Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Tassman]

No one denies the 'material universe' (as opposed to materialism) and no one is hypothesizing about a non-material, spiritual universe. This is a straw man argument.

But you are doing just that.

The religious man thinks there are good reasons (see above) to believe that there is 'more.' However, even these reasons are not 'evidence/proof.' Yours is a mixing of categories: the demand that belief must provide facts.

I’m merely arguing that there is no good reason for believing empty faith claims; you have yet to provide any sound reasons to do so.

Actually, Christianity first stands on the fact that Jesus was a historical figure in history. Plus, as discussed, progressive Christians, myself included, don't have much or any of what you call the supernatural stuff - yet we still are Christians. Thus you are wrong :+{

The Jesus story stands or falls on the “supernatural stuff” of the NT - notably the bodily resurrection. Otherwise, he is merely a good man.

Regarding love, including agape, since the discussion is with me and not a fundamentalist, you should be able to acknowledge that, as I have said, Christianity has not appropriated agape.

Then we are agreed that agape is but one of the various types of love.

Actually the argument has two parts: there is nothing in the gospels stories of Jesus that shows his words, actions or any kind of support for slavery or discrimination of any kind. Second is the OT and the rest of the NT.......and my argument is that in the NT (and even the OT but I am less familiar), a careful exegesis is required before one spouts off too much that Christianity supports this or makes judgements about that. Again, Jesus, on these issues, is simply not open to 'interpretation.' Actually a similar situation is at play, as we speak, in the USA: how many are saying this or that is constitutional and, in fact, given that written document, it is not. So too the Bible: just because we can (sadly) give chapter and verse of Christians who have and who continue to base their wrong beliefs and action on that written document, doesn't make it so or them right.

Christianity has made no difference to the lives and morality of its followers. It evolved into a pointless (often wicked) belief system used to reinforce what the society of the day believed. Historically society has imposed its values on Christianity, not the other way around.

Still it is the case, as you have now agreed, that many of these thought leaders were beyond their societies and ...........not merely products of those societies. They 'saw' something more and, as I have been saying, both the religious and the secular man can transcend what is and move to what can or ought to be. And, many have pointed to God in this effort. Many also saw 'fairness and equality' to be the Good that transcends and to which man aspires.

ALL thought leaders have arisen from within their societies – where else would they come from? Why some figures dominate - either for good or bad - is a matter for sociologists to assess. But there is no reason to assume Good (or Evil) that transcends the norm in a spiritual sense.

If the materialist position is simply that the universe is material, I agree. However I also recognize that there are different views of that universe: for example, there are those who allow that there is Mind and all that is matter (which indeed remains the purview of science) is the creation or embodiment of mind. However, it is also the case that materialism is more than this and have further views or explanations - which are rejected by materialist in other schools of thought. Again, as discussed, I don't accept or believe in 'supernatural' or non-natural forces or explanations :+}

There is absolutely no evidence for Mind beyond the physical activity of the brain. No brain, no mind.

Again, I am not at all familiar with the Institute but it is valid to point to the fact that scientists differ and interpret the same experiments in very different ways - thus there is not definitive 'agreement' in the community on this subject. It is apparent that the disagreements are not merely alleged and to refer to the disagreements is to argue the science, by referring to one or more scientists in opposition to other scientists.

The Discovery Institute teaches a false “controversy” among scientists regarding Evolution when there is NO such controversy. Just as you are incorrectly arguing that that “scientists differ and interpret the same experiments in very different ways”. Whereas there is universal agreement among ALL scientists that its role is to research physical matter in the natural world and changes that can occur to matter. It does not acknowledge a non-natural immaterial universe.

Why.........because it answers the What and the Why and because I find it eminently reasonable and............believable.

It answers no such thing. All that is “reasonable and believable” in this context is the fact that Homo sapiens are primates no different in kind than other primates.

[thormas]

You remain stuck arguing against old time theism. To believe that God IS, is not to posit another universe that is non-natural or non-physical. I have no idea what that could possibly mean. I simply believe that wherever there is creation, whatever universe or universes there are or might be, God IS Being and as Paul said, all has its being in God. Anything else is your belief, not mine.

You think the faith claims of, in this instance, the Christian are empty, the Christian does not. I have given reasons for a 'basic' belief (ontological and logical necessity) but the main reason is that, as I have said, I accept the Christian 'insight' into what we call God: for me it is eminently reasonable and answers the question of 'What does it mean, Why is there something, everything rather than nothing and What are we to do;' this answer resonates in my experience of life. That you can't possibly understand this is fine and I accept as I have from the beginning and beyond this, my interest is to delve into Christianity's insights to better understand God and the human.

That Jesus was a historical figure (as the mythicists argue he was not) is the necessary first step, only then does your 'supernatural' stuff come into play. Yet on the resurrection you think too literally as do many Christians themselves: we do not profess a body resuscitated, we profess Jesus Risen. There is a difference, as I have discussed previously.

Of course agape is one of the 'types or categories of love' however agape is different in kind that philia as previously discussed.

Your assumption - that Christianity has made no difference in the lives and morality of its followers - is absurd on its face. You rely on an intellectual lazy thought process with takes particular examples and generalizes to all Christians for all times. Never an acceptable argument.

No brain, no mind is your mantra..........and not accepted by all in the scientific community or all people. I have already spoken about the Institute and our topic is not evolution.

That Christianity doesn't answer anything for you is obvious, that it does for many others, including me is also obvious. Again, your answer, answers nothing for me, for the religious man: it lacks conviction in that it is not shared with others (loved ones) and results in the utter meaninglessness of the individual man and the entirety of humanity (in spite of your protestations)......... and absurdity.

I'll stick with Christianity and the present and ultimate meaningfulness of man, creation and all :+}

[Tassman]

You remain stuck arguing against old time theism. To believe that God IS, is not to posit another universe that is non-natural or non-physical. I have no idea what that could possibly mean.

It is you who claims that there is MORE than the physical, material universe. So, what is it if not “non-natural” or “supernatural”?

I simply believe that wherever there is creation, whatever universe or universes there are or might be, God IS Being and as Paul said, all has its being in God. Anything else is your belief, not mine.

Your assertion that there is a “creation” implies a creator. You don’t know this. The universe is regarded by many physicists as having always existed (e.g., multiverse theory) – no creator-gods necessary.

And what does “God IS being” mean exactly?

You think the faith claims of, in this instance, the Christian are empty, the Christian does not. I have given reasons for a 'basic' belief (ontological and logical necessity) but the main reason is that, as I have said, I accept the Christian 'insight' into what we call God: for me it is eminently reasonable and answers the question of 'What does it mean, Why is there something, everything rather than nothing and What are we to do;' this answer resonates in my experience of life. That you can't possibly understand this is fine and I accept as I have from the beginning and beyond this, my interest is to delve into Christianity's insights to better understand God and the human.

Your arguments are based in metaphysics and such arguments have no way of being shown to be true. Their conclusions are purely speculative.

That Jesus was a historical figure (as the mythicists argue he was not) is the necessary first step, only then does your 'supernatural' stuff come into play.

