GeorgeW

Pete, Selecting the best case to debate with a conservative is not a criterion that I would adopt in deciding the likely truth of biblical texts.. I would prefer to go with the preponderance of evidence and let the chips fall where the may. Also, in my experience, attempting to disabuse others of their beliefs is not very productive. An old friend I saw this weekend has been trying this for years with a number of people including several conservative pastors. To my knowledge he has neither 'converted' anyone nor planted any serious doubt. George

Jeffrey, Welcome. I see that you joined in one of the discussions, I hope you will contribute to others as well. George

Annie, welcome, you may well be in the right place. I hope you will join the discussions. BTW, what took you to South Korea? George

Yes. Good point. George

Pete, I don't think any of the biblical writings would meet a standard of "conclusive proof" as, among other things, none survive in their original form. I encourage you to read Walker's article. Although it would not meet your standard of proof, I think you would find it interesting and more than plausible. According to Walker, even conservative scholars now agree that one of the two sexist Corinthian passages (1 Cor 14:.4-35) is a non-Pauline interpolation. George

Pete, Sorry for the name confusion. I promise to do better. According to Bart Ehrman ("The New Testament"), all of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are "probably pseudonymous. and Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are "possibly pseudonymous." Then, according Walker, the author of the article I cited, portions (including some of the most offensive to modern sensibilities) of 'authentic' Pauline letters, are interpolations. So, my point is that some of the material that many of us find disturbing in material attributed to Paul was not written by Paul. I am not suggesting that I agree with everything he authentically wrote, but he should not be held responsible for things he did not write. George

Paul, Part of my softening on Paul (the other one) is that some of the more offensive passages attributed to him were not actually written by him. I referenced some of this an earlier thread - here http://tcpc.ipbhost....al-egalitarian/ I concluded the OP with the statement "So, were we to ignore the letters not actually written by Paul and delete a couple of possible interpolations in the authentic letters, we would be left with a ‘radical egalitarian.’ Maybe Paul has gotten a bad rap from some biblical critics." Also, Robert Wright, in "The Evolution of God," attributes the notion of universal love to Paul, not to Jesus. Jesus' mission was to the Jews; Paul's was to anyone. George

Paul, You make some good points. As you note, there was great diversity among early Christians until the orthodox group won. Their victory was one of power and influence, but not necessarily truth. (BTW, if you have not read Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" I am sure you would like it). As you say, if there was great diversity among the early Christians why insist on narrowing the definition now? FWIW, I am developing a little different attitude about Paul (the original one) than most progressive whatevers. Maybe another thread should be started to discuss Paul (the other one). George

Ron, My proposal is those who 'sincerely' consider themselves Christian. Maybe I should add sanely and soberly as well. I don't think Dawkins would sincerely call himself a Christian. I don't think the chief Rabbi in Israel would or the Grand Mufti in Saudi Arabia would as well. However, Bishop Spong and Pat Robertson both do. So, I would accept them both as Christians (although they might not accept each other). George

Yes we have but that doesn't suggest that the discussion should be closed. Interlocutors differ and we get different perspectives. Over time, my own views have been modified to some degree (although not a Damascus-road experience). So, I think an ongoing conversation is worthwhile and your contributions are a valuable addition. FWIW, my own views on the questions about what is a Christian and what is an atheist are more descriptive than prescriptive. I try to look at the features of those who claim to be Christians (from right to left) and those who claim to be atheists. A prescriptive approach is one in which the characteristics are defined by the person or denomination and others are evaluated according to that set of criteria. I don't think there could ever be any common ground with this approach, the more conservative the definer, the more narrow the definition and vice versa on the liberal side. George

Ray, I don't find a great deal of ambiguity in the saying which is also attested n Mark and Luke. Whether Jesus actually said it is another question. The fellows of the Jesus Seminar were evenly divided on this question. According to Mason and Robinson ("The Early Christian Reader"), in the first century, Jews were influenced by the Roman practice of monogamy and there was a debate among Pharisees about the appropriate conditions for divorce. Jesus may have been weighing in on this debate. George

