Smart Christianity / Dumb Christianity

[Belinda]

...But sufficiently intelligent secularists well understand the symbolic significance of the Resurrection. Secularists can and do value the story of the Resurrection without the story's supernatural and superstitious interpretation.

Actually, Paul himself demonstrates that this is worthless. If you believe in the Resurrection, but only as a metaphor, myth or legend, then here's the conclusion:

"...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Cor. 15: 14-19)

What, therefore, is the value of secularists believing in the Resurrection as merely symbolic?

Saint Paul was concerned to amalgamate Jewish Christianity with the superstition and supernaturalism of the Roman beliefs.

No, he wasn't. Such a thing did not happen until Constantine, and then only superficially, and then only to the Roman Catholic Church (see the name?). Paul wrote in Greek, but directly refuted the multiple Greek gods, and never campaigned for a single Roman one either. Syncretism really got going with Constantine.

Interpretation depends on what Paul meant by "raised" and also what we can take "raised" to mean.

The value of secularists' symbolic interpretation of the Resurrection is when secularists are more concerned with the goodness of ordinary men and the lives of ordinary people when they do good and are humble, victims rather than oppressors, are imitations of Jesus.It's a positive outlook when we can view whatever goodness there is in sapiens as its saving grace.

I concede you seem to know more about Paul than I do. Was there a point at which point Platonic other-worldliness was adopted by Judaism?

[Immanuel Can]

...But sufficiently intelligent secularists well understand the symbolic significance of the Resurrection. Secularists can and do value the story of the Resurrection without the story's supernatural and superstitious interpretation.

Actually, Paul himself demonstrates that this is worthless. If you believe in the Resurrection, but only as a metaphor, myth or legend, then here's the conclusion:

"...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Cor. 15: 14-19)

Interpretation depends on what Paul meant by "raised" and also what we can take "raised" to mean.

It's not hard. You can get it from the context. Some people were saying that Christ had not actually, literally, been raised. They might have said, "Not at all," but they might also have been saying, "Only as a metaphor." Either way, Paul's point is very straightforward: if it didn't literally happen, then everything, including the whole Christian faith but also every other putative view of the Resurrection was pointless. Nobody was going to be raised, dead people would stay dead, and there was no hope beyond this life.

I concede you seem to know more about Paul than I do. Was there a point at which point Platonic other-worldliness was adopted by Judaism?

There was a conflict between Greek philosophy and Jewish theology. Some Jews were "going Greek" so to speak, using the Greek language and adopting Greek modes of thought and life, and this was controversial with the Jewish establishment. Judaism largely ended up rejecting both Greek and Roman syncretism, and continued as a resented entity within the Roman Empire, as highlighted by the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

As for Paul, he directly rejected the Platonic other-worldliness tradition of, say, the Gnostics or Neo-Platonists. You see this in a passage like Colossians 1, where Paul employs the specific terms of Greek philosophy to point out that all the goods and values that the Gnostics and Neo-Platonists yearned for was already produced in the person of Jesus Christ Himself. He is "the image of the invisible God," the basis "in whom all things consist," and "the fullness (pleroma: a Greek technical term) of the Godhead bodily." In other words, he is more than what the Greek polytheists and Gnostics thought they had achieved with their schemes, and rendered all such aspirations and ideas obsolete.

So its' not the case that Paul was cozying up to the Greeks, far less the Romans. He was frank and incisive in his contradiction of their values and schemes, starting with their polytheism and continuing through all their alleged schemes of gnosis or "higher knowledge."

[Belinda]

Actually, Paul himself demonstrates that this is worthless. If you believe in the Resurrection, but only as a metaphor, myth or legend, then here's the conclusion:

"...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Cor. 15: 14-19)

Interpretation depends on what Paul meant by "raised" and also what we can take "raised" to mean.

It's not hard. You can get it from the context. Some people were saying that Christ had not actually, literally, been raised. They might have said, "Not at all," but they might also have been saying, "Only as a metaphor." Either way, Paul's point is very straightforward: if it didn't literally happen, then everything, including the whole Christian faith but also every other putative view of the Resurrection was pointless. Nobody was going to be raised, dead people would stay dead, and there was no hope beyond this life.

