AJ Philips, Putting words in my mouth is not going to assist our discussion. Please don't do it. I said nothing about Jesus making the OT irrelevant, or anything about OT violence being symbolic.

My point is simply that the difficulties one encounters within the Bible - however dire, and however modern scholarship seeks to account for them - are not necessarily a block to belief. It doesn't work that way. I believe in God and the Bible, so I have to struggle. Nothing remarkable in that. I don't have to stride away from the Bible with my nose in the air just because I find something in it that I can't cope with.

Pax,

goodthief, i appreciate the spirit in which you've written here. but i have to say, it is very difficult for one who does not share your beliefs to make heads or tails of WHY you believe what you believe. you keep saying there is more than "empiricism" - which i summarise for myself as the senses and reason - but you don't say what.

for me at least, it simply seems that you believe because you believe. that is fine as far it goes. but it gives me no method - no competitor or colleague to "empiricism" - with which to work.

i don't really mind. you have none of the childish anti-science nonsense about you, which is my only real concern here. but, if you want people (me at least) to understand your broader ways of knowing, you'll have to be much clearer.

Goodthief,

I apologise if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. That wasn't my intension.

What I was trying to do was preempt an argument that is used very often. But if you don't use those arguments, then again, you are a very unique Christian.

But I think that referring the horrors of the Old Testament as “difficulties”, is drastically understating them. If it's not symbol, then God (the Father) truly is a distasteful and down-right horrid being, and certainly not worthy of any worship.

The horrors of the Old Testament may not be a “block to belief”, but I can't help but question the sense of reason of someone who doesn't seriously question the Bible and the existence of a supposedly wise and superior being considering this kind of abhorrent content.

Bushbasher and AJ Philips, This will now be more difficult. Much easier to conduct these discussions from a safe polemical distance! :)

My reasons for believing form a narrative. I can’t dismiss upbringing, but I know I discarded belief in my teens – so that, when I took it on again, it was as a virtual stranger/enemy. I did this in a very atheistic university philosophy department. A CS Lewis book stopped me from dismissing Christianity as ridiculous, but didn’t make me believe. Then, I read a gospel – like a novel – and the central character leapt from the pages and made an impression on me that has proved indelible. At the time, I was not happy about it! Because I was about to lose authority over my life and because of the Christian baggage I would inherit. But, the impression was made. The “impression” formed a bond of love – love for someone present not past.

I have found that it “works” day to day.

Intellectually, I am dissatisfied with other thinking I’ve encountered – eg I find empiricism too narrow. I’m very pro-reason. And I believe my eyes like a good empiricist – trusting my eyes because of God – but I don’t see this as a limitation. And I find Judaism and Islam too reliant on one’s performance with the rules: I don’t think we can ever earn our way to Heaven. Buddhism isn’t theistic, and I don’t know much about Hinduism.

I believe Jesus “trumps” the Old Testament, but doesn’t contradict it. Same God. I believe the “God of Israel” is a jealous, partisan lover, who savages any threat to His beloved. Savage, but that’s love. No longer dangerous, as Jesus has opened up the whole thing to everyone, so no-one is really “outside”.

The biggest challenge is not the Bible, but current human suffering. Often makes me bemused or even angry with God – with the occasional walk-out – but doesn’t make me disbelieve.

AJ, perhaps your Christian past was especially narrow and controlling?

Pax,

goodthief, i have no wish to attack your christian beliefs. but again you've really not offered anything beyond your belief itself. you give no alternative METHOD of knowing, anything beyond the empiricism you wish to attack as too narrow.

you are allowed to believe whatever you want to believe. i'm not concerned with your beliefs. what i'm concerned with is your attacks on "empiricism" as too narrow. but if you give me no alternative - and you haven't - then this is empty criticism.

this is not to mean that there is nothing but empiricism. as i said at the very beginning, we have to be humble about what we know. human condition and human meaning is going to be a muddy mess. but that's not a criticism of empiricism - or an argument for an alternative. it is simply an acknowledged limitation.

and, if i'm going to be skeptical of what empiricism may tell me, i'll be at least as skeptical of what empiricism-free pondering tells me. i'm not sure, in this regard, that you are sufficiently skeptical.

Bushbasher, If I were to talk of “method”, I could only talk in terms of being open. This is essentially a matter of removing obstacles. One obstacle is the self-imposed limitation of empiricism. Another is the conceit (usual human conceit) of being the judge of what exists, what is okay etc. Then, I suppose it’s a matter of being actively curious about the subject under discussion – in this case, God or Jesus. I would not remove logic, as I don’t see that as an obstacle.

The fact that I can’t impress you with this broader way of thinking doesn’t mean it makes sense to remain within the self-imposed constraints of empiricism. This remains your choice. Remain enclosed, or open up to other possibilities. Perhaps you need a “method” to feel safe? I don’t ask this with disrespect, but with empathy. I could say that Jesus is very safe – since I am convinced of this – but I don’t expect that will help. In that case, you need a sense of adventure. By all means, take your critical thinking with you. I know that churches are among the places where we should not uncritically swallow whole everything that is said.

I realise I may have given less than you asked, I’m sorry.

Pax,