Trust God, Act Responsibly

"You miss the point of Dawkins' observation about children being labeled as anything."

It is indeed possible.

"Last I looked, political and religious affiliations were choices made by adults, not traits that children are born with."

Certainly, children are not born with either of these affiliations. It does not follow, however, that these decisions are made only when a person reaches adulthood. If religion was nothing more than an abstract set of ideas that had no bearing on the rest of one's noetic structure, I might tend to agree. However, this post-enlightenment notion of the nature of religion is just not accurate. Rather it is an entire worldview the meta-narratives that go along with it. Labeling a child in such a manner signifies that the child is being raised within that worldview. To object to that labeling is to object to the right to raise the child in that worldview.

It is certainly true that the child will not understand all the intricacies of the worldview, but that is just true of anything. But I think we need to give children a bit more credit and not think that they have no understanding about what they are being raised in.

Cheers,
Dave

Dear Dave L -

You miss the point of Dawkins' observation about children being labeled as anything.

It makes sense to "label" children what they are by birth: white, male, female, black, American, etc. It makes no sense to label them according to CHOICES made by their parents, choices made that label the parents, not the children: Xian, Muslim, atheist, Republic, Democrat.

Last I looked, political and religious affiliations were choices made by adults, not traits that children are born with. Why saddle children with labels that have 1) no meaning to them and, 2) are not at all representative of who that child is.

Nothing wrong with calling a kid "a child with Xian parents" or "a child with Democratic parents," though.

"Trust god, act responsibly" writes the Bishop.

Limiting our options to the implications of the Bishop's words, we could:

* Trust god, act irresponsibly

* Don't trust god, act irresponsibly

* Don't trust god, act responsibly.

As acting responsibly has the same effect whether one trusts god or not, we can eliminate god from the equation and the platitude.

Conclusion: god is not needed for one to act responsibly.

"Actually, one of the things I keep hearing people say at the church I attend is how much they appreciate being in a congregation that interprets scripture in this way. "

Lucky for them, I say somewhat sarcastically, because 1) if it is basic to church beliefs it should be known and taught in all parishes (sort of like the resurrection) and 2)it's still quite vague - seems like an attempt to rationalize and smooth over the obvious problems with the scriptures than to explain anything. In the absence of biblical textual analysis and scientific advances, I doubt this work-around would ever had happened.

It reminds me of how the Mormon church had a revelation that Black people were OK after all, once the church was given an ultimatum by the US government to change its discriminatory practices.

I've enjoyed the conversation too, and hope Bishop Wright has tuned in to it and learned something from it.

"That may very well be, but this is the first time I'm hearing it and I went through Catholic Catechism and confirmation and Episcopalian adult confirmation and I've spent many consecutive Sundays in church as a member of the choir.

If this is an important and widely accepted teaching of mainstream Christianity I think it should be more widely promulgated."

E Favorite:
Actually, one of the things I keep hearing people say at the church I attend is how much they appreciate being in a congregation that interprets scripture in this way. In my tradition, this is called the quadrilateral which includes four components: 1) Scripture 2) Tradition (How the church has interpreted scripture over the centuries) 3) Reason, and 4) Experience.

Tradition, Reason, & Experience balance each other out when applied to the study of scripture because depending on our natural inclinations, we might elevate one component over the other in interpreting a biblical text or the bible in general.

And of course, this also leads to interesting discussions and a variety of opinions! But it has served many Christians well over the years.

Many thanks for an enjoyable exchange of ideas...

GK Chesterton:

"I believe the above response is in line with most of mainstream Christianity."

That may very well be, but this is the first time I'm hearing it and I went through Catholic Catechism and confirmation and Episcopalian adult confirmation and I've spent many consecutive Sundays in church as a member of the choir.

If this is an important and widely accepted teaching of mainstream Christianity I think it should be more widely promulgated.

GK, GK, GK,

Since John 20: 17 is not used to verify said "ascension", this passage from the myth of the empty tomb is not considered a valid attestation of the entry of the body of the simple man into heaven.

Observations about said ascension in the "unerring" NT:

Mark 16:14-19 - Jesus ascends while he and his disciples are seated at a table in or near Jerusalem.

Matthew 28:16-20 - Jesus’ ascension isn’t mentioned at all, but Matthew ends at a mountain in Galilee.

Luke 24:50-51 - Jesus ascends outisde, after dinner, and at Bethany and on the same day as the resurrection.

John - Nothing about Jesus’ actual ascension is mentioned. Apparently the word "ascension" in John 20:17 is an allusion used to continue the myth of the physical resurrection. Having the physical body/ghost of Jesus wandering about the world for eternity was not a good idea.

Acts 1:9-12 - Jesus ascends at least 40 days after his resurrection, at Mt. Olivet."

"BTW, the ascension is only noted by Luke. Does it not bother you that the other gospel writers failed to mention this very important event???"

Concerned:

"Jesus said to her, 'Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" - John 20:17

The Gospel of John mentions the ascension.

GK Chesterton - OK, God initiated Christianity.

"Please explain what humans did. No need to go into detail - just generally - what did they do"

E Favorite:
Christianity is a religion of humanity responding to God's intitiative of grace.

For some people, this response has been to describe God's acts of salvation history during a particular historical context (the canonical books of the Bible.) In this telling of God's mighty acts of salvation, the hearers are invited to receive God's grace in their present historical context.