I concede you seem to know more about Paul than I do. Was there a point at which point Platonic other-worldliness was adopted by Judaism?

There was a conflict between Greek philosophy and Jewish theology. Some Jews were "going Greek" so to speak, using the Greek language and adopting Greek modes of thought and life, and this was controversial with the Jewish establishment. Judaism largely ended up rejecting both Greek and Roman syncretism, and continued as a resented entity within the Roman Empire, as highlighted by the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

As for Paul, he directly rejected the Platonic other-worldliness tradition of, say, the Gnostics or Neo-Platonists. You see this in a passage like Colossians 1, where Paul employs the specific terms of Greek philosophy to point out that all the goods and values that the Gnostics and Neo-Platonists yearned for was already produced in the person of Jesus Christ Himself. He is "the image of the invisible God," the basis "in whom all things consist," and "the fullness (pleroma: a Greek technical term) of the Godhead bodily." In other words, he is more than what the Greek polytheists and Gnostics thought they had achieved with their schemes, and rendered all such aspirations and ideas obsolete.

So its' not the case that Paul was cozying up to the Greeks, far less the Romans. He was frank and incisive in his contradiction of their values and schemes, starting with their polytheism and continuing through all their alleged schemes of gnosis or "higher knowledge."

There is a lot in your reply. Firstly, more and more people reject Xian doctrine because of the "conjuring trick with bones" (Bishop Robinson of Durham). Xianity needs to be interpreted more reasonably.
Secondly,

He is "the image of the invisible God," the basis "in whom all things consist," and "the fullness (pleroma: a Greek technical term) of the Godhead bodily." In other words, he is more than what the Greek polytheists and Gnostics thought they had achieved with their schemes, and rendered all such aspirations and ideas obsolete.

implies the strength of Xianity is it's founded on a man's life not on some book of ethics or morality. I understand the weakness of gnosticism is it favours a more powerful social group it's elitist , whereas Jesus of the Gospels supported the poor and the sinner, democratic.

Invisible God is only accessible via some Earthly person . 'Invisible' in all its meanings is a permanent feature of God. This man's life in its perfection represents God for us. So far nobody has seriously contended Jesus had any faults.

[Immanuel Can]

the "conjuring trick with bones" (Bishop Robinson of Durham)

Well, if that's what he said, then that's a comment for which the Bishop of Durham will give account in the Great Resurrection in which he does not believe.

What Paul says, though, is that without the Resurrection, we're all doomed.

He's right.

Secondly,

He is "the image of the invisible God," the basis "in whom all things consist," and "the fullness (pleroma: a Greek technical term) of the Godhead bodily." In other words, he is more than what the Greek polytheists and Gnostics thought they had achieved with their schemes, and rendered all such aspirations and ideas obsolete.

implies the strength of Xianity is it's founded on a man's life not on some book of ethics or morality. I understand the weakness of gnosticism is it favours a more powerful social group it's elitist , whereas Jesus of the Gospels supported the poor and the sinner, democratic.

That's certainly part of the truth. But not just "a man."

Everything depends on whether or not one accepts the claim of Jesus Christ to also be the Messiah, the Son of God. The resurrection of an ordinary man would have no implications except for the individual man himself; but the Resurrection of Jesus has implications for everyone, precisely because He is also God. It's his capacity to bridge the distinction, the vast chasm, between God and man that makes him Saviour as well. If one end of that bridge doesn't actually touch, there's no way to cross.

So far nobody has seriously contended Jesus had any faults.

I think that's mostly true; and most remarkable, given what you and I know about other human beings, as well as our own hearts. It's a miracle in itself, really. But there have indeed been a few people who have tried to fault Christ on particular things, such as His claim to be God.

In general, people claim to hold up Christ as a high moral example, and then completely ignore everything he actually said and did.

[Lacewing]

How do you keep other people's trip from becoming your trip? Or how do you keep your own vibration? I seem to have great difficulty with actually doing that. Do you just avoid narcissists? Do you seek out people with good vibrations?

