Free Presbyterian leader challenges Moderator over service with Pope

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

This will hardly come as a great surprise to those outside the Presbyterian Church. For those who are saved and who believe in the authority of scripture it is time for you to leave the Presbyterian Church and join a separated church.

"...either Romanism is right or the New Testament is right." The reality both are wrong. It has been said that religion is opium for the masses. Like any drug, in the end it's just not good for you. The Pope has shown the world the true face of Catholic belief through his non-action regarding the vile child abusers within his cult. Does it really matter if the moderator turns up at his sermon? They're irrelevent in todays world, and hopefully it won't be long until reason sends them all to pasture for good

Mmmm. The "authority of scripture". Actually, the "authority of scripture" malarkey is itself deeply unbiblical and amounts to bibliolatry - elevating a book *as* god. It's hard to know which is worse - the slavish following of the accreted limescale of RC traditionalism, or the blithe insistence in the teeth of all the evidence that the writings in the biblical corpus should be the key arbiter of "truth". What seems missing from the evangelical mindset (following the fantasies of the "inerrantists") is the realisation that interpretation is everything. The notion that, say, BB Warfield or FF Bruce understood the Old Testament in the same way as JH Christ is frankly ludicrous. Essentially, ANY argument from authority is invalid.

So, yes, let's protest against the pope, but keep theology out of it, and keep morality *in* it. Theology and morality are separate issues; when mixed, they create Error.

The Reformers pointed out that there are certain marks of a Church. One of these is discipline. Norman Hamilton is not exercising discipline by disassociating himself from false teachers such as not only the Pope, but Rowan Williams. He comes under the condemnation of a host of commandments in Scripture, for example:

"I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites. I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked." (Psalm 26:4,5)

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.… And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." (2 Thess. 3:6,14-15)

"Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." (2 John 9-11)

"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:17,18)

One could quote these ad infinitum, but I note the following blog post that encapsulates the orthodox view of treating false teachers: https://ad-gloriam-dei.blogspot.com/2006/07/command-to-separate-from-professed.html

Heliopolitan like many Atheists could do with going on a course of logic (assuming that is what he is). Christians do not worship the Bible by obeying the authority of God as He commands us in His Word. Do we sing to the Bible? Do we pray to it?

When we obey the Government in all things lawful, do we worship, for example, 'The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006'? (Reductio ad absurdum.) The Government has authority because God has given it that authority, and it expresses its authority in its statutes.

Similarly, and more fundamentally, God the Supreme Authority has issued His decrees in the Holy Scriptures. When we obey these, we obey His authority, and do not worship a collection of pages.

If the likes of Heliopolitan claim to follow reason (excuse my assumption), then I wish they would at least make a vague attempt to be rational.

"Any argument from authority is invalid [just cos I say so]." Such an arbitrary assertion!

"...keep theology out of it, and keep morality *in* it. Theology and morality are separate issues; when mixed, they create Error."

Would Heliopolitan like to explain this wild and irrational assertion? For example, what is his basis for morality?

Jean, I assume the word "facepalm" has no meaning for you? My point is that the bible is NOT the "word of god" (or, rather, that you have no reason for believing it to be so). Governments govern not by the authority of some space pixie, but by the will of the people.

So by simply *asserting* that this ramshackle, yet interesting, collection of documents has some authority, you do not make it so.

Quite why that escapes a lot of people is not immediately obvious to me, but then maybe I should take a course in logic, and I would see that just because some punter claims something is the word of god automatically means that it is :-)

Jean Cauvin,

I'm fairly sure there's a song I remember singing in Sunday School with a line within that stated 'for the bible tells me so'.

Plus, why is your god, in your translation, in your version of your bible any more authoratarian than someone else's?

I do feel sorry for you if all your morals and ethics come from the bible. It must be a real head scratcher when confronted with a situation not implicitly described therein.

[Facepalm] No, Heliopolitan, the point you were making was that Christians worship the Bible. Quote: "bibliolatry - elevating a book *as* god" God is the being we worship and obey, and the creator of all things.

The basis for my belief that the Bible is the Word of God is set forth in many Christian works, e.g. Josh McDowell's "Evidences that Demand an Answer". Fundamentally, Christianity is true and the God of the Bible exists because we all know of His existence (however we try to deny it), it comports with reality and the contrary is impossible.

I am reminded of a Chinese friend of mine who father was a Trotskyite. He would try to argue with his son that Christianity was a load of nonsense, but from time-to-time the mask would slip, and he would ask questions or make statements that showed he really did believe in God. Scratch most Atheists and under the surface their fundamental belief is they don't like God, therefore God doesn't exist. I have heard again and again prominent Atheists openly admitting this, e.g. David Attenborough in "Life on Air".

When Christians make statements based on Scripture, we do so based on the presupposition of the truth of Scripture. This obviously requires a rational basis that underpins this presupposition. All of us make statements based on our fundamental presuppositions about reality.

May statements were not *bare* assertions as your statement was. It was bereft of any argumentation whatsoever. There isn't even an assumed presupposition. Maybe you'd like to give even a superficial foundation for this statement? "Just cos"?

Jean, so the bible is true because Josh McDowell tells you so? You are scraping the bottom of the barrel there for sure. Yes, I *do* accuse you and some other Christians of a hard-line persuasion of worshiping the bible above and beyond any *actual* god that may or may not be there; you have no basis for connecting the bible with a real god, and indeed the internal evidence of the bible (a collection of books which I find interesting, I agre) demonstrates that quite clearly.

So the question becomes: do you worship the bible or do you worship tradition? Either way, you are elevating an argument from authority, and perhaps it is you who should take a course in logic to see the flaw in that course of action.

You would also do well to consider whether it really is "wild and irrational" to derive one's morality from one's interactions with those with whom we share this planet; I would suggest it is wild and irrational to transpose the deficient and primitive morality of the past onto a society that has moved on. Or at least most of us have. You do not derive your morality from god; you only pretend to yourself that you do.

So it's time to stop kidding yourself, and look at what the bible *really* is. Then, when you protest against the pope's activities, you can do it honestly.

So Jean, it's not really Sola Scriptura, but Josh McDowell as well.

Why do you believe the particular books in the New Testament are inspired? Why the four gospels we have and not Thomas? Why those letters of Paul and not others. Why?

If you were playing a game of Jeopardy and the answer on screen was "The Catholic Church" then the question might be:

Who decided at a point in time that the particular books and letters circulated by Christians would be put together, recognised as inspired and treated as part of the Bible?

Natman, thanks for your questions. "Jesus loves me, this I know 'cause the Bible tells me so." Underlying this is the belief that the Bible is true. We believe that the Bible is true because of the basic reasons (and reference work) I gave to Heliopolitan.

I would note that this children's chorus can be misleading. It tends to make people believe that God loves everyone indiscriminately. He does not. He shows practical love [agape] or goodness to all (Matt. 5:43-48), but does not love as in taking delight in or having affection for (phileo) all men, e.g. He hates the workers of iniquity (Psa. 5:5).

