More awesomness from a "christian" pastor. Or religious liberals say the damnedest things.

For example, I believe that:

• Religion is a human construct
• The symbols of faith are products of human cultural evolution
• Jesus may have been an historical figure, but most of what we know about him is in the form of legend
• God is a symbol of myth-making and not credible as a supernatural being or force
• The Bible is a human product as opposed to special revelation from a divine being
• Human consciousness is the result of natural selection, so there’s no afterlife

I believe one of the newer religious paths could be a “belief-less” Christianity. In this “sect,” one is not required to believe things. One learns and draws upon practices and products of our cultural tradition to create meaning in the present. The last two congregations I have served have huge commitments to equality for LGTBQ people and eco-justice, among other things. They draw from the well of our Christian cultural tradition (and other religious traditions) for encouragement in these efforts. I think a belief-less Christianity can be a positive good for society.
Belief-less Christianity is thriving right now, even as other forms of the faith are falling away rapidly. Many liberal or progressive Christians have already let go or de-emphasized belief in Heaven, that the Bible is literally true, that Jesus is supernatural, and that Christianity is the only way. Yet they still practice what they call Christianity. Instead of traditional beliefs, they emphasize social justice, personal integrity and resilience, and building community. The cultural artifacts serve as resources.
But what about belief in God? Can a belief-less Christianity really survive if God isn’t in the picture? Can you even call that Christianity anymore? In theory, yes. In practice, it is a challenge because “belief in God” seems to be so intractable. However, once people start questioning it and realize that they’re not alone, it becomes much more commonplace.

What an idiot.

http://justiceunbound.org/carousel/degrees-of-debt/

I was on a PCUSA pastoral search committee once upon a time.    This was just before the proliferation of social media and blogs.   At this point, the first thing I would do when I got a P.I.F. that looked good would be to do a Google search to see what is out there, what this candidate had written for public consumption.   If it was this, then the P.I.F. would head straight for the recycling bin.   This poor guy doesn't seem to have much of a clue.    Maybe he will it some point, but right now he just seems like a selfish, immature, whiny child.    I hope he figures it out.  I certainly hope he pulls this before prospective employers read it,because when prospective employers read this, his chances of employment will most likely drop even further.

Myth

There has been a lot of discussion  lately about the meaning of the term Biblical Authority, and the nature of the Bible.   

Obviously, what we call The Bible is a collection of writings grouped in two main sections.   The New Testament and the Old Testament.

Within the Old Testament, there are various different genres of writings including; History, Poetry, Wisdom Literature, and Prophecy.   It should go without saying that each genre should be dealt with according to the conventions for that genre.

In the case of the recent discussion, there is a difference of opinion about what exactly the books usually referred to as History actually are.     The historical consensus throughout Jewish and Christian history is that these books are an accurate representation of actual events that occurred.  They are not exhaustive, nor are they scientific.  But the prevailing view is that they are historical.   This view certainly allows for the fact that history was recorded and passed down over time, but it also allows for God to have superintended the process so that what we have is what was intended.   

There is at least one more view which is certainly out there.   This comes in two variations.   Variation one, is that the entire OT is complete and absolute fiction, it is usually associated with the view that the New Testament is also virtually all fiction as well.    The second variation is that the stories in the Old Testament are myth.   That they may or may not be based in some degree of fact, but that the stories themselves have no claim to be considered as history.   

A brief digression seems appropriate here.   The reasons I have heard to support this view are 1. "It just sounds like myth to me." and 2.  "The "modern" style of history recording did not exist until sometime within a 1000 year time span starting around 500 BC through 500 AD.   3.   "There are other stories of the same general time period which we believe to be myth, therefore we must assume that everything from this time period is myth".    There are others, but those certainly provide a sample of the rationale for this view.

So, we first need to establish what myth is.   For that, it seems that we should look at a dictionary for definitions and synonyms.

MYTH; noun

"An idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true"
"A story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence"

" Such stories as a group"

1 a :  a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

b :  parable, allegory

2 a :  a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially :  one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society.

b :  an unfounded or false notion

3 :  a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 

 

SYNONYMS and RELATED WORDS

 

 

Synonyms; fable, legend

Related Words; allegory, parable, fabrication, fantasy, fiction, figment, invention, narrative, saga, story, tale, yarn 

 

 

OR

 

noun

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3. any invented story, idea, or concept:

4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution. 