Well, it can be an ongoing challenge for sure. I avoid being around crazy/intoxicated trips as much as possible. I've let go of people who were continually spun up. My intuition tells me who to avoid from the start, if I listen. I recognize that there are always more paths than the one at any given moment, and I stay present as much as I can -- which (I think) makes me more conscious and light-hearted about the paths I choose to be on at any given time. I question options/answers/authority enough to try and assess what's driving them -- so I don't typically jump on board or over a cliff, no matter how convincing or intoxicated someone else (even a loved one) may be.

Most of all: It seems to me that our most authentic intentions and energy vibrations are supported and reflected by the Universe. Whether that be darkness or light, twisted or smooth, rigid or flowing, hateful or loving -- our thoughts and feelings manifest as the reality we experience. We are the creator behind it. Doesn't mean we are responsible for everything bad in the world that we experience/perceive... just means we are responsible for our own energy vibration in response/relationship to everything.

[Belinda]

Actually, Paul himself demonstrates that this is worthless. If you believe in the Resurrection, but only as a metaphor, myth or legend, then here's the conclusion:

"...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Cor. 15: 14-19)

Interpretation depends on what Paul meant by "raised" and also what we can take "raised" to mean.

It's not hard. You can get it from the context. Some people were saying that Christ had not actually, literally, been raised. They might have said, "Not at all," but they might also have been saying, "Only as a metaphor." Either way, Paul's point is very straightforward: if it didn't literally happen, then everything, including the whole Christian faith but also every other putative view of the Resurrection was pointless. Nobody was going to be raised, dead people would stay dead, and there was no hope beyond this life.

I concede you seem to know more about Paul than I do. Was there a point at which point Platonic other-worldliness was adopted by Judaism?

There was a conflict between Greek philosophy and Jewish theology. Some Jews were "going Greek" so to speak, using the Greek language and adopting Greek modes of thought and life, and this was controversial with the Jewish establishment. Judaism largely ended up rejecting both Greek and Roman syncretism, and continued as a resented entity within the Roman Empire, as highlighted by the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

As for Paul, he directly rejected the Platonic other-worldliness tradition of, say, the Gnostics or Neo-Platonists. You see this in a passage like Colossians 1, where Paul employs the specific terms of Greek philosophy to point out that all the goods and values that the Gnostics and Neo-Platonists yearned for was already produced in the person of Jesus Christ Himself. He is "the image of the invisible God," the basis "in whom all things consist," and "the fullness (pleroma: a Greek technical term) of the Godhead bodily." In other words, he is more than what the Greek polytheists and Gnostics thought they had achieved with their schemes, and rendered all such aspirations and ideas obsolete.

So its' not the case that Paul was cozying up to the Greeks, far less the Romans. He was frank and incisive in his contradiction of their values and schemes, starting with their polytheism and continuing through all their alleged schemes of gnosis or "higher knowledge."

You conflate Jesus of history with Christ of faith.

[Immanuel Can]

You conflate Jesus of history with Christ of faith.

Oh, I've heard that old nonsense before. I know exactly where you're getting that.

No "conflating." The Jesus Christ of history is the only Jesus Christ there is, and is objectively the Christ of any real faith. Any other so-called "Christ" is also named in Scripture, but as "anti-Christ." ((anti- the Greek particle, means not merely "against," but in other contexts, it means "instead," or "in the place of." Interesting to know. https://www.etymonline.com/word/anti-).

So any "Christ" that is not "the Jesus of history," as you call him, is literally, anti-Christ.

[Nick_A]

The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God. Meister Eckhart

imagine a cross drawn on a piece of paper. The horizontal line refers to nature. Everything that happens is an effect. It is the result of the interactions pf natural and cosmic laws which keeps nature turning in cycles. There are no straight lines in nature. Nature is a machine of adaptation. Animal man on earth adepts by increasing its knowledge.

