Was William Lane Craig lying for Jesus?

This is what is currently puzzling me.

CraigCBS_2

William Lane Craig is undoubtedly the most popular defender of the Evangelical faith and for both believers and unbelievers, he represents the very best Christianity has to offer.

While trying to prove the historicity of the resurrection of Christ, William Lane Craig often presupposes the existence of God as background information. I think this is a very clever move for the way probabilities are assessed  in that case can largely vary according to the truth of atheism or theism.

But there is a problem here: William Lane Craig also uses the resurrection as independent evidence for demonstrating God’s existence.

Jason, the questioner asked:

“So for the first argument stated, you contend that the resurrection of Jesus serves in itself as evidence for God’s existence. In your Resurrection Hypothesis, you appeal to the evidence for the existence of God as a part of the specific evidence used to show that the Resurrection Hypothesis is more probable than not.Are these arguments not then circular reasoning?”

Let us see what Craig’s answer was.

“My studied view, then, is that one first establishes theism on the basis of the arguments of Natural Theology like the cosmological, teleological, axiological, and ontological arguments, so that when one comes to explaining the facts pertinent to Jesus of Nazareth, one may include as part of one’s background information the existence of the God of Natural Theology. You misunderstood the Defenders lectures. There I challenge the assumption that the probability of the resurrection on our background information Pr (R|B) is very low precisely because we can include God’s existence as part of our background information. We’ve already completed our Natural Theology before we come to an examination of Christian evidences.

So why do I frequently present the resurrection as part of a cumulative case for God’s existence in debates? Well, the reason, frankly, is evangelistic. I don’t want to leave students with just a generic God common to all monotheists but with some warrant for believing in the Christian God, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth.

Now if one includes the resurrection itself as part of the evidence for theism, as I often do in debates, one cannot include God’s existence as part of the background information (though one could still include evidence like the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the reality of objective moral values, etc.). What one will say in this case is just that we’ve got no reason to think that Pr (R|B) << 0.5.

So I hope you’ll find that I’ve been consistent in including God’s existence in the background information only in cases in which I am not using the resurrection as part of a case for theism. When using the resurrection as part of a theistic case, one should simply say that the resurrection has not been shown to be improbable on the background information because we’ve not heard any good arguments for atheism.”

The problem is that in such debates Craig leaves to most of his listeners and readers the misleading impression that one can, on a neutral agnostic ground, prove the resurrection and use this as evidence for God, even tough he seems to recognize at other places that you need to consider God’s existence as granted before doing this.

Is this a real inconsistency? Is that perhaps even a true deception?

I don’t know.

 

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

 

 

 

Advertisements

A Lesbian coming out as a commited Christian

Interview with Kimberly Knight about progressive faith and tolerance

I had the immense opportunity to have a chat conversation with Kimberly Knight, who spoke of her experience as being a passionate follower of Christ while being gay in an American context.

https://i0.wp.com/wildgoosefestival.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/WGF13-Kimberly-Knight.jpg

I report it as vividly as it happened. Both of us would be glad if her testimony would be of help for other struggling Christians.

Kimberly Knight: Hi there, so sorry. I took a little nap and it went a bit longer than I planned :$

Lothars Sohn: Alright I know that all too well :=) One feels kind of frustrated after that, doesn’t one? 😉

Kimberly Knight: 🙂

Lothars Sohn: Anyway I’m so glad and thankful you’ve accepted my invitation!

Kimberly Knight: my pleasure

Lothars Sohn: So I would like this to be more a conversation than an interview. So if you wish you can ask me things back

Kimberly Knight: ok – sounds good

Lothars Sohn: What would you tell us if you were to sum up the most important steps of your life?

Kimberly Knight: Wow, that is a big question…When asked, a few key places in my journey come to my mind: my childhood with my parents, though not perfect, was formative in good and challenging ways.I was fortunate to have both of my parents together until the day my mother died in her 60s…

Lothars Sohn: I’m sorry for that…it must have been very painful

Kimberly Knight: I was raised in the southern US and much of our lives revolved around food – holidays, daily meals, friendships.

Lothars Sohn: Is that not the case EVERYWHERE in America? 😉

Kimberly Knight: indeed but there’s nothing as good as southern fried chicken, buttermilk cornbread and a huge potof collard greens…I felt loved by my parents even if over the years it was clear we were so very different.

Lothars Sohn: I know that feeling all too well.