Most scholars accept the existence of the man Jesus as a peripatetic preacher who was baptized and crucified and buried. But the Jesus of the NT, complete with wonders and miracles, is considered by most as a fictional creation of later generations based upon embellished hearsay.

Yet on the resurrection you think too literally as do many Christians themselves: we do not profess a body resuscitated, we profess Jesus Risen. There is a difference, as I have discussed previously.

“And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain”. 1 Cor 15. This notion has been foundational to Christianity from the beginning and yet you seem to be reducing it to the level of metaphor.

Of course agape is one of the 'types or categories of love' however agape is different in kind that philia as previously discussed.

I’ve never argued otherwise.

Your assumption - that Christianity has made no difference in the lives and morality of its followers - is absurd on its face. You rely on an intellectual lazy thought process with takes particular examples and generalizes to all Christians for all times. Never an acceptable argument.

My argument is that the social values of the day dominate and Christianity has consistently been made to conform to those values. Slavery is an example in that it was supported by Christians (with claimed scriptural support). The point is that socially acceptable behavior has varied greatly over time from culture to culture and religion has invariably conformed to it.

No brain, no mind is your mantra..........and not accepted by all in the scientific community or all people.

The "scientific community" operates at the level of empirically verifiable fact – this is the fundamental methodology of science. And, at this level, there is absolutely no evidence for Mind beyond the physical activity of the brain – regardless of metaphysical arguments to the contrary.

I have already spoken about the Institute and our topic is not evolution.

But the style of argumentation is the point, not the topic. And that is “teach the controversy” not the facts. As per your: “scientists differ and interpret the same experiments in very different ways”.

That Christianity doesn't answer anything for you is obvious, that it does for many others, including me is also obvious.

The Christianity that you claim “answers your questions” is a Christianity of your own making and far removed from that which has traditionally existed for the past 2,000 years.

Again, your answer, answers nothing for me, for the religious man: it lacks conviction in that it is not shared with others (loved ones) and results in the utter meaninglessness of the individual man and the entirety of humanity (in spite of your protestations)......... and absurdity.

There is nothing I don’t share about the nature of the universe and our place in it that I don’t share with my loved ones. I really don’t know from where you get this oft-repeated accusation of yours.

I'll stick with Christianity and the present and ultimate meaningfulness of man, creation and all :+}

And just what is this “ultimate meaningfulness of man” that you are “sticking with” again? I'll take reality over ‘make-believe’ any day.

[thormas]

What is it? It is God........not a non-natural universe, a supernatural universe or a universe of any kind. It is Being by which all is. And actually I don't necessarily posit a creator as I allow that the universe (or universes) might be eternal, I simply believe that for anything to be, there is Being. And, I see no problem with metaphysics and as said, numerous times, faith, by definition, does not have to provide proof.

Regrading Jesus, it is much more nuanced that you allow or understand. To mention just one point, a scholar may not believe in miracles as the in-breaking of the supernatural into the natural world and still allow that Jesus was considered a worker of wonders by his followers. On the other hand, as also discussed, I have no issue with the reality that the gospel writers are doing theology not history and the entire point of the gospels it to show a man in whom we 'see God.' To believe and accept or not is an individual choice. I simply don't care about your supernatural stuff and that is not why I see God in man, in Jesus of Nazareth. Again, with Paul, you miss it: the belief is that Jesus is Risen.

Just to get this straight, are you now arguing that Rome was the agape culture and Christianity simply imitated it? And that all Christians accepted and supported slavery? If so, sources my friend, give me historical sources that confirm your position about all Christians. Beyond this I have spoken about slavery, Jesus and Christianity above.

There is no consensus on materialism, i.e the mind created by the brain. It is not agreed in the community. However, mind is an interesting metaphysical speculation :+} You cannot deny the reality by repeatedly repeating 'teach the controversy' - when the simple fact is that there is continued disagreement, there is ................controversy :+{ And you are the proof: when I brought up an experiment that is seen differently by materialists and non-materialist, you immediately jumped on the materialist bandwagon - thus this is an area of controversy, that's what controversy is.

Actually and historically, Christianity predated me :+} But you really need to read more carefully some of the early Church's leading thinkers to see how in tune with then that I am. However, even with this, Christianity is a living religion and it not only makes sense but it is imperative that each new generation strive to understand it 'where they are' only then is it truly theirs. Actually this was the idea in a book called the Present Revelation by Gabriel Moran.

You have said that you don't discuss that the love you have for them is simply because of genetics and the evolutionary process (see above). And, as I have said, I certainly understand why you don't do this. You might discuss the material universe but you stop short - as you have indicated - at love. Don't start the denials this late in the discussion. This is one of the fatal flaws of atheism.

Not your perceptions (beliefs) of reality and also not make believe.............rather the discernment of what IS.

[Tassman]

What is it? It is God........not a non-natural universe, a supernatural universe or a universe of any kind. It is Being by which all is. And actually I don't necessarily posit a creator as I allow that the universe (or universes) might be eternal, I simply believe that for anything to be, there is Being.

So, God is Being itself, which you define as “everything that IS”. This is the same as saying that the universe is “everything that IS”. There is no reason to call it God, especially as you don’t allow for supernatural intervention.

And, I see no problem with metaphysics and as said, numerous times, faith, by definition, does not have to provide proof.

Nevertheless, one expects that “faith” be supported by sound reasoning. And metaphysics has no means to arrive at a true premise. - consequently, it cannot arrive at a true conclusion - it can merely speculate.

Regrading Jesus, it is much more nuanced that you allow or understand. To mention just one point, a scholar may not believe in miracles as the in-breaking of the supernatural into the natural world and still allow that Jesus was considered a worker of wonders by his followers.

There is no difference between Jesus as a “worker of wonders” as opposed to a “worker of miracles”. It is quite evident that the gospel-writers believed Jesus to be a miracle-worker - as was Apollonius of Tyana, and many others in Jesus day.

On the other hand, as also discussed, I have no issue with the reality that the gospel writers are doing theology not history and the entire point of the gospels it to show a man in whom we 'see God.'

The gospel writers are clearly setting out to sell Jesus on the basis of what Jesus supposedly did in historical time – including miracles and bodily rising from the dead.

To believe and accept or not is an individual choice. I simply don't care about your supernatural stuff and that is not why I see God in man, in Jesus of Nazareth.

So, WHY do you assume “God in man, in Jesus of Nazareth” and what does this resonating phrase mean exactly?

Again, with Paul, you miss it: the belief is that Jesus is Risen.

And yet you rule out that Jesus is bodily “risen’ and metaphorically “risen” so please explain what you mean by “risen”.

Just to get this straight, are you now arguing that Rome was the agape culture and Christianity simply imitated it?

No. I’m not doing that, just making the point that ‘agape’, like ‘eros’ and ‘philia’, are simply words for ‘love’ - ancient pre-Christian Greek words for 'love' actually..