The vertical line of man's being remains the same though man's knowledge increases. The higher the place along the vertical line of being, the closer life is to the Source. Man's advantage over animal life is that it is more than just biological reacting life but is capable of consciousness and conscious evolution in the direction of the Source. Man's being can rise along the vertical line of being. The same knowledge used by animal man is understood differently by conscious man. This awakening and receiving conscious help from above from then Spirit is what makes Christianity possible

Man's vertical evoution takes place in the seed of God described by Meister Eckhart
Paul elaborates in 1 Corithians 15

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Animal life adapts. The resurrection offers the potential for the seed of God to grow and evolve to become the spiritual body. Without this possibility the future of Man is just "Dust to Dust." Who knows how to value the seed or even wants to? That is why Christianity as opposed to Christendom is so rare.

[Systematic]

Be kind one to another. Forgiving one another.

Be kind to your neighbor as yourself.

What if you are feeling suicidal?

Don't sleep with your neighbor's wife while he is away.

Do it whilst he watches?

Give to him who asks of you. And let him borrow from you who would.

Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade".

— John 2:13–16

Hopefully, I can get agreement that Christianity is kindness.

LOL.
2 John Will you be my neighbour?
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

1John.
Here's one for the environmentalists!!
2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Titus (anti-semitism anyone?)
1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

How about a bit of racism?
Matthew
10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

But kindness cannot be achieved by stupid people. Ergo I propose a new wine skin. Remain in intellectual kindness.

Thus God damns the morons, and favours those who are more intelligent, but no enough to the the contradiction!!

OK, so what is the ideal of Christianity, if not being kind to others? And what about my other assertion: Would an ideal, expressed over centuries or even millenia, cause a biological change down to the DNA?

[Systematic]

How do you keep other people's trip from becoming your trip? Or how do you keep your own vibration? I seem to have great difficulty with actually doing that. Do you just avoid narcissists? Do you seek out people with good vibrations?

Well, it can be an ongoing challenge for sure. I avoid being around crazy/intoxicated trips as much as possible. I've let go of people who were continually spun up. My intuition tells me who to avoid from the start, if I listen. I recognize that there are always more paths than the one at any given moment, and I stay present as much as I can -- which (I think) makes me more conscious and light-hearted about the paths I choose to be on at any given time. I question options/answers/authority enough to try and assess what's driving them -- so I don't typically jump on board or over a cliff, no matter how convincing or intoxicated someone else (even a loved one) may be.

Most of all: It seems to me that our most authentic intentions and energy vibrations are supported and reflected by the Universe. Whether that be darkness or light, twisted or smooth, rigid or flowing, hateful or loving -- our thoughts and feelings manifest as the reality we experience. We are the creator behind it. Doesn't mean we are responsible for everything bad in the world that we experience/perceive... just means we are responsible for our own energy vibration in response/relationship to everything.

Why are you so wise? You weren't born knowing how to do that, were you?

[Belinda]

You conflate Jesus of history with Christ of faith.

Oh, I've heard that old nonsense before. I know exactly where you're getting that.

No "conflating." The Jesus Christ of history is the only Jesus Christ there is, and is objectively the Christ of any real faith. Any other so-called "Christ" is also named in Scripture, but as "anti-Christ." ((anti- the Greek particle, means not merely "against," but in other contexts, it means "instead," or "in the place of." Interesting to know. https://www.etymonline.com/word/anti-).

So any "Christ" that is not "the Jesus of history," as you call him, is literally, anti-Christ.

History of Jesus lacks primary sources but there is circumstancial evidence for the historicity of Jesus as an individual. The Christ of faith is an important myth that lacks circumstantial evidence for its key feature , The Resurrection, and also lacks circumstantial evidence for the Virgin Birth.By "circumstantial evidence" in those two cases they are miracles and there is no such event as a miracle; every event is a natural event.

The aspect of Xianity that straddles both the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith is I suggest (I'm not very sure on this) is the Xian code of ethics.This Xian code of ethics has been and remains so important for the well being of sapiens and indeed our natural environment that Xianity should be revived for the present day with a viable mythology if needed. For miracles are not viable in the days of science. I guess some self styled atheists would object to my praise for Xianity and I'd say to them; for all its demerits Xianity carried a large portion of civilisation and its accompanying ethics.
Communism itself took fairness and opportunities for the poor from Xian ethics. Despite all their stupidity the political rightwingers took the idea of God's providence from Xian ethics.