An important part of my faith journey happened when I was a teenager, we attended a church named Confederate Ave. A Baptist Church in downtown Atlanta. We worshiped with an all white congregation and I really felt like I belonged there, I loved the church, the youth group and the Wednesday night suppers.

Well, there is one Sunday that I will never forget.  The church was packed, more than I had ever seen. This was in the early 80s and people who had been members but not attending for some time were present. The reason that everyone came that day was to vote about a membership request and behold, the custodian for the church, an elderly black man, wanted to join the church. I understood that to mean he wanted to give his life to Christ that is how we talked about it, joining the church meant giving your life to Christ.

But when I witnessed the congregation voting, by a show of hands in the sanctuary, whether or not he would be allowed to join, I was devastated because it seemed to my young self that they were deciding whether or not he could give his life to Christ.

So in that instant I understood for the first time what religion looked like – and it looked like humans deciding who was worthy of God and who was not.

Lothars Sohn: Yes!

So I walked away from the church that day not to return for a decade but – i went to college and studied religion

Lothars Sohn: to a secular college?

Kimberly Knight: yes I thought a wholly academic approach would appease my mind and my heart

[Lothars Sohn: I had a similar feeling…

Kimberly Knight: well, that is what i told myself

Lothars Sohn: you were young…

Kimberly Knight: yes so I took my sweet time in undergraduate school and I was starting to understand who I was – well, i was confused and was trying to NOT understand who I was Through a series of bad and then somewhat better choices I was now attending a United Methodist church in my neighborhood

Lothars Sohn: and then you probably wondered: does God really want that for my earthly life?….

And my pastor (who would later come out too and start a UCC church) introduced me to my now partner and it was like God smacked me in the head with a cosmic frying pan. As I began to enter seminary I also started coming out and  I could feel God walking with me in such a tangible way like I had never felt before. 

When I kissed my wife for the very first time, I knew I was home though I kept waiting for it to feel bad, dirty and wrong – gross even, but it only felt more right every time she kissed or touched me and so I began the long process of shedding my old life and claiming the next part of my journey as God wanted it for me.

That is a long answer and there are many more points on the journey but – there you go

Lothars Sohn: of course, it was very poetically described :=)

Kimberly Knight: thank you – I have never blogged about that – not yet but likely will soon

Lothars Sohn: I’m looking forward to it! Now would be my next question

It is clear that (conservative) Evangelicalism in America is facing a great crisis. An increasing number of clever young people are leaving conservative and fundamentalist churches and oftentimes become very resentful atheists. What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

Kimberly Knight: That we are in a great shift….some are calling it another Great Awakening in America

Lothars Sohn: For me it would be a Awakening if those folks gave up their wicked theological beliefs and worshiped a truly loving God instead of becoming militant atheists.

Kimberly Knight: I believe some people, with hungry minds and open hearts are engaging the Bible in ways they were specifically trained not to – with questions and faith rather than certitude and dogma

Lothars Sohn: I hope so, but I have experienced all too often how people who were fundamentalists turned into nasty antitheists who want to destroy every religion and oftentimes even Socialism for that matter

Kimberly Knight: indeed but that is not what I am seeing in the Emergent movement

There are plenty of atheists who are really just angry at religion and God but in the emergent movement something else is happening and it is becoming more progressive and it is moving toward activism.

Lothars Sohn: That’s also what I am aiming at with my blog.

Kimberly Knight: me too, exactly

Lothars Sohn: I am sure that fundamentalism is destroying Christianity

Kimberly Knight: well, in some ways – but it also may end up saving it, that is a weird thing to say, let me explain… perhaps the best thing to happen for LGBT rights is Westboro Baptist nonsense

Lothars Sohn: I understand but feel sad about them, often angry but also sad. I wish them to get “saved” from their wickedness.

Kimberly Knight: me too…but, if American Christianity had just idled along as bland and ineffective that might have killed it and was killing it, since that is not Christian either. But with the willful ignorance and the twisted rendering of the bible, people had something to get mad at – to awake from and were so tied to a life within the church they had to seek for answers that still equaled God

Lothars Sohn: This leads us to my next question

On of the purposes of my blog is to defend a form of progressive Christianity which is intellectually honest and rationally and morally acceptable.

One complaint of militant atheists (the so-called New Atheists) is that liberal and progressive Christians are dangerous because they legitimize the existence of fundamentalism. I believe that in quite a few cases they are unfortunately right since many liberals AVOID confrontations to preserve “the Christian unity“.

What should we do about that?