Why is my God true? Well for one thing the other gods are based on "scriptures" or belief systems that are manifestly contradictory, e.g. the Koran is self-contradictory, and the Roman Catholic church claims to believe Scripture is true but contradicts it in its fundamental beliefs. Of course, you will claim that the Bible is full of contradictions. I have heard this many, many times, but everytime that I ask for a contradiction I haven't been given one. (Usually, it's, "Er... I don't know, but there's lots!")

As for translation or version, I don't claim that the translation I use (NKJV) is any more authoritative than any other good translation (e.g. ESV, NASB, AV, etc.). Just like judging any translation of any foreign work into English, we can judge by the standards of normal translation. So, for example, the New World Translation of the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses is manifestly a bad translation, or rather a deliberate corruption. (See any typical examination of it.) Again, this is part of the proof that JW'ism is false.

Natman, you may feel sorry for me, but it isn't hard at all. Maybe you haven't read the Bible enough. The great tragedy is that our society has been blessed with Biblical ethics and has chosen to reject it, to its terrible detriment. Witness the broken homes and the effects of drunkenness that continue to increase.

The Chinese atheists are turning in vast numbers to Christianity because they've already seen the results of such experimentation (e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10942954%29. Objective atheists see that true Evangelical Protestantism is beneficial for society (not "religion" or anything that purports to be Christianity), unlike Dawkins. (The suppression of the Irish nation for conspiring with foreign powers against the British monarch is not Evangelical Protestantism, by the way. Nor is guys with six-packs in blue bags shouting at Roman Catholics.)

What is your basis for morality?

"I am reminded of a Chinese friend of mine who father was a Trotskyite. He would try to argue with his son that Christianity was a load of nonsense, but from time-to-time the mask would slip, and he would ask questions or make statements that showed he really did believe in God. Scratch most Atheists and under the surface their fundamental belief is they don't like God, therefore God doesn't exist. I have heard again and again prominent Atheists openly admitting this, e.g. David Attenborough in 'Life on Air'."

Because one of Jean Cauvin's friend's father is like this, we all are!

Hooray for Jean Cauvin!

PS, you're quote mining David Attenborough quite badly there. His original statement was that he couldn't credit a merciful god being the creator of a parasitic worm that bores into a child's eyeball so he shows the facts and things he knows to be true, and lets people make their own minds up.

Heliopolitan, again you merely assert that "you and some other Christians of a hard-line persuasion of worshiping the bible above and beyond any *actual* god". Where is your argumentation? Maybe you should look up the definition of worship in a dictionary.

Again, you assert, assert and assert again without any argumentation. When will it stop?

You assert that you "derive one's morality from one's interactions with those with whom we share this planet"? What interactions are these? If you were in Nazi Germany, then would the slaughter of Jews and others be acceptable due to your interactions?

You also assert that Christin morality is wrong because it is "deficient and primitive"? Why is it deficient? Just cos? Why is something primitive wrong? Just cos? (Maybe you're Tony Blair in disguise. Things are wrong if they aren't modern. Come on, Tony, don't be shy.)

As Christians we believe that it is primitive because it is "the first or earliest of the kind or in existence" and "early in the history of the world or of humankind" as it came from God Himself who was before all things, and whose righteousness never changes.

Jean,

So you believe that the bible is 100% totally and utterly accurate on everything contained within it? That in over 4000 years of transcription, translation and policical interference, not one word or phrase within it has been lost, corrupted or altered for any reason whatsover? That all the books contained in the bible are the only books that should be in the bible and that all other manuscripts written at the same time, about the same subjects should be left out?

If so, could you tell me why you believe this? Please try to avoid referencing the bible when you do this, as saying a book is holy because the book says its holy is the ultimate in self-referencing.

If not, then how do you determine which bits are uncorrupted and which bits aren't? Which bits are a poor translation, and which bits aren't? Which bits are, in fact, false?


As for my moral basis, there's a little something called 'informed consent'. It's not based on biblical authority, or any authority, and is what the vast majority of people should live their lives like, if only they had the courage to admit they don't need someone to hold their hands and tell them what to think.

Jean: I would note that this children's chorus can be misleading. It tends to make people believe that God loves everyone indiscriminately. He does not. He shows practical love [agape] or goodness to all (Matt. 5:43-48), but does not love as in taking delight in or having affection for (phileo) all men, e.g. He hates the workers of iniquity (Psa. 5:5).

Jean you are saying God does not love all equally based on what it says in the bible which was written by men and therefore not inerrant and where human attributes like conditional love are projected on to God.

God is love and God does love all equally - without any exceptions whatsoever and it would be impossible for God to do otherwise. Any idea of God that describes him as loving some and not others or making any differentiation in the degree of love is completely false and erroneous. It is an example of the bastardisation of God by man - of which there are indeed many throughout the different religions as they stand today.

The distortion of David Attenboroughs position by Jean Cauvin is indeed a crude one. And personally I've had a number of christrians tell me things like 'God is in you too!' etc. The fact that people can be happy (and in plenty of cases indeed happier) without god seems unpalatable to them. So in a bit of denialism, they then come up with 'Nono, he/she is not really an atheist at all'. Rather lame.

And for reference, here is Attenborough speaking out on the subject, stating almost right at the start that he has never held to any religious faith. And noting his dislike of creationists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeDgH6_zNLE

Peter,

This is not "Life on Air", which I referenced. Of course, Attenborough believes in atheistic macro-evolution. However, his objection to theistic creation is as follows:

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'."

For verification, please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfa88SeNohY

What I will confess to is sloppiness in saying that this shows that Attenborough is an Atheist because; a) he is on record as stating that he was an Agnostic; and b) he is objecting to theistic creation, not theism per se. I should have checked the exact recording rather than relying on fallible memory. Nevertheless, I have heard this multiple times in public debates with prominent Atheists (not with me, I hasten to add).

Part of Christianity is being honest about one's own mistakes.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Jean, I'm sure you're a very nice lady and all that, but you worship the bible like you accuse others of worshiping money, alcohol and power. But the bottom line remains - the bible is not the word of god; it is you who needs to do some homework...

Bah, here's me trying to bring the thread back on track by comparing my confusion of the two Presbyterian Churches to a certain coliseum scene in the Life of Brian, and it breaks the house rules.

Ah well. I'm sure those who've seen the film know what I mean.

This is turning into an interesting chat. Dawkins himself has said it's quite difficult to debate with a 'true believer'. Jean Cauvin has made some fascinating posts, but proves that a closed mind truly sees nothing. It baffles me how otherwise intelligent people can cling to stories so outdated and silly. We live in a society where the law is set up in such a way to allow people to believe whatever nonsense they choose to believe. Religious 'leaders' are given far too much latitude and inflict their POV on us too often. They are irrelevant, and should understand that more and more people are waking up to this fact.