It is the task of people to be open to the Holy Spirit in understanding the original meaning of the biblical text and to interpret it for their present context so that they can faithfully be the people God has called them to be.

I believe the above response is in line with most of mainstream Christianity.

GK

"Dawkins makes the point in his book, "The God Delusion" that we don’t call a child a Republican child or a Democratic child, even if their parents are strong adherents to a particular political ideology. Society considers these to be adult identifications, influenced, but not determined by parents. Yet children are identified religiously and often separated from other children strictly based on differing beliefs,imposed by their parents, in invisible supernatural beings."

I have read the book and it is an interesting issue. In response I would want to suggest that, all things being equal, ones religious convictions, whether one is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or even atheist, etc., generally plays a more fundamental role in ones entire worldview or one's entire belief system, than one's political affiliation. I should be clear that I do not mean by political affiliations how one feels about a particular political issue. Rather I mean merely whether one is, in the United States anyway, a Democrat or a Republican. One could obviously point to individuals who run counter to this, but intuitively, it seems to me, most will fall under what I've posited.

That being said, it seems inevitable that parents are always going to be imparting their worldview on to their children. Indeed, this is something we all do. I take as given that, assuming a young child could even understand what solipsism or idealism are, most parents would still rear their children as realists (I use the term in the philosophical sense, not in the colloquial sense of being pragmatic).

My point is that, if religion were merely a matter of taste, and it may indeed be for some people, I might agree that there is little reason to rear one's child in one particular before they can fully utilize their rational faculties. Since religion tends to be fundamental to one's worldview, and it seems inevitable that we will pass on our worldview to our children before they can fully use reason, I would like to conclude that, all things being equal, it is perfectly warranted for one to raise their child in a religious worldview.

More can and should be said on this issue, but I will leave it at that for now.

Cheers,
Dave

GK Chesterton - OK, God initiated Christianity.

Please explain what humans did. No need to go into detail - just generally - what did they do.

GK, GK, GK,

You apparently did not find John 20:17 in the CCC as a referenced passage for validating the ascension.

And you will not find it in Father Raymond Brown's exhaustive review, An Introduction to the New Testament, 878 pages, nihil obstat and Imprimatur approved, 1997) of the NT as a validation of the ascension.

And Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist, also does not cite John 20:17 as a validation of the ascension citing only the references from Luke. Because of no added attestations, he and other historic Jesus exegetes concluded the ascension of the simple preacher man did not occur physically. Maybe spiritually but then all good men and women rise spiritually to the after life don't they.

"BTW, the ascension is only noted by Luke. Does it not bother you that the other gospel writers failed to mention this very important event???"

John 20:17

GK, GK, GK,

John 20:17,

is not referenced in anything we can find to include the Catholic Catechism as being a description of the ascension of the simple preacher man to the spirit state of Heaven.

"CC paragraph 665: Christ's Ascension marks the definitive entrance of Jesus' humanity into God's heavenly domain, whence he will come again (cf. Acts 1:11); this humanity in the meantime hides him from the eyes of men."

"One more thing, you say: "Question #1 - The reason this can't be answered as yes or no is because God's revelation of himself is tied in with various people in their historical contexts as noted throughout the canonical biblical texts. It's not an either/or. It's a both/and with God as the intiator."

"Would you say both God and humans came up with Christianity?"

E Favorite: It's a both/and with God as the initiator. If you want to go even deeper, then we probably need to have a discussion on the topic of biblical authority, ie. who wrote the bible?

GK Chesterton - Thanks for the answer to #2.

One more thing, you say: "Question #1 - The reason this can't be answered as yes or no is because God's revelation of himself is tied in with various people in their historical contexts as noted throughout the canonical biblical texts. It's not an either/or. It's a both/and with God as the intiator."

Would you say both God and humans came up with Christianity?
-

"How would you answer these questions, if you were limited to a yes or no answer:

– Do you think God (as you perceive god) and not humans came up with Christianity?

– Do you think God (as you perceive god) and not humans came up with other religions?

If you decide not to answer them yes or no, I’d like you to tell me that you’ve decided not to answer. If that’s the case, I’d also like you to tell me why you’ve decided not to answer, but if you decline to tell me why, I won’t press you on it."

E Favorite:
Question #1 - The reason this can't be answered as yes or no is because God's revelation of himself is tied in with various people in their historical contexts as noted throughout the canonical biblical texts. It's not an either/or. It's a both/and with God as the intiator.

Question #2 - No.

"BTW, the ascension is only noted by Luke. Does it not bother you that the other gospel writers failed to mention this very important event???

1a) Luke 24:50-52
(1b) Acts 1:9-11

Concerned: John 20:17 I thought you went through cathechism.

GK Chesterton

– Thanks again for responding. I’m still hoping for a yes or no answer, so I’m going back to your language to find a better way to ask. You originally said: “I find it bewildering that you would think that humans were brilliant enough to come up with this thing called Christianity on our own. If it was simple and easy, I'd agree with you, but Christianity is way too complex to put your wager on humans.”

How would you answer these questions, if you were limited to a yes or no answer:

– Do you think God (as you perceive god) and not humans came up with Christianity?

– Do you think God (as you perceive god) and not humans came up with other religions?

If you decide not to answer them yes or no, I’d like you to tell me that you’ve decided not to answer. If that’s the case, I’d also like you to tell me why you’ve decided not to answer, but if you decline to tell me why, I won’t press you on it.