 

 

As we look at the definitions and synonyms, it seems clear that one significant component of a myth is that it  does not contain truth.   Clearly the definition allows for some degree of truth as a basis, but the overall sense of the definition is that a myth is (almost by definition) not a true and accurate means of communicating.

This is not to suggest that myth is somehow bad, or wrong, just to point out what myth is.

The point of this post is that a transcript of a presentation by N.T. Wright was provided to me in support of the proposition that the Historical books of the Old Testament are myth.

One caveat.  It is entirely possible that the views I have summarized here would allow that only parts of the Old Testament histories are myth, while others are history.    So, understand that when I say that the position is that the Old Testament histories are myth, I am using that as a sort of shortened way to express the position.   It should probably be expressed as a belief that "Some sections of the Old Testament are 100% myth, while others might be 100% true, with the remainder falling somewhere in between".   Obviously it is easier to simply use a construct of "OT histories=myth" rather than to repeat the lengthy qualification.

Anyway, this is what the first in what may end up being a series of posts of the N.T. Wright piece and whether it supports the position it was offered to support.

I wanted to seperate this from some othe conversations.

"COULD an almighty God have inspired writers/storytellers to pass on a Creation story using modern scientific jargon in a way that is scientifically correct, by modern standards? Sure, an almighty God can do anything."

 The above is a quote from Dan at another blog. There are a couple of things that give me pause.

 First, the assumption is that there are only two choices about how God could have communicated the creation story. A) Using "modern" scientific language in a specific way, or B) using "myth" which is essentially not 100% factually correct.

The assumption seems to be that the since audience was not sophisticated enough to understand "modern' scientific jargon, then we are left with the loose semi factual myth geared toward a bronze age audience. Is there any actual evidence for this assumption?

 None that I can see.

 But, if an almighty God could have done anything, does it really seem like a stretch to think that it is possible that He communicated the Truth of the creation in a factually accurate manner, without being bound by the need for "modern" scientific jargon?

 Or to put in on a more basic level, is it always necessary to remove fact if it is necessary to present a complex concept to an less sophisticated audience.

 For example, is it possible to answer "Where does the baby in mommy's tummy come from.", in a way that is factual, yet appropriate to the audience?

Paul is pretty clear that now we "see through a glass darkly", but at some point we will have greater clarity.

It seems like all of scripture is about trying to communicate the Truth about God (a Truth that we can't fully comprehend), in a way that is appropriate for the level of understanding that we have in this phase of existence?

 Obviously, this completely leaves aside the fact that at this point no amount of scientific jargon can accurately explain the origin of life.

 I suspect that if pressed Stephen Hawking could probably explain complex scientific theory in a way that a 12 year old could gain an accurate understanding of the subject, without resorting to myth or fiction.

 If Hawking could do it, why would one assume God couldn't? Or didn't?

Just so you know...

I don't plan on putting a lot of effort into chasing down all of these posts at this point. I won't delete them out of hand, I won't say I'll ignore them, but I'm not going to go through line by line and respond to everything. I just don't have the time or energy to revisit stuff that has sat for months.

This is the answer Dan's been whining about, I'm posting it here and now so it is out there with a time stamp.

““I am confident that scripture is both accurate and authoritative,” you DO recognize that what you are saying is “I am confident that MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of these texts (and the many who agree with me) is accurate and authoritative…”?” No, I am most assuredly NOT saying that. I am saying that Scripture is accurate and authoritative no matter what my interpretation is. For example. If I interpreted scripture to say that no God exists, my interpretation is wrong for scripture clearly claims otherwise. Scripture is what it is and says what it says, no matter what interpretations people come up with. Now, if you want to argue against that authority of scripture, feel free, but you’ll need more that “It’s my opinion.” . “ If you recognize this, on what basis should anyone accept your claim to having an “accurate” and “authoritative” human opinion? “ No basis, as I’ve never once suggested that I have an “accurate and authoritative human opinion.”. Again, your problem is in assuming that I have said something I have not said, coupled with your presumption that scripture is neither accurate nor authoritative. Both of which remain to be proven with “hard data”.

I've tried

I know this might get old, but over at John's Dan continues to insist that I don't/won't answer his questions. I've repeatedly informed him that I have answered multitudes of his questions somewhere else. Now, why didn't I give him a link? Good question. I guess it boils down to a couple of things. 1. Dan knows I have a blog, knows where to find it, and should be able to assume that if I answered his questions somewhere else that it would be here. 2. I suspect that Dan is intentionally avoiding "finding" the answers to his questions because it allows him to avoid the reality that I am answering him and that his accusations of dodging are false.