Jean Cauvin,

You're right, my clip was not from the program you mentioned. Although nothing from the clip you posted seems to contradict the bit from mine where he says he never held any religious faith. Maybe not worth going into that much deep further, what he thinks is clear enough from both clips.

Another thing that struck me in your post 19 was 'atheistic macro-evolution'. What about the catholic party line of mostly accepting evolution (just insisting that the untraceable event of injecting the human soul into us is in there somewhere)? What about the various protestant denominations who accept evolution? Rabbis participating in the 'clergy letter project'? Different non-Abrahamic faiths who have no objection to evolution at all?

Isn't it a bit of a distortion to link evolution to atheism when it's only the nuttiest of the nutty (e.g. fundie flavours of protestantism) who reject the science, and whose views are, luckily enough, rejected by many people of faith?

@ Jean

I'm not sure if your clarification in 19 means you still think that this holds or not:

Scratch most Atheists and under the surface their fundamental belief is they don't like God, therefore God doesn't exist. I have heard again and again prominent Atheists openly admitting this...

For me, arguments like the one Attenborough uses have nothing to do with " not liking" a particular god because it's difficult to dislike something you don't believe is real, rather it highlights an inconsistency in the beliefs of creationists.

As for the fundamental belief of most atheists, that's not really for you to say.

Peter,

You say that it is only the nuttiest of the nutty who accept creationism. Not really a shocking revelation that you choose this label.

Creationism is the historic belief of Christianity and the clear teaching of Scripture, as well as the logical conclusion from the evidence.

Rome is fundamentally a syncretistic organisation, so it is no surprise that it goes with the flow on this. It is no surprise that Liberals should depart from the teaching of the Bible on this when they do on everything else.

Although historic forms of Christianity may not like the epithet "fundamentalist" as it has certain connotations, nevertheless it is true that historic Christianity is fundamentalist. Anything has fundamental attributes that make it what it is, so if it doesn't square up to this, it isn't what it says on the tin.

If you don't hold the fundamentals, then you're something else. If you claim something is a grape and it looks like an apple, tastes like an apple, smells like an apple and feels like an apple, then guess what? It isn't a grape. It's an apple.

E.g. if you say you're a Marxist and believe in Capitalism, then you're just deluding yourself.

Christ is the judge of what a Christian (a follower of Christ) is. Romanism and Liberalism don't meet His standards in the Scriptures. It makes no difference if they say they're Christian, they're false teachers and heretics by God's Book.

I don't have time to answer anything else, so apologies to those who I can't answer. I guess you get the last word. All I will say is that Heliopolitan has made the wrong assumption about my gender. Easily done. My name is French. I am Jean as in the French for John.

Jean,

So you believe that the bible is 100% totally and utterly accurate on everything contained within it? That in over 4000 years of transcription, translation and policical interference, not one word or phrase within it has been lost, corrupted or altered for any reason whatsover? That all the books contained in the bible are the only books that should be in the bible and that all other manuscripts written at the same time, about the same subjects should be left out?

If so, could you tell me why you believe this? Please try to avoid referencing the bible when you do this, as saying a book is holy because the book says its holy is the ultimate in self-referencing.

If not, then how do you determine which bits are uncorrupted and which bits aren't? Which bits are a poor translation, and which bits aren't? Which bits are, in fact, false?

If the Presbyterian Church is paying for all of Dr Hamilton's expenses associated with his attending this service then taxpayers are at least spared something. I think that a considerable number of people who are attending the service will have quite marked theological differences.

Jean, the lady bit was a joke. I know your moniker and have as much respect for that scoundrel as I have for Herr Schicklgruber.

I'm glad the PCI Moderator is meeting the Pope. I don't agree with Benny 16 on many things, but I respect him (and Rowan Williams) a lot. In fact I don't agree with my own church on a couple of things, but I still join with the local congregation. I also have a lot of Free P friends whom I respect very much and have been glad to join worship with them.

As to whether the Pope's visit is a waste of taxpayers' money, it's just as much a waste as any other visit by the head of a friendly state. It's a good thing we've come a long way from the Pope saying that the killer of QE I would not be guilty of murder and that catholics aren't seen automatically as terrorists by the English. I happen to think that, within reason, state visits are a worthwhile way of promoting and maintaining world peace. I'd rather Benny 16 was welcome here than not.

Does every comment thread on this blog turn into a debate about creationism and atheism? I know those are broadly under this blog's remit, but can we get a bit more focused on the topic at hand?

Helio (@ 4) -

"... the "authority of scripture" malarkey is itself deeply unbiblical and amounts to bibliolatry - elevating a book *as* god. ... interpretation is everything. The notion that, say, BB Warfield or FF Bruce understood the Old Testament in the same way as JH Christ is frankly ludicrous. Essentially, ANY argument from authority is invalid."

Hmmm. There are actually one or two valid points in that post, Helio, amongst the predictable stuff. You're right about interpretation, although there are wider issues relating to that, which are off topic on here.

You also have a point about bibliolatry. Except what you should have written is 'ecclesiolatry'. If you analyse the reason for Ron Johnstone's criticism of Norman Hamilton you will see that it has nothing to do with the Bible per se, and certainly not with 'belief in God' per se. It concerns the Pope's supposed view of the Presbyterian Church. And then his justification is: "And surely the Westminster Confession that Mr Hamilton signed is totally opposed to the teachings of Rome. Both can't be right: either Romanism is right or the New Testament is right." Notice how he conflates the Westminster Confession with the New Testament - in other words, here is the Protestant Magisterium - the official interpretation of the New Testament, and woe betide anyone who questions this infallible statement of faith! (Which rather proves how hypocritical it is for such Protestants to condemn the Catholic Church because they have a Magisterium).

Dr Hamilton, I assume, wants to be at the service with the Pope because of what they have in common, and let's forget about ecclesiastical politics. This perhaps shows that Dr Hamilton is not guilty of ecclesiolatry, which cannot be said of those who oppose his magnanimous gesture. Isn't it strange how protective some Protestants are of their church position, and yet they criticise the Catholic Church for the very same thing?!

Hamilton is doing the right thing, IMHO. Nowt wrong with trying to build bridges with people who disagree with you, is there now, Helio, my friend?

Good man, LSV - you're not all bad :-) Now if Norman can acknowledge the numerous atheists in his church, for which https://churchofjesuschristatheist.blogspot.com [mods, pleeez leave the link :-)] was founded, maybe we might be getting somewhere. It is good to see the churches learning a bit of common humanism.