GK, GK, GK,

You noted: "Christianity is a 'revealed religion' which means that Christians believe God has revealed himself within history and most decisively through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ."

Other than the embellished and sometimes fictional NT, where else has "God" revealed himself within history?? We all live and die. Those are natural events. Where is the non-NT proof of the resurrection and ascension of the simple preacher man?

BTW, the ascension is only noted by Luke. Does it not bother you that the other gospel writers failed to mention this very important event???

1a) Luke 24:50-52
(1b) Acts 1:9-11

Concerned: Please note comments following your stated assumptions.

GK, GK, GK,

"Still suffering from the Three B Syndrome, i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Christianity?"

Concerned: Ah, we begin with an open mind.

"A good dose of Reality will quickly clear that up. Ready, set, go: Repeat the following ten times,"

Concerned: Wait, didn't you say something about being brainwashed?

1. "There was no physical resurrection of Jesus (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State)"

Concerned: Heaven isn't the point of the New Testament. New creation on this earth is. Re-read the 27 New Testament books.

2. "And it therefore follows there was no ascension and no assumption."

Concerned: See the point above.

3. "There is/was no original sin. A&E were fictional characters living in a mythical land."

Concerned: I thought the earth was real.

4. "And it therefore follows, baptism does not erase original sin since there is no sin to erase. Limbo therefore is a non-issue."

Concerned: But thank God the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ does.

5. "Jesus was crucified but details of the deed have little historic verification. His body was buried somewhere in Palestine. By now, like many crucified bodies from that time period, his decomposition products have been dispersed in the living world. There might even be a few ppb of him in a few of those low calorie wafers sometimes called the Eucharist."

Concerned: You aren't the only ones who think Christians are nuts. Read the Book of Acts.

"(Hmm, one wonders if that is what he meant in those mythical words said during the mythical Last Supper of the NT??)"

Concerned: Actually, that meal to which you are referring is called the Passover meal. Like the planet earth, (see response above) it is also real.

GK Chesterton -

"Can you answer this part of the question - do you think (as it appears to me in your recent writings)that Christianity was devised by God, however you perceive God?"

Let's put this in theological language, E Favorite, rather than using a word like 'devised.'

Christianity is a 'revealed religion' which means that Christians believe God has revealed himself within history and most decisively through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

GK Chesterton -

Can you answer this part of the question - do you think (as it appears to me in your recent writings)that Christianity was devised by God, however you perceive God?

GK, GK, GK,

Still suffering from the Three B Syndrome, i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Christianity?

A good dose of Reality will quickly clear that up.

Ready, set, go:

Repeat the following ten times,

1. There was no physical resurrection of Jesus (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State)

2. And it therefore follows there was no ascension and no assumption.

3. There is/was no original sin. A&E were fictional characters living in a mythical land.

4. And it therefore follows, baptism does not erase original sin since there is no sin to erase. Limbo therefore is a non-issue.

5. Jesus was crucified but details of the deed have little historic verification. His body was buried somewhere in Palestine. By now, like many crucified bodies from that time period, his decomposition products have been dispersed in the living world. There might even be a few ppb of him in a few of those low calorie wafers sometimes called the Eucharist.

(Hmm, one wonders if that is what he meant in those mythical words said during the mythical Last Supper of the NT??)

"Regarding your recent question: “So what do you mean by the word, 'god,' E Favorite?

When I say god, I’m referring to the supernatural god of Abraham – god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

I don’t have a ‘meaning” for god – except as an invisible, non-existent supernatural being that some people believe in."

E Favorite:
Thanks for your response which is the response I thought you might give regarding what you mean by 'god.' My posts have been very clear that this is not what I mean by the word, 'God' which is why I have not answered your question the way you stated it.

In fact, your particular phrasing of the question itself, as if it's obvious we all know what we mean when we use the word, 'God' is why one cannot adequately answer the question as yes/no.

"What role does God or your faith play in helping you get through tough financial times?"

There is no God and I have no faith, so I'm free to deal objectively and effectively with financial problems, without the distractions of "God" and faith.

GK Chesterton:

Thanks for getting back to me. If I read correctly, you think that Christianity was devised by God, however, I still don’t see where you mention religions other than Christianity that I inquired about. What about them? Do you think they are human made? God made?

This seems like an easy yes/no question to me. If you’d like to elaborate, fine, but if you decide to address the question, I’d also like a yes or no answer, just for clarity.

Thanks.

Regarding your recent question: “So what do you mean by the word, 'god,' E Favorite?

When I say god, I’m referring to the supernatural god of Abraham – god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

I don’t have a ‘meaning” for god – except as an invisible, non-existent supernatural being that some people believe in.

" What would it mean for a society to worship Jesus Christ instead of Mammon?"

Well, for one thing 'societies' don't worship, individuals do.

Do you sir, or your church derive any income from people poorer than yourself? Does that not speak a bit as to to who is doing what in terms of extracting a price from weak victims? I believe that price is around 10% or so, if I am not mistaken...

Need money?
Trust god and get a job.
Have a headache?
Trust god and take an aspirin.
Toothache?
Trust god and see the dentist.

Honestly, the problem is people trusting god and not doing the hard work. You can do the hard work without trusting god and get by but you can't get by if you trust god but don't do the hard work.

