romansh

I think that is about right Joseph. But I am sharply aware that my mind (even when I get lost in it) is a reflection of the universe. If I become aware of the room I am in am I less lost? I look out the window ... less lost? I could go on. :-)

We are all smeared together with the universe whether we want it, realise it or not. Starting something with an upper case eg Allness, God, Being, One etc. is just sexing it up ... at least for me. So am I anointed or not? I understand you will try and pass the buck, so in this sense (in your eyes) am I Christian?

So one can't be a good Samaritan without being an inhabitant of Samaria ... fair enough. edit So being a Christian is a little like being in a club and adhering to a dogma of sorts?

Can someone be called [or even is a] Christian even if that person has never heard of the concept, Christ or even Jesus? So being Christian is it a set of beliefs or a set of visible actions? Some combination?

So Paul ... for me. We can spend a lot of time interpreting the past texts in terms of today's understanding. So depending on where we put our weight in "faith", the present or the past? For the past forty five years I have lived my life without a need of religiosity. Even my life before that was a curious mix. Today ...while definitely not religious in any of the worldly senses, I am in a semantic sense. One of the many etymologies of religion the meaning to reconnect. Now reconnect to what? To God, society, mankind, love? For me it is to the universe. We somehow see ourselves as separate. And yet we are not. We are part of the universe unfolding and indeed in some sense we do unfold the universe too.

Thormas and Paul. In your experiences, do you find the majority of self described Christians believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin and was resurrected in a literal fashion? For many Christians this is an absolute minimal belief. Having said that for me the relevance historicity of Jesus becomes irrelevant. Did Socrates exist? Interesting debate but what is important (to me), the thoughts and ideas handed down in his name or is it his historicity? I understand PCs are exempt from the requirement of these beliefs. The question for me is not what Jesus or some ancient scribe meant in the Biblical text (though it is interesting and possibly relevant) but it is about how we should interpret it today and reconcile it in the light of two millennia of collective experience.

Oh it's not the humour I find strange ... "knowing Jesus" etc seems strange to me.

This conversation sounds strange to my ears.

So accepting that the NT is not "history" ... which is fine. So what were the later scribes trying to tell their contemporaries back then? The historicity of Jesus or the degree of historicity is not an issue, at least for me. The question becomes is the NT (and other religious texts) a useful source of metaphors in today's world? Or are we just interpreting the texts through the lens of contemporary values?

You demonstrate my point Burl ... any more contemporary evidence corroborating the accounts in the New Testament?

Don't get me wrong, It is awhile since I read Did Jesus Exist, Bart if I recall correctly believed he was 90 % certain Jesus existed. While I am not sure how he could calculate such a number, I get his drift. Having said that, this is not an issue for me. Nor is the historicity of the NT. While I think it is poor and should be taken with a pinch of salt; the point for me is what where the later scribes trying to say and what in their environment that was causing them to say what they did.

Yep ... I will give you Josephus. He was born just after Jesus's death ... I gather he did not write that much and at least some of what was written is contested as his? Not exactly Bernstein and Woodward. Any other contemporary references?

You might enjoy the Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Jesus's Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore. It is novel based primarily on the time Jesus "went missing" from Childhood to his crucifixion ... basically chronicles his travels through the Eastern cultures. A bit raunchy, The story treats Jesus respectfully, but everyone around him is less than "perfect". If you liked Douglas Adams you may well enjoy this novel. ​I could not believe an American could write in a humour style that was so English.

Writers outside of the scriptures contemporary to Jesus.

ps I have read Did Jesus Exist? ​I don't recall Bart citing any contemporary evidence for Jesus. Though I do recall him providing a little bit of evidence for a contemporary Nazareth ... which up to about 2009 was scant to non existent. (2009 from memory)

Not really ... I was just cautioning against the use of the word proof ... unless you want to use in a legalistic (balance or probabilities, reasonable doubt) or in a logical/mathematical sense (where one's axioms are well developed). The rest of my post was agreeing with you and wondering about the necessity of the truthiness of the Jesus story. It's like wondering how real Winston Smith was in 1984 ... it potentially misses the whole point.

Proof? Corroborating evidence perhaps? Do we even have a Biblical claim that Jesus was literate? One of the concerns I have is that we have little contemporary historical evidence of Jesus's existence. OK we can take the various Gospels etc as evidence but the evidence is a little circular. Also a similar argument can be advanced regarding other historical characters; we might be a little circumspect about them too. So for me the questions becomes how literally should we take the New Testament ... if at all? While the historicity of the Jesus is an interesting debate, to me a more interesting question becomes what were the later scribes trying to say or were they just trying to document the history they inherited?

I get it Steve ... I am not making claim as to what is "real" ... only that there is a real. And if there is no real ... that too is reality. So you believe?

Again my take, for me: existence is real. My access to it is limited and incomplete; and much, if not all of it, is not what it seems. Illusory. Nevertheless my perceptions are a reflection of existence and at times that reflection may be distorted or at least the perception is distorted. And a "good" starting point for looking at illusions is when I use the words "I" or "my". I think of myself as real and illusory. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Oh I suspect Buddhists would by and large disagree with you. They certainly could agree that existence might not be what it seems. Be careful, Burl might be asking you what you mean by God or gods and then carefully explaining they are not accredited.

As a clarification I can safely say ... I don't believe in god or God. Also I can safely say I actively disbelieve in many forms of God ... and as Burl rightly portrays these are forms are likely false anyway. There are two gods I do not actively disbelieve in ... a pantheistic god ... ie god is synonymous with existence. Seems sort of pointless to disbelieve in existence. And the other would fall into the category of gods I have not thought of yet. I live my life as though existence is real.

I must admit ... I find the substance of your post not clear to me.

As to the original question ... for me Theism takes on two broad aspects ... one is a general belief in a god or gods. The other is a belief in a God normally a personal revealed God. The non-theism that Spong refers to is the latter meaning. Deism (and many of the other godisms) refer to my first more general lower case god.

God is also not recognized by as an accredited or legally authorized agent for many things ... medicine immediately comes to mind. So what? Why should I not take the health sector also up in to my hands ... just simply because god is not accredited appropriately? If trolling be questioning advice you give, then so be it.