And that all Christians accepted and supported slavery? If so, sources my friend, give me historical sources that confirm your position about all Christians. Beyond this I have spoken about slavery, Jesus and Christianity above.

Slavery was accepted by Christians for centuries as was the subjugation of women and many other practices that we as a society no longer find acceptable. My point is that Christianity has consistently conformed to the social values of the day - slavery is but an example.

There is no consensus on materialism, i.e the mind created by the brain. It is not agreed in the community. However, mind is an interesting metaphysical speculation :+} You cannot deny the reality by repeatedly repeating 'teach the controversy' - when the simple fact is that there is continued disagreement, there is ................controversy :+{ And you are the proof: when I brought up an experiment that is seen differently by materialists and non-materialist, you immediately jumped on the materialist bandwagon - thus this is an area of controversy, that's what controversy is.

However, there IS a consensus on scientific methodology, which is the point. It is grounded in Methodological Naturalism whereby scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic. This means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically. Inasmuch as some (a minority) of scientist’s view ‘the Mind’ as non-material, they are doing so via the lens of metaphysics NOT science.

Actually and historically, Christianity predated me :+}

You have re-written Christianity in your own image – as has always been the case with ALL religions in ALL eras.

But you really need to read more carefully some of the early Church's leading thinkers to see how in tune with then that I am. However, even with this, Christianity is a living religion and it not only makes sense but it is imperative that each new generation strive to understand it 'where they are' only then is it truly theirs. Actually this was the idea in a book called the Present Revelation by Gabriel Moran.

Certainly, many of the Church Fathers emphasize Jesus as the ‘Great Exemplar’, which seems to be your understanding. But, unlike you, the miracles and bodily resurrection etc. were never questioned by them. It was something gods did in that era.

You have said that you don't discuss that the love you have for them is simply because of genetics and the evolutionary process (see above). And, as I have said, I certainly understand why you don't do this. You might discuss the material universe but you stop short - as you have indicated - at love. Don't start the denials this late in the discussion. This is one of the fatal flaws of atheism.

I fail to see the point you keep trying to make. Atheism doesn’t accept the existence of gods, that’s all. It’s not a belief-system per se.

Not your perceptions (beliefs) of reality and also not make believe.............rather the discernment of what IS.

Why introduce a deity into “What Is”? “What IS”, is the natural universe and its “discernment” is the function of scientific methodology.

[thormas]

You're not reading carefully. I did not say that Being, i.e. God, is everything that is and I also don't accept that definition since it is pantheistic and I have said previously that I do not accept pantheism. What I did say is that Being/God is that by which all is, that in which anything/everything comes to be. I do agree that the universe (or universes?) is anything/everything that is......... but Being is not a thing :+}

Faith is supported by sound reasoning: just read Aquinas, Origin, Ireaneus, Macquarrie, Hick, Baum, Hart and on and on and on. Theirs is just reasoning that you do not accept.

A worker of wonders is a worker of miracles and it seems the Jesus was considered such by the early Church. So we are agreed and my point stands: "a scholar may not believe in miracles as the in-breaking of the supernatural into the natural world and still allow (accept) that Jesus was considered a worker of wonders/miracles by his followers." These are two different povs on miracles.

You say sell, I say present the good news about God by Jesus and of course it is based on the historical Jesus, his words and actions as they were understood/presented by 1st C CE writers.

That is the Christian insight: God, is presented, seen in the man, Jesus.

To say that Jesus is Risen is to assert (is to believe) that this man, given his life, was not held or bound by death and entered into the Fullness of Life, i.e. God: He is 'risen and exalted' .....the earliest community's proclamation. This is the destiny of the Human. If it is not, if Jesus did not, then as Paul said, all is in vain - meaning that such a life of Love is not what Life is about and is not what God intends for the Human. Yet, because Jesus is Risen, we believe it is. I leave the exact details of how this is possible, how this takes place to God as I will my own death - simply, it is not something I lose sleep over.

It certainly seems you are locked into asserting that Rome was an agape culture that influenced Christianity. Good luck with that one :+{

I have already acknowledge that some Christians justified slavery via the Bible, you however seem to be saying it was all Christians. You are wrong on the facts and if you assert that you are right, give me the sources.

I have no issue with scientific methodology and I acknowledge it does not, cannot be applied to religious belief or philosophical positions and that, even given that methodology, there is no consensus on materialism. And yu have said it: "Methodological Naturalism whereby scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic." So the limit of science is baked in by its assumption: thus your position on Mind. Thank you for the clarification: science is limited by its methodological assumptions.

Actually I have not re-written Christianity. The essentials are one thing, however the story can and must be re-told in one's present language to be able to 'talk' to people of a particular age. This has been the work of theology since the beginning. That you fail to understand this is your issue, not mine. And it is literalism.

Which Fathers are you referring to? And just to drive the point home, I do think Jesus is the Great Example or the Way but that is because I believe his humanity is such that it incarnates Divinity thus empowering him to be fully Human. Thus we are back to incarnation :+}

Atheism might start with non-belief in gods but it certainly does not end there. One of my point is that the atheist, as you have said and demonstrated, does not share (with their loved one) that their love is but a product of genetics and evolution (they do not share their 'truth'). And my other major point is that atheism, of necessity, points to the utter meaninglessness of the individual man and all mankind - thus such existence is and must be Absurd (and they are incapable of accepting this consequence of their position). Atheism lives and ends in its fatal flaws.

I have not introduced the deity, I discern what IS...........Divinity.

[Tassman]

You're not reading carefully. I did not say that Being, i.e. God, is everything that is and I also don't accept that definition since it is pantheistic and I have said previously that I do not accept pantheism. What I did say is that Being/God is that by which all is, that in which anything/everything comes to be. I do agree that the universe (or universes?) is anything/everything that is......... but Being is not a thing :+}

How could “Being/God is” EVERYTHING that there is’, NOT be synonymous with the entire universe? What is this extra dimension you’ve tacked on – is it some sort of divine mind’? Why would you assume this and how is this not “supernatural, i.e., the very thing you keep rejecting?

Faith is supported by sound reasoning: just read Aquinas, Origin, Ireaneus, Macquarrie, Hick, Baum, Hart and on and on and on. Theirs is just reasoning that you do not accept.

There can be NO ‘sound argument’ without a true premise. And metaphysics has no mechanism to obtain a true premise. Hence it cannot arrive at a true conclusion – merely a speculative conclusion.

A worker of wonders is a worker of miracles and it seems the Jesus was considered such by the early Church. So we are agreed and my point stands: "a scholar may not believe in miracles as the in-breaking of the supernatural into the natural world and still allow (accept) that Jesus was considered a worker of wonders/miracles by his followers." These are two different povs on miracles.

A “miracle” by definition is an occurrence not explicable by natural or scientific laws – thus a miracle is supernatural.

You say sell, I say present the good news about God by Jesus and of course it is based on the historical Jesus, his words and actions as they were understood/presented by 1st C CE writers.

The “good news” of the historical Jesus as found in the gospels, traditionally encompasses his miracles and bodily resurrection as a foretaste of the salvation and eternal life of the faithful.