"I don't expect we'll hear from Bishop Wright, but I do wonder what he thinks of the discussion here, specifically how well he thinks the Christians are defending their faith."

So what do you mean by the word, 'god,' E Favorite?

Dear GKC -

Thanks for the response which opens a few cans of worms not easily responded to through soundbites.

I didn't imply that Paul wrote the Hebrew scriptures, but you open a can of worms with your seemingly obvious and benign statement as it raises the whole question of whether Jesus and the NT prove a fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures, or if the Gospels were written as a ham-handed retrofit to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled scripture. I say ham-handed because the Gospels and Jesus himself often misquote and mis-attribute the OT verses/authors they reference. Does it matter as Paul didn't author the Gospels? No. It matters in that Paul wasn't aware of the Gospels, wasn't aware of a single word spoken by Jesus, and that for a man SUPPOSEDLY educated at the feet of the great Rabbinical teacher of his times, reference the OT not through the Hebrew version of the same but, rather, through verses as they appear in Greek in the Septuagint, and we know that the Septuagint is fairly littered with bad translations of the Hebrew texts (no more glaringly than in Isaiah where a mistranslation of the Hebrew word meaning "young girl" into "virgin" is responsible for the mythology of Jesus' virgin birth).

As far as The Great Commission as found in Matthew 28:19 - you are aware, are you not, that there is debate as to the authenticity of this passage. Granted, most of the controversy surrounds Jesus' mention of the Trinity, but as the entire passage looks to be a later insertion, and as the GC doesn't appear in the other Gospels, it's a bit suspect. This must be set against Jesus' words earlier in Matthew, which also include his saying "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." There is also the incident in Acts 16:6 where the Holy Ghost forbids the disciples to preach in Asia, and act (pun intended) that seems to directly countermand Matt 28:19.

BTW - your pointing out what the author of Luke and Acts said vis-a-vis the Great Commission again side-steps the fact that both of these books were written AFTER Paul wrote his epistles, and fails to address my statement that Paul could not have known about the strictures laid down by Jesus (or, the Great Commission, for that matter) as those books weren't around to read when Paul wrote his letters.

I would also like to hear you expand the the "Jewish sense" of the word "resurrection," especially as the Jews of the OT strongly disbelieved in resurrected gods, while the pagan religions had their fair share of resurrected gods (Note: I am not asserting that Jesus is a carbon copy of a resurrected pagan god, only that the idea of gods being resurrected goes back far into history and pre-history. After all, the Egyptians considered the Pharaohs to be living gods who would be resurrected in the spirit world. This "spirit world resurrection" is what I believe Paul believed in when he wrote about Jesus. It is my belief that Paul considered Jesus to be an entity entirely of the spirit world, not a corporeal being who actually walked among men).

Nice chatting. Gotta go.

E Favorite:
GK Chesterton - thanks for the long response, interesting, but I didn't notice an answer to my questions:

""Also if you think there are other religions that were not devised by god, did humans devise them? How can you tell a human-made religion from a god-made religion and how did you learn to do this?"

Perhaps you decided not to address them. If so, could you let me know?

Thanks

I thought I did answer your questions, E Favorite, but we'll go about it a different way.

"Also if you think there are other religions that were not devised by god, did humans devise them?"

By using the word, "god," if you are referring to the Creator God of Israel made known through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, the answer to your question is "yes."

"How can you tell a human-made religion from a god-made religion and how did you learn to do this?"

Well, my personal answer still stands but you seem to want more (even though my post was quite long!) The continuity of the biblical narrative over hundreds and hundreds of years is amazing to me. There is a grand narrative in which many different authors in many different settings have added to a consistent telling of God's salvation history. I'll stop here and see if you have a response.

I don't expect we'll hear from Bishop Wright, but I do wonder what he thinks of the discussion here, specifically how well he thinks the Christians are defending their faith.

Dear GKC -

"I'm surprised that you believe humans couldn't "come up with Xianity" when the whole thing was invented by none other than St Paul."

Really? St. Paul invented the Hebrew Scriptures? Interesting take, Mr. Mark.

"It certainly wasn't invented by Jesus who was a Jew and made it quite clear that he was sent to preach to the Jews. In fact, Jesus specifically instructed his disciples NOT to preach to the Gentiles (see: Matt 10: 5-6). His instructions to make disciples of "the world" refers only to the Jewish world."

It's a both/and Mr. Mark. Check out Matthew 28:19

"It was Paul who directly disobeyed the mandate of Jesus to NOT preach to the Gentiles, though the reason why that happened is very clear: Paul wrote all of his letters and epistles BEFORE any of the Gospels were written, and as Paul doesn't quote a single word of Jesus, he was obviously unaware of any stricture Jesus had placed on preaching to the Gentiles."

You are correctly pointing out that Jesus and Paul had distinctive roles within their particular primary audiences. Of course, the Apostle Paul was an extension of the ministry of Jesus, not a ministry unto himself.

"Do you really think Paul would have expanded the message of "Christianity" to the Gentiles had he been aware of a direct quote from Jesus instructing his disciples to NOT preach to the Gentiles? I think not."

I believe St. Paul understood the meaning of the word, "context" and of Jesus' particular mission. St. Luke is another good resource and example of showing the two sides of the same coin, mission to Israel (Luke's Gospel) and the mission to both Israel and the world (Acts of the Apostles.)

