Repeat after me: 'You are not a proper church.'

Sorry if I can't seem to take this seriously but I seem to have read it somewhere before. Was this really necessary? I mean, the Anglicans have virtually rolled over and said to the Pope, 'Father, you are our authority.' Meanwhile, as Romes fiddles once more with its anti-Protestant doctrines, the C of E has been burning with its mission real goodness. The Archbishop of York is promoting a rescue fund for farmers destroyed in the deluge, and the rules on where couples can be married have been relaxed. And Canon Andrew White, one of its top clerics (how can anyone truthfully say he is not in the Apostolic tradition?) has had to flee Baghdad. There are lots of comments on our news story also.

A paragraph in the recent Iarccum document, endorsed by senior bishops of both churches, said: 'We urge Anglicans and Roman Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our Communions to grow towards full, ecclesial communion.' But whatever the Vatican's Council for Christian Unity is up to, the CDF has other ideas. The RC Church is the one true church, and no-one else qualifies, whether they accept the authority of Rome or not. With the possible exception of the Orthodox. And even they're a long way off.

It's not so much what the document says that is irritating. It is that has been said before and there really was no need to say it again. No-one was under any illusions about what Rome, specifically the CDF, thinks of everyone else. But everyone was just starting rather to like Benedict XVI. Maybe that's the point. Maybe he preferred being disliked. Maybe some of us should have made more of those Good Friday prayers.

Here are some early responses to the new CDF document, which repeats Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus accusation that none other than Rome is a 'proper church'. Some (Protestants) more profoundly improper than others (Orthodox), even.

From Lambeth Palace: 'This is clearly a serious document touching on ecclesiological matters of wide significance: the churches and their commitment to full, visible unity of the one Church of Jesus Christ.' No great welcome there then. I understand the Church of England's faith and order advisory group and the bishops' advisory group will be looking at it.

From the Anglican Communion's Ecumenical Officer, Canon Gregory Cameron: 'In the commentary of this document we are told that "Catholic ecumenism" appears "somewhat paradoxical".  It is paradoxical for leaders of the Roman Catholic Church to indicate to its ecumenical partners that it no longer expects all other Christians merely to return to the true (Roman Catholic) Church, but then for Rome to say that it alone has "full identity" with the Church of Christ, and that all others of us are lacking.  As the bishops of the Church of England stated in their response to the Roman Encyclical "Ut Unum Sint" in 1997, such a position constitutes "a major ecumenical obstacle".'

And from the Rev David Phillips, General Secretary of the Church Society: 'The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (once known as the inquisition) has issued a statement clarifying Roman Catholic understanding of themselves and other churches. Nothing new is said, but it does clarify the way in which the Vatican has torn apart Christianity because of its lust for power.

'They remind us that in their view that to be a true church one has to accept the ludicrous idea that the Pope is in some special way the successor of the Apostle Peter and the supreme earthly leader of the Church. These claims cannot be justified, biblically, or historically, yet they have been used not only to divide Christians but to persecute them and put them to death.

'The desire for papal power, all too evident in history, continues to rear its head today. Sadly, too many political leaders seek to court that power and encourage it. In the past the English, in common with other nations, struggled against corrupt papal power for centuries. We thank God that at the Reformation, England, and the Church of England, were set free from that power.

'We are grateful that the Vatican has once again been honest in declaring their view that the Church of England is not a proper Church. Too much dialogue proceeds without such honesty. Therefore, we would wish to be equally open; unity will only be possible when the papacy renounces its errors and pretensions.'

Well said David, and well said Gregory. Even well not said Lambeth.

Honestly, this is getting to be almost as bad as the politics of the school gate.

Sometimes, I am still proud to be an Anglican. Long live the Reformation!

Comments

[frank, sydney]

Ruth, I've sent these sentiments separately in 3 letters, and as 1 letter, but none has been posted. Is there a reason for that? I'd appreciate the following or prior letters being printed. Thanks

So, David, God decided to pick you out as special enough to cure, and give an extra 30 plus years of life, for inexplicable reasons, while down the road at the nearest children's hospital hundreds of kids die prematurely, often painfully, despite their prayers and those of their families? So for a tiny few God bestows a cure, for the rest just a little bit of help to accept their sorry lot? Seems a bit arrogant and presumptive of you to assume God chose you for special treatment.
We understand little of what causes one person to develop cancers or other diseases while another doesn't, or why one responds to therapy and another doesn't. The many billions of chemical reactions involved in health and cure are not by any means understood, nor how our immune surveillance system breaks down, or seems to pick itself up and do the job again after seeming to falter or fail.
Emotional reversals occur all the time, and though they may be very difficult, they may at times only need another major emotional input, or a "sea-change" decision to be set in motion, and don't ever require any magical forces.
If a drug worked only 0.001% or less of the time, no-one would consider that it likely works at all, yet for unexplained events, that sort of hit rate is enough for the superstitious, gullible, or already biased believers to claim divine intervention and miracles actually happen!
When it comes to demonic possession, you've lost me before you've gone further than mentioning such a silly idea.

Miracles are an illusion. This doesn't mean nothing happens, just that the interpretation of how and why things happen is misinterpreted.
Miracles from the bible are uninterpretable. No documentation, no idea what the diseases were, or what conditions were hysterical, psychological, temporary, etc. Infectious conditions that resolve? De-myelinating diseases that remit? There is no documentation, no evidence, just hearsay written 30 to 70 years after the supposed events by unknown authors on the word of unknown "witnesses" of unknown reliability.
The bible accounts of miracles are worthless as evidence.

[frank, sydney]

So, David, God decided to pick you out as special enough to cure, and give an extra 30 plus years of life, for inexplicable reasons, while down the road at the nearest children's hospital hundreds of kids die prematurely, often painfully, despite their prayers and those of their families? So for a tiny few God bestows a cure, for the rest just a little bit of help to accept their sorry lot? Seems a bit arrogant and presumptive of you to assume God chose you for special treatment.

We understand little of what causes one person to develop cancers or other diseases while another doesn't, or why one responds to therapy and another doesn't. The many trillions of chemical reactions involved in health and cure are not by any means understood, nor how our immune surveillance system breaks down, or seems to pick itself up and do the job again after seeming to falter or fail.

Emotional reversals occur all the time, and though they may be very difficult, they may at times only need another major emotional input, or a "sea-change" decision to be set in motion, and don't ever require any magical forces.