That is the Christian insight: God, is presented, seen in the man, Jesus.

This is not insight, it is a subjective, culturally conditioned leap of faith – an unwarranted assumption.

To say that Jesus is Risen is to assert (is to believe) that this man, given his life, was not held or bound by death and entered into the Fullness of Life, i.e. God: He is 'risen and exalted' .....the earliest community's proclamation. This is the destiny of the Human. If it is not, if Jesus did not, then as Paul said, all is in vain - meaning that such a life of Love is not what Life is about and is not what God intends for the Human. Yet, because Jesus is Risen, we believe it is. I leave the exact details of how this is possible, how this takes place to God as I will my own death - simply, it is not something I lose sleep over.

So, what exactly do you mean “that Jesus was not held or bound by death and entered into the Fullness of Life, i.e., God”? Did he physically die and get buried following the crucifixion – if not what?

It certainly seems you are locked into asserting that Rome was an agape culture that influenced Christianity. Good luck with that one :+{

I’ve never mentioned “Rome”. And NO culture anywhere is an “agape culture” – whatever that’s supposed to mean. “Agape” is simply one of the ancient pre-Christian Greek words for 'love”, which has been in use since antiquity.

I have already acknowledge that some Christians justified slavery via the Bible, you however seem to be saying it was all Christians. You are wrong on the facts and if you assert that you are right, give me the sources.

I’m saying that entire Christian societies that accepted slavery as the norm – for centuries – not just some random individuals. Christian societies have consistently and demonstrably conformed to the social values of the day throughout history. And still do as seen in the more tolerant attitude towards divorce and the LGBT community.

I have no issue with scientific methodology and I acknowledge it does not, cannot be applied to religious belief or philosophical positions and that, even given that methodology, there is no consensus on materialism. And yu have said it: "Methodological Naturalism whereby scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic." So the limit of science is baked in by its assumption: thus your position on Mind. Thank you for the clarification: science is limited by its methodological assumptions.

As opposed to the limits of metaphysics which are “baked in” by the inability to attain a true premise with which to conduct a ‘sound argument. Only scientific methodology can arrive at verifiable factual conclusions whereas a metaphysical argument can only arrive at unverifiable, speculative conclusions.

Actually I have not re-written Christianity. The essentials are one thing, however the story can and must be re-told in one's present language to be able to 'talk' to people of a particular age. This has been the work of theology since the beginning. That you fail to understand this is your issue, not mine. And it is literalism.

It is the essentials of Christianity that you have rewritten, notably the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Which Fathers are you referring to? And just to drive the point home, I do think Jesus is the Great Example or the Way but that is because I believe his humanity is such that it incarnates Divinity thus empowering him to be fully Human. Thus we are back to incarnation :+}

So, just WHAT is this “divinity” of which you speak?

Atheism might start with non-belief in gods but it certainly does not end there. One of my point is that the atheist, as you have said and demonstrated, does not share (with their loved one) that their love is but a product of genetics and evolution (they do not share their 'truth'). And my other major point is that atheism, of necessity, points to the utter meaninglessness of the individual man and all mankind - thus such existence is and must be Absurd (and they are incapable of accepting this consequence of their position). Atheism lives and ends in its fatal flaws.

You are invalidly conflating the non-acceptance of gods (atheism) with the scientific theory of Evolution and Natural Selection – they are not the same.
As for our evolved predisposition to form communities and protect our loved ones, this is something we have in common with most other primates. It does not lessen the reality of the ‘love’, nor the altruistic behavior, nor the natural instinct to protect those we love.

I have not introduced the deity, I discern what IS...........Divinity.

What makes you think that there is a “Divinity” to be discerned?

[thormas]

Again, you misread. As said previously, God is not considered some-thing that exists like everything else does, rather God is the very possibility that anything exists at all. Again, you are speaking of pantheism and this is but one 'ism' - and one that I don't buy into - thus God and the universe are not synonymous. God is also not a dimension. As discussed, if it is easier for you to use the word supernatural, then I say that God is 'other' and 'beyond' all that has being, yet paradoxically, also that which is immanent in all that is. That should clear it up :+}

That is from your perspective, not the religious perspective. Again, you continue to insist that faith submit to scientific methodology. Not happening because you continue to misunderstand your category mistake: religion and science are not the same category. Also, I did say sound reasoning if found in the theologians I listed.

We agree on the definition of miracles and my point is not altered by you simply defining miracle. Miracle is the in-breaking of the supernatural into the natural.

I have no problem with you saying that stories depicting Jesus as a miracle or wonder worker and his resurrection are part and parcel of the gospels as understood by those 1st C writers.

Actually, as said, the gospels present the discernment (recognition) of the disciples and followers of Jesus, abut Jesus, based on their experience of him and their insights based on that experience. Thus it is warranted.

Isn't it obvious what the words "not held by death" means? It was not the end, that was not all she wrote, he has passed beyond death and into the fullness of Life (i.e. God). Of course he died and as even you acknowledge, that is historical fact. As to whether he was buried or thrown n a pit with others who were crucified for the birds and beasts - we simply don't know. That he is Risen is the testimony of the Disciples (the 'resurrection is not something anyone experienced).

You said Christianity has simply inherited and been influenced by whatever culture or society it was in. Logically then, since early Christianity created what can best be described as an agape culture, then Rome, that society in which it existed, must have been such a culture that Christianity was influenced by to become an agape culture. Simple :+} Yet not the case.

My point being that not all Christians (and not just a few random ones) accepted or justified slavery and if was all Christian societies, give me the sources as opposed to simply your opinion.

And.......we are back to the beginning: two different approaches, with two 'baked in' assumptions and methods. That's what I have been saying and it is you who is trying to place science on top, whereas I accept both.

Again, no rewriting of the essentials, simply explaining to you what Christianity does accept (Risen) and does not accept (bodily resuscitation).

And what Fathers of the Church were you referring to?

I'm actually not conflating anything just pointing out the major flaws in the atheist position/belief. I accept evolution and natural selection also, but I am not an atheist.

Belief my friend, I believe that God IS the 'transcendent presence' within creation that can be .........glimpsed, discerned, met.

[Tassman]

Again, you misread. As said previously, God is not considered some-thing that exists like everything else does, rather God is the very possibility that anything exists at all.

And you know this how, exactly?

Again, you are speaking of pantheism and this is but one 'ism' - and one that I don't buy into - thus God and the universe are not synonymous. God is also not a dimension. As discussed, if it is easier for you to use the word supernatural, then I say that God is 'other' and 'beyond' all that has being, yet paradoxically, also that which is immanent in all that is. That should clear it up :+}

How could God be EVERYTHING that there is – both immanent and transcendent - and NOT be synonymous with the entire universe? Does this “immanent and transcendent other” have a ‘mind’?

That is from your perspective, not the religious perspective. Again, you continue to insist that faith submit to scientific methodology. Not happening because you continue to misunderstand your category mistake: religion and science are not the same category. Also, I did say sound reasoning if found in the theologians I listed.

