What suggested divinity to his earliest followers is up for debate, but clearly he touched subversively on their conceptions of what is ultimately important. From the earliest layers of new testament texts, what it seems to have been all about at first was radical inclusion and forgiveness as opposed to exclusion and accounting-of-wrongs. Obviously the idea wasn’t new to him, but it seems he said it and/or lived it in a way that made people feel like they were in contact, not with just a new and interesting teaching, but with something of absolute and ultimate importance.
As to whether this “really” suggests divinity or not, this isn’t how I (and many other liberal christians) approach the issue of his divinity. For me, the point isn’t to figure out whether he’s divine and then act on that. Rather, it’s to ask what it meant to his earlier followers to think of him as divine, and then see if pursuing or hoping to create similar encounters in my own life is ultimately worthwhile.
Now this isn’t purely newfangled. All the way back to earliest times–the New Testament texts themselves–you see a focus on the idea of Christ’s life, or the divine life, as something we ourselves take on. In other words, they themselves were trying to figure out “Why does this feel like I’m dealing with divinity, i.e., things of ultimate and final importance, and what does it mean for what attitudes I should have and how I should live?” The questions are the same for me and many other liberal christians.
I don’t think it is an issue worth debating. I will affirm here that I think you can say everything important and worth saying as a Christian without mentioning god or divinity even once. It depends on your audience.
This is a little “me me me” I know, but I am curious to hear from other liberal christians whether I’m more ideosyncratic here than I know. Have I misrepresented things much here?
I get it. You weaken your appeal to rationality if you admit what makes you think Jesus is divine. From the discussion in the Nyborg study, they say religion is 64% inherited, so probably you were just raised with that belief.
I think backing away from anything concrete is very representable of liberal Christians. It’s good in that it lets you live more like you want, like an atheist.
You don’t even know whether I think Jesus is divine, nor do you know what the word “divine” means in my theology. (BTW it means very different things to different people.) You need to have opinions only where you have information.
This is not at all unlikely.
I will try to get back to you on this. It’s not something I have articulated all in one place before.
Russell is a philosopher/polemecist with an agenda, not an historian. Relying on Russell for accuracy is no different that relying on Bishop Sheen. Sometimes they get their facts right and sometimes they don’t but they are always going to spin the information to promote their perspective.
Obviously, you are not actually looking at the Catechism if you cannot actually distinguish between the Seventh and Sixth Commandments (Catholic reckoning). Beyond that, the whole issue of sexual morality is clearly not driven by a mere “literal” reading of the Sixth Commandment or even the statement of Jesus in Mt 5:27 - 28, but on a whole series of commentaries, expressions, interpretations, and so forth. Your “literal” clam in the context you made it is just silly.
OK, but you claimed he wasn’t threatened with torture. How else do you think they got him to purger himself? Do you have any specific criticisms or his book "Religion and Science?
No I got it right here in hard cover. You are right, it’s the 6th.
It all comes from the 6th commandment chapter. You Catholics are taking Mt 5:27-28 literal too it seems. You can admit it.
Look, you’ve got an idea what divinity is and what it means for there to “be a god.” I doubt that on your conception, I am a theist. Since I don’t think it ever pays to try to explain anything by reference to an omnipotent conscious force.
I suspect that, in your language, I’m an atheist. I also think that a fruitful discussion can be had about whether that conception of theism is in keeping with what is most important and enlightening about the theistic tradition. But based on your discussion in this thread so far, I don’t think you’re a person who would particularly enjoy such a conversation or find it very helpful.
Three themes come to mind, I’ll sloganize them:
–Each person is of equal worth.
–All rules are only tools.
–To accept is better than to expect.
You can imagine most people, both then and now, find it easiest to elaborate on thoughts like this using the language of divinity. And I think that’s fine. But I also don’t think it’s necessary. But even if unnecessary, it’s still very much a particularly Christian message–by which I don’t mean to say only Christians (or Jesus) have ever taught things like this, but that the confluence of teachings like this is what’s central to the essence of Christianity’s teachings.
ETA: The third slogan is a little dangerous and easy to take too far, but note that it doesn’t imply one should never expect.
Maybe the third should be rephrased “Openness is better than expectation.”
To be honest I’ve never been able to formulate it in a way that satisfied me. Because of course, it’d be impossible to live if one literally never expected anything. But something near and around that area. Maybe “Intellectual humility is a superlatively important virtue.” Iunno.
Of course, any “picking” is “picking whatever you like,” the question is whether “whatever you like” is principled or not.
For example, concerning opposite pointing verses, there’s a general principle to follow when “picking through” the various passages. What’s likely to be “central” is the stuff that’s surprising, that is new and unusual for its time and place, or that is difficult to make complete sense of. The stuff that seems contrary to this is most likely reactions after the fact, trying to reign in “excesses.” If it weren’t this way, there’d have been no reason for the movement to identify itself as a movement in the first place–if they were just teaching the same old same old from the beginning, then they wouldn’t have been a movement.
You can see that this allows for an objective character to the investigation. It’s not just about what I like.
What I said is manifestly not special pleading. I told you the procedure one can use to get at the main themes I described. The procedure makes sense independently of my own desires or biases.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they look like modern day liberalism. I think that the enlightenment values that gave birth to modern day liberalism were, themselves, upholding (or at least the product of positive engagement with) what is best in the Christian teachings.