"closely resembled the many "mystery religons" of his day. In fact, the similarities to be found between Jesus and other pagan gods as depicted in the works of Paul reveal a concerted effort to remold the Jewish messiah as defined in the OT into something more attractive to the various pagan cults that were rampant at the time."

I highly disagree with your understanding that Paul's representation of Jesus closely resembles that of pagan religions, especially as it pertains to the Jewish sense of the word, 'resurrection.' And since the Jewish understanding of the word, 'resurrection,' is the centerpiece of Paul's theology, you are skating on very thin ice to draw such a conclusion.

"Contrary to Jesus being "unique," Paul's distillation of Jesus makes him more like the gods that the pagans were already worshiping."

See above again.

"Back at ya."

Sorry, but I didn't know we were in a defensive exchange.

GK Chesterton - thanks for the long response, interesting, but I didn't notice an answer to my questions:

""Also if you think there are other religions that were not devised by god, did humans devise them? How can you tell a human-made religion from a god-made religion and how did you learn to do this?"

Perhaps you decided not to address them. If so, could you let me know?

Thanks

Dear GKC -

I'm surprised that you believe humans couldn't "come up with Xianity" when the whole thing was invented by none other than St Paul.

It certainly wasn't invented by Jesus who was a Jew and made it quite clear that he was sent to preach to the Jews. In fact, Jesus specifically instructed his disciples NOT to preach to the Gentiles (see: Matt 10: 5-6). His instructions to make disciples of "the world" refers only to the Jewish world.

It was Paul who directly disobeyed the mandate of Jesus to NOT preach to the Gentiles, though the reason why that happened is very clear: Paul wrote all of his letters and epistles BEFORE any of the Gospels were written, and as Paul doesn't quote a single word of Jesus, he was obviously unaware of any stricture Jesus had placed on preaching to the Gentiles.

Do you really think Paul would have expanded the message of "Christianity" to the Gentiles had he been aware of a direct quote from Jesus instructing his disciples to NOT preach to the Gentiles? I think not.

That didn't stop Paul from creating a religion that closely resembled the many "mystery religons" of his day. In fact, the similarities to be found between Jesus and other pagan gods as depicted in the works of Paul reveal a concerted effort to remold the Jewish messiah as defined in the OT into something more attractive to the various pagan cults that were rampant at the time.

Contrary to Jesus being "unique," Paul's distillation of Jesus makes him more like the gods that the pagans were already worshiping.

Back at ya.

"GK Chesterton - do you think other religions besides Christianity were too brilliant to be devised by humans? If so, which ones and who devised them? the Christian God? the god of those religions? How do you know?"

E Favorite: While respecting other non-Christian faith traditions and recognizing their unique perspectives on the meaning of life, etc., I affirm the unique particularity of the Christian faith tradition which is inherent within the Christian faith itself. By respecting, I more specifically mean that many religions outside of the Christian faith share varying degrees of commonality with Christianity. I have also played a leading role in welcoming a proposed Muslim mosque in my community while at the same time maintaining my belief that the Christian faith is distintive, unique, and tells a particular story of salvation history.

"Also if you think there are other religions that were not devised by god, did humans devise them? How can you tell a human-made religion from a god-made religion and how did you learn to do this?"

I believe that spirituality as a general topic that is expressed in varying ways through non-Christian religions have some similarities with the Christian faith. The Muslim faith for example, emphasizes a strong commitment in justice issues such as homelessnes, poverty, etc. as does the Christian faith. Spirituality is not confined to Christianity, however Christianity does tell a particular story of God's salvation history which finds as its center the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How am I convinced that Christianity is of God? The story of the biblical witness with its twists and turns of humanity's faults and faithfulness intertwined together resonates with my own journey of faith. Just when I do something to renounce greed, for example, at the next turn, I find myself buying something I totally don't need! The other reason I am a Christian is the biblical story of grace and how in the midst of my own foibles, faults, and shortcomings, I have found the Christian faith to empower me to be the person I was intended to be and to keep moving forward.

I have also been the recipient of having many Christians who have walked the walk and talked the talk to serve as amazing mentors to me of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. Unlike some folks who have seen more Christians behaving badly which has turned them off from Christianity, I have noticed more people getting it right than wrong at least from a personal level.

Thanks for asking...

GK Chesterton - do you think other religions besides Christianity were too brilliant to be devised by humans? If so, which ones and who devised them? the Christian God? the god of those religions? How do you know?

Also if you think there are other religions that were not devised by god, did humans devise them? How can you tell a human-made religion from a god-made religion and how did you learn to do this?

Dave L: "I do not think someone should accept Christianity if he or she thought it to be false."

Of course not - the problem is, many people accept Christianity as small children, before they can read, let alone reason, taught by their parents and indoctrinated by the church when they also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, fairies and monsters and are way too young to determine what is true or false. The church gladly counts them as Christians without requiring that they learn church or biblical history. After that, a majority Christian culture makes it easy for a lot of people to keep believing, or at least to pretend they do, long after they’ve discarded belief in other unseen entities.

Dawkins makes the point in his book, "The God Delusion" that we don’t call a child a Republican child or a Democratic child, even if their parents are strong adherents to a particular political ideology. Society considers these to be adult identifications, influenced, but not determined by parents. Yet children are identified religiously and often separated from other children strictly based on differing beliefs,imposed by their parents, in invisible supernatural beings.

