Could you believe that your current religion is wrong?

[robrecht]

I used the word 'apologist,' because it is a defense of religious position. I consider Kippenberg's argument valid regardless.

Nonresponsive. Because one effectively defends a scholarly opinion, do you think that makes one an 'apologist'? Do you consider yourself an 'apologist'? You initially said that 'Kippenberg clearly shows Smith's work is an 'apologist' work'. Do you have any citation of Kippenberg referring to Smith as an apologist?

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=robrecht;370776]Nonresponsive. Because one effectively defends a scholarly opinion, do you think that makes one an 'apologist'? [quote]

No, I responded, yes if someone defends a scholarly opinion they could very well be considered an apologist.

Do you consider yourself an 'apologist'?

Yes, for my religious arguments.

You initially said that 'Kippenberg clearly shows Smith's work is an 'apologist' work'. Do you have any citation of Kippenberg referring to Smith as an apologist?

Again, and again the use of 'apologist' is my use not Kippenberg's. Let's address Kippenberg's argument, and not as usual betting a dead horse.

[shunyadragon]

I agree with what Kippenberg is saying! I'd bet that Smith does as well, by the way.

You may agree with him on certain point, but . . .

I doubt, because of how Kippenberg criticized C. Z. Smith's conclusions, and rightly so.

[Tassman]

That's the only kind of God there truly is. If God is truly God, he isn't any kind of god at all. There is no genus or category into which we can place him with our puny little human minds.

Sorry, but you're wrong on a few levels here. One, I'm not really arguing with you, but trying to agree with you on one level and point toward a greater reality. Two, I'm definitely not arguing as if the post-resurrection narratives are being presented as a reasonable explanation of the behavior of a reanimated corpse. The resurrection narratives are indeed mythological and thus precisely not historical narratives of a reanimated corpse. They are attempts to present Jesus both as he was somehow mysteriously present to the disciples after his death and also still mysteriously present in the church even to this day. Luke's account of the disciples not recognizing Jesus on the road to Emmaus is a good illustration of this literary technique. Jesus is recognized in the breaking of the bread, the celebration of the Eucharist, which is not the reanimation of a corpse, but a continuing memorial celebrated to this very day. This narrative is trying to point to a transcendent reality very much beyond what one might attempt to describe as a reanimated corpse. Any narrative that tries to portray God and humans as interacting within a story is mythological, ie, a story about God, but God is beyond being able to be described by men as a character in a story.

And yet the gospel authors nonetheless try to tell the story of how we meet God in Jesus, from the time he walked the earth unto this very day in each other. Or, as Matthew would 'explain', any time you have done these things for the least of my brethern, you have done them for me. Or John's narrative of the miraculous catch of fish, it is not just a story of how Jesus fed the disciples breakfast one morning, but how Peter was to feed his sheep in the future. Matthew, Luke, and John all try to relate in narratives the presence of the resurrected Christ to his continued presence in the church of their day, something Mark did not even try to do, who just left us hanging, trying to contemplate a fearful mystery that he did not even try to put into words.

We can say that the gospel authors try to tell the story of how they THINK we meet God in Jesus. They could well be wrong of course. I think they are wrong because they are presenting clear mythological embellishments as fact.

[Tassman]

You still believe in the dark ages?

Despite Christian attempts to gloss over the Dark Ages there's no doubt that for "almost a thousand years, from roughly 300 to 1250 AD, there was zero significant advance in science (excepting a very few and relatively minor contributions by Hindus and Muslims), in contrast with the previous thousand years, from roughly 400 BC to 300 AD, which witnessed incredible advances in the sciences in continuous succession every century".

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2...istianity.html

Christianity, from its attainment of political power, has had an inglorious history of resisting scientific knowledge, e.g. Galileo's heliocentric universe, right until today with the denial by many Christians of the scientific facts of Evolution and global warming.

[robrecht]

THINK we meet God in Jesus. They could well be wrong of course. I think they are wrong because they are presenting clear mythological embellishments as fact.

I'm not sure, but there might be a little bit of circular reasoning going on here. The evangelists could indeed be wrong, but so could you, right? Do you know for a fact that there is no God? Do you know as a fact that God cannot be encountered through the risen Christ?

[Tassman]

I'm not sure, but there might be a little bit of circular reasoning going on here. The evangelists could indeed be wrong, but so could you, right? Do you know for a fact that there is no God? Do you know as a fact that God cannot be encountered through the risen Christ?

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure, but there might be a little bit of circular reasoning going on here. The evangelists could indeed be wrong, but so could you, right? Do you know for a fact that there is no God? Do you know as a fact that God cannot be encountered through the risen Christ?

This is most definitely an unfortunate 'Appeal to Ignorance' to justify supernatural events ~2000 years ago. It is obvious that everyone is wrong in one way or another as fallible humans like the sky is Carolina blue on a clear 4th of July at noon.

I do not see the 'circular reasoning,' but the 'Appeal to Ignorance' blatantly obvious.

