Thanks for the link, Orn. I think there's a lot in what Lisa Miller says. I make no secret of the fact that I find myself, at this stage of my journey, comfortable in non-belief, seeing the believing stage of my life and my growing struggle with faith in God, as part of the continuing story of my growth. I don't know what's around the next corners, but that's something that makes life wonderful.
Many of the arguments between Dawkins, Hitchens et al., and their mirror-image believing opponents is tossing coconuts at put-up, fixed targets - fairground stuff. As Miller puts it, it just gets boring after a while. Like Hecht, Epstein and Miller, I too think "that people can have everything religion offers—community, transcendence, and, above all, morality—without the supernatural." One way of looking at religion is as part of the childhood and adolescence of humanity, something we grow out of in order to move on. But the approach of Dawkins and the others often reminds me, to continue this metaphor, of people who argue that a sense of play, being childish, is stupid and superfluous. It is neither, but rather something which, deepening, we go through and beyond. To quote Paul, "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways." (1 Cor 13:11). (I'm quite sure my use of his words to illustrate the need for humanity to go beyond religion has the old snake-oil salesman spinning in his grave - possibly even in St. Paul Without the Walls - at least those parts of him which haven't been hawked as relics throughout Christendom - but it's the kind of method of argument he used himself often enough :-)) Francis On 27 Okt., 20:45, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.newsweek.com/id/219009 > > On Oct 27, 12:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Fran, thanks for the apparently divergent views of faith. Quite > > cogent! > > > On Oct 27, 11:50 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In general, Alan, I have major problems with "miracles", seen from a > > > literal, scientific point of view - given the way we see and describe > > > our world today. From a "faith" point of view, miracles become > > > unproblematic, because they are seen within a particular context of > > > meaning in which the world and life is perceived. For the believer, > > > all kinds of events can be infused with miraculous meanings - the most > > > potent being "conversions of heart" - the working of God's grace. > > > Evelyn Waugh's "Brideshead Revisited" is an excellent example of this > > > kind of world view. The same themes are also present in many of Graham > > > Greene's works - and, indeed, it is no coincidence here that both > > > Waugh and Greene were converts to Catholicism who struggled with their > > > new religion. > > > > The baptism of Jesus by John is generally accepted as having a good > > > claim to historicity. > > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus#Historicityasabrief > > > summary. > > > > My problems begin with verses 10 and 11. How are we to understand the > > > phrases "the heavens being torn" > > > (σχιζομένους τούς ούρανούς) and "the Spirit, like a dove" (τό Πνεΰμα > > > ώσεί περιστεράν)? Not to mention the saying of the voice from the > > > heavens. This is, for me, not the language of objective observation, > > > but of faith-inspired interpretation of significance. A common (and > > > sincerely believed) literary descriptive device of the sort used in > > > countless descriptions of what the authors saw as significant events, > > > not only Christian ones, up to (and in many cases beyond) the > > > beginning of the scientific era. > > > > Francis > > > > On 27 Okt., 15:53, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You say "Approached from a serious academic point of view there is > > > > little evidence for the facutal truth of the nativity accounts ". I'm > > > > afraid not what the writers I follow are saying. They claim those who > > > > interpret the New Testament gospel accounts as "faith documents" are > > > > applying an exegetical principal that all miraculous accounts are to > > > > be read as a story and not literal history. Let me ask you: is this > > > > true? > > > > > For example, in the first dozen verses of Mark's gospel, which verses > > > > those academics say is an historical record, and which not: > > > > v4 John (the) Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism > > > > of repentance for the forgiveness of sins > > > > v6. John was clothed in camel's hair, with a leather belt around his > > > > waist. He fed on locusts and wild honey. > > > > v9. It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of > > > > Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. > > > > v10. On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn > > > > open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. > > > > v11. And a voice came from the heavens, "You are my beloved Son; > > > > with you I am well pleased" > > > > > On Oct 26, 11:01 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the Clarke link, Alan. It's a couple of decades ago since I > > > > > first read the story and it was good to read it again - even if the > > > > > basic story line isn't one that you'd forget! > > > > > > Speaking as a now ex-Catholic (ex-Christian), while studying theology > > > > > full-time as a Dominican, I didn't think that the basic truth of the > > > > > Christian message was dependent on the literal veracity of the > > > > > scriptural accounts of the Jesus event. Approached from a serious > > > > > academic point of view there is little evidence for the facutal truth > > > > > of the nativity accounts - Mark, the earliest account of Jesus' life, > > > > > works and sayings, seems to know nothing of the Bethlehem origins of > > > > > Jesus and even this gospel, on analysis, shows so many signs of > > > > > careful literary construction that it's impossible to see it as an > > > > > "objective" historical record, the same being even more true for the > > > > > other synoptics and especially the