I have concerns about the leadership of the Catholic Church. I beleive that there is a need for strong modern leadership is required to drag our church into the 21st century. I also believe that the abuse allegations should be made public as should the punishment meted out to any offenders.
Whilst I do not deny the right of any person to peacefully protest, I do not see why a bigot like Mr Paisley should be afforded the facilities to organise a demonstration in Edinburgh. Let him protest if he wants, but surely his efforts would be better appreciated in Ulster, where sectarianism still rules supreme.
Lothian & Borders Police are already struggling to meet the demands of the Papal visit without having to deploy additional officers to such a demonstration

Perhaps we need a Crawley's Law -

As any discussion on Will and Testament grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning creationism approaches approaches one :-D

As for the subject thread - I tried! But the moderator wasn't a Life of Brian fan :-( (or perhaps, more likely, it was that it broke house rules ;-)

One upshot of this strange business is that people can see how religious leaders are falling over themselves in the competition to see who can be the craziest. The only good news is that more and more people are realising that morality does not come from gods or churches, and they are summoning up the courage to leave the churches and religion altogether. I would still prefer to deal with a good Catholic than a bad Humanist, but good Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims etc do not lose the "good" when they leave their narrow sects; they are still the same good people, but they are unencumbered by crazy mythology and dogma, and are free to think their own thoughts and make their own ethical decisions.

OK, maybe this pope kerfuffle has been the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was a worthless and malignant camel anyway. We can do so much better.

Ourselves.

No gods.

re the possibility of commonality between Hamilton and Roman Catholicism, can I direct some thought to www.chnetwork.org, where resources and testimony are available from protestant ministers and theologians on how they made the journey to convert to catholicism

in their opinion, after much prayer,study, and personal struggle, they concluded that RC faith and practice more accurately reflect the Christian faith than did the confession and practices of their previous protestant denominations

we are not talking here about anyone other than those who from a strong theological background have made the 'jump' from protestant ministry and seminary academics to the Catholic church

an interesting thought for NI protestants, who are so proud of the 'coverted Catholics' who have joined their denominations; the stream also runs the other way, and perhaps with a stronger rationale...

William: I thought you were a wee bit hard on the Rev. Norman Hamilton at lunchtime today.

I got the impression the Rev. Hamilton would have liked to have said "yes" to your question "do you recognise the pope as a brother in Christ" but couldn't because of the views of a large proprtion of the ministers within the presbyterian Church in Ireland. It was a very awkward question for him, given his circumstances.

It also confirms my feeling that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has lurched very much to the right wing end of Protestantism in the province, and not just on this issue.

I would still prefer to deal with a good Catholic than a bad Humanist

I'd prefer to deal with a good humanist rather than a bad Protestant Helio !

For the purposes of this debate, can I just point out that Deuteronomy 23:2 clearly and unequivocally states and therefore, if one concurs with the comments of 'JC' (below) et al is the word of their god and therefore the Truth, that: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (KJV), hope your not going to 'er' contradict this one, so being the illegitimate incestuous offspring of a murdering paedophile, that makes me unsuitable for membership of your club (and probably many thousands of others born out of wedlock, which could end up being a bigger stumbling block for the literal church than women priests and homosexuality or is this bit not relevant in our society and just a historical remnant so I can ignore it and if so how does one tell?) and quite frankly I find your so called scriptures, the cherrypickers who use it and the dogma/lies that it generates, abhorrent. If anyone else tried to sell the unsubstantiated lies that so called 'believers' (because there is no evidence of any kind) tout along with the fact that one only ever finds out if one receives the promised rewards when one is dead (that's convenient, no-one coming back saying "I only got a brick in a box" instead of heaven); trading standards would have shut them down years ago. The churches should not be elevated within our society, their representatives should not be heralded and treated as different from anyone else, and they should not be afforded state subsidised visits to reinforce their dwindling power base and receive publicly funded pr opportunities to make up for their appalling human rights abuses of children. The BNP (and I am not a supporter) as an elected democratic party do not receive the same rights as the unelected church and BNP representatives are barred from most state occasions because they express their democratically mandated views, which just happen to be right of centre. Mr Ratzinger, however is a hard line conservative and was actually a member of a Nazi organisation but is welcomed with open arms because he is an unelected god appointed church leader rather than an elected public servant - this level of hypocrisy beggars belief except sadly, it is those with belief that perpetuate it. If Mr Ratzinger wants to visit fellow members of the church, fair enough, but he should do it in private and at his own expense!

@theologdm, there may be a certain amount of minister-juggling between the various denominations (they're all much of a muchness), but the real story is that ministers and congregants are haemorrhaging from religious observance towards an ethical areligious secular outlook. A lot has been said about Scandinavia, and in fairness some of it has been a tad over-hyped, but in general Western Europe is becoming ever more secular, and despite the recent hysterical dribblings from Adamus, it is not a moral wasteland - if anything, the religiosity of a society correlates *inversely* with people's practice of positive ethics.

So I don't mind people jumping between churches - comparative religion opens the mind, and lets people question their own beliefs as well as those of others. If, after this brief dalliance, Norman wishes to become a Humanist, that would be great. I think he is in general one of the Good Guys. White stetson. No cigarillo.

Regarding Ian Paisley participation in the planned protest in Edinburgh HappyRenfrewTim says..."Let him protest if he wants, but surely his efforts would be better appreciated in Ulster, where sectarianism still rules supreme."

Apart from the ridiculous and somewhat insulting language used to describe Ulser, now only those who Tim decrees worthy can protest?

Is it even worth the effort to debate any of this with that kind of mindset?

Shame on Norman Hamilton! He himself cannot deny that he signed the Westminster Confession of Faith when he was ordained to the ministry, and when he signed it he was asked did he accept it as a confession of his own faith and he did say he accepted it....but now, he denies the part that states: There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

How then can Mr Hamilton come on Radio Ulster's talkback today and say that he accepts the Irish Presbyterian Church's position, that the Roman Catholic Church "is" a christian church (with error)? If Hamilton was an employee in any respectable firm or company and breached the rules and went in opposition of those rules and broke his contract, he would be sacked and put out of that company. Will he be put out for his romanising and ecumenizing within the PCI? Nope!

Helio 38 : I agree re it's not the religions that renders them 'good' people -but the state of their own heart - which as you say of course is still with them after they leave a religion. In my view a religion that 'works' would be one that encourages this relationship - of the person with their own heart - and from there that will affect all their relationships.

I agree re it's not the religions that renders them 'good' people -but the state of their own heart

I would disagree Eunice.

In many instances people can do horrible things because of the way they've been brought up, and because of the influences of their peers.

For example, I wonder how many people are serving prison sentences because of peer pressure ?

But Peter, what is religion but peer pressure? I mean, you know what I'm talking about here; we get these pusillanimous evangelical whinges about how they are a totey wee embattled minority, set upon by the combined stormtroopers of the world, when in fact evangelical Christianity is the cushiest number going from an intellectual point of view, or even from a lifestyle point of view. Being a Christian (esp in NI) is incredibly EASY. Heck, you don't even have to *think* (just ask Alister McGrath ;-)

Rev. Mervyn Cotton a N.I. Gospel Minister & former licensed minister in the Free Pres. Church offers a timely rebuke to Ian Paisley & the FPC:

From Protestant Betrayal to Pope Bashing
"The Papal state visit has provided a perfect platform for The Free Presbyterian Church to reunite and to refocus; it is time to roll out the cannons for a bit of Pope bashing. Rev Ian Paisley is heading up a Free Presbyterian delegation which will travel to Scotland and protest against the Papal visit; the presbytery has released a statement exposing the errors of Roman Catholicism; a pamphlet has also been published, which examines Roman Catholicism in the light of scripture. There can be no mistaking, the battle lines have been drawn; but why all the fuss now?

