Some very passioned and romantic language used here in faith. I saw a documentary on Cardinal Ratzinger before he was Pope Benedict which was interesting. He had a passion for science. He was discussing his balancing act of always keeping a mind's eye on history and the logic of science in balance.
In a way, I guess Jesus spooked his disciples out as his actions were not human. They were greater than human understanding. This really played with their heads. I can't help but have sympathy for Judas who really wanted to do the right thing and really got spooked out, and Mary Magdalene who has been misunderstood through history. Blessings +TSt+

Dear Vanilla and CJ..

Vanilla first.

Quite notable.. how you reacted to the proclamation of Christ just as the thief on one side of Jesus. "ridicule.. mockery..anger"
As I said.. proclaiming Christ usually has 1 of 2 possible effects.
Revulsion or Rejoicing. I guess you opted for the former there.
You make it an issue of 'me', whereas you should be making it an issue of 'truth or falsehood'. Paul knew of people who proclaimed Christ deliberately to inflict suffering on himself.. yet he rejoiced that Christ (whether for good motives or bad) was being proclaimed.

Now.. regarding 'something is historically impossible' and your point there. Let me expand a bit to make it more meaningful.
IF... we begin the assessment of any phenomena by affirming 'It cannot be' before we look at the evidence, that... is bias. Specifically regarding the resurrection.. the miracles of Christ, it is not our presuppositions which should hold sway but the evidence itself.
If a number of reliable people, who's reliablity has been demonstrated in a cross section of material they wrote testify to something happening, then only bias would reject what they say.

Your spagetti monster thing, would depend entirely on the evidence, character and identifiable motives of the witnesses. Witnesses who's lives are on the line by saying what they say are usually fairly pure.

If you want to see a stark contrast, read in the gospels of the disciples disillusionment after Christs crucifixion, and then read Acts 2 you will notice something.

CJ.. speaking of bias..... "fairy tales" is just that. You reject the evidence, based not on it's own merit, but on the basis of prejudging it by your own decision.

ENVIRONMENT? where did that come from ? not a chance.. lets look after it. As for Hell... a sobering thought indeed. If you end up there, it won't be for lack of someone trying to persuade you of a much happier alternative.

Foxy

IN your second post to this thread you stated: "Hans Kung in, "On Being a Christian," tells us - "Although the virgin birth cannot be understood as a historical - biological event, it can be regarded as a meaningful symbol at least for that time."

I am a long time observer to this forum, and know that you are very reasonable and erudite and also, a Christian. Is the above quote an example of how you maintain your belief in religion in general and Christianity in particular?

For myself, I couldn't manage the mental gymnastics it takes to believe in biblical miracles, the consistent bias against women and the general pettiness of the god of the Abrahamic religions.

As I respect your opinion I would be interested to know exactly what you mean by your belief in Christ? Is it symbolic? OR do you really believe in all the miracles and virgin birth and resurrection that is the foundation for Christian belief?

Kind regards

F

Boazy, I'm sorry that you make Christianity seem icky to me (this isn't a false apology, I really am a bit sorry for both you and I), but there it is. I wasn't trying to express ridicule or mockery (though on other threads I often do of course), I was being honest, and felt quite sad about it really.

Boazy: "IF... we begin the assessment of any phenomena by affirming 'It cannot be' before we look at the evidence, that... is bias. Specifically regarding the resurrection.. the miracles of Christ, it is not our presuppositions which should hold sway but the evidence itself."

Exactly. And the evidence *does not* satisfy me. We certainly have the evidence to disprove the virgin birth. I was just being a stickler for truth re Foxy's post - and her eloquent reply to me is quite enough, so *please* don't post your "evidence" of the historical reliability of the gospels or explain how the adhere to the rules of evidence.

Foxy, you strike me as a John Shelby Strong type Christian. Are you a fan?

My there certainly is a lot of passionate people. It's great to see a reasonable discussion being held on the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.

One should realise the first gift God ever gave us is "choice". We have the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in him and follow him. We cannot force others to believe nor can we expect others to have instant faith, whether it be accepting the virgin birth or the miracles of Jesus and heaven forbid, accepting Jesus is the Son of God.

Jesus often called himself, the son of man, he came here to serve, not to be served. As Christians, Jesus is our example of how we should be living our own lives. It is not up to us to go out and force people to become Christians. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion so it is hardly surprising when people become negative towards God. The crusades give everyone enough ammunition to throw at Christians and speaking of ammunition, the Vatican owns the largest munitions factory in the world. War is a great money spinner after all.

Jesus said, go forth and preach to all the world. We are to sow the word of God, planting a seed in the hearts of others, from there, it's up to God to grow that seed.

Mankind (and womankind too) has a lot to answer for and God will judge us all whether we believe in him or not, on the day of judgement we shall all stand before the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords to give an account.

Whether you choose to follow God or not does not alter the fact that he still loves you unconditionally, expecting nothing in return. It is a great sorrow to God when a person goes to hell but because he loves us so much, he will not force us to follow him or believe in him.

Freedom is a great gift, but it comes at such a price.

Dear Fractelle and Vanilla,

I've tried to voice my beliefs through quite a few posts on this Forum. So I won't do a whole litany here.

'Well the Bible says it and I believe it and that settles it." This type of faith is often inherited from one's parents. It is sufficient for some people for a whole lifetime, but for others it will not last. Some Christians with such a naive faith are unable to handle a setting where a brief encounter with an aggressive skeptical person - who throws one or two challenges their way - which they can't handle. People with a naive faith often simply walk away from the Church at some point in their adult life.

I regard myself as a Catholic, who follows her conscience, demands meaning and relevance from her Church, and will not permit my God to be reduced to empty ritual and all-absorbing law.

Do I believe in the Virgin Birth? No.
I believe in what - Geza Vermes says in his, "Matthew's Nativity..." "Matthew's Gospel was written in about AD 80-90 for Christians who were not of Jewish provenance - that is, Gentiles who had no knowledge of Isaiahs original Hebrew. For them, the passage announced, unambiguously, the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy - the miraculous birth of a divine being. But the propher himself and readers of his original Hebrew sentence regarded it as a quite specific allusion to the historical circumstances of Isaiah's age - and would have found its mutation in Greek into one of the foundations of Christian doctrine quite baffling."

Dear Vanilla,

I'm not a fan of John Selby - or of any psychologist and spiritual trainer. Some people are motivational freaks, they buy all the books, take all the courses, listen to all the tapes, know all the jargon,
enjoy all the symptoms. I'm not one of them.