[robrecht]

Once we allow for the possibility of God, if we truly consider God to be beyond our ability to comprehend, we can't really subject 'him' to our grasp of probabilities and statistics. On the other hand, we believe that God somehow became human, which I believe made himself subject to the laws of nature, entropy, and all the human and political forces that subjected him to a violent death, through which he gave witness to the truth as he saw it so I too do not want to merely appeal to some kind of facilie supernatural claim. I am content therefore with my human thelogical limitations, which includes an inability to bridge the gap between a historical christology from below and a mythological and dogmatic christology from above. Within that gap exists a lifetime of questions and appreciation for mystery, ambiguity, and doubt. That doubt is a healthy part of faith which makes it real.

[shunyadragon]

You totally missed Kippenberg's point.

Look, it's not a matter of what you want to be true or not. In the early-mid 20th century, there was a lot of discussion about dying and rising gods. It was considered a very useful explanatory paradigm, just like the attempt to distinguish Judaism by its focus on the Law vs. Christianity's focus on works and faith. '

Smith's work challenged that paradigm in such a significant way that it's no longer considered a useful way of understanding the religions of the ancient world. I didn't deny that a minority of scholars exists who think it useful. However, what Smith (and subsequent scholars) did is examine the data and then understand that many (if not all) of the dying and rising gods either a) don't really die or b) don't really rise in any real way.

This is a fair review of Mettinger's work, in my opinion. Look at it yourself. http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002-09-07.html

Believe me, I know the literature that disagrees with me rather well...

If you know the literature that disagrees with you rather well, you would realize it is not a one-sided forceed conclusion as J. Z. Smith proposes and no he does not 'smash' the alternatives as you assert. Kippenberg does propose serious questions concerning the one-sided forced conclusions. He describes Adolph Deissmans work, which more realistically proposes that all similarities need to be addressed individually, and not make a blanket assertion that ALL are only analogous. I will cite part of the critique in the next post. He may be complementary of Smith's eloquence and argument, but he does not agree with his extreme conclusions.

The elephant in the room is that these distinct similarities evolved and developed in Christianity as the Hellenist/Roman influence grew and it became a Roman religion. By most or none of these similarities exist in Judaism, though the Hellenist influence was growing since Alexander the Great,

[psstein]

Despite Christian attempts to gloss over the Dark Ages there's no doubt that for "almost a thousand years, from roughly 300 to 1250 AD, there was zero significant advance in science (excepting a very few and relatively minor contributions by Hindus and Muslims), in contrast with the previous thousand years, from roughly 400 BC to 300 AD, which witnessed incredible advances in the sciences in continuous succession every century".

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2...istianity.html

Christianity, from its attainment of political power, has had an inglorious history of resisting scientific knowledge, e.g. Galileo's heliocentric universe, right until today with the denial by many Christians of the scientific facts of Evolution and global warming.

Carrier? Seriously? Carrier is an apologist at best. His specialty is pushing Jesus mythicism and insinuating that everyone else is either incompetent or conspiring against him.

He also has a PhD in events that took place 600-1200 years before the Middle Ages...

[Tassman]

Carrier? Seriously? Carrier is an apologist at best. His specialty is pushing Jesus mythicism and insinuating that everyone else is either incompetent or conspiring against him.

He also has a PhD in events that took place 600-1200 years before the Middle Ages...

The historical record speaks for itself. The incredible flowering and growth of science during the pagan era virtually ground to a halt once Christianity gained power. Science remained relatively stagnant during the so-called Dark Ages until it reemerged, despite clerical resistance, during the aptly named Renaissance...nearly 1,000 years later.

[Tassman]

Once we allow for the possibility of God, if we truly consider God to be beyond our ability to comprehend, we can't really subject 'him' to our grasp of probabilities and statistics.

On the other hand, we believe that God somehow became human, which I believe made himself subject to the laws of nature, entropy, and all the human and political forces that subjected him to a violent death, through which he gave witness to the truth as he saw it

Why would one believe such an unlikely proposition?

so I too do not want to merely appeal to some kind of facilie supernatural claim. I am content therefore with my human thelogical limitations, which includes an inability to bridge the gap between a historical christology from below and a mythological and dogmatic christology from above. Within that gap exists a lifetime of questions and appreciation for mystery, ambiguity, and doubt. That doubt is a healthy part of faith which makes it real.

But you are

[robrecht]

are

I do not believe God is 'a supernatural entity'. Such a definition of God (genus: entity; specific difference: supernatural as opposed to natural) implies a knowledge of the supernatural and of the natural that we simply do not possess, that we are incapable of possessing as humans. This is what is meant in traditional theology when referring to God as simple, incapable of being defined. What is the statistical probability of there being a mathematical discipline called statistics?

I'm not sure, but your appeal to Wotan seems intended to counter a presumed claim on my part that the a theology of incarnation is somehow unique to Christianity, but I did not make such a claim so that might be something of a strawman here.

[shunyadragon]

The historical record speaks for itself. The incredible flowering and growth of science during the pagan era virtually ground to a halt once Christianity gained power. Science remained relatively stagnant during the so-called Dark Ages until it reemerged, despite clerical resistance, during the aptly named Renaissance...nearly 1,000 years later.

At the time of the early Christian Era up to after ~1200 AD, the only philosopher to get science reasonably right is Lucretius.Outside the Christian world Islam was very advanced in science and the development of universities.