Kimberly Knight: Oh, well I do not avoid confrontation as you see 🙂

Lothars Sohn: yep!

Kimberly Knight: and yes, plenty of my progressive sisters and brothers criticize me for not being gentle and loving (which I am) or for not being a bridge builder (which I am)

Lothars Sohn: but Jesus was confronting some of the pharisees of his time all the time those who had a wicked theology and behavior

Kimberly Knight: I feel called, in no uncertain terms, to confront that which has hijacked the gospel. not that God needs little me to defend God but because I feel called to be very clear that what many Americans think about Christians, God and Jesus are obsoletely wrong and it is wrong for me to remain silent when I can speak up

Lothars Sohn: For the readers, could you please put the NALT project in a nutshell?

Kimberly Knight: Hmm, well that is not my project and I have not even recorded a video yet but i can try: it is a project, inspired by the It Gets Better video project where progressive Christians are invited to share a video talking about how they understand their faith, primarily in terms of love and radical hospitality

Lothars Sohn: that speaks to my heart 🙂

Kimberly Knight: Create a video, upload it to YouTube and tag it with the appropriate words and key pharses and then let NALT know it is out there

Lothars Sohn: I am sure this is going to have much success

Kimberly Knight: I hope so and I know it has been criticized (exactly for why you mentioned)

Lothars Sohn: and I hope this will also show to the non-Christian world that we don’t agree with what fundamentalists are doing

Kimberly Knight: but I am a fan of the project if it saves one life, prevents one person from believing that God hates them

So here is a question for you: why the name Lothars Sohn?

Lothars Sohn: I come from Lorraine/Lothringen, a region in France with a German-speaking part, expect that the French government destroyed our culture and language

 Kimberly Knight: I am sorry to hear that

Lothars Sohn: I am proud of my root and have taken “Lothar’s son” as name in honor of king Lothar the founder of my region.

And like the Israelite are sometimes described as being the children of Abraham I am a child of Lothar 🙂

Kimberly Knight: cool

Lothars Sohn: Did you take a look at my theological argument for the acceptance of homosexuality? I think it is extremely compelling

Kimberly Knight: I have not yet, I am sorry – can you resend the link…this latest blog post about my seminary has taken a great deal more energy than I imagined

 Lothars Sohn: Alright! No problem.

Kimberly Knight: and now I am supposed to be writing a sermon for tomorrow

Lothars Sohn: You can perhaps hope that the Holy Ghost will transfer all words to your brain tomorrow at 09 am 😉

Kimberly Knight: that is apparently what I am counting on

Lothars Sohn: But let’s move forward if that’s the case.

Many conservative Christians agrees that homophobia is morally wrong while holding fast on the idea that homosexuality is inherently sinful. They teach that the desires are not sinful but that God demands from homosexual to always remain single but that one should encounter them with compassion.

What is your response to this widely held belief?

Kimberly Knight: LOL, well, that they are wrong

Well, here is why – I believe in a created universe and us as creatures created by our creator in that universe and I know that God – who is love – did not create millions of people that are expcted to remain single and in pain for their whole lives. We are created for relationships.

Lothars Sohn: yeah, I often say to grow in our ability to give and receive love

Kimberly Knight: and some are created to love people of a different gender and some are create to love people of the same gender and there are scads and scads of biblical arguments we could engage in but if in the end we are not acting out of love and compassion, then the answer is always wrong

Lothars Sohn: That’s no problem for homosexuality but I am struggling a lot

with pedophilia which is undoubtedly harmful (unlike homosexuality or trans sexuality)

and people never choose a pedophilic orientation

Kimberly Knight: right

Lothars Sohn: why would a good God allow that…I struggle a lot with that problem…

Kimberly Knight: but that is an orientation that is based on predatory behavior…Ah – that is a good question and that is the theodicy question right?

why does God allow cancer or earthquakes or rape or domestic violence?

Lothars Sohn: it’s part of it but it’s more than that

because human evil is supposed to stem from our free will

but many psychopaths and pedophiles have no such free will, they are evil from their early childhood onwards.

How can God, how can we hold them accountable, if they were wired that way so to speak?

Kimberly Knight: because what they do robs another of their humanity and anything that robs another of their humanity – anything that causes such pain or death even…

One can only be guilty if one have had the choice to do otherwise and psychopaths seem to be machines which have been programmed to kill.