Could it be that this platform of convenience is just what is needed to stitch up the deep divisions that have appeared in Free Presbyterianism since the political and religious sell-out that brought the terrorist inclusive government into existence? Could this be the physiological moment to plaster up the gaping cracks in Paisley’s church? Remember it was Rev Ian Paisley that sat down with unrepentant terrorists in government; it was this once man of God that negotiated with a Prime Minister that has confessed to having stretched the truth to breaking point. Could it be that there is an attempt to cover over past blunders with a bit of Pope bashing."

To access entire article, GOOGLE 'Rev. Mervyn Cotton's Blog'

Helio

”Being a Christian (esp in NI) is incredibly EASY.”

Well, yea; but not, of course, because being a Christian is easy, or supposed to be easy. Rather, I think, it is because we have made it easy; coddled and cosseted it; mixed it with milk and saccharine sweeteners in a dreamy, marshmallowy, desaturated, hot chocolate ‘cup hands, here comes Jesus’ kind of communion mug, which, while slipping down easily, has all the potency of a peashooter against a Siberian tiger.

We have abandoned the sting of faith for sentiment, the love of one’s enemy for the praise of ourselves, thought for a Sunday morning pep talk and the cut and thrust of community and accountability for Kumbaya and a coconut square.

Easy? Yea.

Real? Nah!

Peter, what you are saying is that the "being saved" bit is easy. What is *hard* is living out a real and positive humanism, whether as a bolt-on component of Christianity or on its own as a non-theistic expression of concern and care for one's fellows.

So I can imagine Jesus up in heaven saying "Dad, we got a whole load of converts, but the vast majority make me want to puke. Can I swop them for a load of atheists?" and God says, "Yeah, atheists are more fun."

Let me leave you with this thought - the very fact that god WANTS to be worshipped renders him unworthy of our worship.

Any *real* god would know this, therefore the god of Christianity is not real.

BTW, your post on the other thread was v funny; I wish the BBC had a "rate this post" system on the blog. Jesus iceberg :-) top quality. You ARE going to come to the blog-commenters' dinner, yes?

Helio: you are right re worship. The 'real' God (as you put it) does not need or want worship. It is a complete fallacy.

Eunice, I would also suggest that any "real" god (as opposed to an "official" god or a "continuity" god) would not even require *belief*, and instead would be more impressed if we applied that very complex and impressive organ between our ears in a more useful direction than mindless garbage like "faith". Heck, even nematode worms can do "faith". Let's lift ourselves above the masses a bit, eh? ;-)

Helio: again you are right re belief and faith. It's not about belief or faith but knowing - but the latter comes not from the organ between your ears (it has its uses of course) but the one that pulsates in your chest! That is the source of true wisdom as opposed to intellectual knowledge that one is fed by others/books/etc So it's just a wee meander frm yer heed to yer haert man! ;-)

What about people who have heart transplants? Or are you using the word "heart" to mean something that actually happens in your brain???

Helio


”what you are saying is that the "being saved" bit is easy”

Well, that’s really quite the thing, I don’t think in terms of “being saved”, at least not in the way you seem to mean. Given the similarity of our evangelical Christian background I can only (perhaps incorrectly) conclude that what you mean is something along the lines of, ‘accepting Jesus’, ‘asking Jesus into my heart’, ‘committing my life to him’, ‘raising my hand’, ‘bowing my head’ or some other such evangelical incantation at a ‘mission’, in a ‘hall’ or at a ‘Saturday night Jesus bop’. As I said, that’s all ‘Kumbaya and coconut square’; if I were being generous I’d call it limited.

Not that I haven’t been there, I have, as have you; but I have discovered Miroslav Volf and Tom Wright and Kenneth Bailey and Dorothy Sayers. Have you read any Dot? You should. You think that you and I can cast a withering glance at Christendom? Her words give you paper cuts!

You see I’m not thinking in terms of ‘getting saved’ and then towing the party line (although ‘party’ is something of a misnomer, don’t you think? Have I ever been at a church that resembled a party? Once or twice perhaps.) Sayers (speaking of Jesus’ reputation as a glutton and winebibber): “For nineteen and a half centuries, the Christian churches have laboured to remove, not without success, this unfortunate impression made by their Lord and Master. They have hustled the Magdalens from the communion table, founded total abstinence societies in the name of him who made the water wine, and added improvements of their own, such as various bans and anathemas upon dancing and theatre going...and feeling that the original (Sabbath) command “Thou shalt not work” was rather half hearted, have added to it a new commandment, “Thou shalt not play.” For too long this is what ‘being saved’ has meant, and often it is all that it has meant.

Now I know that I shall have, again, succeeded in doing little other than making myself misunderstood, but perhaps I might also have begun to broaden the concept of ‘being saved’ from being a church identity badge and ‘Jack Horner plum’ to being something a bit more (and you’re gonna like this!!:-) *human*. Salvation is about being human after all! Really, gloriously, completely and reverently human! ;-)

I should, I suppose, say something about worship next, and then perhaps, meaning.

Dinner? When? I'll need to have a look.

Helio: well it does impact the brain for sure - but it starts in the heart - the non-physical inner heart.

2MP: salvation: how about knowing that you are human and also that you are much more than human?

More than human, Eunice? That sounds interesting... :-) ;-)

But I do hope you're not going to tell me about my eternal spirt, my spark of the divine, my shard of mystical stardust, my ying, my yang, my Hong Kong Phooey, or my car Ch'i :-)

For I'm afraid that while many Christians are happy to sing about their 'never dying soul to save and fit it for the sky', I'm not.

I'm a human being, and whatever that means, I'm not thinking dualism.

Has Ian Paisley suddenly returned to the old Paisley that we used to remember?
I can well remember the ructions he has called in the past

Peter, I *know* you're a good guy, even though cabbage is to you what sirloin steak is to Lady Gaga. But here's the rub - where does *belief* lie in all that? I can *accept* a lot of what you say and what Leo Sayers says - sorry - Dot - but I can handle ALL of that without remotely "believing" in Jesus or that he is delivering any other message than simple humanism.

Joe made a play of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. He should also make it very clear that he is rendering unto Science what is Science's, and unto Humanity what is Humanity's. Which actually puts the gods in a position where there are not many crumbs left over for them to scrabble over as they fall from the table. I'll halt that allusion there if it's OK with you ;-)

But consider this if you will - Jesus (as I mention over at the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist) was making a very secular statement with the "render unto Caesar" comment. It is perhaps a bit tragic that Christians today often do not seem to follow that aphorism, and instead seek to poke their religious ignorance into every available cranny and nook. To be honest, I think Jesus would be fascinated and horrified in equal measure at how he has been misunderstood and manipulated over the millennia. Yes, he got a lot of stuff wrong, but not everything.