If a drug worked only 0.001% or less of the time, no-one would consider that it likely works at all, yet for unexplained events, that sort of hit rate is enough for the superstitious, gullible, or already biased believers to claim divine intervention and miracles actually happen!

When it comes to demonic possession, you've lost me before you've gone further than mentioning such a silly idea.

Miracles are an illusion. This doesn't mean nothing happens, just that the interpretation of how and why things happen is misinterpreted.
Miracles from the bible are uninterpretable. No documentation, no idea what the diseases were, or what conditions were hysterical, psychological, temporary, etc. Infectious conditions that resolve? De-myelinating diseases that remit? There is no documentation, no evidence, just hearsay written 30 to 70 years after the supposed events by unknown authors on the word of unknown "witnesses" of unknown reliability.
The bible accounts of miracles are worthless as evidence.

[frank, sydney]

Miracles are an illusion. This doesn't mean nothing happens, just that the interpretation of how and why things happen is misinterpreted.
Miracles from the bible are uninterpretable. There is no adequate documentation of what happened to whom, and no record of what the diseases were. What conditions were in fact hysterical, psychological, or temporary? Were the conditions really cured or merely thought to be at the time? Did some have infectious conditions that were going to resolve whatever happened? Or perhaps de-myelinating or other diseases that remit? There is no documentation, and no evidence, just hearsay written 30 to 70 years after the supposed events by unknown authors on the word of unknown "witnesses" of unknown reliability.
The bible accounts of miracles are worthless as evidence.

[frank, sydney]

So, David, God decided to pick you out as special enough to cure, and give an extra 30 plus years of life, for inexplicable reasons, while down the road at the nearest children's hospital hundreds of kids die prematurely, often painfully, despite their prayers and those of their families? So for a tiny few God bestows a cure, for the rest just a little bit of help to accept their sorry lot? Seems a bit arrogant and presumptive of you to assume God chose you for special treatment.
We understand little of what causes one person to develop cancers or other diseases while another doesn't, or why one responds to therapy and another doesn't. The many billions of chemical reactions involved in health and cure are not by any means understood, nor how our immune surveillance system breaks down, or seems to pick itself up and do the job again after seeming to falter or fail. Emotional reversals occur all the time, and though they may be very difficult, they may at times only need another major emotional input, or a "sea-change" decision to be set in motion, and don't ever require any magical forces.
If a drug worked only 0.001% or less of the time, no-one would consider that it likely works at all, yet for difficult to explain events, that sort of hit rate is enough for the superstitious, gullible, or already biased believers to claim divine intervention and miracles actually happen, without any evidence in favour of such a conclusion!
When it comes to demonic possession, you've lost me before you've gone further than mentioning such a silly idea.

[frank, sydney]

David, your posting of Nov 2006 is hard to find.
If you were cured of an "incurable" illness, then, apart from being a contradiction in terms, it must have been a very powerful experience, but isn't proof of supernatural forces.
Yes, I don't believe anyone has ever been conclusively affected by a divinely inspired intervention, though unexplained happenings have occurred. We only understand a fraction of the interplay between illness and it's forms of pathology, the body and the mind.
And if your God cured you, why did he stand by when Madeleine was abducted? Why help you but torture her and her parents?

[David Smith]

Frank, Sydney:
'David, I believe it was all in your neurones. Some fired more, some less, and voila! No more, no less.'

So, Frank, 30 years ago - and after 25 years, I come to Jesus (who I am now 100% convinced by on-going experience exists and is still powerfully with us, via the Holy Spirit - though I wasn't then); I give my life to Him; and I am immediately, but, entirely coincidentally, healed of the medically incurable? Is that it?

I suppose you think then that all those people who came to and were also immediately healed by the same but then physically present Jesus, when He walked the earth, of clear physical as well as psychological, emotional, and demonic problems, were just beneficiaries of some 'placebo effect', too? Or, do you in both cases - a bit like Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye and saying 'I see no signal', perhaps still reach for that oft-dependable catch-all for many with no compelling reason to open their minds to the possibility of the existence of God: 'I just don't see any miracles. Accounts of them are all just made up.'

I must say, however it works, that faith of yours in 'no God' seems to me to be a powerful force.

[frank, sydney]

David, I believe it was all in your neurones. Some fired more, some less, and voila! No more, no less.

[David Smith]

Alan Marsh:
'David, it is somewhat unlikely that I have "brainwashed" myself by reading the bible.'

Thank you, Alan, for your reply - all of which I note.

A propos of the above comment, would saying that you have 'come to believe' through reading the Bible, rather than been 'brainwashed', describe at least part of what you are driving at here?

If so, can you think of a good way of putting a clear distinction between these two 'states of mind' into words?

[David Smith]

Frank, Sydney:
' ..grace [is] a figment of the imagination. Ever heard of the placebo effect?'

If you think this, Frank, I wonder how you would explain what I see as the impact of an only too real grace on me nearly 30 years ago. (I described this in my post of 30th Nov 2006 at 1.34am on Ruth's thread: Archbishop Meets Pope of 24th Nov 2006.)

[frank, sydney]

Sacraments are rituals in name and kind only, and grace a figment of the imagination. Ever heard of the placebo effect?

Luckily, I think a lot of people are saved disappointment when they die by the fact that life ends, and they are no more, think no more, exist no more, so never get to feel robbed of their expected or hoped for eternal life which doesn't exist!

[Alan Marsh]

David, it is somewhat unlikely that I have "brainwashed" myself by reading the bible.

To answer your question, faith exists both individually and corporately. The concept of the Body of Christ is integral to St Paul's idea of the Church, in which individual believers find their faith tested by reference to the teaching of the Body.

Thus the Church itself should be regarded as an essential aspect of Christian faith: the body founded by Jesus to proclaim the kingdom, safeguard and teach the faith, and to provide those who belong to Christ with a sacramental life until the reality of the new Jerusalem is revealed.

[J Pearce]

Hugh M,

It would be remiss of me not to point out that "our Dave" has a penchant for rushing to the defence of certain "faith oriented" contributors, when he feels they are being unfairly maligned - but appears blissfully unaware of other instances of often quite pointed and vituperative comments made by certain Christian brethren who have partaken of this blog.

I think its kinda cute, really.

[Hugh Manitas]

Brian: It's quite obvious that either you have no idea 'what the heck' I'm talking about, or you are deliberately being obtuse, in order to drag this out. You now have David Smith weighing in on a forum that typically is discussing nothing. He appears to be supporting your views, whatever they are, on the subject you say that you cannot understand.