gospel of John, probably written 60 > > > > > to 70 years after the events it describes. > > > > > > The records the New Testament leaves us are meditations on the meaning > > > > > of the Jesus event for the authors and the communities for which they > > > > > were writing. As such, they are ineluctably "faith documents." which > > > > > is just fine for believers. A more recent example of such things would > > > > > be Parson Weems biography of George Washington which includes the > > > > > completely historically unsupported cherry tree story. What I take > > > > > issue with is the line of argument followed by people like Wesley, who > > > > > try to (mis)use Christian scripture as "proof" of "facts." There is a > > > > > branch of Christian theology called apologetics (going back to > > > > > Tertullian in the 2nd. Century C.E. - C.S. Lewis is a name many will > > > > > recognise), but very few serious practitioners of this field would > > > > > even dream of using the bible in this fashion. > > > > > > I think the key phrase you use is "People can tell stories." And > > > > > stories can be powerful means for communicating deeply felt insights > > > > > and beliefs. But they can only fully unfold their potential when the > > > > > narrators and audiences share the same language. In a Wittgensteinian > > > > > sense, I would argue that the languages of believers and non-believers > > > > > (even if they use a common everyday language) have large areas where > > > > > there is no overlapping, or where the ostensibly same words/phrases/ > > > > > memes have quite different meanings and ring different bells in their > > > > > hearers. > > > > > > That said, as a non-believer, I admit cheerfully to loving Advent and > > > > > Christmas, the idea of spitting in the face of winter, affirming new > > > > > life in the midst of darkness, finding deep truth in the meme of the > > > > > most important, wonderful, significant things in life being found in > > > > > areas which the great and powerful completely miss. Stars and > > > > > shepherds and angels and wise men and difficult journeys and jealous > > > > > kings - and a baby sleeping securely, yet surrounded by uncertainty > > > > > and mortal peril. And Christmas trees and carols and celebrating > > > > > family and friendship, giving and receiving gifts. And my own special > > > > > ritual of making the living-room warm and comfy (especially when it's > > > > > cold, dark and uncomfortable outside), lighting candles to make a nice > > > > > subdued, flickering light, making a pot of roibusch tea with extra > > > > > winter-herbal additions and listening to Händel's Messiah! Repeatedly > > > > > in Advent - and, if I'm alone, even singing along! > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > On 26 Okt., 16:13, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Astronomy club sure sounds fun! Have you read Arthur C Clarke's > > > > > > corking good short story called The Star, about the Star of > > > > > > Bethlehem, > > > > > > a future astronomer, and a discovery regarding an alien race? > > > > > > Seehttp://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/star_clarke.html > > > > > > > Most people who think the resurrection and nativity are stories do > > > > > > so > > > > > > from a prior commitment to naturalism -- that miracles don't happen, > > > > > > therefore, we are constrained to interpret every miraculous report > > > > > > as > > > > > > a story. Like myself, you seem to reject naturalism. Miracles can > > > > > > happen. People can tell stories. Which is it in the case of the > > > > > > nativity and resurrection? How to tell? > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 2:01 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I used to belong to an astronomy club in Bozeman Montana.. and > > > > > > > several o the > > > > > > > members ran the planetarium that is there so we would look at a > > > > > > > lot of > > > > > > > different ideas, and there was a solar eclipse happening at the > > > > > > > time so the > > > > > > > idea came up to find out whre they had occured.. and i believe it > > > > > > > was 33 CE > > > > > > > and there was one right over jersulem around the time of his > > > > > > > crucifiction. > > > > > > > That was how they were able to date? it. > > > > > > > > The nativity scene great short story,, but there would have no > > > > > > > real reason > > > > > > > to record it and .. just can not buy it.. > > > > > > > > Miricales I am not totally ready to dismiss to many native > > > > > > > american > > > > > > > medicine men and things I don't understand I have seen and feltr > > > > > > > to much > > > > > > > and I can not explain it.. then there is my ex and that I can > > > > > > > partially > > > > > > > medically document it was weird. > > > > > > > > As for the reserection thing when my father died I was with him.. > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > tamatic for me as I loved him much more than I realized.. What > > > > > > > evolved is > > > > > > > the idea what if our life here is a form of death of the soul or > > > > > > > maybe a > > > > > > > proving ground for morality.. and upon death one given > > > > > > > accounting of ones > > > > > > > life and choices(God does not provide it) rather it is a record > > > > > > > we create of > > > > > > > our own memories. If death is really the rebirth into a totally > > > > > > > spiritual > > > > > > > existance which I think the soul is designed for what you have > > > > > > > is the true > > > > > > > definition of a reserection.. the rebirth back into the > > > > > > > spiritual life. > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > , Alan Wosterberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey, Allan -- I didn't know there was "an event astronomically > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > can be dated like a total solar eclipse over Jerusalem in 33 > > > > > > > > CE.". > > > > > > > > Cool! > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
