But you understand it was not offered free of its context? If my neighbor says to me “the sky’s certainly grey” on an overcast day, it would be nonsensical of me to take him to task for basing assumptions regarding the composition of Earth’s atmosphere on that observation.
Settle down, Xeno…It’s not that I didn’t ignore the context…I chose not to comment on it at that time, OK?
Er…you know what I mean.
Kal, yeah, I see the way in which you see ciorcularity there.
But take this: Working totally outside a faith context, there may have been a real historical referent for the King Arthur legends, or there may not. Ditto Roland, Heracles, Rama, Aeneas, etc.
Same thing holds true for Jesus.
Now, it’s possible to argue that any of the above were made up out of whole cloth – and at that point, any dscussion about what they may or may not have done becomes futile.
Therefore, for purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that there was a real Artorius or Riothamus who is the historical referent of Arthur. This does not mean that we presume an anachronistic code of chivalrous knights, courtly love, and all the other trappings of the Arthur Cycle of literature. Likewise there was a historical Roland, one of Charlemagne’s commanders who was killed by Basque bandits at Roncesvalles. This too does not require credence in the Caroliginian cycle of romances.
Okay, given that, are you prepared to concede that there may have been a historical Jeshua bar Mariam, a rabbi whose life and doings gave rise to a whole bunch of miracle stories and such? That he may very well have led a group of disciples down a road to Jerusalem at a given time, though he may not have cursed a fig tree which promptly withered in the process of making that trip?
Presuming that (and only that, for the moment), we find that 99% of what we know about him is contained in four moderately short and polemical accounts of his life and doings, all of which record miracle stories and all that jazz, but all of which concur in ascribing a body of teachings to him.
I think the following is a fair statement, which can be bought into by even strict atheists: If there was a historical Jesus, he taught a humanist ethic which he claimed was commanded by a God whose primary characteristic (according to him) is to be loving.
Okay so far?
Now, within the context of Scotti’s and my belief in Jesus, we believe in the God whom He taught. And I affirmed, in connection with her questions, the Atonement, but distanced myself from the Propitiatory theory behind that Atonement, which strongly implies a God whose idea of justice condemns all men in the absence of Jesus’s self-sacrifice. – a concept which does not match up with a principally-loving God.
Historical figure about whom legends have grown makes metaphysical propositions. One makes assertions regarding those propositions. Does that de-circularize it to your satisfaction?
Ton-y-botel (Note: Midi attached.)
Poly said,
“Primary characteristics” leaves it wide open to the prospect that he was, indeed, less than loving sometimes. Tyrannical and blood-thirsty, even. While I understand how you can un-circularize this in your mind, it’s a massive stretch in my estimation.
If we assume for this conversation that Jesus existed because of the biblical documents you read, how can you know which biblical statement is accurate and which one isn’t? Obviously, you choose the one that fits your personal style and presumption of who or what god is supposed to be.
If this is the case, then isn’t it inaccurate to refer to him as ‘Him’? My understanding is that when you capitalize ‘him’ you make the subject soteriological (which, by the way, I had to look up).
DaLovin’ Dj
That’s something we all do. Even when an atheist says that he could never accept a god who allows Tragedy X he is comparing that god with his preconcieved notions of what a god would be like. It’s how humans think, constantly taking incomplete and contradictory data and trying to construct a coherent and consistent universe from it. Which data are chosen by each person depends on what sort of universe he hopes or expects to construct. I, for one, find the loving God that Jesus (usually) describes to have so little in common with the God described in the Old Testament that I suspect they aren’t the same guy. I happen to like the NT God better so what beliefs in ANY God I hold revolve around him.
Thanks for the clarification, honey.
And you are right…I knew I didn’t need to say it for your benefit…I didn’t want there to be any confusion on anyone else’s part.
My Love,
Cheri
Dropzone said,
Actually, an athiest wouldn’t say that, because athiests don’t believe in the possibility of a god…good or bad.
I have no pre-conceived notions of what god is or isn’t. But christians and other religious groups do. Which brings us back to the cherry-picking question. If the book describes both a nice and a mean god, and the book is where you got the notion of a god in the first place, how do you determine which one to believe without “cherry picking?” It weakens the argument that there’s any truth in it at all.
Now Poly says he doesn’t actually follow the bible, but instead follows Jesus (whose identity and teachings we learn from the bible, so make of that what you will), but any other christians who rely on the bible to map out Jesus’ plan will have to ignore some of those writings in order to defend the idea of a loving god. Hey…it’s a free country.
Hmmm…
An analogy to constitutional law may be constructive. Mr. Justice Scalia is a textualist. For him, if the constitution protects a given freedom, explicitly, then it’s protected, but if it doesn’t explicitly say so, you’re beat – you have no protection, or at least the government is quite capable of making it illegal. On the other hand, other justices have held that the constitution provides a framework for the stable government of a free people, and that rights not explicitly defined may be inferred from the abstract langauge of portions of it, based in part by what we can discover of the intent of its authors, by precedent in which portions were interpreted in similar but not identical cases, and so on.
The evangelical conservative Christian is something of a textualist. The Bible, i.e, the Tanakh and the New Testament, is the inspired word of God, to be accepted as such uncritically. To be sure, he will undertake critical study to determine what a given part means – but it is beyond the pale to suggest that a given passage may be the opinion of Paul or Ezra or Ezekiel, not God inspiring them to write that passage.
Okay, to be a Christian means, in one way or another, to accept Jesus as Savior and Lord – and, by acknowledging him as Lord, to agree to do what it is that he says to do. How do you find out what that is? Well, from the Bible, of course.
But here’s the distinction: you aren’t defining the Bible as beyond the pale of criticism. You can use the methodology of historical documentary analysis, the researches of archaeology and critical historiography, to establish what underlies the various writings that comprise the Bible. You can determine the motivations behind the writers. And having done so, you are prepared to separate wheat from chaff with some degree of certitude in determining exactly what is of merely historical value, and what comports with the ethical code one learns to abstract from its contents.
Well, then can I interpret your opinion as being that ALL biblical passages describing god as pissed off and vengeful are hyperbole?
At the risk of further thread drift – if that’s possible in one the lenght of this one – I’d be careful in using an all-encompassing description of atheistic beliefs. And while I think using the “weak” and/or “strong” qualifiers when describing/explaining atheism to a neophyte – or simply someone that is interested – are of some help, perhaps the greater emphasis should be placed on the lack of dogma that is implicit in the name itself. Which, of course, is not to say that some (strong) atheists could be considered dogmatic in their approach.
On a personal note, I lack belief in man-made deities, but posit no absolute answers to the greater question of how it all began – simply because at this point in time I don’t know and I don’t think anyone else does either. Agnosticism if you will, but without the “we can never know” qualifier usually attached to the classical definition of same. Or simply put, a weak atheist. Although I must admit describing myself as a “bright” is seductive as well. 
There. Trust I’ve done my share in adding to the general confusion in this thread
IWLN:
Appreciate the measured response. Perhaps there’s hope for you yet.
Welcome to the dark side!
j/k!
Glad to know you keep an open mind. AFAIAC, what matters is that we care about each other in the here and now – and on that, we seem to agree.
Agreed, some people use the distinction of “weak” vs. “strong” athiest, but going by the actual definition of the word, I’m comfortable with my usage and will stand by it.
And for that I thank you.
But do you feel a rope or a tree trunk?
Thank you. And I do actually like baboons.
we know that because we have the photos.
Platonically, 'nilla, like David ‘n’ Jonathan or Sam ‘n’ Frodo.
I hear heavy foot shuffling.