2MP: let me put it another way - how do you see / understand Jesus? Was he human or more than human?

Helio

“Belief”? Emmm.

To be honest I’m not sure what you mean by ‘belief’. We’ve had a bundle of fun and laughter and banter and good natured tom-foolery but I’m not sure I’m any closer to really grasping what you mean when you just that word. I’m not sure if, when you use the word ‘belief’, you have any particular content in mind or if it’s just a dismissal in the same way you use the word ‘woo’.

It is, perhaps, related to this thing about dualism I’ve been mentioning to Eunice. It’s as if when it comes to Jesus, God and us that we don’t seem to be able to deal with the fact that being human is important, that to be fully human is also a ‘spiritual’ activity, and what do I mean by that? Some kind of mystical woo majumbo? No, what I mean by fully human is simply humanity lived in the light of God our Creator. Me, living with God in my mind and not out of my mind. Or to give you a simple practical example - me being prepared and able to recognise my own and my wife’s or someone else’s ability to cook tea and enjoy it *and* also acknowledge that we are only part of that story, that we are limited. Prayer meetings, as another example, aren't more important than a painter painting doors, in fact, if a Christian painter (I should say a painter who is also a Christian) botches a job in his rush to get to church he's just insulting God and his employer.

Or take that hymn we both like, ‘Be Thou my Vision’, both of us appreciate the construction of the words, the musical talent, the voices of the choir, the sense personal awe and appreciation of humanity and the universe it provokes; I’m with you all the way on that, in these ways our experience of the music is the same. Am I having some kind of spooky experience you’re not having? No! The only difference there might be is that I’m also addressing the ‘Thou’ (and recognising what that implies); whether you are or not I don’t know, that’s not for me to say.

So perhaps that describes a little of what I mean by the word ‘believe’; however, I prefer the word faith or better still trust.


Eunice

There are any number of things I could say about the problem of Gnostic dualism within the Christian church, but regarding Jesus:

He is God. The self existent, personal and eternal God who is wholly other than you and me.

He became/is human.

To best represent, in words, the biblical Christian understanding of Jesus it’s probably best to simply make that statement and leave it there: Jesus is God. Jesus became/is human.

Or you could google the Chalcedon Creed.


And Helio, didn't God beat Lady Gaga to it on the 'creative' fashion front? ;-)

Eunice, don't go there! 2MP hasn't quite figured out whether he believes or not. Would you want to rock his faith, or is faith equivalent to fudge? "People of Fudge" - it has a ring to it.

Helio

Almost forgot. This Jesus and Caesar business. Separation of church and state indeed!

I rather think not; remembering Psalm 24:1, Jesus was mocking the Pharisees who, while praising God with their lips, were in cahoots with the political powers.

Quite simply he was saying, “Look, this coin might have Caesar’s face on it, but God owns the lot. Isn't that what you say at synagogue?"

It's called a conversation stopper, which is exactly what happened.

Peter, I take it back - you have a lot to learn ;-) This isn't Mrs Miggins's Sunday School class now. Jesus is a lot more complex than your happy clappy mindset realises. Still, I hold out hope for you. You need a whole lot more of Geza and a lot less Josh McDowell, as Linda Ronstadt nearly said...

2MP: I agree re being fully human and fully present in whatever we are doing - mind and body together in conscious presence and doing what we are doing with gentleness and in joy - in other words with God. Yes we are part of the story but I don't think we are as limited as you think we are - we limit ourselves a great deal by thinking or believing we are limited! We are in fact connected with all there is!

We have a very different understanding re Jesus so I do not consider him wholly other to me or you. I know my views are not consistent with the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus - where he is put on a pedastal above the rest of humanity. To me it is not possible for there to be One special son - we are all equal sons of God in my view and all have the same potential as Jesus to embody the light and love of God - to be Christ. These understandings are empowering to the human person and not disempowering as per the traditional understanding. We are potentially much more powerful (in a true meaning of power) than we realise. Of course by the same token, these understandings also call one to take a high degree of responsibility for one's life and choices. ('these things and more you shall do')


Helio: not sure where you didn't want me to go but I left faith and belief out of it!

Well, Helio

Never read Josh McDowell, and CCM was never really my scene either. But that was funny. “bu dubity du bop!.... lead guitar break... hand clap... wah-wah pedal, Oh llllord, sing it Linda!”

Apart from that however, those posts were sort of weird (or should that be, no) answers, Mrs Miggin’s Sunday School Class, emmm.

You know it would help if you could actually explain what you mean by the words you choose to use; I’m not a mind reader but I am at least attempting to define and describe what I mean; and if there’s anyone on this blog who should be able to make some kind of sense of the words (even in a subjective way) you can. What’s wrong? Am I ‘stealing’ too much of your humanism in the name of God? Still feeling like a believer? ;-)

So perhaps Helio might say what Helio thinks. Perhaps Helio might say what Helio means by ‘belief’ or at least what he used to mean by belief when he believed?

Perhaps Helio might explain why he thinks post 63 was a fudge.

Perhaps Helio might explain how he got ‘separation of church and state’ without reading the enlightenment back into the text? That’s just more dualistic thinking. You think the rhetoric isn’t complex? You think running with, ‘separation of church and state’ isn’t (on your terms) a self-fufilling prophecy. Isn’t that what you want Jesus to be saying? Mere separation of church and state allowed the Pharisees and the Herodians to keep on doing what they were doing; that kind of Jesus is a threat to no one. And what do you think the Christians in Rome were saying when they said ‘Jesus is Lord’- singing the last line of the latest worship song? And what do you think Jeremiah was saying when he said, ‘seek the good of the city’? What do you think you’re saying when you say the Lord’s prayer? Why do you think Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the Temple?

And why don’t we set things in the context of this thread about the Moderator, the Pope, the protest, the service and the handshake? Above the High Altar in Westminster Abbey are words from Revelation: ‘The Kingdom of this world is become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ.’ and the processional hymn on Thursday began with the words: ‘Christ is made the sure foundation...’ that is the same thing, and the words then and the words now are revolutionary talk *not* cultural motifs. “the pope is pretty caeasresque too...” isn’t that what you said, but the words in Westminster Abbey do not permit him that authority. And within your atheist church of Jesus the irony is that you are stuck with the words whether you want them or not. It's not me who is 'spiritualising' the story.

I’m not asking you to think any of it real in any sense of the use of that word, but I do expect you to have a broader understanding of what the words mean if you’re going to trash it. And don’t go calling it ‘cabbage’, because *you* are interpreting too, or, if you like, debating which variety of cabbage you prefer!

Anyway, why should I look into Geza, has he the answers, as Larry Norman didn’t say.


