Mick,yousaid“What Christianity is about is bearing witness tothe life of Jesus of Nazareth,and his teachings whichare contained inthe Bible.”
Sorry to hack intoa sacred cow like this butwhat exactly doyou thinkthat means?

Bearing witness obviously suggests communication buthas certain overtones related to persuasion and conviction.Itis a fuzzy notion suggesting morethanit actually says.

The life of Jesus canbetaken in many ways. YouandI live lives within history but even a fictional character from literature hasa certain sort of life.Frodo lives in middle earth butnow also hasa life,of sorts,within our history.Macbeth wasan historical character butthe fictional Macbeth ofthe Shakespeare play hashad far greater influence on history thanthe‘historical’Macbeth.Symbol,metaphor and parable canbe farmore powerful in directing history thanthe historical life ofthisorthat person.
Jesus of Nazareth.Historical figure?Probably!Son of God!What doesthat mean?Washe really conceived when Mary was raped by God?Perhaps,ata different extreme of possible understandings,itjust means that Jesus really understood about God ina special way,so special thatbeing withhim was like being inthe very presence of God.Worse still,perhaps Jesus wasa slightly interesting character whohadbeen crucified and who served the purposes Paul,Peter,James et.Al. asa suitable symbol fortheir revolutionary mission.

His teachings. Do you mean strictly that which is recorded in the Bible as Jesus’ teaching?How much of Paul’s teaching is also permissible?How much of St Augustine’s teaching do you allow?How much of St Thomas’interpretation? How much of Luther,Calvin,Knox,Wesley, and so onand so on.

Jesus was a story-teller so his ‘teaching’ needs interpretation.In every new time and place Jesus stories need to be interpreted in new ways to address our ever-changing circumstances.They can be recognized as‘eternal’truths by the fact that they continue to make sense and be challenging throughout history.Jesus did not teach in the sense of delivering an objective knowledge of this world.He told stories that made sense then and now.

So it makes sense to re-tell Jesus’stories and it makes sense to tell the Jesus story.If that is what you mean by“bearing witness”to Jesus then I am fine with that.If,however,you mean seeking to persuade people to adopt a faith thesameas yours then you’ve completely lost me.If that is what the Church is on about then let it die

The standards of science are like the standards of religion. They're directed by the political moment. There is no superior position. It's all ego masturbation performed by the believers and the non-believers who cherry pick moments in history to portray their position in the best light while politically influenced social values ricochet between extremes. Sadly we are at a moment in time that allows for the emotionally and intellectually limp to be perceived as equals or better still, superior, for being victims of society. Cultural marxism reigns supreme.

Mick, waterboy, as I tried to argue in my previous postings, I really do not think pitting faith against science is the answer. At least not for an educated Christian, church-going or not. Neither is a somewhat cynical position, placing oneself above both, is the answer, as aqvarivs seems to suggest, as insightful as his observation might be. The “cognitive dissonance” does not come from some inherent contradictions between faith and science: its roots are within ourselves, our rational and/or psychological imbalance or limitations.

Indeed, a thinking person cannot have faith without doubts but doubts on themselves cannot be the basis of a world view, Christian or not. Doubts are a state of mind that needs to be attended to (for instance, by stressing that what the Church offers are just guidelines for his/her conscience and that God who will judge him/her can see directly into his/her mind or conscience, an ability which the priest or Church does not have) rather than argued about.

Mick, it is hard for me to be “happily” Catholic as it is hard to be happily a member of a family - though it is my memes rather than genes that bind me to Her - that is undergoing a deep crisis. I wish, but it unfortunately is just a wish, that She would find a way to accommodate people like you - as it was the case in the past - as well as people like waterboy - which has never been the case in the past, and one can only hope for the future.

waterboy, I can agree with most of your objections, except that I do not know of a Church that “respects peoples doubt and uncertainties” to such an extent that it would allow “Mary was raped by God” to be seen as a valid interpretation of “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word” (Lk 1:38).

George,

The interaction between text and reader will determine the 'meaning' of any particular story. The Church may try to influence people to interpret the Bible in a particular way but ulitmately they can't control it.
If sex-abuse or sexual harassment is a major issue in your life then the story of Mary will ring all sorts of bells.. alarm bells! Mary is very young! God is powerful! She ends up pregnant. We have laws which proscribe relationships like this where one party exercises great power over the other and uses that power to obtain sex. This 'interpreation' might not be what the author intended but the author has little control over the text once it falls into the hands of the reader.

My point is that the Bible is literature and deserves to be read and respected as such. As literature, it is exciting, dangerous and unpredictable. It is alive and contemporary. Taken literally it is alien, stolid, rigid and largely irrelevant. If Mick wants to take the Bible literally. . . . he did claim to speak for the fundamentalists. . . then that is his prerogative. I just think it fails to respect the text for what it is and determines that the Bible will be misrepresented and misunderstood. I think the world would be a better place without fundamentalism. . . of any sort. No doubt the fundamentalists feel the same way about liberalism.

I agree with you on the science-theology debate. It is pointless. Right up there with trying to assert that Shakespeare's Macbeth is a fair representation of the historical Macbeth. Let the scientists do the science and the Church stick to theology

Mick,

Never own a green car. Ask any mechanic about green cars.

waterboy,
You still did not name a respectable Church that will regard ‘God used power to obtain sex’ as an acceptable interpretation of Lk 1:38. In my opinion, such an interpretation will suit only a sick mind (Sigmund Freud could perhaps explain), whether or not this sickness is a consequence of rape.

“Let the scientists do the science and the Church stick to theology” resembles, among other things, a Catholic (Medieval) solution, of course with an inverted understanding of what is more important for “knowing the truth” about humanity and the world it lives in. It is related to seeing the Bible as a pure fiction, not much different from Shakespeare’s Macbeth. This condescending vision of religion and its sacred books, I imagine, suits people like Dawkins. At a less naive level we have Stephen Jay Gould with his “non-overlapping magisteria”, which corresponds to the second type in the now classical Ian Barbour’s (b. 1923, physicist and theologian) four-fold typology of the science-religion relationship: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue and Integration. Barbour seems to prefer the third one, some Buddhists the fourth one. I myself put it as follows:

It is not true that religion and science are on a collision course.
It is not true that religion and science are mutually irrelevant.

It is true that some interpretations of religion and some interpretations of science are on a collision course.
It is true that "uninterpreted" religion and "uninterpreted" science are mutually irrelevant.