Kimberly Knight: not really and there is a difference between guilt and evil or guilty and wrong

Lothars Sohn: yeah I would say it’s bad, terribly bad what they do

Kimberly Knight: and so, they must be stopped by other humans with free will who understand that what they do harms innocent people

Lothars Sohn: Yes but I believe that no psychopath will end up in hell for having done what his brain was programmed to, God will redeem him

Kimberly Knight: well, I am not sure what I think about heaven and hell

Lothars Sohn: Welcome to the club, I am also unsure about heaven and hell 🙂

Kimberly Knight: All I know is that the life we have to live should be lived with love and compassion and yes, I may have compassion for the murderer and understand that they were broken by the evil free will of others likely

Lothars Sohn: sometimes yes

Kimberly Knight: but I can still believe they must be stopped from perpetuating the cycle

Lothars Sohn: Of course! And I try to take very seriously Jesus call to love our FOES

Kimberly Knight: yes, that is the hardest of all

Lothars Sohn: But to my mind God can only be just and good if He offered eternal life to everyone truly desiring him

I don’t know that but I diligently hope it is true 🙂

Kimberly Knight: me too

Lothars Sohn: Otherwise I am dumbstruck by the fact that conservative American Christians focus most of their attention on homosexuality and abortion. But when I ask them about the communism within the early Church in the Acts of the Apostles, they say it was bound to a specific time and place and is no longer valid today.

How do they manage doing this?

Kimberly Knight: the way all humans do – we see what we want and we ignore what we do not, they read the bible through the lens of their desire

Lothars Sohn: Is it not ironic that they pretend they are the ones who take EVERYTHING in the Bible seriously

Kimberly Knight: yes

Lothars Sohn: the people holding the view that homosexuality is sinful are often good persons who are wrong and sometimes even brainwashed. How can we encounter them in a spirit of love while not hesitating to point out their errors?

Kimberly Knight: i suppose it depends on their posture and by that I mean, if they are content to love and not try to create secular laws based on their religion and are not about hurting or changing anyone, then we can likely be in relationship and being in relationship does more to point out errors than telling them so

Lothars Sohn: True enough! But even people wanting to turn America into a theocracy can have a good heart even if they are terribly misguided…

Kimberly Knight: oh yes, and I have met them many times and there is rarely a thing I can say to change their mind so sometimes relationship is not even possible

Lothars Sohn: that’s the real tragedy of fundamentalism of any kind, religious and secular alike

Kimberly Knight: yes and that is what makes it unChristian because if we can not be in relationship and find a way to love one another then we are going against the will of God as revealed in the Incarnation

Lothars Sohn: And they often bully emotionally those they view as their enemies

Kimberly Knight: oh yes

Lothars Sohn: but many militant atheists who are former fundamentalists bully their enemies in the same way, in a very unrighteous manner

Kimberly Knight: yep, equally as wrong

Lothars Sohn: How should we react as Christians when confronted with such bullies?

Kimberly Knight: sometimes it is walking away, sometimes it is confronting them

Lothars Sohn: Consider someone for instance who says that in the LONG term, he wishes “fags” to be put to death. The Westboro baptists aren’t the only ones out there who want the state to murder homosexuals.

Kimberly Knight: then I confront them with truth and then walk away

Lothars Sohn: yes, Jesus did that!

My honest investigation of the Bible has led me to the conclusion that the books considered as Canonical are NOT more inspired than other religious books.

What is your own view of the Bible?

I know it’s a big one 🙂

Kimberly Knight: oh I agree, I have for a very long time…I am reading (off and on) The New New Testament. an interesting collection

Lothars Sohn: and what is the NNT?

Kimberly Knight: a compilation of canonical and non-canonical texts into a new canon but of course it leaves out plenty that could be there

Lothars Sohn: And what kind of texts are those?

Kimberly Knight: it is an extended version of the New Testament including very early Christian texts having been rejected by the Church. Sleep well!

Now we have touched on many topics during this conversation and we would be extremely glad to learn what our readers think about all of this.

 

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

Do extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence?

Deutsche Version: Erfordern außergewöhnliche Behauptungen außergewöhnliche Beweise?

https://lotharlorraine.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/4e4f9-1797-dog-walking-on-water.jpg

Answering such a question proves much more difficult than many people like to think.

The famous Skeptic of parapsychology Richard Wiseman from Britain was once asked why he rejected Extrasensory Perceptions (ESP) and specifically remote viewing. His answer was very revealing:

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

“If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

“But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you’d probably want a lot more evidence.

“Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don’t have that evidence.”