Regarding my involvement with the Episcopal church, it was positive. In know that many people in the two congregations I was in do not themselves believe in a supernatural god. They like the tradition, the music, the other parishioners, the community and the good works the parishes do. So did I. It’s the feigning of belief, perpetuation of stories presented as fact, the abstruse language sometimes used by clergy trying shield their own knowledge of Christian history, while appealing to parishioners with different levels of belief and understanding, the continuing reference to worship and prayer and the symbolic eating of flesh and blood, among other things, that ultimately made it impossible for me to stay.

"Agree, but can the assertion "trust God" only be discussed intellectually and after deep study?"

When it comes to exegeting an eminent scholar like Wright, yes. Though see my response to Mark where I concede that I may be taking things a bit too far.

"I notice you didn't directly address the part of my post on Christian revelation and indoctrination - where an intellectual knowledge of Christian theology isn't required to accept Christianity. I know you didn't say that yourself, but I do wonder if you've seen that too and what you think about it."

It's interesting and having looked back at your previous post it seems like there are various issues. I will try to address them succinctly. I do not think someone should accept Christianity if he or she thought it to be false. That just wouldn't make sense anyway. Besides, orthodox Christianity as I see it is more than just some cheap believism where one just needs to believe the right bits of doctrine. That's just gnosticism. Doctrine is important, but only as it relates to Jesus being lord, over individuals and over the Church as a whole (It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss whether or not the Church actually reflects this).

Having said that, do I think that one needs to have a doctorate in theology before becoming a Christian? No, that's just not feasible. As for the rearing of children, I'm not a parent so I shouldn't presume to dictate how one should raise his or her children. I see no problem, however, in a Christians raising their children as Christians, Muslims raising their children as Muslims, or even atheists raising their children as atheists. I should qualify this by saying that there would still need to be a proper respect for autonomy. I have no idea what that would look like 'on the ground.' I don't know how much autonomy children should be allowed, nor do I think that autonomy should trump every other consideration in every instance (though I should be clear that I am in no way advocating some type of intellectual coercion). It's an interesting issue because Christianity, and other religions too for that matter, is not just some abstract theological system, but an entire worldview that affects a person's entire life.

On a side note, I'd love to hear more about your experiences in the Episcopal church. I myself am quite theologically conservative, though I attend a parish that is mixed theologically. I find it refreshing that we can take our issues and disagreements seriously, while still sharing Eucharist at the end of the day (or at the beginning as the case may be). One of the things that has drawn me to the Anglican Communion is its desire to take serious the scholarship that is being done by those like Borg, Crossan, Wright, Witherington, or whoever.

Cheers,
Dave

"I think that if we can agree that the phrase "trust god" didn't originate with the good Bishop, then we can also agree that an entreaty to "read up" on what that phrase MAY mean shouldn't limit itself to A bishop, wouldn't you agree?"

No I wouldn't agree. Neither the neanderthals nor the ancient egyptians have posted a response to the question on this blog so such an analysis would be irrelevant. Further more, this thread is in response to what Wright posted. If we were under Dom Crossan's or Bishop Spong's post, our universe of discourse would be restricted to Crossan or Spong.

"(N)ine times out of ten, Rev Elliot's writing style serves to cloud his message, not to clarify the same."

I'll take your word for it. I generally restrict myself to reading the posts of members of the Anglican Communion, of which I am a part. (Except when Crossan posts, of course, as he is an eminent scholar.)

"Sorry, but your entreaty to read a few of the good Bishop's books to understand his meaning behind the phrase "trust god" puts me in mind of a couple of other two-word phrases...like, "picking nits" and "suspending disbelief.""

That may be. I've been rather into analytic philosophy, within which clarity is paramount and there's a technical term or phrase lurking behind every corner. In my defense, I think the underlying motivation to have an adequate grasp of what one actually is saying before arguing against him or her is something that we should all strive for. If I take that too far, so be it. I'd rather err on the side of clarity.

I should note that I am not advocating a suspension of disbelief. I am not suggesting that we should agree with Wright before we understand clearly what he saying, if that even makes any sense. Disagreeing with someone and arguing against him or her are not the same thing. One can disagree with him all he or she likes. I am only suggesting that if we are to argue against him, we need to argue against what he's actually saying and not build up straw men for ourselves.

Cheers,
Dave

E Favorite:

GK Chesterton - I don't know who created the financial systematic injustices. But I bet it was humans and not God. Just like I bet it was humans who invented religion.

Sorry, I don't bet.

Honestly, E Favorite, I find it bewildering that you would think that humans were brilliant enough to come up with this thing called Christianity on our own. If it was simple and easy, I'd agree with you, but Christianity is way too complex to put your wager on humans.

GK Chesterton - I don't know who created the financial systematic injustices. But I bet it was humans and not God. Just like I bet it was humans who invented religion.

E Favorite: "Who created the financial systematic injustices?"

Chesterton: "Ah! We're back to the post on greed."

Nice punt.

Short Answer - Greed runs down the middle of each and every one of us and raises its ugly head both individually and collectively. In the big picture (2nd half of Dr. Wright's answer) living in the richest country of the world, we all have our share of blame. How does your worldview address your own question?

And actually, E Favorite, I wasn't punting since we've already had this addressed on a previous post. I guess we can recycle your question if you'd like.

