Christianity needs a resurrection according to 'intellectual atheism'

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Interesting, thanks. I'll share with my husband. He's a humanist, I'm a Christian.

grandtanteJE65

The headline really made me laugh!

Christianity already has a resurrection, you know, so is not in need of what it already has.

However, I know what whoever wrote the headline meant.

Yes...and thank the Lord for that! ?

What I don’t understand is why people can think believers are irrational and then go off and read their horoscopes.

Btw this is an old thread resurrected.

The headline really made me laugh!

Christianity already has a resurrection, you know, so is not in need of what it already has.

However, I know what whoever wrote the headline meant.

Referring to God or Jesus as the fairy in the sky is rude and insulting to those of faith (it’s happened on this thread and a previous one in similar vein).
I believe in Jesus and have faith. If you don’t that’s fine. You won’t find me being rude or insulting to you because of your lack of faith or your beliefs. If you can’t show me and others the same courtesy then perhaps you are not the intelligent, nice, humanist person you think you are.

Bluebelle 13.25 "Why was that child a boy? Obviously because it’s a patriarchal society." Not necessarily true.

Since there is no sex in heaven then God himself, though usually referred to as "the Father," is sexless. (in heaven they don't need to physically reproduce, as they receive a constant supply of good people, and even some of the unco' guid. Just as well they are not restricted for space) When, according to the Bible, he caused a clone of himself to be born as a human being, that mortal baby would, as a human, be either a human male or a human female. If he allowed the child's mortal nature to take over from conception, then he would also allow his conception to be as a mortal human, whose sex was a matter of chance.

To debate why Jesus was male is one of the questions Alegrias doesn't like, of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There isn't any answer. He was male because he wasn't female.

unherd.com/2021/08/does-jordan-peterson-believe-in-god/

This essay by Giles Fraser covers some of the same ground- I found it very interesting on the nature of faith.

My first thought was that Christianity does not need a Resurrection - it already has one!

Nietzsche's superman is unlike the Nazi fallacy of master race. The ethic we may take from Nietzsche's superman is that of helping self and others to be stronger than unquestioning followers of dead creeds. I can see how Nietzsche 's thought is compatible with process theology. Onward and upward.

I would have thought process theology pertains to development over time so that God is still coming-to-be, whereas absolute mind is eternal not temporal. Absolute mind does not necessarily imply God.

I have probably not understood process theology.

I think you misunderstood several things there.

1. I mentioned functionalism in the context of a question about Cartesian dualism, not as an aspect of social theory. In that sense it is a theory of mind - see plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/

2. Process theology is wholly compatible with the idea of absolute mind.

3. Nietzsche’s ‘übermensch’ is a risky intellectual model. It was the inspiration for some rather nasty policies in 1930s Germany. I quite like Nietzsche’s works, but you need to read him in context and with caution.

4. Christian anthropology is much more varied, nuanced and complex than you suggest. The view ‘God became human that humans might become Gods’, variously ascribed to Clement of Alexandria and Athanasius (and others) is pretty mainstream, and that is hardly glorifying helplessness.

Geekesse, I am too much attached to the notion of absolute mind to be attracted to process theology.

Regarding functionalism, I agree that religions' functions include bearing society's moral code. However the prevailing post-Christian phase won't last forever, and the traditional mythology is not credible. In addition we have to recognise Nietzsche's objection to Xianity, that it is a religion for the poor and meek. Therefore we need a new definition of what the strong individual is. IMO the strong individual is one who helps others to be strong and creative, not one who glorifies helplessness.

I' m glad to hear it, Geekesse. I must learn about process theology.

Caleo

It is not possible to teach both Xian doctrine and philosophy. What would happen if one of the philosophy students learned to dislike Cartesian dualism?

Well, they could opt for one of a number of other options, including Platonic dualism, functionalism or dual aspect monism, which seems to be a popular option among those who espouse process theology. None are incompatible with religious faith per se, though they confound religious fundamentalists.

It is not possible to teach both Xian doctrine and philosophy. What would happen if one of the philosophy students learned to dislike Cartesian dualism?

geekesse

The view that anyone who practices a faith is, by definition, “spouting rubbish in public” is just as bigoted as the view that people who do not have faith are pig ignorant. I don’t hold either position, despite the evidence on this thread.

No one has called you ‘ pig ignorant’. You’re the one who talked about ‘ spouting rubbish’.
“ Mmmmm. people don’t patronise me, but I don’t spout rubbish in public “.
That was you wasn’t it.
I’m starting to realise why we’ve come across so many ministers without faith. Makes sense now.

The view that anyone who practices a faith is, by definition, “spouting rubbish in public” is just as bigoted as the view that people who do not have faith are pig ignorant. I don’t hold either position, despite the evidence on this thread.

Toadinthehole

‘ I’m a practicing Christian professional theologian’. So you are ‘ spouting rubbish in public’ then geekesse. You make absolutely no sense at all!

???

‘ I’m a practicing Christian professional theologian’. So you are ‘ spouting rubbish in public’ then geekesse. You make absolutely no sense at all!

Alegrias who can we trust? Jesus.

Seriously, Jesus. He said He would be killed but would rise on the third day. He did.

geekesse

*HolySox*, you said ‘I think it’s more likely they’re following what Jesus said geekesse. Not to waste time on someone who clearly isn’t getting it, but to move on.
I’m assuming then, that you do spout rubbish in private. Good to know you don’t see yourself as perfect. That’s a good start.’

I’m a practising Christian professional theologian. I taught doctrine, ethics, philosophy and Biblical studies to people who were training for ministry for ten years. I probably ‘get’ quite a lot of it.

No... I said that geekesse!!!. It really isn’t worth it Holysox. Time to move on....

HolySox, you said ‘I think it’s more likely they’re following what Jesus said geekesse. Not to waste time on someone who clearly isn’t getting it, but to move on.
I’m assuming then, that you do spout rubbish in private. Good to know you don’t see yourself as perfect. That’s a good start.’

I’m a practising Christian professional theologian. I taught doctrine, ethics, philosophy and Biblical studies to people who were training for ministry for ten years. I probably ‘get’ quite a lot of it.

25Avalon

WWM2 it is logical because as an agnostic you are saying as we cannot prove God’s existence or non existence all we can say is we don’t know. It is the difference between knowledge and belief. You might believe God exists or not but you cannot know.

Yes, absolutely this.??
It isn't down to anyone to ‘prove’ that God exists, we can choose to believe or choose not to believe or to be agnostic.
Atheists say ‘there is no God’ ( they can’t know that)
And others say ‘there is a God’ ( they can’t know that.)

As for the ‘gullible’ jibe, that could be levelled equally at anyone who is an atheist, for their strong ‘belief’ that there isn’t a God ( without any facts to prove that assumption.)

An interesting essay, anyway Baggs.

Yes, he was a Christian.

But that had no impact whatsoever on the quality of the science he did.

Einstein was born Jewish. Arithmetic was codified by Muslims. Lots of scientists have religious beliefs. Who do we trust?