1) You said on 23rd July 'It always amazes me that you atheists come on to these sites and spew your own brand of dogma'

2) I said that it was a public forum, implying that religious matters were likely to be challenged and discussed by other than religious people. That's all Brian.

3) Ergo; Don't be amazed, that a variety of people, not just those with faith, have views they wish to assert, albeit I personally am not an atheist.

[Hugh Manitas]

David Smith: I am not going to be drawn over commenting as to whether or not you are sensible. The charges of ad hominem hardly apply to any great extent to me, and to say they do is a constructed defence a propos of nothing. To yell "ad hominem" every time someone disagrees with someone else's position is a refuge for those who feel threatened or who have no argument. At the very best Brian does not appear to engage with what I am saying, (Is this ad hominem?) and from the way he appears to identify personally with issues under discussion, he seems persecuted to me. I can no longer be bothered to reply to him. I can continue to assert for ever and a day that the blog is an open forum, which is why he cannot expect to announce a religious viewpoint in isolation and without challenge. He still appears to misinterpret my post. (ad hominem?) Anyone reading his replies to my posts can see that. I did not attack him personally, nor his faith. Are we all really expected to adopt a style of appropriate blandness when contributing to this forum, in order to protect the egos or religious sensibilities of those we disagree with?

In this and just about every other post you appear to be obsessed with forms of sterile presentation which, I might add, seems to underpin your position on the issues you comment on. For you 'ad hominem' appears to be simply a device levelled at others in order to silence them. (To which you will no doubt cry 'ad hominem') If I believe this I am entitled to say it. Brian's remarks about colonialism, as well as being unsupported could be seen as an offensive and unnecessary remark aimed at 'you brits'. Imagine the response should I post a comment containing a derogatory collective noun for ethnic minorities or whatever.

How does that, and 'so now you are pope of the Gledhill blog' and 'who died and made you king' and 'last word freak' stand up against your definition of abuse? Are you calling Brian a straw man? I'm not. I merely suggested that issues of name calling seemed important to him.

And why do you feel the pressing need to jump in and speak for Brian anyway, albeit you are most certainly entitled to? Perhaps you could not resist the chance to pile on the rhetoric and attack me, because you do not like the way some religious arguments are deconstructed in favour of a more balanced approach or on behalf of humanitarian concerns?

From what I read yours is a fairly isolated position, even amongst Christians - or are they all advocating religious engineering for homosexuals nowadays? (You can interpret this as ad hominem or you needn't. It is how I see it.)

I comment from a humanist perspective and I have not once said that those who embrace faith are wrong to do so. And since, unlike some, I believe in freedom of speech, open-mindedness and liberalism I have never tried to silence anyone. Yes, some ideas and policies based on religious rituals and the selective interpretation of ancient texts seem bizarre, even wholly crazy to me, in the same way that a society based only on logic and humanity may be anathema to others. (Not my total position)

What I do have a view on is where religion, in whatever form, impacts socially and politically on wider society, in particular human rights, in a one size fits all perception of goodness and morality. That would no doubt be at variance with some religious views which seem to embrace rigidity, control and unthinking obeisance to others; in some case including you. (ad hominem? - or something I infer, rightly or wrongly from the sum total of your comments but am not allowed to say in The World according to David Smith?

My view is that those who seek to appropiate this public forum in the belief that they are bellowing stark religious views uncontested, are in fact attempting the impossible - to preach to the converted, empathize with the converted and reinforce the beliefs of the converted - in isolation.

If there are faith groups who believe that the world is not listening, as they manipulate and arrange it on behalf of us all or there are those who think they can have it all their own way, pronouncing over wider social issues such as the passing of laws, education, humanitarian concerns, public morals - even someone else's sexuality, they must be joking.

From where I sit, this forum is littered with your views. Whilst some engage with argument, many contain trite instructions to others; many centre on discussing perceived abuse. There are numerous examples of your posts which have no connection whatsoever with the headline or topic. In this I am also guilty here, having replied to your last dire offering. (ad hominem?)

[Brian]

Hugh,

Open means closed?

You said: "Brian, you cannot discuss religious policy IN ISOLATION on this blog because it is AN OPEN FORUM and others will comment upon what you say."

Hmmm...its an open forum unless you discuss religious "policy" in "isolation." Then its not.

I assume people will be commenting upon what I say. That is the nature of a blog...somebody posts something and then others comment.

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. What religious policy are you referring to? Isolation from what?

Methinks you are just trying to recover from your "shut up" comment to me by explaining it away. But the explanation is more lame than your original arguments.

Cheerio!

[David Smith]

Hugh Manitas to Brian:
'If calling me an idiot or a freak, or having the last word is important to you - feel free. Other sensible contributors can easily continue to gloss over your post.'

I am just one 'sensible contributor' to this blog, and, far from glossing over Brian's post, I thought he was absolutely right in the thrust of what he said and right to say it.

You did (and do habitually) use ad hominem (aka personal abuse) and then stepped back from facing up to this by trying to re-defining this as 'brisk rhetoric'.

You now compound this (with the above) by twisting what Brian said - aka 'creating a straw man': Brian did not say that he wanted to engage in ad hominem. Exactly the reverse. Nor did he say that he had any need to have the last word.

Why not just try sticking to arguing honestly with the actual arguments put - even by those you viscerally disagree with, and without personally abusing them?

[David Smith]

Alan Marsh:
'David, the Bible is not.. '

Alan, I can now hear what you are saying loud and clear. I am grateful to you for taking the time and trouble to 'expand' as carefully as you have.

But I think, too, that J Pierce makes a point that needs answering.

For my benefit as well as his, how would you distinguish between the method you describe, as well as what might happen to a person as a result of applying it, from mere brainwashing? Or, to put it another way, how could a person know if they had genuinely linked up with and heard from the living God, as opposed to, say, having simply mindlessly come to accept what is written in the pages they read - and this just because they had been pursuaded somehow not to view their content negatively or critically, before they started reading.

[Alan Marsh]

"Brainwashing", JP? It's called belief, and scientists do it all the time.

[Hugh Manitas]

Brian, you cannot discuss religious policy IN ISOLATION on this blog because it is AN OPEN FORUM and others will comment upon what you say.

Mercifully the English language can be reduced to words of one syllable.

If calling me an idiot or a freak, or having the last word is important to you - feel free. Other sensible contributors can easily continue to gloss over your post.

[J Pearce]

Alan,

I find your description of the purpose and use of the Bible and the use of "faith" to achieve Christian enlightenment, a perfect summation of how brainwashing takes place.