It is from the perspective of philosophy. Again, there can be NO ‘sound argument’ without a true premise.

We agree on the definition of miracles and my point is not altered by you simply defining miracle. Miracle is the in-breaking of the supernatural into the natural. I have no problem with you saying that stories depicting Jesus as a miracle or wonder worker and his resurrection are part and parcel of the gospels as understood by those 1st C writers.

Jesus as a miracle-worker still is an essential part of the gospels as understood by most Christians.

Actually, as said, the gospels present the discernment (recognition) of the disciples and followers of Jesus, abut Jesus, based on their experience of him and their insights based on that experience. Thus it is warranted.

No, it didn’t. It took three centuries of fierce partisan debate at divisive Church Councils to arrive at the conclusion that “God, is presented, as seen in the man Jesus”.

Isn't it obvious what the words "not held by death" means? It was not the end, that was not all she wrote, he has passed beyond death and into the fullness of Life (i.e. God). Of course he died and as even you acknowledge, that is historical fact. As to whether he was buried or thrown n a pit with others who were crucified for the birds and beasts - we simply don't know. That he is Risen is the testimony of the Disciples (the 'resurrection is not something anyone experienced).

“He is risen” was a literal belief of bodily resurrection as the New Testament makes clear. It still is among most Christians.

You said Christianity has simply inherited and been influenced by whatever culture or society it was in. Logically then, since early Christianity created what can best be described as an agape culture, then Rome, that society in which it existed, must have been such a culture that Christianity was influenced by to become an agape culture. Simple :+} Yet not the case.

No, I did not say this at all. My argument is that behavioral norms are simply how humans behaved under certain circumstances at a certain time in history. Morals and ethics have demonstrably evolved and varied to a degree from culture to culture over time and continue to do so..

My point being that not all Christians (and not just a few random ones) accepted or justified slavery and if was all Christian societies, give me the sources as opposed to simply your opinion.

I’m saying that entire Christian societies that accepted slavery as the norm – for centuries – e.g., the Southern States of America. And British colonies in the Caribbean and South Africa etc. Again, Christian societies have consistently and demonstrably conformed to the social values of the day throughout history. And still do.

And.......we are back to the beginning: two different approaches, with two 'baked in' assumptions and methods. That's what I have been saying and it is you who is trying to place science on top, whereas I accept both.

Except that scientific methodology is able to arrive at verifiable factual conclusions and metaphysics is not.

Again, no rewriting of the essentials, simply explaining to you what Christianity does accept (Risen) and does not accept (bodily resuscitation).

Christianity for most of its history considered the bodily resurrection of Jesus to be a literal resurrection, e.g., the “empty tomb” narrative or Thomas not believing until he could see and feel the resurrected Jesus’ fleshly wounds.

I'm actually not conflating anything just pointing out the major flaws in the atheist position/belief. I accept evolution and natural selection also, but I am not an atheist.

Atheism (i.e., non-acceptance of deities) and scientific theories (such as Evolution) are not connected. And yet you posited my argument based upon Natural Selection as a “fatal flaw” of atheism.

Belief my friend, I believe that God IS the 'transcendent presence' within creation that can be .........glimpsed, discerned, met.

What is the point in believing in an unsubstantiated, hypothetical “transcendent presence”? And what are you “glimpsing” exactly?

[thormas]

Once again you confuse categories: the Christian believes, she doesn't know.

I am not saying 'god is everything' - I'm saying just the opposite: God is the very possibility 'for everything' - both transcending (i.e. not the same) and immanent in everything. Does God have a mind? No idea since I don't think God is just a big/supreme person.

Are there religious premises (in other words, ideas taken to be true and on which an argument or reasoning may be based) about God? Of course and theology, again see the list of theologians above, present their arguments and reasoning :+}

Jesus as wonder worker is an essential part for many but not all Christians and, of course it both depends on what was considered miraculous by 1st C people and then 21st C people.

Actually you are wrong about the 3 centuries. It is evident, as pointed out by scholars such as Larry Hurtado and Archibald Hunter, that the earliest Christian communities (30s CE) had a dyadic worship of Jesus and God (the Father) and that in the writings of Paul (40s and 50s CE), Jesus is conceived as pre-existent. They affirmed Jesus as Messiah and Lord, Risen and Exalted in the first half of the 1st C CE.

First, 'He is Risen' has to do with the appearances or 'seeing' Jesus, not the resurrection which was not experienced by anyone (except Jesus) and is, since it is after death, by definition, ahistorical. And we (Christians and others) recognize that many Christians were (and are) literalists, taking the Bible and the NT gospels as history (not only many across the centuries but even in my childhood and today). Yet, today we are now better able to appreciate that they are not literal histories. So there is one discussion about literalist Christian belief and another about those Christians who understand the biblical and historical scholars of those books and early Christianity. And, as I have made clear, I am of this latter group. Plus, if you read the gospels carefully, it is not the literal body of Jesus prior to his death, it is a 'risen body': he is not recognized unless he wants to be, even by his closest followers; he appears and disappears; doesn't need to use doors; he doesn't need to eat but is depicted eating to 'prove' it is he; and, of course there is the big question of where is he hanging out when he is not 'seen' by his followers? Most Christians and especially non-Christians don't consider such issues, questions, mysteries but they are evident in the gospels and the scholarly eye is trained on them. And anticipating your arguments, this is not reading into the gospels, this is using scholarly and historical research and experts to look critically into those writings and see what is and is not actually written and what it means given what we know of the times and the earliest communities. Plus we should note that even the early Church Fathers were not the literalists that some are today:+}

Actually, you did say that and I am waiting on proof of a Roman agape culture that influenced Christianity.

"Except that scientific methodology is able to arrive at verifiable factual conclusions and metaphysics is not." ..........like I have been saying, two different approaches for two very different subjects.

The religious man accepts evolution and natural selection, appreciates the sciences and marvels at their 'discoveries' yet he does not accept the materialism of the atheist. The first fatal flaws of atheism arises when, using science, they define love as a product of genetics and evolution, yet state that they do not share this fact with those they love most. The second fatal flaw comes with their insistence that such love makes their life meaningful in what they acknowledge is a purely material universe and, in which, they are simply another material thing. Man, humanity, love is as unnoticed as a pebble in the universe's grand sweep of space and time(lessness). Man matters not, he means nothing in such a universe that is deaf to his small, protestations that his love gives his life meaning.


"What is the point in believing in an unsubstantiated, hypothetical “transcendent presence”? And what are you “glimpsing” exactly?"
What is glimpsed is that which the artist, the poet, the religious man and all such men and women glimpse: that which is 'More,' the Transcendent, the Divine, that which beckons man to Life. And that you ask what the point is, is the point of these discussions: the atheist is bereft of it all or they simply are blind to what IS.

[Tassman]

Once again you confuse categories: the Christian believes, she doesn't know.

OK, I’ll rephrase. WHY would you BELIEVE that “God is the very possibility that anything exists at all”? There is no good reason to make this assumption in the first place?