Eunice

Traditional christianity doesn't put Jesus on a pedestal! ;-)

2MP: Do you see yourself as equal to Jesus then? If you don't then he is on a pedestal! :-)

Peter, high five - that post was a tour de force. Or a tour de cabbage - can't quite decide :-). Yes, I *am* reading back into Jesus the spirit of the Enlightenment - I am quite open, indeed explicit about that (as you know from https://churchofjesuschristatheist.blogspot.com - mods please leave the link, and everyone else, your comments would be most welcome!). I don't think Jesus had all the answers, but he makes a lot more sense from a secular spin than from, say, a Catholic spin or a Protestant spin.

As for the caesar comment, it chimes perfectly with his wish to de-commercialise the temple (didn't take long for the churches to get in on THAT act - he would have a fair job turfing out the moneychangers from the Vatican or York Minster today!). Your odd view that Jesus was ribbing the Pharisees for being in cahoots with the Romans is entirely at odds with the text. Indeed, it was actually the Saducees that were the main sect allied to Rome; the Pharisees were a lot more uppity. Indeed, *Jesus* got on a lot better with the Romans than they did - at least until his pitch for temporal rulership with that Schroedinger's DOnkey business. But hey. You're right - this was not a clear call for separation for church and state in the mind of the Real Jesus. But it will do in the mind of our retrospectively-anointed Christ. This is a narrative, remember? You have your fictional Christ, and we're just a bit more explicit about ours.

And as far as "belief" is concerned, do you really need me to clarify? I do not "believe" that there is a god. That does not mean that stories about the gods are worthless. I do not believe in Goldilocks either, but the story is a useful one. I told my three year-old the other day about how you should respect other people's property, even if they are bears. She got it.

Helio

What about ‘tour de farce’? Does that do it for you? :-)

You’ve alot to answer for though. First of all, I’m whistling that stupid tune; all I need now is for someone to pick it in church and I’ll end up singin’, “Josh McDowell”. I’m out of step enough as it is already, what are you trying to do to me? No, don’t answer, I know, Anakin! Secondly I’ve just managed to get myself upright again, “But hey. You're right - this was not a clear call for separation for church and state in the mind of the Real Jesus." Did you actually write that?... I need a whole lot less of Jesus and a lot more Arctic Roll.... Sorry, ehem, sidetracked there, forgive me. Did you say, “You're right.” (as in, me)? Does that mean, “You’re wrong” (as in, you)?

Quick clear up, I was using the label Pharisee generically to mean ‘religious leaders with a power base.’ You can have no gripe though, it’ll do in the mind of our retrospectively anointed Christ.

“retrospectively anointed Christ.”? You could go on tour with that; all you need now is Powerpoint and a candle. (on second thoughts get a mac and ‘Keynote’ - they’re the emergent version of a fish badge)

Good to see you set the coin debate in the context of the donkey, though, well done; maybe you’ll join a few more dots some day. :-) Come to think of it, maybe there were two coins.

Anyhow, “he (Jesus) makes a lot more sense from a secular spin..” You mean you prefer secular cabbage? I’m almost tempted to say, render onto secular society what...

And now “belief”. Yes, I do need you to clarify it for me, partly because you keep on putting it in quotes, and partly cos you’re close to pulling a ‘Santa’ on me. Of course you redeem yourself by referring to the role of narrative, which is an argument I understand and respect. The biggy though is your initial question, “Where does ‘belief’ lie in all that?” Which I’m taking to mean, 'I can have all the benefits of the narrative without Jesus being God'. Fair interpretation?

But I keep telling you where the ‘belief in Jesus’ thing fits, (1) that ‘belief’ does not imply some kind of ethereal, impractical woo and (2) I’m saying that Jesus, whether we ‘believe’ it or not, establishes all that we do. Yea, I know, fried cabbage and bacon, but look at it this way, it means that I’m not likely to pull out the argument that atheists can’t have any meaning without ‘belief’. I know you have meaning, and I know that it’s real and it’s worthwhile and valuable and useful ... it’s just that I call it providence. ;-)

BTW Did you ever play bass?

...We need a good ol' case of Merlot and a bottle of Chardonnay..... see what you’ve done to me?!

But you’ll be singing Dar Williams - Mercy of the Fallen at your next CJCA meet?



Eunice

My comment was more about who was doing what to whom: I don't put Jesus on a pedestal.

2MP: So if he's not a pedestal - is he an equal beside you?

I note Peter, in # 63, the fact that you cite a preference for 'faith' or 'trust' over 'belief' as descriptors of what we might call the convolution of Christian living with God. May I ask why the preference? Is it significant?

I, now, am someone who has no belief but, I would say, deep faith. I do not think faith requires belief: faith, in my opinion, is manifested in what we do, not shaped by what we think. It is interesting, on this day, to remember something Blessed John Henry said: "To act is to assume: that assumption is faith". The attempt to lead a life following in the footsteps of our Saviour is faith and it is all the faith we need.

I have a lot of sympathy with your understanding of Christ's gospel and its implications. I fully accept that Christ made temporal claims, that is why he was executed, but I am not sure about your reading of "Render unto Caesar", I will have to think about that one but, for me, the big question of your debate so far is Do we know that Goldilocks had not read Proudhon? Could we not see the bears as representative of a grasping and unenlightened pre-revolutionary peasantry who need to be educated rather to realise from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

Peter, sometimes you remind me of some of the characters Michael Palin tends to play in the old Monty Python sketches :-) Once again, I am being quite explicit - I am *absolutely* reading intentions into the Jesus stories that may not have been present in whoever the original "Jesus the Nazarene" was, but (and this is important) SO ARE YOU. We have no historical handle on the punter, so in using the story as a narrative or parable, we are being open and honest. The life of Jesus gives us vignettes - a palette that we can paint with. Rational analysis, history and science give us the canvas and the outlines and the numbers. There is scope there for more artistic flourish.

As for "belief", what I mean by that are the assertions that certain ridiculous truth claims are TRUE in the literal sense; that Jesus *really was* born of a virgin; that he *really did* walk on water or change water into wine; that he *really did* rise from the dead some 36 hours after being placed in temporary storage in JoA's unfinished tomb.

None of these things *actually* happened.

None of these things *actually* happened.

Miracles do happen - Helio and I agree!! :-)

The resurrection refers to the ongoing and reincarnating spirit not the physical body.

Eunice

You keep on referring to a pedestal, and I keep trying to divert your gaze!



Helio

I glad I can lighten the tone; indeed frivolity is a necessity on this blog if one is to survive, that and the fact that the Josh McDowell lyric was funny.

Thank you for clarifying your use of the word ‘belief’, it will help me respond to Parrhasios.

