How to argue these points?

[Sir_Knight]

Theology

The God of the metaphysical age is dead. There is not a personal god out there external to human beings and the material world. We must reckon with a deep crisis in god talk and replace it with talk about whether the universe has meaning and whether human life has purpose.

The doctrine of special creation of the species died with the advent of Darwinism and the new understanding of the age of the earth and magnitude of the physical universe. Special creation goes together with the notion that the earth and human beings are at the center of the galaxy (the galaxy is anthropocentric). The demise of a geocentric universe took the doctrine of special creation with it.

The deliteralization of the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis brought an end to the dogma of original sin as something inherited from the first human being. Death is not punishment for sin, but is entirely natural. And sin is not transmitted from generation to generation by means of male sperm, as suggested by Augustine.

The notion that God interferes with the order of nature from time to time in order to aid or punish is no longer credible, in spite of the fact that most people still believe it. Miracles are an affront to the justice and integrity of God, however understood. Miracles are conceivable only as the inexplicable; otherwise they contradict the regularity of the order of the physical universe.

Prayer is meaningless when understood as requests addressed to an external God for favor or forgiveness and meaningless if God does not interfere with the laws of nature. Prayer as praise is a remnant of the age of kingship in the ancient Near East and is beneath the dignity of deity. Prayer should be understood principally as meditation—as listening rather than talking—and as attention to the needs of neighbor.

Christology

We should give Jesus a demotion. It is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine. Jesus’ divinity goes together with the old theistic way of thinking about God.

The plot early Christians invented for a divine redeemer figure is as archaic as the mythology in which it is framed. A Jesus who drops down out of heaven, performs some magical act that frees human beings from the power of sin, rises from the dead, and returns to heaven is simply no longer credible. The notion that he will return at the end of time and sit in cosmic judgment is equally incredible. We must find a new plot for a more credible Jesus.

The virgin birth of Jesus is an insult to modern intelligence and should be abandoned. In addition, it is a pernicious doctrine that denigrates women.

The doctrine of the atonement—the claim that God killed his own son in order to satisfy his thirst for satisfaction—is subrational and subethical. This monstrous doctrine is the stepchild of a primitive sacrificial system in which the gods had to be appeased by offering them some special gift, such as a child or an animal.

The resurrection of Jesus did not involve the resuscitation of a corpse. Jesus did not rise from the dead, except perhaps in some metaphorical sense. The meaning of the resurrection is that a few of his followers—probably no more than two or three—finally came to understand what he was all about. When the significance of his words and deeds dawned on them, they knew of no other terms in which to express their amazement than to claim that they had seen him alive.

The expectation that Jesus will return and sit in cosmic judgment is part and parcel of the mythological worldview that is now defunct. Furthermore, it undergirds human lust for the punishment of enemies and evildoers and the corresponding hope for rewards for the pious and righteous. All apocalyptic elements should be expunged from the Christian agenda.

*** Continued in NEXT Post ***

 

[Sir_Knight]

*** Continued from PREVIOUS Post ***

God’s Domain according to Jesus

Jesus advocates and practices a trust ethic. The kingdom of God, for Jesus, is characterized by trust in the order of creation and the essential goodness of neighbor.

Jesus urges his followers to celebrate life as though they had just discovered a cache of coins in a field or been invited to a state banquet.

For Jesus, God’s domain is a realm without social boundaries. In that realm there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, homosexual nor heterosexual, friend nor enemy.

For Jesus, God’s domain has no brokers, no mediators between human beings and divinity. The church has insisted on the necessity of mediators in order to protect its brokerage system.

For Jesus, the kingdom does not require cultic rituals to mark the rites of passage from outsider to insider, from sinner to righteous, from child to adult, from client to broker.

In the kingdom, forgiveness is reciprocal: individuals can have it only if they sponsor it.

The kingdom is a journey without end: one arrives only by departing. It is therefore a perpetual odyssey. Exile and exodus are the true conditions of authentic existence.

The canon

The New Testament is a highly uneven and biased record of orthodox attempts to invent Christianity. The canon of scripture adopted by traditional Christianity should be contracted and expanded simultaneously to reflect respect for the old tradition and openness to the new. Only the works of strong poets—those who startle us, amaze us with a glimpse of what lies beyond the rim of present sight—should be considered for inclusion. The canon should be a collection of scriptures without a fixed text and without either inside or outside limits, like the myth of King Arthur and the knights of the roundtable or the myth of the American West.

The Bible does not contain fixed, objective standards of behavior that should govern human behavior for all time. This includes the ten commandments as well as the admonitions of Jesus.

The language of faith

In rearticulating the vision of Jesus, we should take care to express ourselves in the same register as he employed in his parables and aphorisms—paradox, hyperbole, exaggeration, and metaphor. Further, our reconstructions of his vision should be provisional, always subject to modification and correction.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Hi,

Question regarding one of your assertions:

"The doctrine of special creation died with the advent of Darwinism…"

How so?

Darwinism, as defined by the Catholic Church, has nothing to do with the doctrine of special creation, or of theological creation at all.

Darwinism is logically invalid: a totally non-teological and materialistic theory of the evolution of man; and Darwinsim hasn’t killed any theological view towards the creation of man, or of man’s evolution since his creation!

You’re espousing non-sequiturs upon non-sequiturs to support unsubstantiated allegations, that Darwinism is a credible explanation of man’s evolution since Genesis!

The theory of Darwinism is shot full of holes; lacks any rational explanation, is not the theory of evolution, is supported by no scientific evidence, is not logically sound, and is totally rejected by the Vatican.

You might want to rethink your initial premise.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I just want to point out that this is not MY position but that of Robert Funk, the Founder of The Jesus Seminar.

I’m merely trying to present the Catholic position in light of his arguement and need some help in doing so.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Sir Knight:

I just want to point out that this is not MY position but that of Robert Funk, the Founder of The Jesus Seminar.

I’m merely trying to present the Catholic position in light of his arguement and need some help in doing so.

Tell Robert Funk that the Catholic position is very critical of Darwinism, and it is not considered a part of the theory of evolution.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Sir Knight:

I just want to point out that this is not MY position but that of Robert Funk, the Founder of The Jesus Seminar.

I’m merely trying to present the Catholic position in light of his arguement and need some help in doing so.

Tell Robert Funk that the Catholic position is very critical of Darwinism, and it is not considered a part of the theory of evolution.

 

[Nate]

Sir Knight:

I’m merely trying to present the Catholic position in light of his arguement and need some help in doing so.

What argument? As far as I can see no argument was really made, just a bunch of unsupported assertions.

My response would be the counter assertion “that’s bull.” and wait for him to try to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nate:

What argument? As far as I can see no argument was really made, just a bunch of unsupported assertions.

My response would be the counter assertion “that’s bull.” and wait for him to try to justify the unjustifiable.

Right. And pretty low-grade bull at that.

“The God of the metaphysical age is dead. There is not a personal god out there external to human beings and the material world. We must reckon with a deep crisis in god talk and replace it with talk about whether the universe has meaning and whether human life has purpose.”

The whole argument is nothing but assertions. Where is there a shred of evidence, or even argument in this piece of gobbldy-gook?