I am not saying 'god is everything' - I'm saying just the opposite: God is the very possibility 'for everything' - both transcending (i.e. not the same) and immanent in everything. Does God have a mind? No idea since I don't think God is just a big/supreme person.

If God doesn’t have a “mind” and yet is the “the very possibility ‘for everything’” why not just say that the universe alone is the “the very possibility ‘for everything’”. At least we know there’s a physical universe, we can’t say the same for gods.

Are there religious premises (in other words, ideas taken to be true and on which an argument or reasoning may be based) about God? Of course and theology, again see the list of theologians above, present their arguments and reasoning :+}

Ideas may “be taken to be true” (or axiomatic) but a metaphysical premise (cannot be established as factually true. Only scientific methodology can do that. All metaphysicians can do is debate their “reasoned” conclusions – they have no means to establish them to be factually true. And when they disagree - as they often do - they have no recourse other than to argue about their conclusions.

Jesus as wonder worker is an essential part for many but not all Christians and, of course it both depends on what was considered miraculous by 1st C people and then 21st C people.

In other words, traditional Christianity with its miracles, virgin birth, bodily resurrections are viewed as nonsense in the scientific era and has to be reinvented. Or, more sensibility, abandoned as superseded concepts belonging to a prescientific era..

Actually you are wrong about the 3 centuries. It is evident, as pointed out by scholars such as Larry Hurtado and Archibald Hunter, that the earliest Christian communities (30s CE) had a dyadic worship of Jesus and God (the Father) and that in the writings of Paul (40s and 50s CE), Jesus is conceived as pre-existent. They affirmed Jesus as Messiah and Lord, Risen and Exalted in the first half of the 1st C CE.

In that superstitious era many notable people, not just Jesus, were viewed as gods - various emperors, magicians like Apollonius of Tyana and numerous others.

I suggest you study the history of the Christological heresies. The views about who and what Jesus was – such as the dyadic and triadic concepts of Jesus the god/man - took three centuries to establish – largely because they are logically incoherent.

First, 'He is Risen' has to do with the appearances or 'seeing' Jesus, not the resurrection which was not experienced by anyone (except Jesus) and is, since it is after death, by definition, ahistorical.

Paul only ever refers to Jesus “appearing” as per his Damascene vision. But the gospels are totally explicit in reference to Jesus’ bodily resurrection as an occurrence in history.

And we (Christians and others) recognize that many Christians were (and are) literalists, taking the Bible and the NT gospels as history (not only many across the centuries but even in my childhood and today). Yet, today we are now better able to appreciate that they are not literal histories. So there is one discussion about literalist Christian belief and another about those Christians who understand the biblical and historical scholars of those books and early Christianity. And, as I have made clear, I am of this latter group. Plus, if you read the gospels carefully, it is not the literal body of Jesus prior to his death, it is a 'risen body': he is not recognized unless he wants to be, even by his closest followers; he appears and disappears; doesn't need to use doors; he doesn't need to eat but is depicted eating to 'prove' it is he; and, of course there is the big question of where is he hanging out when he is not 'seen' by his followers? Most Christians and especially non-Christians don't consider such issues, questions, mysteries but they are evident in the gospels and the scholarly eye is trained on them. And anticipating your arguments, this is not reading into the gospels, this is using scholarly and historical research and experts to look critically into those writings and see what is and is not actually written and what it means given what we know of the times and the earliest communities. Plus we should note that even the early Church Fathers were not the literalists that some are today:+}

The early Church did take the Bible literally.

https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Don-t-believe-the-media-reports.-The-early-Church-did-take-the-Bible-literally

As do most modern Christians.

Actually, you did say that and I am waiting on proof of a Roman agape culture that influenced Christianity.

You must have misunderstood - quote me.
There is no such thing as an “agape culture”, whatever that is supposed to mean. The four ancient Greek words for the different types of ‘love’, including “agape”, have been in common use since the Classical Greek era and predate the Roman empire.

"Except that scientific methodology is able to arrive at verifiable factual conclusions and metaphysics is not." ..........like I have been saying, two different approaches for two very different subjects.

NOT “two very different subjects”. Scientific methodology is able to arrive at verifiable factual conclusions and metaphysics is not.

The religious man accepts evolution and natural selection, appreciates the sciences and marvels at their 'discoveries' yet he does not accept the materialism of the atheist. The first fatal flaws of atheism arises when, using science, they define love as a product of genetics and evolution, yet state that they do not share this fact with those they love most.

YET AGAIN: Atheism is merely the non-acceptance of the existence of gods. That’s all. It is NOT a statement about materialism or any other scientific concept.

The second fatal flaw comes with their insistence that such love makes their life meaningful

Love is NOT defined “as a product of genetics and evolution”. The genetic predisposition towards bonding and attachment, which results in Love is an undeniable fact of Natural Selection. But love and altruism exist in their own right as a consequence of our Evolutionary development and can be seen among ALL of the higher primates - not just Homo sapiens.

in what they acknowledge is a purely material universe and, in which, they are simply another material thing. Man, humanity, love is as unnoticed as a pebble in the universe's grand sweep of space and time(lessness). Man matters not, he means nothing in such a universe that is deaf to his small, protestations that his love gives his life meaning.

Yes, our loved ones and communal loyalties give life meaning and fulfillment. This is quite sufficient for most of humanity without having to resort to fictional scenarios about the “meaning of life”.

"What is the point in believing in an unsubstantiated, hypothetical “transcendent presence”? And what are you “glimpsing” exactly?"
What is glimpsed is that which the artist, the poet, the religious man and all such men and women glimpse: that which is 'More,' the Transcendent, the Divine, that which beckons man to Life. And that you ask what the point is, is the point of these discussions: the atheist is bereft of it all or they simply are blind to what IS.

Throwing around words like “the Transcendent” and “the Divine” etc. is empty hyperbole. There is no “life” being “beckoned” that is not available to the rest of us. Your argument is based upon an unsubstantiated subjective notion of “What IS”.

[thormas]

I have answer your rephrased question a number of times.

I didn't say that God doesn't have a mind, I said I don't know. As for the universe, even you are saying it is only material. To say the universe is god is pantheism with which I disagree, rather I believe that God is 'more' than or transcends the universe, God is more than the sum of all things.

As said, there are religious premises and once again religious belief does not submit to scientific methodology_ again the category mistake.

I didn't say nor do I believe that traditional Christian belief is nonsense. After all that was the faith of my parents and everybody I knew and mine (for as much as I understood as a child). Plus it is obvious that many who so believed were among the best of people (and they attributed that goodness to God).