Yvonne, Hang in there, I can attest it is possible. Quiting (Jan. 21, 1987, 10PM) was maybe the hardest thing I have done in my life. Several months after quiting, I had a dream that I had been to the doctor & was told I had only a few months to live. My reaction was not concern for my family, fear, anxiety or the like - it was euphoria: I can smoke again! I no longer have any desire or graving. But, were they to find a health antidote, I would start back in a heartbeat. George

I checked to see whether Haidt (The Righteous Mind) has anything to say about 'shame.' Among other things he says that psychopaths lack certain emotions such that "they feel no compassion, guilt, shame or even embarrassment, which make is easy for them to lie, and hurt family friends, and animals." (underlining mine). As I suspected, shame is an emotion that yields a social benefit. George

I would propose that shame can play a positive role in helping control anti-social, bad behavior - particularly when no one is looking. Since, I assume it is a universal human emotion, it would likely have some evolutionary basis. George

Joseph, I would not even think about answering for Yvonne, but I personally would not hesitate to use the 'ashamed' word here. I identify as an American and although I am not so naive as to think all Americans are paragons of virtue, I would like to think that our country generally represents much better values than those expressed in this picture. George

I have no problem with 'patriotism' as such when it comes to social identity and responsibility (like voting, public service, etc.). However, this super-patriotism with its sense of superiority and exceptionalism is disgusting, and dangerous. Group selection (mentioned by Paul above) has its positive aspects, but it also has its potential dark side of which this is a good example. How someone who claims to be a Christian (follower of the Prince of Peace) could espouse this point of view is really a puzzle. My only explanation is that the same worldview that motivates this attitude also motivates their religion. "Turn the other cheek" is probably seen as a nice, but naive thing to do with many biblical exceptions that can be used as a rationale. George

According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, she was almost certainly a woman, probably a freed slave and probably had Roman citizenship. Her name, Junia, was likely a that of a noble Roman family who had owned her. It says, "Only later medieval copyists of Rom 16:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle and wrote the masculine name “Junias.” They say that the name Junias did not exist in antiquity. George

Ron, I have just returned from a couple of weeks away and found this thread still buzzing and with your participation. Thanks for the very kind words and welcome back. I hope you will be more active here in the future as you were a most valuable participant in the golden age of the Spong forum. George

Good point. George

So, why bring it up especially in the context of you disagreeing that PCs are properly "Christians?" I think the point you were making is clear - UUs are honest in admitting they are not Christians in contrast to PCs. George

Therefore others are dishonest? I object. I think you are right that the Jesus of 30CE would differ with those here. In fact, that person, I think, would differ with almost everyone who claims to be a Christian today. But, perhaps, this very insightful person of 30CE would be an insightful and enlightened person of 2012 and would have modified his views based on history, experience and science. George

Bill, I take issue with this comment. You are suggesting that those who do not conform to your personal definition of Christian are "dishonest." You are certainly entitled to define it as you wish, but to claim that others who differ with your definition are 'dishonest' is a step too far, IMO. George

Absolutely no animosity from my side. Although I disagree with you on this, I respect you and your views. George

Actually, I don't agree while respecting you and your views. Guns in the hands of incompetents are dangerous. There are many accidental gun deaths that do not result from criminal behavior. I also have a question about the term 'criminal.' While it literally means someone who violated the law, I think of it as those who habitually and intentionally violate the law. I am not sure I would classify some redneck who comes home and finds his wife in the arms of his best friend, gets a gun and irrationally kills them both as a 'criminal' although he inexcusably committed a crime. In fact, I think that most non-accidental gun deaths involve crimes of passion between those who are related in some way (family, marriage, socially). I am also not sure that I would classify the teenage perpetrators of Columbine as 'criminals,' the kid at Virginia Tech or even the kid at Aurora. These are seriously disturbed people. So, I don't think the issue is one of good guys (all mature, sober, responsible) and bad guys whose profession is committing crimes. It involves untrained, immature gun owners. It involves people who have anger issues, people who abuse drugs and alcohol, people who have mental problems, kids, etc., etc. George

Although there are certainly some exceptions (see our Joseph), there is some correlation here between fundamentalists and gun proponents. It has been said that their issues are "guns, gays and God." I have tried to understand why this would be and have concluded that there is no reasonable theological grounds for this and it must spring from a general conservative worldview. They also tend to be very militaristic in direct contravention of Jesus' teachings. George