Such an approach to anomalous phenomena is often backed up by the legendary Bayes’ theorem, according to which one can actualize the likelihood of the truth of a theory by incorporating the information conveyed by new facts.

I’m going to keep a critical examination of the related philosophy Bayesianism to future conversations.

In the second book of the Narnia series “The King Of Narnia“, the famous writer C.S. Lewis completely rejected this method. The young Lucy came into Narnia, a parallel world, after having hidden within a wardrobe. Back in the house, she ran to her siblings who utterly denied the reality of her experience.

Worried that their small sister kept holding fast on the truth of her incredible story, they searched Professor Kirke who rebuked them for not trusting Lucy. After they retorted that her claim was extraordinary, he replied:

“Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.”

That is to say, for the old wise professor, normal evidence was sufficient for vindicating the wild claim of the little girl.

At this point, I am kind of confused about both principles.

On the one hand, it is clear one should always take our background knowledge into account before evaluating a new hypothesis or theory.

On the other hand, if a set of facts is sufficient to prove an ordinary claim, I don’t see why a similar set of facts should fail to prove an extraordinary conclusion.

Let us now see some concrete examples of well-known phenomena which were rejected in the past due to their alleged extraordinariness. Saying in hindsight they weren’t extraordinary after all would be all too easy for this was the way they were perceived by scientists at that time.

The existence of meteorites was once thought to be an outlandish claim and the normal evidence was explained away in terms of purely terrestrial phenomena or witness hallucinations.

In 1923 the German geologist Alfred Wegener found normal evidence for continental drift, but failing to present a mechanism which worked, his theory was ignored and even ridiculed during decades.

The same thing could be said about ball lightnings which were often dismissed as stemming from illusions or hallucinations experienced by the witnesses.

http://csironewsblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/balllightning_joethomissen.jpg

Nowadays a similar phenomenon can be observed for the small proportion of flying objects which are truly unidentified.

If extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence, then UFOs (in the present) does not and continental drift, meteorites and ball lightnings did not (in the past) exist.

But if one only seeks for normal evidence, a strong case can be made that some UFOs (according to the original definition as “unidentified”) really exist. I am going to explain this in future posts.

We will also explore together the possibility that there really exists normal evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

 

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

 

 

 

 

The Definition of Christianity

Deutsche Version: die Definition des Christentums .

Youtube Version

The Definition of Christianity 

Image

The definition of what it means to be a Christian can be quite tricky for many persons. Certain conservative definitions such as :
A Christian is someone believing in the entire Bible“ or

A Christian is someone going to the holy Mass every Sunday and taking all sacraments

are extremely reductive and exclude many people who have profound experiences with Jesus while not fulfilling the above definitions.

I will modestly propose a definition allowing us to encompass the whole Christendom:

„A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“

This is certainly compatible with the two definitions mentioned above but it is not limited to them.

What to think now of the numerous German Protestant pastors who like Jesus a historical person but don’t believe in a personal God and go sometimes as far as denying the existence of any afterlife?

I would consider them as „atheists for Jesus“, they might be extraordinarily good persons and I see no reason why they won’t spend the whole eternity with God and have a very good surprise after having passed away.

But I cannot call them Christians.

Now, I’d love to hear the criticism and comments from people having various perspectives on those topics.

 

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Was Jesus just your average Joe?

Deutsche Version

Image

Many people skeptical of the truth of the Christian faith hold fast on the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was just an ordinary man among many others.

According to them, the origin of the Christian faith can be understood as follows:

1) After the death of Jesus the disciples experienced wonderful hallucinations which made them believe he rose from the dead

2) They didn’t believe in an empty tomb, this aspect was completely irrelevant for them

3) Paul held the same belief

4) Later writers made up stories about the honorary burial of Jesus and the empty grave

There are many not-implausible, contradictory theories about the historical Jesus which are hard to evaluate owing to the lack of hard data.

But I believe this kind of scenarios can be ruled out as being unlikely.

There were after and before Jesus time quite a few Jewish apocalyptic prophets who suffered an atrocious death as martyrs. Why did none of their followers develop a faith in the resurrection of their master? Why did none of them develop a faith that their master was God Himself?

Both aspects were present within the early Church very soon after the death of Jesus.

So I believe that the minimal conclusion that there is something special about Jesus of Nazareth is warranted.

Further conclusions are going to be hugely dependent on the presuppositions of one’s worldview.