There is no 'in other words' it is what I said, a difference in understanding the stories but there is a shared acceptance or belief in the truth of the good news that is announced. As an example from the OT, I accept the biblical insight or belief of Genesis. As a child I took it literally, we even had pictures (proof positive :+) in kindergarten. I now understand that it is not a literal history of the beginning, but a story, a myth told to present and preserve our belief about God, man, woman and creation; it is the same truth that I understood as a child, that I understand today. And most Christians, even those who don't give it much thought, don't take it literally: unlike the actual literalist, they don't believe the world/universe is only 4-6000 years old but accept the incredible movement of time for what we accept as the Big Bang. So it is nonsense? Of course not. Genesis is an easy one but others stories seem to be much more sacred or closer to home, to basic belief and many cannot or do not want to look at them in a new way, for example the virginal conception. Yet the truth or the belief is evident: the same God who created all, who was with Adam & Eve in the beginning, is 'present' in the life of this child and through him, present in a new way to the people. Watch him, see what he does, hear what he says: see God in this man. What is interesting to note is that, as scholars say, we do not and cannot know if Matthew and Luke took their own stories literally or wrote them as religious myths especially when we acknowledge that both borrow heavily from Mark who has no such story. Actually in Mark, it is the baptism, an ordinary baptism that hundred have also undergone and Mark directs us to look at this man, see him, hear him for God is in/with him; he is God's son.

I see you were unable to respond to what I actually said about earliest Christianity. And, there is no issue with the beliefs of other cultures doing this age. What I am saying is simply the you are wrong about the 3rd C and there is historical evidence that the earliest Christians did not have to wait for 3 centuries: they were already, in the first 1-2 years after the death of Jesus, worshipping him with he Father and also speaking of his pre-existence. This is what later theologians already knew and more formally developed by use of their philosophical system of thought. And I have studied the heresies (but thanks for the advise) and they come after this easiest understanding of Jesus. Sure there developed different understandings of Jesus and God and some are highly entertaining but all fell into disrepute (as to why, I refer you to the various heresies and the opposition). So we have a twofer here: one can find mention of Father, Son and Spirit in the NT and also reference to God, the word of God and the spirit of God in the OT, and it is obvious there is further developing understanding that culminated in the formulation of a later century. However, as shown by the scholars I mentioned the beginnings of that formulation began immediately in the beginnings of Christianity. Furthermore, to say that these doctrines took centuries to develop specifically because they were logical inconsistent is merely your opinion.

Exactly correct on Paul and the appearances. Again, I was talking about the earliest Christian community whose preaching about Jesus was known to Saul (early 30s CE) when he first persecuted the Christians and later included in his letters as Paul (40s, 50s CE): and it is Jesus is Risen. And I agree that the later (40-70 years) gospels speak of the bodily resurrection but you again fail to acknowledge that this is not merely a body brought back to life but a risen body (as described above). And again, the gospels proclaim the resurrection but no one sees it, they see Jesus Risen (i.e. appearances); by definition, resurrection is 'outside of history' and cannot be 'witnessed by anyone within history.

Actually, as I said all the Fathers did not. I'm not sure who you are quoting here but a quick look indicated that he considers the gospels biographies when modern serious scholars have shown they are not. So, immediately I wonder if you have given me someone who leans literalist. I'll try to get you a citation but it might take me a bit.

Religion and science are not two very different things? Of course they are as discussed above.

Yes again and always:+}

Again you deny love is a product of evolution and then immediately add that Love is an undeniable fact of Natural Selection............ love and altruism a consequence of Evolutionary development. Hello, thus love is a product and consequence of evolution. That's is what I have said you said. Thank you.

Again you say that loved ones and communal loyalties give life meaning and fulfillment ......but you also acclaim that the universe is only and completely material, that we are material. If the latter is true, then saying your life has meaning and fulfillment is, and must be, completely unnoticed and inconsequential to that universe. In the timelessness of the universe, your love and localities, our very existence mean nothing; it is jut one more bit of material that the universe never knew or could know. Whether you feel this way or not, that your neighbor belies his love is meaningful not - simply doesn't matter in this material universe. It might be a nice illusion to get you by but it thats all it can ever be and even that is meaningless. To think otherwise is absurd. So let us present that and see whet most of humanity, once understanding it, believes it is quite sufficient.

[Tassman]

I have answer your rephrased question a number of times.

I didn't say that God doesn't have a mind, I said I don't know. As for the universe, even you are saying it is only material. To say the universe is god is pantheism with which I disagree, rather I believe that God is 'more' than or transcends the universe, God is more than the sum of all things.

But you give no reason to say that “God is more than the sum of all things” so you have no argument, merely an unsubstantiated assertion of your subjective belief.

As said, there are religious premises and once again religious belief does not submit to scientific methodology_ again the category mistake.

Religious belief cannot submit to ANY investigative methodology (scientific or otherwise) if you can’t even define what it is you are investigating.

I didn't say nor do I believe that traditional Christian belief is nonsense. After all that was the faith of my parents and everybody I knew and mine (for as much as I understood as a child). Plus it is obvious that many who so believed were among the best of people (and they attributed that goodness to God).

It is equally obvious that “many who so believed” were also among the worst of people – the slave traders, witch-burners, the racists and colonial invaders etc. These too attributed their behavior to God – complete with bible quotes to justify their beliefs.

There is no 'in other words' it is what I said, a difference in understanding the stories but there is a shared acceptance or belief in the truth of the good news that is announced.

WHAT “good news” is announced by the Jesus story?

As an example from the OT, I accept the biblical insight or belief of Genesis. As a child I took it literally, we even had pictures (proof positive :+) in kindergarten. I now understand that it is not a literal history of the beginning, but a story, a myth told to present and preserve our belief about God, man, woman and creation; it is the same truth that I understood as a child, that I understand today.

You say above that ALL you can say about God is that he “is more than the sum of all things”. So, what exactly is this “belief about God, man, woman and creation” you are now postulating?

And most Christians, even those who don't give it much thought, don't take it literally: unlike the actual literalist, they don't believe the world/universe is only 4-6000 years old but accept the incredible movement of time for what we accept as the Big Bang.

There are very many Christians that DO take the 6,000 y.o. universe literally – look around TWeb or Google the creationist views of the Discovery Institute.

So it is nonsense? Of course not. Genesis is an easy one but others stories seem to be much more sacred or closer to home, to basic belief and many cannot or do not want to look at them in a new way, for example the virginal conception. Yet the truth or the belief is evident: the same God who created all, who was with Adam & Eve in the beginning, is 'present' in the life of this child and through him, present in a new way to the people.

So, presumably, “the same God who created all” DID have a ‘mind’ – otherwise how did he “create all”. Yet you say above that you didn’t know if God has a ‘mind’.

Watch him, see what he does, hear what he says: see God in this man. What is interesting to note is that, as scholars say, we do not and cannot know if Matthew and Luke took their own stories literally or wrote them as religious myths especially when we acknowledge that both borrow heavily from Mark who has no such story. Actually in Mark, it is the baptism, an ordinary baptism that hundred have also undergone and Mark directs us to look at this man, see him, hear him for God is in/with him; he is God's son.

More likely is that the Jesus story evolved from the simplicity of Mark to the ever more embellished narratives of the later gospels replete with their wonders and miracles. And Mark’s baptism narrative with God’s acclamation of Jesus has often been used to support the Adoptionist heresy.