[Brian]

Hugh,

You said: "Your charges of ad hominem are confused with brisk rhetoric and do not stand up."

Saying that a person suffers from "persecution complex" is not ad hominem but "brisk rhetoric?" So if I called you an idiot, I can say this is just brisk rhetoric?

Its so nice to be able to twist the English language to suit one's purpose. 1984 is still alive and well in some quarters.

You said: "You cannot discuss religious policy affecting others in isolation - not on this forum."

I see. So now you are the Pope of the Gledhill blog, telling the peons what should be "proper" discussion on this blog. Who died and made you king?

You said: "Don't bother to respond to this post, replying to you is becoming tedious."

That is because your arguments have fallen flat.

Also, I would call you a "last word" freak but I don't want to engage in ad hominem, oh, excuse me, "brisk rhetoric."

[Alan Marsh]

Jim, I can explain how I came to know about God by demonstrating that I did so using my eyes to read, which in turn connected to my brain, the functions of which which I now understand rather better in the light of modern research.

But knowing how a machine works does not account for the inspiration which brought it into being, nor the motivation of its driver.

Here's another quote for you, from the lips of Jesus himself: God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4.24.

Jesus, long before scientists starting demanding scientific answers, insists that we will not know God through material things. Only in faith can we recognise and know him, in spirit and in truth.

[jim]

David, the personal experience of God within is obviously a powerful experience, but I believe explicable in terms of cognitive science and psychology, and occurs as all thoughts and emotions do, within the synapses and neurones of the brain.
Physical mechanisms will exist for it all, and similarly for love in all its forms, enthusiasm, awe, inspiration....you name it.
We are only on the cusp of science's search for understanding, and not much further ahead than the early seafaring explorers......

[jim]

David, the one liner about the 500 is one of the least convincing references in the bible, and I think likely an addition to add weight to the story.
Pity there wasn't the media of today around, and widespread literacy within the populace.
Islam spread with amazing speed too, albeit with coercion as an inducement as well, but not as the only driver. A personal, spiritual faith and relationship with God, and connectedness with the world around them, was a new experience for Muslims.
The spread of Christianity was fastest amongst those with no knowledge or witness of Jesus other than Paul's enthusiastic portrait of him.

[Tony Francis]

Geoffrey Smith, I don't have any argument with you about St. Thomas Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God as presented in Summa Contra Gentiles, then somewhat revised in Summa Theologia. These are very much Greek in origin. Specifically, they come from Aristotle. We should also mention St. Anselm's proof: "God is that which nothing greater can be conceived." Then there was St. John Damascene's assertion that all humans are born with an innate knowledge of the existence of God. Damascene went on to prove the existence of God through change and by finality. Others, including Aquinas found fault with this assertion because anything that is known, cannot be proved to exist. Another proof is from St. Augustine: "It is self evident that truth exists, for he who denies that truth exists concedes that truth exists. St. John 14:6 'I am the way, the truth and the life.'" These theologians all concluded the existence of God was self-evident. By utlilzing Plato's question: "What is being?", Augustine developed the concept of "essential theology" or "negative theology". Aquinas took a different tack, concluding the existence of God was not self-evident, but could be proved. But even he acknowledged that reason and logic can only go so far and in the end, it is a matter of faith. His path led to the discovery of "existential theology" (the essence of God is to exist). Others find "proofs" superfluous, since their faith is all that is needed.

[Alan Marsh]

David, the Bible is not some kind of collection of "scientific" proofs which can be used to confirm the Christian faith. The idea of such a document would be unknown to those who compiled the scriptures.

I can quite understand someone who picks up the Bible and reads it, requiring modern arguments and modern evidence, being disappointed by it or unable to accept it AS evidence.

But when you read a novel, you don't say from the beginning, "I don't accept this as a history of events" - you find the value and meaning of the book in the way it is written. Hence Coleridge's principle of a "willing suspension of disbelief" when reading fiction or verse.

If however a reader of the Bible can accept that it is NOT written to satisfy a 21st century criminal court, with attested witness statements, photographs, and a bit of DNA evidence - but written by people of faith who wished to share their faith experience with other Christians and with those who were considering becoming Christians - then one begins to see the Bible as a different category of literature.

It is not a scientific work: it is not "history" as people understand that term today: it is not a novel (a modern invention) or verse intended to entertain.

It is Holy Scripture, a category of religious writing in its own right, and it bears witness to faith, which as we have seen in these columns is not capable of scientific definition.

As a completely neutral and new reader of the Bible it is possible that someone might immediately find that they have faith in God as a result. It is more likely to happen if their reading of the Bible is part of a shared learning process, with the help of someone who is already a Christian. And once faith has begun to develop, they will find that the Bible speaks to them in ways which they had not previously seen.

The Christian scriptures are in one important sense the accumulated and written experience of faith, first of the people of Israel, and then of those who knew and were taught by Jesus himself. They are the faith experience of the Church which Jesus created, which is very much alive today and built on the scriptures handed on to us by those first apostles and teachers.

They are kerygmatic writings, intended to communicate faith - and if they are treated as something else - ancient literature, archaeology, primitive scientific treatise - then they will not answer the questions being asked of them.

If the reader is seeking to understand faith in God, however, then the scriptures will come to life as they are read, and will repay reading again and again as long as one lives. And their veracity will be found and confirmed in the shared experience of God which sustains the Church of today as it sustained the lives of those who gave us the scriptures.

It is not a "scientific" methodology - it is faith.

[Hugh Manitas]

Brian: It is not my fault if you cannot grasp what people are saying. I am not attacking your faith. Your charges of ad hominem are confused with brisk rhetoric and do not stand up. YOU said 'You want to silence me because of my belief system', which is quite untrue. No sane person says that ALL wars are attributed to religion. The BA Christian symbol is more of an unbalanced response to an interpretation of a modern position than the colonial past. Marxism was superceded by other poltical ideologies and cannot be related to supernatural belief. You cannot discuss religious policy affecting others in isolation - not on this forum. I have no belief system in the way you are using the term. No-one's ideas form in isolation. Don't bother to respond to this post, replying to you is becoming tedious.

[David Smith]

Alan Marsh:
'The idea, David, is that you first read the Bible.'

I'm sorry, Alan, but this is a bit too 'monosyllabic' a reply for me to know what you are getting at.

Perhaps Jim in Sydney could tell us if what you have said so far helps HIM?