Now to the reading of the stories of the life of Jesus. Yes, I understand what you are doing with the accounts and I know (or can at least guess) why you do this. If they were not in anyway true it is a perfectly reasonable way of handling them but they are not mere myth and you know this. In addition to this, if they ‘did not actually happen’ then surely they are rather dangerous accounts from which to derive our cultural motifs. As I suggested already, if you choose Jesus as your symbol/emblem, as you seem to want to do, you are stuck with what must be some very unpalatable attributes to sit alongside your secular outlook. You can pick and choose all you want but you can’t avoid what the first followers claimed of Jesus.

But whatever it is you are doing with the stories, what Christians are doing with the stories is important too, and yes, Christians do read intentions into the Jesus stories; there’s no point in me denying this, because it happens, far too much in my opinion. I’ve been around the church long enough to know that there are many preachers/speakers who are more than happy to launch themselves from a text like an Olympic gymnast, pull a couple theological saltos, somersaults or twists, nail a landing and expect me to shout ‘Amen!’ But to be honest my reaction when this does happen is usually some version of, ‘I could do all that *without* the bible! Now, is there any chance we could deal with the words?’

But I do it too. I too have my own preferred way of reading into the stories. There are things I want Jesus to say. It’s rather like I said a while back on the what’s her name author who left the church in the name of Christ thread, all we are doing is using the story to justify ourselves.

None of this, however, means that we can’t know what his intentions were. You’re taking a very Bart Erhman view here, some version of, if we can’t know everything we can’t know nathin’ - if there’s a doubt about this bit, there’s a doubt about it all. But that isn’t the case.

Not only that but just because we don’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we can pour whatever meaning we like into the words. Just because we don’t grasp all the cultural and literary nuances of the text doesn’t mean there aren’t any. If there was a Jesus (God or not) then he must have meant something by what he said and to say we have no historical handle is just plain wrong. And surely whether we claim to follow Jesus the atheist or Jesus the Christ we’d need to have a go at figuring out what Jesus said.

Parrhasios

You will have read Helio’s definition of belief and, first of all, in attempting to answer your question I will say that the distinction I have drawn is largely in response to reading this blog.

Belief and faith are slippy enough words as they are generally used but it seems to me that there has been a tendency in this environment to equate ‘belief’ with ‘woo’. What do I mean, quite simply that the way the word ‘belief’ has been used seems to have been a (deliberate?) attempt to make it mean ‘nonsense’, to take it out of the world of thought, and, yes, of emotion too, and to place it in the world of ‘may the force be with you’, the world of ‘I know, but I don’t know how I know’.

The trouble of course is that in the world of evangelical Christianity we have been the architects of our own downfall. I cringe when I hear my fellow Christians say, “The Lord led me to...” and I ask, “How do you know?” and the answer is some version of “You just know.” “Oh," I think, "do you indeed? Well, wouldn’t you like to give me some idea of how you know? Did you ‘think know’ or did you ‘feel know’ or did you ‘converse with another human being know’ or did you ‘listen to a sermon know’? or what, give me some idea, please!” and then I go home and watch TV.

And I get frustrated when I hear a preacher say things like, “Sometimes you can think too much about salvation when what you really need to do is stop thinking and believe (and he doesn’t mean feel) as if I were supposed to do something with a bit of me that I have yet to encounter.” And I think and feel, “Believe what?!”

In this context I have sought to use the words faith (or better still trust) to indicate a response to a set of propositions; propositions like, “Jesus lived”, “Jesus lived his life taking upon himself the role of Israel’s Messiah”, “Jesus died”, “Some claim that he is alive again”. To those propositions I have come/learned/struggled/feared/tried not to but still do respond, ‘Yes.’

Sometimes I might think this, think it in a way similar to what I have written; sometimes I might feel it, feel it in the way I sense my wife in the room with me even though I have not seen her, or in the way I can feel guilt or compassion; but what I am not doing is taking a blind leap without any context or possibility of explanation. Nor does my faith/trust/believing make it true, it either is or it isn’t.

Oddy, when you use the word faith it seems not to be in the context of certain propositions. Now I have no disagreement with the idea that faith is what we do any more than I have a problem with the idea that faith is what we think or feel, but if it is, as you suggest, an assumption, I want to ask, what are you assuming. If I am to follow in the footsteps of our Saviour I must have some idea of where they will lead. (Apparently, of course, it includes the Via Dolorosa, but I think I can trust the one who sang Psalm 88)

Let me finish with a deliberately provocative but defendable statement. This reformed, evangelical, biblical Christian does not think himself saved by his faith!! ;-)

2MP: my eyes are open and sparkling - where would you like me to gaze??!!

Peter, dear boy, entertaining as this is, you are not engaging the central point.

Now to the reading of the stories of the life of Jesus. Yes, I understand what you are doing with the accounts and I know (or can at least guess) why you do this. If they were not in anyway true it is a perfectly reasonable way of handling them but they are not mere myth and you know this.

Ah, but I am not saying they are "mere myth". Jesus was conceived in exactly the same way most people are conceived; the virginal conception *IS* a myth; it never happened. Similarly his resurrection never happened - at most, his body went missing. The bible actually shows a very clear pattern of *development* of that myth. But the WHOLE THING "mere myth"? I am not claiming that, and it's a little disingenuous of you to suggest that. Furthermore, even if I WAS thinking it was mere myth, that in no way excuses you from having to defend your ridiculous belief position.

In addition to this, if they ‘did not actually happen’ then surely they are rather dangerous accounts from which to derive our cultural motifs. As I suggested already, if you choose Jesus as your symbol/emblem, as you seem to want to do, you are stuck with what must be some very unpalatable attributes to sit alongside your secular outlook. You can pick and choose all you want but you can’t avoid what the first followers claimed of Jesus.

They claimed lots of contradictory and ludicrous things. That is OK, because (like you) we DO pick and choose; we can recognise that Jesus said some things (or was reported to have said some things) that we now realise are flat out WRONG. That is not a problem. Remember, "belief" is not part of the Christian Atheist mix.

None of this, however, means that we can’t know what his intentions were. You’re taking a very Bart Erhman view here, some version of, if we can’t know everything we can’t know nathin’ - if there’s a doubt about this bit, there’s a doubt about it all. But that isn’t the case.

Actually I rather think that is what YOU were doing earlier :-) But what SPECIFIC things do you think you CAN know about Jesus? It turns out to be very very little. The Jesus you think you know is a story, not a real person. The "real Jesus" is inaccessible to you (and us).

If there was a Jesus (God or not) then he must have meant something by what he said and to say we have no historical handle is just plain wrong. And surely whether we claim to follow Jesus the atheist or Jesus the Christ we’d need to have a go at figuring out what Jesus said.

Indeed, but "belief" can't be part of that mix. We can have a sensible debate and use it illustratively, but even if Jesus *was* god, he cannot have any authority over what we think and believe. Influence, perhaps, but we make our own decisions.

Helio

I wrote you a reply and then I thought, 'Why doesn't H just read post 76 again?'

What is the 'central point' BTW? And where would be the fun in me agreeing with you? :-)



Eunice

Caesarea Philippi. There were a few pedestals there.