E Favorite: "Who created the financial systematic injustices?"

Chesterton: "Ah! We're back to the post on greed."

Nice punt.

Chesterton: "a Christian should keep in mind the bigger picture of God's concern for the poor and the financial systematic injustices that create such impoverished conditions."

Who created the financial systematic injustices?

Ah! We're back to the post on greed.

Dave L - Ditto Mr Mark.

Plus, you say: "Tough. To have serious intellectual discourse we need to do serious intellectual work."

Agree, but can the assertion "trust God" only be discussed intellectually and after deep study?

The Bishop's suggestion, which was about dealing with personal finances, hardly seemed geared to an intellectual audience. It was simple and direct and, with the exception of the "trust God" part, very easy to understand.

I notice you didn't directly address the part of my post on Christian revelation and indoctrination - where an intellectual knowledge of Christian theology isn't required to accept Christianity. I know you didn't say that yourself, but I do wonder if you've seen that too and what you think about it.

Regarding my statement, "so much for the intellectual argument," please excuse if I'm not using the proper terminology. I like the company of intellectuals, but don't consider myself to be one.

I was a Christian for a long time, though, and don't recall ever hearing anything remotely intellectual until I was an adult attending a very liberal Episcopalian church.

Dear Dave L -

I think you're missing the point of the comments by E Fav and myself on the "trust god" issue.

You recommend reading a couple of Bishop Wright's books to get a clearer idea about what he means when he says "trust god."

But why stop there?

Why not go back into pre-history to discern what trusting god meant to Neanderthals? Why not study what the phrase meant for the Egyptians, the Jews, the Greeks etc? I think that if we can agree that the phrase "trust god" didn't originate with the good Bishop, then we can also agree that an entreaty to "read up" on what that phrase MAY mean shouldn't limit itself to A bishop, wouldn't you agree?

Now, I'm not suggesting that the good Bishop's posts should go to the length of, say, Rev Willis Elliot's posts in their overuse of quasi-parenthetical phrases and other "helpful" devices that the good Rev employs in his attempts to make his arguments perfectly clear and monumentally specific, because nine times out of ten, Rev Elliot's writing style serves to cloud his message, not to clarify the same.

I would HOPE that any two-word phrase (such as "trust god") would not need an encyclopedia or an apologia to reveal its intent to the average reader. Let's reserve that exercise to phrases like "military intelligence" and "compassionate conservative," shall we?

Sorry, but your entreaty to read a few of the good Bishop's books to understand his meaning behind the phrase "trust god" puts me in mind of a couple of other two-word phrases...like, "picking nits" and "suspending disbelief."

"Who created the financial systematic injustices?"

Our forbears, but we all certainly sustain it.

"Let's say you're right, still, it seems like asking a lot for people to read two of the Bishops books in order to understand and appreciate what he meant when he said "trust God.""

Tough. To have serious intellectual discourse we need to do serious intellectual work. And that includes reading (and I don't mean wikipedia or some other unaccredited web site).

"It sounds like the argument I've heard from some Christians, that people really shouldn't criticize or reject Christianity without first doing a deep study of its theology."

That wasn't what I was saying. What I said had nothing to do, or perhaps little to do, with accepting Christianity -per se-. Rather I was only dealing with gaining a proper understanding of what Wright meant.

"So much for the intellectual argument."

I don't mean to sound rude, but there was an argument there? An argument has premises and follows rules of logic, deductive, inductive, abductive, etc, moving through these from the premises to the conclusion. Perhaps you meant that I was giving an argument. I wasn't. I was only clarifying what I thought Wright meant since there appeared to be to me a misunderstanding. I was not arguing that this position is true, though I think it or something like it is true.

Cheers,
Dave

Chesterton: "a Christian should keep in mind the bigger picture of God's concern for the poor and the financial systematic injustices that create such impoverished conditions."

Who created the financial systematic injustices?

Dave L: "Rather, I think what he had in mind was a trust that whatever happens, God will have the last word. I admit that that might, prima facie, sound like a 'pie in the sky' theology, to which I can only say that one would have to read Wright's books on Christian hope (Suprised By Hope and the Resurrection of the Son of God, for example) to see that this isn't what he would mean."

Let's say you're right, still, it seems like asking a lot for people to read two of the Bishops books in order to understand and appreciate what he meant when he said "trust God."

It sounds like the argument I've heard from some Christians, that people really shouldn't criticize or reject Christianity without first doing a deep study of its theology. Still, those same Christians have no problem with people accepting Christ based on a sudden, random and brief spiritual experience of the presence of God (more specifically, the Christian God) or through childhood indoctrination. Young children are taught Christianity and only Christianity, not as theology, but something they must believe in order to be in good standing in their earthly culture and to avoid an eternity of suffering after they die.

So much for the intellectual argument.

It seems to me that the first part of the Bishop's response to the question is a statement that a Christian should be open to financial help and support as needed. Some things - like simply going to a budget training workshop may be what is needed to do. I sense the Bishop is reacting against a pie in the sky theology which Dave has picked up on in his earlier post.

The second part of the response is a statement that a Christian should keep in mind the bigger picture of God's concern for the poor and the financial systematic injustices that create such impoverished conditions.

"My observation was made along the lines of "trusting god" being no more necessary to solving one's financial problems than it would be for, say, boiling water."