 

 

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

 

 

 

 

 

Homosexuality, Polygamy and One Night Stands

Deutsche Version: Homosexualität, Polygamie und One Night Stands

ONS

Damien from the blog http://gaywest.wordpress.com/ has kindly accepted to comment my last post about homosexuality.
I pointed out that God’s commands are by no means arbitrary and always exist for the sake of the well being of man. That’s why we ought to reject every prohibition which doesn’t contribute to the protection of the person and society but leads to frustration and suffering.
I’ve realized this is the case for commited homosexual relationships and consequently, I am for the abolishment of every political, societal and psychological discrimination against homosexuality in and of itself.
Damien sees himself as a Christian and naturally agrees with me, but would himself extend this reasoning further: one ought also to accept One Night Stands (ONS) and polygamy (which is also called „Polyamory“ in New Speak) since those are not detrimental.
This raises interesting philosophical and theological questions.

What defines what is right and what is wrong?
According to Hedonism, something is good if it maximizes one’s own pleasure and minimizes one’s own pain.
According to Utilitarism, something is good if it maximizes the pleasure of the whole humankind and minimizes the pain of the greatest number of people.
These are undoubtedly two very popular ethical theories in the Western world. However even if one accepts one of them I doubt that ONS and polyamory are beneficial for such goals.

But I reject both theories and think that they lead in quite a few situations to acts which appear to each one of us as devious.
As a Christian, I think that one of the main purposes of life consists of growing in one’s ability to give and receive love. This is also the conviction of many non-theistic worldviews.

And if one accepts this principle, it is obvious that it is much better and healthier to have sex within the frame of a commited relationship than piling up many sexual partners one after the other (ONS).
Polygamy has been many times practiced in the human past and leads to jaleousy and inustices. I don’t doubt that in some cases it can lead to real bonds and affections between the partners but humanly speaking, it seems to be pretty difficult to simultaneously love several partners.

So these were my thoughts on this topic and now I’d be extremely glad to receive the opinion of people from many perspectives.

 

 

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the Definition and Meaningfulness of Progressive Christianity

Deutsche Version: Über die Definition und Bedeutsamkeit vom progressiven Christentum 

Youtube version.

Here, I want to give my own thoughts about the definition of progressive Christianity, as I understand the term and apply it to myself.

Basically, and at the risk of oversimplifying, (most) evangelicals believe that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God and the very foundation of Christianity.
Of course, there are differences in the way infallibility is understood, and some conceptions are much more sophisticated than others.
Yet, the large majority of evangelicals agree that whatever stands in the Bible must be devoutly believed in, even if this leads quite a few of them to conclude that genocide and the butchering of babies is sometimes okay, or that God predetermined many human beings to end up in hell where they’ll suffer eternally for sins he pre-ordained them to do.

But they generally beg the question: if we found out that the God of an inerrant Bible is not only not superior to our greatest, most beautiful ethical ideas, but infinitely inferior to them and (grating for the sake of the argument) that this being is real, why should we worship him? And why should we call him God anyway?

To my mind, both progressive and liberal Christianities begin with the realization that it is neither epistemologically nor morally permissible to believe everything standing in our favorite holy book without any kind of reality-check. Our faith should always welcome  facts from the external world and from our undeniably true moral intuitions to correct and possibly abandon our theological doctrines.
If we don’t, we cannot bring up a coherent answer to Sam Harris’s contention that religious people would systematically slit the throat of every girl with red hair if God said so in their sacred scriptures.

Liberals believe  that miracles are impossible (or at the very least extremely unlikely) and that we should interpret the resurrection as a psychological experience of the first disciples. Many go as far as saying that God cannot be personal (even as a distant landlord) and that he has to be some kind of energy or impersonal concept.

Unlike them, progressive Christians do believe in the reality of a supernatural world, or are at the very least open to it (like in my case).
But they don’t view the Christian faith as fixed, unchangeable, but as constantly evolving as new data come in to correct and improve our beliefs.
This raises an interesting question: if we’ve given up inerrancy, how can we make a difference between true and false beliefs about God?
While I cannot pretend to speak for every self-described progressive Christian, my response would be that:

1)      God has necessarily to be a perfect being

2)      Despite all their flaws, humans are quite able to recognize goodness and perfection (and that’s what makes us guilty, like Paul expressed it in Roman 2).

Now, I welcome all your thoughts to this subject, hopefully we’ll have an enjoyable conversation!

Please, remember you’re free and even encouraged to comment on every post at any time!

 

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)