I see you were unable to respond to what I actually said about earliest Christianity. And, there is no issue with the beliefs of other cultures doing this age. What I am saying is simply the you are wrong about the 3rd C and there is historical evidence that the earliest Christians did not have to wait for 3 centuries: they were already, in the first 1-2 years after the death of Jesus, worshipping him with he Father and also speaking of his pre-existence.

Yes, I responded. I said that such beliefs were commonplace in that gullible pre-scientific age. In that superstitious era many notable people, not just Jesus, were viewed as gods - various emperors, magicians like Apollonius of Tyana and numerous others.

This is what later theologians already knew and more formally developed by use of their philosophical system of thought. And I have studied the heresies (but thanks for the advise) and they come after this easiest understanding of Jesus. Sure there developed different understandings of Jesus and God and some are highly entertaining but all fell into disrepute (as to why, I refer you to the various heresies and the opposition). So we have a twofer here: one can find mention of Father, Son and Spirit in the NT and also reference to God, the word of God and the spirit of God in the OT, and it is obvious there is further developing understanding that culminated in the formulation of a later century. However, as shown by the scholars I mentioned the beginnings of that formulation began immediately in the beginnings of Christianity. Furthermore, to say that these doctrines took centuries to develop specifically because they were logical inconsistent is merely your opinion.

The doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union took until the 4th century to evolve according to well documented Church History. They took so long presumably because the notions of Jesus as a God/Man were vague, contradictory and open to endless interpretations which bedeviled the early Church for centuries..

Exactly correct on Paul and the appearances. Again, I was talking about the earliest Christian community whose preaching about Jesus was known to Saul (early 30s CE) when he first persecuted the Christians and later included in his letters as Paul (40s, 50s CE): and it is Jesus is Risen. And I agree that the later (40-70 years) gospels speak of the bodily resurrection but you again fail to acknowledge that this is not merely a body brought back to life but a risen body (as described above). And again, the gospels proclaim the resurrection but no one sees it, they see Jesus Risen (i.e. appearances); by definition, resurrection is 'outside of history' and cannot be 'witnessed by anyone within history.

And yet the gospels - and many Christians today, perhaps the majority - accept the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Religion and science are not two very different things? Of course they are as discussed above.

Again: The difference between Science and metaphysics is that scientific methodology is able to arrive at verifiable factual conclusions and metaphysics cannot arrive at verifiable factual conclusions - merely speculative opinions. .

Yes again and always:+}

Again you deny love is a product of evolution and then immediately add that Love is an undeniable fact of Natural Selection............ love and altruism a consequence of Evolutionary development. Hello, thus love is a product and consequence of evolution. That's is what I have said you said. Thank you.

What I said is that what we call “love” is a consequence of the predisposition towards bonding and attachment among ALL the higher primates (including humans) and is a product of genetics and evolution”. Knowing this does not make our “love” any less genuine. Nor have you offered an alternative to our evolved predisposition to love..

Again you say that loved ones and communal loyalties give life meaning and fulfillment ......but you also acclaim that the universe is only and completely material, that we are material. If the latter is true, then saying your life has meaning and fulfillment is, and must be, completely unnoticed and inconsequential to that universe. In the timelessness of the universe, your love and localities, our very existence mean nothing; it is jut one more bit of material that the universe never knew or could know. Whether you feel this way or not, that your neighbor belies his love is meaningful not - simply doesn't matter in this material universe. It might be a nice illusion to get you by but it thats all it can ever be and even that is meaningless. To think otherwise is absurd. So let us present that and see whet most of humanity, once understanding it, believes it is quite sufficient.

Of course, our lives are “completely unnoticed and inconsequential” to that vast universe. So?

More importantly, our lives are noticed and consequential among those we love - although this is insufficient for you apparently.

[eider]

More likely is that the Jesus story evolved from the simplicity of Mark to the ever more embellished narratives of the later gospels replete with their wonders and miracles. And Mark's baptism narrative with God's acclamation of Jesus has often been used to support the Adoptionist heresy.

Interesting....!
I like that....... the simplicity of Mark. I think that's true.
I think that Mark got embellished here and there, well, the NIV Bible adjusts the very first sentence so there's a first example for you.

So how much of G-Mark do you believe really happened?

[thormas]

There is belief and you assert it. And I have spoken on and presented the argument that God is 'more' (i.e. panentheism) and against pantheism. See above. And if once again you're looking for proof, you're back to a category mistake.

The present discussion is whether or not I thought traditional Christianity was nonsense (NO!); I have already corrected your assumption about slavery (which covers the other topic you mentioned) and Christianity.

Gospel = god-spell = good news.............and each presents the gospel of Jesus to their community (see the gospels).

Regarding the belief in pantheist, 'all I can say' is that I disagree and present the panentheistic position, that God is not part of or the sum of all things - but 'more,' 'other,' 'beyond' and that which is the possibility of all, But there is more that the Christian or the religious person can and does say about God, ex.Genesis.

How many accept a 6000 year old universe? I have no idea and don't actually care, As I have been saying I am speaking about the serious religious thinker and modern, progressive Christians.

Again, no idea about a literal mind. As an example I don't think God is a person as I know person, so too with mind. You presume God has a mind (an amazing concession) but as theologians have said God in himself cannot be known by man. So I don't know, I don't presume. One big difference is that you continue to imagine and argue against an old time theistic god - I really can't speak to that because I don't accept it.

For Gospel of Mark see below.

Like I said, you did not respond :+} You are off track about earliest Christianity. We were talking about the understanding of early Christians and formulations of dogma in a later century.

First, the beliefs and their formulations were and are still vague:+}. The point of the doctrines was, in large part, to draw a wide circle around what is believed about Jesus and the Trinity, not to define it precisely - which they considered impossible. It was to rule what was in and what was out (for example adoptionism, or that Jesus was a divine being who 'only' appeared to be human, etc.). Christianity had these basic beliefs - and then arrived at a (final or lasting) formulation of those beliefs. As indicated, the beliefs went back to the beginnings of Christianity in the recognition that Jesus was worshipped alongside of God and even that Jesus was a pre-existent being. And, circa 90s CE, we have the gospel of John with the famous 'I am " statements of Jesus, the name that God identifies with himself to Moses and John's famous prologue. All of the 1st C gospels point to the 'sonship' of Jesus to God. You oversimplify the full history.

Again, the simple reality is that science and metaphysics (and religion) are two very different categories. Evidence vs. belief. This is not going to change.



You state that love is a product of genetics and evolution.

You state that our lives, are "completely unnoticed and inconsequential" in this material universe.

And then you say that there is some notice in a universe that notices nothing, some consequence in lives that are completely inconsequential: 'our lives are noticed and consequential among those we love.' But their lives are also unnoticed and inconsequential. In a material universe, there cannot be some notice if all is completely unnoticed. Human life and love is inconsequential and meaningless in such a universe.

To say we are noticed by our loved ones might make you feel better but the overriding truth is that all human endeavor, including love, is inconsequential, unnoticed and nothing. And to acknowledge this, yet say, "No I have meaning" is illusion (not genuine); it is Absurd.



This is insufficient for the religious man who does not accept it for a second.