I'm not sure that the bishop meant 'trust God' in the sense of just asking God for something to happen and His making it happen. That would lead to the Santa Claus in the sky that has been so rightly criticized.

Rather, I think what he had in mind was a trust that whatever happens, God will have the last word. I admit that that might, prima facie, sound like a 'pie in the sky' theology, to which I can only say that one would have to read Wright's books on Christian hope (Suprised By Hope and the Resurrection of the Son of God, for example) to see that this isn't what he would mean.

Come at from a different angle, it would mean for the Christian trusting in doing things the way that God intends and not accumulating and hoarding wealth in a way that is contrary to what God intends. This, I believe, is what he further elaborated on in the second paragraph where he moved from the individual/familial situation to that of the broader national, and even international, economic situation. Put crudely, this would mean moving away from a system whereby, either as individuals or as societies, we move away from a system where we hoard wealth at the expense of the majority of the world's population.

I've rambled on longer than I had intended or wanted. Just to reiterate, I do not believe that Wright intended to imply a sense of 'trusting in God' like advocates of the prosperity gospel would use that term. Rather, it was trusting that God's way of doing things is ultimately the correct way for the Church.

Cheers,
Dave

Mr Mark: "I say that fully aware that were one to ask Bishop Wright how to boil water, the answer would come back: 'trust god, fill a pan with water, place it on the stove, turn on the heat, and let it boil. Get help if necessary.'"

Priceless!

Bishop Wright - are you getting the message? Trying to insert God into everything is just silly, even to people who believe in him.

It also makes me realize that God usually comes into the picture when there's uncertainty - and people are feeling out of control. I doubt many religious people would ask God to let the water boil. They know how to get the water to boil every time. It's simple and doesn't require calling out to God.

Rich kids living on a trust fund don't ask God to help them pay the rent. They know the money is there. It's the poor people, uncertain if they can meet the bills, who are praying for a little magic.

The Bishop tells us to trust God then asks several questions, but provides no answers.

For instance, “Why do these things happen?” and “What are the systems that seem so inflexible and inexorable?” These seem like economically related questions. I don’t have answers to them, but I think I’d ask an economist if I wanted to know.

The question, “Which gods are we worshiping that are extracting their usual price -- of sacrifice of weak victims?” implies that if we worshipped those other gods there would be fewer tough financial times for the weakest among us. This in turn suggests that the strongest among us would get by just fine worshipping the gods who demand the sacrifice of weak victims. I don’t know how the bishop would know any of that. I don’t remember reading a thing about that in the Bible or in Anglican church doctrine. Plus, I know some wealthy people who are atheists, so where do they fit in? Who are all these gods, by the way? I thought he believed in only one god. Is he speaking metaphorically?

Then he asks “What would it mean for a society to worship Jesus Christ instead of Mammon?” which makes me wonder if the Bishop is implying that increased worship of Jesus Christ would indeed improve the financial situation of the weakest citizens. He also implies that financially secure people worship Mammon. Perhaps some do, but what about the ones who have always worshipped Jesus Christ and always been financially well off? What are they doing right?

Financal issues are confusing enough already; inserting Gods into the discussion doesn’t help a bit.

Well, I do not know the answer, nor does anyone else, I do not think god is interested and should he should be, we are just dumb Americans the Stupid, we pray a lot and nothing happens, we lie a lot and a lot happens...I think this is a Garden of Eden....and am thankful to have experienced it...too bad ...so few have screwed it up for the many...when will Anericans the Stupid wake up...

Dear Dave L -

Thanks for the comment.

My observation was made along the lines of "trusting god" being no more necessary to solving one's financial problems than it would be for, say, boiling water.

I say that fully aware that were one to ask Bishop Wright how to boil water, the answer would come back: "trust god, fill a pan with water, place it on the stove, turn on the heat, and let it boil. Get help if necessary." ;)

"I don't see how that statement is enriched by the words "trust god" appearing therein. Certainly, the advice contained stands on its own merits minus the words "trust god.""

As a traditional, orthodox Christian, it should come as no surprise that Bishop Wright would include trusting God as part of what people that share his faith should do with their finances.

From the perspective of someone who doesn't share his theology, an atheist for example, trusting God would of course have no bearing since he or she would believe that there was no god to trust.

"Perhaps one would do well to quote LaPlace in this instance, ie: the importance of god to the hypothesis in question."

I think the same thing can be said as stated above, that for someone like Wright, trusting God is an integral part of any moral issue because it goes along with the entirety of his underlying theology. Thus, God would be immensely important.

One could object and ask, "Well, why should I accept the whole underlying theology?" This question, however, important though it may be, would be beyond the scope of the bishop's post and beyond the scope of the question to which he was responding.

Cheers,
Dave

{{{{{ Justly, "In E.C.L.A.T + “i” = LiFE/Photon Awareness We Trust!"}}}}}}

Bishop Wright writes:

"Personal finances: trust God, ask the hard budgetary questions of yourself and your family, and make the tough decisions. Get help if necessary."

I don't see how that statement is enriched by the words "trust god" appearing therein. Certainly, the advice contained stands on its own merits minus the words "trust god."

Removing any of the other suggestions from the text (ie: "ask the hard budgetary questions of yourself and your family, and make the tough decisions. Get help if necessary.") significantly weakens the advice given.

Perhaps one would do well to quote LaPlace in this instance, ie: the importance of god to the hypothesis in question.