It seems from what he has said that he has actually already read the Bible pretty thoroughly. And you seemed in your previous post to have already gone one step further and to be suggesting a new way in which he might do this, in order to come to find faith.

Now I'm not sure quite where we are. Can you enlighten me further?

[David Smith]

Jim Rogers:
'Jesus apparently rises from the dead, knowing absolutely by now that he is God, and chooses to appear triumphantly to a limited number of his friends and followers.'

He actually appeared to a group of 'more than 500.. at one time.' (1 Cor 15:6) I wonder, in your mind, how many more need he have appeared to in order to satisfy this particular test? If it had been 1,000 or more - and whoever they consisted of - you could still say they were mistaken (if you wanted to), or hallucinating, or victims of a trick of the light, or that the record of this was just a folk-tale etc etc. There is, of course, an alternative explanation - right or wrong - for everything, if you try hard enough to find or invent one.

Also, if Jesus had left something in writing, there would most likely be endless disputes about its authenticity... as there have been over many of the early manuscripts on which the Bible is either based or which are adduced as proof if its age and authenticity.
In the end, Jim, your brain will never get you there. To believe you need the supernatural, God-given gift of faith or belief.

Incidentally, I wonder what your alternative explanation for the presence and touch of God that I experienced first-hand when I first came to know Him personally for myself (and have continued to experience for the last nearly 30 years) might be?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Alan Marsh, there is no proof for the existence of God that would satisfy every one, or anyone, for that matter".
- Tony Francis, 30 July 2007, 14:08:13

St Thomas Aquinas? Summa Theologica?
Good enough for me, Mr Francis!

[jim rogers, sydney]

Thanks Hugh, nicely put. I don't think we'll ever know more much about it than we do currently, unless something unexpected comes to light. I believe that the benefit of faith in a personal, egalitarian Jesus as God, which presumably you and many others here also perceive and experience in some way, was a big step forward spiritually for many 2000 years ago, and the main driving factor in the enthusiastic spread of Christianity. It was a simpler, more appealing religion for the masses. I don't believe a true resurrection occurred, but people felt "born again" in the way people say they can be today. I believe that the scriptures written well after Jesus' death embellished what really happened. The popularity of belief doesn't necessarily at all imply the literal truth of the supposed events.
Having read a fair amount of cognitive science, psychology and psychiatry, I have little problem accepting that what was perceived and experienced vividly as a risen Christ back then can be explained in human terms. It was an amazing phenomenon, however.
I'll leave you all to argue the pros and cons of the shades of Christianity available on the canvas, as I've distracted the debate. Good luck!

[Hugh]

Jim, even I as a Christian have to concede that some of the decisions and strategies of the Almighty leave me a bit in the dark. I’m comforted that in heaven you or I would have ample time to take Him aside and get the lowdown.

If I can sum up the point you are making: Jesus can’t be God, because if he were, his failure to advertise this fact, which failure had disastrous consequences in history, was a grossly immoral choice. This would seem to be a corollary of the general atheist propostition: The existence of a good God is incompatible with the reality of evil.

While this is a very worthy point of discussion in itself (and we can talk there about how accounting for the reality of evil is just as much a problem – if not more – if God doesn’t exist as it is if he does), I’m not sure how it feeds into our current conversation as to the reliability of the early christian accounts about who Jesus was, except for the overarching point that “a truth-telling historical Jesus couldn’t have claimed he was God, because God doesn’t exist. Therefore the early accounts of Him claiming as much were fabrications, either by the earliest disciples or later editors”.

To labour my point: this scenario flies in the face of history. The evidence is that very early on in the piece, there they were, the devoted disciples of Jesus, against all their natural worldly interests, insisting in various ways, implicit and explicit, that he was God and that he said he was. There is no evidence that within the first century of a massive schism between, say one set of apostles/disciples and another over this point.

Of course, one can hypothesize that there was in fact some such battle, and that the Jesus=God party won, and proceeded to destroy all evidence of the very existence of this fight, including hunting down and censoring any reports by unrepentant dissidents. But there were lots of heretical ideas and groups swirling about and parasitic upon early Christianity, some of them carrying off former believers: they and their doctrines and the struggles that ensued are alluded to all through the New Testament and in other sources. Why would there be and how could there have been a completely successful blackout of all trace of this particular supposed struggle, especially given the wide dispersal of Christianity across the ancient world within the first few years of the resurrection? Why no shred of evidence lingering that any of the apostles complained of this doctrinal coup? John the beloved, adopted “son” of Jesus’ mother Mary, explicitly teaches the divinity of Christ to the end of his days without compunction. Paul insists that traditions be “held fast” onto, but makes no allusion to a “core” tradition (Jesus=not God) being directly reversed. You’d think there would be some hint of at least one group of former disciples in some part of the Roman world claiming to be heirs of the authentic tradition that Jesus was a mere man who went about doing good deeds - no miracles -, and who preached, essentially, the Golden Rule, and that his identity had been hijacked by the so-called “Christians”.

As a matter of history, the alternative scenario – that Jesus did in fact make this astonishing claim – is, I submit, much more plausible.

Cheers

[Brian]

Dear Hugh,

The standard operating procedure of people who have weak arguments is ad hominem. Your first line is a good example of this. It shifts the debate from the subject at hand to my mental state, i.e. that I suffer a "persecution complex."

If you want to engage in ad hominem, do so with a little humor, like, did you get your philosophy degree from the same place you got your psychology degree? Instant psychoanalysis from two posts! Amazing.

As far as Marxism is concerned, you miss the essential point I am making. The content may be different, but the result is the same...a belief in an all encompassing dogma which purports to explain history and meaning, that in Marxism's case has proven to be wrong.

You originally said: "There is no doubt that the reckless pursuance of dogma-based theories affects the world in numerous harmful ways." I agree with you...Marxism is an excellent example. Of course you don't want to talk of "body counts" (i.e. history) unless you are trying to prove your point about "religious" dogmas.

You said: "Who is saying that all wars and bloodshed are the fault of religion?" I assume you are joking. This charge is leveled at Christians all the time. Are you honestly telling me that you have never heard this assertion before?

As far as self hatred about your nations late Christian past, explain to me why an employee of British Airways had to fight to wear a Christian religious symbol? Isn't it ironic that British Airways has a variation of the British flag painted on its airplanes...a flag that has three crosses in it, no less!

You said: "Who on earth wants to silence you? Where does anything in my post say that or imply it?"

