth."

relda, how can we have something hang up? In my case I may have a few hang downs and without much associated anxiety a good few natural get ups ....... must be the olive leaf tea that I make and drink copiously.

George are you saying don't think negative thoughts because you might cause bad things to happen or don't offer critical thoughts and probing questions for fear of limiting debate? If this is the case it is because belief is difficult but belief in belief for its own sake is easy as you seem inclined to point out. Many people cannot or will not distinguish the difference. e.g. In the US of A almost half the population believe the universe was created some 6,000 years ago and almost the same percent believe that this Jesus bod will probably return within the next fifty years. Isn't it remarkable how many people in a community will be happier to accept someone who never thinks but declares he be-LIE-ves which is where we find the great disconnect, ........... the entirely maladaptive.

Why not question and communicate intimate details where we find them and in the process recapture spirituality to the domain of human reason ............ for isn't it reasonable that intimacies cannot exist in isolation. It is so reasonable to pay close attention to one's moment-to-moment conscious experiences where I might add that it is possible to make our sense of "self" vanish. We can then debate everything from the intimacies of Warnie's leg spin to the intimacy and charming life syle of a one-celled parasite called Trichomonas which sticks its tendrils into the wall of a vagina or urethra.

Oliver,
I do not remember having said that Christian theocrasia (whatever that means) is bedded in myth, but yes I accept that belief in God is bedded in myth if you accept that mathematics is bedded in your five fingers: You had to use them in order to arrive at the idea of a number, similarly humanity had to work itself through pre-rational (not necessarily irrational) myths before it arrived at a sophisticated notion of God (the Christian way led through Israel and Jesus).

When you say "Look at the object, not the reflection" and you mean by object the Transcendental reality, briefly God, and by reflection "myth, storytelling and spirituality" then I agree. These, as well as rationalised theology are the pointers (rather than reflection) to a Reality that we cannot grasp directly. Not unlike the situation in physics after Newton and Einstein: the only way to grasp the physical reality of space-time and elementary particles is through very unintuitive mathematical models of them. The jury is still out on which one of these theories is the most suitable - explaining as much as possible and agreeing with experiment as much as possible - but what we shall understand will still not be the material world as such only our mathemathized theory, or theories, of it.

It is true that many Christians (or Buddhists or Muslims or atheists etc.) are too closed to look at alternatives of their beliefs, but how can you tell them from those who looked and did not find sufficient reasons to convert? I do not understand why you should "test" a belief that is part of your faith which by definition means that it is untestable. Except in your afterlife - if there is such - but the result of that "test" you will not be able to communicate to anybody living. (ctd)