Your statement is as follows: "If you want to discuss, in glorious isolation, whether or not resurrecting the Tridentine Mass (for example) has any relevance whatsoever (highly unlikely) to the millions suffering pain in the world in the name of religion, you are of course free to do it somewhere else"

Telling me to take my discussion somewhere else is a not too subtle way of saying "shut up!" After all, since I did not mention the "Tridentine Mass" what purpose did your comment have other than to tell me to scram?

You said: "I have no 'belief system' in the sense you imply. I do not need a 'system' constructed by someone else to inform my position."

I did not say that you had a system constructed by somebody else, I said that you have a system. Do you deny it? If you do, what you are saying is that your beliefs about various issues are essentially unrelated and are not coherent. Is that what you are saying?

Are you also saying that your beliefs are unique and that they have not been influenced or informed by anybody else?

Who is being disingenuous now?

[Tony Francis]

Alan Marsh, there is no proof for the existence of God that would satisfy everyone, or anyone, for that matter. That is why it is a matter of faith. One can go back to the basic question of Greek philosophy: Can an organized hierarchy (as is seen in nature) exist in the absence of an intelligence? If you answer no, then you must believe in some kind of diety. But no matter how you answer the question, it is a matter of faith. Science can't even agree on what constitutes life. But we can see that life exists. Most sciences involve some kind of faith in a mathematical system that is unproved, and can't be proved.
Hugh, the Gospel of John, in translation speaks of Jesus saying, "You must gnaw on my bones." The intimate nature of the Real Presence comes from the Gospels. If one were making up a religion, what human would think of that?
Jim Rogers, you are ignoring the fact that humans have a fallen nature and free will. Jesus didn't come into the world to make it free from strife and suffering. He came to provide a path to salvation. If we were automatically "saved" by the life of Christ, there would be no free will. And you are ignoring the effect of 2000 years of Christianity on the thinking of individuals and the legal systems of the world. In other words, things that would have been accepted in the ancient world are considered evil today, because of Christianity.

[Alan Marsh]

Jim, if Jesus had left us his collected works, autographed, and with a miraculously created photograph on the cover - you would say, "all very interesting, but..."

Faith, not "scientific" or "historical" evidence is the only way to find the answers you are seeking - which have been found by literally billions of others during two millennia to provide meaning in an otherwise random universe.

[jim rogers, sydney]

Jesus apparently rises from the dead, knowing absolutely by now that he is God, and chooses to appear triumphantly to a limited number of his friends and followers. He then leaves Earth, knowing full well that the course of human history will involve religious confusion, persecution of people of many faiths, the rise of Islam and other religions, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and so on, up to our current threatening religious wars. He had many options open to him. He could have chosen to appear in triumph before at least some of his persecutors and detractors, witnessed by Roman and Jewish scholars, so that his reality as the Risen Lord could have been well documented, beyond reasonable doubt. He could have left his own written instructions or teachings, or asked the disciples to write them on his behalf before he died, and even signed them, or done that after he supposedly reappeared on earth. He apparently chose not to, even though a decision to leave definitive evidence to history could have avoided needless religious conflict, and saved millions of lives, and untold misery. Has the Risen Jesus acted immorally, just to follow some divine plan or experiment of human nature?

Jesus as man was perhaps confined by his humanity. Jesus as Risen Lord would not be. Such a failure could be interpreted as a hugely immoral choice of omission. Such a failure could be interpreted as destroying the concept of his divine existence. Jesus reportedly cared about the most oppressed members of society, yet chose to leave millions of them to a lifetime of ignorance of an "essential truth", and many to their grisly fate in conflicts throughout history.

[Hugh]

Jim,

thanks for this. There are huge problems with the idea that the Gospels were later embellished to introduce new doctrines.

You probably have thought all this through already, but I'll run it by you for your response.

For example, it would not only have to have included the gospels, but all the epistles and the rest of the NT as well as the letters and writings of all the early Church Fathers. For there is no evidence of a break in the pedigree of the tradition in this matter and no evidence from disaffected heretics of a massive re-write of the Christian corpus of beliefs. Consider the letters of Ignatius of Antioch who died a martyr sometime in the early second century. Ignatius, we are told, knew Peter and was probably a disciple of St John. He clearly testifies to the divinity of Christ (and, incidentally, to the doctrine of the Real Presence.) Was it he that made it up? But surely the other disciples of John would have been on to such a monstrous invention and sent out the word that Ignatius was inventing heresies? No evidence of that.
If not Ignatius, then John himself? But not only does that contradict the Embellishment hypothesis in the case of his gospel (which is, of course, thoroughly permeated with the idea): it requires that we would have an apostle of the good but mere man Jesus inventing the idea that this man was God against anything that man intimated about himself, encountering no opposition to this complete fabrication from other living disciples of this man (or their followers),or the leaders of the Church, and being prepared to be boiled in oil for sticking to that invention. Likely?

Cheers,

Hugh

[Alan Marsh]

Tony, I would like to know what would constitute the kind of "proof" which would demonstrate the existence of God to those who ask for it.

I can not imagine scientists agreeing on such a definition: they seem unable to "prove" global warming, although there are many who seem to have faith in the claims being made about it.

[Tony Francis]

Jim Rogers of Sydney. You are asking questions about faith which can never be answered through logic. That is why it is called faith. At some point, you have to conclude that a group of fairly uneducated people (with the exception of St. Paul and St. Luke) were able to concoct a group of tales which have remained a source of faith for more than 2000 years. How is that possible? There were hundreds of religions which have fallen by the way side since then. Since we know where hundreds of martyrs bodies are buried, why don't we know where Jesus and Mary are buried? By the same token, there are many scientific problems which can't be solved by logic. Some are: the n-body problem, protein folding, the traveling salesman problem, p = np problem, the Schrodinger equation. So it is just as much an expression of faith to say you believe in science. Why can't we repeat the accidental production of a cell? All we need to do is put nucleic acids in a soup of amino acids and fats, and at some point, a cell should emerge. But that's never been observed to occur. That doesn't keep us from believing in biology. Why is there local turbulance observed in galactic motion if Big Bang happened? Can an infinity of motions occur? In the end, it all comes down to a matter of faith, and not proof.

[jim rogers, sydney]

Hugh,
I don't agree with you or C.S.Lewis that Jesus was either God or mad. It depends on whether the gospels are close to 100% accurate portrayals of what he said and did, and by implication believed, or whether the accounts were largely others' portrayal of what they wanted him to stand for, to foster their own agenda including his implied divinity.
If the accounts are embellished, and certain sections added well after the events, then he could have been a religious, well meaning, morally committed man who believed in God and the Golden Rule, and wanted very much to spread a message of love of mankind and God, without necessarily believing he was anything other than mortal.

[Hugh Manitas]

Brian,
You appear to be suffering from some sort of persecution complex. The issues here are not all about you. The not so subtle difference between Marxism and religious faith centres on degrees of evidence and levels of political support. Marxist ideology cannot be compared with religious faith because nowhere within it is the requirement to construct social policy based on a selective interpretation of occult metaphysics. Putting your trust in the examined ideals and social propositions of human beings, whilst risky, is not the same as assuming there are gods and then inventing cultures or legislating morally as if the science is sound or proven. There may be gods.

Who are 'the chattering classes'? And what evidence is there to suggest that there is a general 'hatred of [the] past'? There is certainly a colonial legacy, in various forms, and the heirs of colonizers to some degree have been defined by their past, much in the same way as the current generation in Germany has.

There are numerous levels of meaning surrounding 'Christmas' and these range from those who cannot accept the religious aspect, to others who embrace it fully. I see no changes in the general position is occupies. Christians will regard it as a spiritual festival, whilst others will not.

Who is saying that all wars and bloodshed are the fault of religion? It is very obvious that power, greed, social displacement, racial disparity, nationalism, social disadvantage and political ideologies are all factors, among a raft of others. Religion is clearly a significant factor. You cannot possibly assert that this is not the case. The weight of evidence, both historical and contemporary is overwhelming.

Who on earth wants to silence you? Where does anything in my post say that or imply it? My remarks regarding the discussion of religious doctrine, forms of worship and the self-governance of faith groups was purely in the context of your assertion that people other than the pious should not contribute to these pages. If you believe that, you are free to discuss religious matters elsewhere than in an open forum.

Your final paragraph makes absolutely no sense. I have no 'belief system' in the sense you imply. I do not need a 'system' constructed by someone else to inform my position. I do not know if your mind is closed or not. I mainly argue against those who seek to impose rigid views on others, religious or not. Are you saying that morality does not exist outside of faith groups?

You appear to have substituted muddled rhetoric for any form of logic in order to emphasisze or defend your own faith; and nobody is attacking that.

[Brian]

Dear J Pearce,

You said: "Christian martydom was totally voluntary". No duh! Isn't that what defines a martyr?! The point I have been making is that not all Christians who died under the Romans, would have been martyrs - many, no doubt, were just victims."

Well, duh, that was not the point you were making. Your comment was in response to Geoff's assertion about it being highly unlikely that there would be people who would willingly die a martyr's death for something they knew to be a fraud. You responded that the soldiers in WWI died for something they didn't believe in. My response was that those soldiers had no choice.

BTW, if the Brits were wrong in WWI, does that make the Kaiser right?

FYI, as I am not Roman Catholic, it is not for me to defend their positions.

Also, Liberal democracy is not at all incompatible with Christianity. Where you get this idea is beyond me. Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were very active Christians. The rest were deists, but certainly not athiests.

I think freedom of religion is very healthy for religions. I have always said that if somebody wants to destroy Christianity, just make it the official religion of the state. Sweden and Britian are examples of that.

[Brian]

Dear Hugh,

You said: "It is disingenuous to link Marxist ideological 'beliefs' with religious faith, awarding them similar levels of meaning; and even if it were not, the question cannot be asked from a standpoint which already accepts that there was one time general agreement that scientific Marxism was valid in its entirety."

Not at all. Both systems had "true believers" who would sacrifice their lives for their belief. The content was different, but the belief was the same...adherence to a set of dogmas which gave them an all encompassing world view. Some have noted that Marxism was (not "is", because "is" would imply that it is a belief held today) a Christian heresy.

You said: "Suggesting that 'loss of the Empire' in some way affects modern thinking is offensive, simplistic and as flawed as generalising over 'loss of faith'. The resonances within your posts appear sectarian, dividing cultures into unrecognizable portions."

I am not the first to point out that the loss of Britain's position in the world has affected the POV of the chattering classes. The self-hatred of its past is all too evident, including things religious. The controversy in celebrating the holiday named "Christmas" (how awful!) is an example.

You said: "It is equally highly unscientific to provide some sort of estimated historical body count, dressed up as evidence, in order to award value or credence to either faith or atheist viewpoints."

Very true. I was using this to counter the traditional atheist canard that all wars and bloodshed are the fault of religion. The argument cuts both ways, doesn't it?

You said: "However they are also vehicles for airing the views of perfectly moral people who are not prepared to be controlled by those who club together in piety and whose minds are closed to the human rights and freedoms of others. If you want to discuss, in glorious isolation, whether or not resurrecting the Tridentine Mass (for example) has any relevance whatsoever (highly unlikely) to the millions suffering pain in the world in the name of religion, you are of course free to do it somewhere else."

This is the point, isn't it? You want to silence me because my views "offend" your belief system. Well, I won't be silenced. I think it is incredibly hypocritical to tell us in your pious tone that there are "perfectly moral people" who want to discuss issues and then tell me that my mind is closed and to take my views elsewhere. This is excellent proof of the bankruptcy of your position. To quote Scripture (GASP!), "Physician, heal thyself."

Cheerio! :)

[Hugh]

Dear Jim,

Thanks for a considered response.

If there is no God, then Jesus is the most wacko loony. But even you honestly admit he is the most “enigmatic” figure in history. Doesn’t this send some sort of shiver up your spine?

Even if you hold that certain conditions were naturally cured by Jesus by means which we don’t understand, what does this say about him? He knew of cures 2000+ years ahead of his time. Doesn't that put you on notice?

You say the walking on water “is not core”. Well, most of the miracles of Jesus are not core if one draws the line of “respected” scholars widely enough.

I agree with your scepticism here: the ‘respected’ scholars are continually redrawing their lines. But I’m a traditional Catholic, adhering to the line that ALL of the reported miracles are factual, as did all the Fathers and Saints. So with me you have no argument about arbitrary divisions drawn between historical and non-historical miracles. (ie “core” v “non-core”). To the extent that you are sceptical as to the division between “core” and “non-core”, the traditional Catholic entirely agrees. The very possibility of such a division makes the whole Story a load of xxxx. Hang on to your scepticism at least about these theories, Jim!

I spoke of Fatima because many are inclined to believe that stupendous events, witnessed by thousands, only ever occurred in ancient times. That is not the case. Fatima is a classic case of a recent event, which, if proved true, would render plausible all the Gospel miracles. The fact that nothing occurred extra-locally (though it was, I understand, witnessed by some sketpics and others in far away Lisbon) is neither here nor there. If God can work a miracle, He can surely, for His own reasons, work it on a local population in such a way that non-locals do not apprehend it. The point of Fatima is that thousands came to refute it, but came away convinced that a miracle occurred. I don’t know what more God can do apart from - against His wont - denying us free will or twisting our arms up our backs. But why would He do that if He wanted us all to come to Him by exercising the greatest gift He has (supposedly) given to us: our free will?

God bless,

Hugh

[Alan Marsh]

The idea, David, is that you first read the Bible.

[David Smith]

Alan Marsh:
'The bible was not written to be a scientific or historical statement... It does not claim to present a cumulative series of proofs, but invites you to enter in faith into its own narrative.'

Interesting thoughts, Alan.

But how, as you see it, does a person 'enter in faith' if they have no faith. And how do they 'suspend disbelief' if they are not convinced that what the Bible records about the existence of a divine being is true?

If the Bible was 'written by believers for those who would come to believe in future generations', how does this help those that don't yet believe to get there?

[jim, sydney]

Thanks David. I grew up in a Christian household, and tried hard to believe, and I guess did in fact during adolescence, but with some misgivings, and at Uni spent more time reading philosophy, theology, literature, poetry, etc than doing my degree. Faith disappeared pretty fast, and 30 years and hundreds of books later, involving the above areas and history, cosmology, evolution, anthropology, sociology, other science, and more, has only receded further.
I honestly believe that much of the OT is myth (and all miracles claimed myth and unfounded), an unknown amount of the NT, Jesus merely human, God unlikely to exist, the idea of an interventionalist God helping here but not there impossible and immoral, and morality an intrinsic human trait unlocked over the course of history (which includes the moral benefits of religion, despite its faults).
At 51 I can't see it changing in the near future..........

[Alan Marsh]

"We should not expect to find in the scriptures full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision".

Most Christians would agree with this, Jim of Sydney. The bible was not written to be a scientific or historical statement. Those are modern concepts. It was written by believers for those who would come to believe in future generations.

If you view it as a statement of faith then you may perhaps see it differently. It does not claim to present a cumulative series of proofs, but invites you to enter in faith into its own narrative.

Perhaps the nearest analogy is Coleridge's understanding of literature, which expects of the reader "a willing suspension of disbelief" in order to engage with the text. (Coleridge, Biographia Literaria, 1817).

Only then will it begin to make sense - not proof (whatever that might be) but sense.

[David Smith]

Jim, Sydney:
'Sure I'm a skeptic, and believers see that as a pejorative term in the extreme, but I see it as a healthy need for hard evidence. An empty tomb with a supposed angel or two outside doesn't carry much weight... I can't join the dots the way believers do...'

A bit like you, Jim, I too took a long hard lawyer's look at the historic and scientific proofs for Christianity. I believe that to do this is very important, but the hard evidence that really clinched it for me was the life-changing experience that I had once I had got to the 'if-you're-really-there-then-please-show-yourself, because my-mind-alone-can't-find-you' stage.

I was myself 'christened' into the Church of England, and told by the men in dog collars that this made me a Christian. Because of them I believed that if I attended their churches, underwent their ceremonies or ‘services’, and tried to lead a good life in the way that they taught me, I would go to heaven. I had a faith in the sense that I accepted the ideas that they believed and taught me to believe. When someone told me at 25 that I wasn’t a Christian, I was furiously offended. And it wasn’t until I read what God says a Christian is in the Bible itself that I could see that they were right, and decide if I wanted to really be one or not, and how I could. I’m so glad that I was given this opportunity, otherwise I would never have come to really know God personally as I then did. Jesus said that eternal life means ‘knowing’ Him. (John 17:3) He defines faith as the leaning of the entire human personality on God in Christ Jesus in absolute trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness. He says that to believe is to adhere to, to trust, and to rely on Him, and that this requires being supernaturally spiritually born again.

If you think that what happened to me might interest you, I invite you to have a look at my post of 30th Nov 2006 at 1.34am on Ruth's thread: Archbishop Meets Pope of 24th Nov 2006.

[jim, sydney]

I think Jesus is the most enigmatic figure in history or literature, and there is an amazing number of varied and personal profiles outlining who he was, what he believed and represented, and what he means for people today. I've not been able to sort it out despite contemplating it at different times to varying degree for almost 50 years.

I agree, if miracles occur, then anything is possible, though there is still a mechanism for them, at the interface between spirit and material, albeit beyond full scientific explanation. What I said about the virgin birth still holds if it occurred.

However, as the Catholic document The Gift of Scripture states: "We should not expect to find in the scriptures full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". "Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide". Medical miracles from ancient times are uninterpretable, for no definitive diagnosis or pathology can be identified. Diseases were misclassified and misdiagnosed all the time. Ignorance reigned. Micro-organisms were unknown, and no-one knew which diseases were temporary or permanent, nor anything about all the diseases with exacerbations and remissions like multiple sclerosis that can cause temporary paralysis or blindness. A host of conditions would have been called leprosy. There are certainly some more modern, unexplained, miraculous-type medical stories. Some are extraordinary. I'm just acutely aware of how little we understand disease processes, despite our current level of knowledge, as we have such a long way to go, and we understand less how the mind, emotional and spiritual (internal) factors influence our immune system and health in general. I call them amazing cures or remissions without a known explanation as yet.

The walking on water miracle is not core to some respected scholars, nor the water into wine story, nor the feeding of the multitude, and some other events recorded. It is hard to know what was definitely a bible miracle. I don't know which miraculous ones can be claimed to be definite historical events, and therefore doubt them all. That doesn't mean some weren't real, but who could know which were poetic license to emphasize the point of Jesus divinity, and which weren't?

Sure I'm a skeptic, and believers see that as a pejorative term in the extreme, but I see it as a healthy need for hard evidence. An empty tomb with a supposed angel or two outside doesn't carry much weight for me. I don't know what to make of the sightings, and guess that at least some are embellished, and find them all too bizarre to believe.

Fatima was an amazing event, but of course there were no recordings of any shifts in heavenly bodies noted anywhere else on earth, so nothing of cosmic proportions moved in the sky. I haven't honestly tried hard to find the best explanation, as it hasn't captured my imagination as it has for some here.

I'm certainly no ex-seminarian. I do know lots of believers, and there a many intelligent ones around, and on this blog and others, but I can't join the evidence dots the way believers do.........