Baby and bathwater.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:06 pm
the "conjuring trick with bones" (Bishop Robinson of Durham)


I.C. wrote: Well, if that's what he said, then that's a comment for which the Bishop of Durham will give account in the Great Resurrection in which he does not believe.

The Almighty will say to the Bishop of Durham "I note your words encouraged my subjects to search for the way to Me. The Father of Lies was your enemy in life and I appreciate your work and care in dispelling him."

[Sculptor]

OK, so what is the ideal of Christianity, if not being kind to others? And what about my other assertion: Would an ideal, expressed over centuries or even millenia, cause a biological change down to the DNA?

Christianity is what you make it. Look in the Book, you can find anything you want there, and any contradiction you want to refute it. What makes you think it has an "ideal"?

Like most Christians you've not got a clue how evolution works.
The only things that effect changes in the DNA is death, mutation and differential reproductive success.
Christianity has spread itself with the sword, carrying disease and death to the four corners of the earth. The adoption of the gun and nautical skill has done much to spread the "ideal" of Christianity than any thing else. Social memes that have banned contraception and abortion have done more to change DNA than any other "ideal".

[Immanuel Can]

History of Jesus lacks primary sources but there is circumstancial evidence for the historicity of Jesus as an individual. The Christ of faith is an important myth that lacks circumstantial evidence for its key feature , The Resurrection...

Actually, there is far better evidence there is for this event then there is for most of the ancient historical events we take for granted as having really happened. You should look at a book like "Evidence That Demands A Verdict," (Josh McDowell) for a very easy read on that.

The aspect of Xianity that straddles both the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith is I suggest (I'm not very sure on this) is the Xian code of ethics.This Xian code of ethics has been and remains so important for the well being of sapiens and indeed our natural environment that Xianity should be revived for the present day with a viable mythology if needed.

The problem with this idea is that the ethics are not durable where the events that make sense of the ethics are thought never to have happened.

It's all very nice to say to people, "You're not Christians, but you should all practice Judeo-Christian ethics anyway," but that rationale dies on the first person who asks, "Why?" And they can quite rightly go on to say that because you say Christianity is a myth, so are all the ethics represented in it. And then we're back to Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, with no morality possible to rationalize.

We see what's left of Judeo-Christian morality dying out in our world today. People who used to have a cultural fondness for values that made sense when more people professed to be Christian now make no sense to people at all. A building without a foundation falls; a Christian ethics premised on nothing more than the claim "Belinda or IC likes/prefers/wants us all to practice Christian ethics" cannot survive an encounter with the very first cynic it meets.

For miracles are not viable in the days of science.

Have you ever considered what a non-sequitur this is? Science itself owes its methodological origin to theologian Francis Bacon, who trusted there were scientific laws because he believed in a divine Law Giver. But even more importantly, there is not one thing about the idea of scientific laws that informs us that they have, and never could be, suspended. All they tell us is what USUALLY happens, and nothing about what can UNUSUALLY happen.

There is nothing about the regularities in the natural world that give us reason to believe that the Person who established these natural laws must not be capable of suspending them. It may not be ordinary today for people to walk on water, but if it were, then a man walking on water wouldn't even be a miracle! And that's the point: when a "miracle" is claimed, it's already a claim that the regularities of nature have been suspended. And the only way to address such a claim is historically -- did it, or did it not happen? But the existence of scientific laws, far from being any problem for a miracle claim, are actually its basis.

I guess some self styled atheists would object to my praise for Xianity and I'd say to them; for all its demerits Xianity carried a large portion of civilisation and its accompanying ethics.

Well, and all credit to you for looking fairly at history. But I'm sure many of them would also say that IF Christianity were, indeed, (as it was) the source of things like our ethics and our science, that can now be banished to an interesting historical fact, so that both ethics and science can proceed henceforth without reference to Christian origins.

They're wrong, of course, because of the foundations problem. If one rejects the foundational beliefs upon which science or ethics arose, there is no longer any foundational rationale for why we should believe or trust either one. We are saying, after all, they are merely the deliverances of ancient superstition; and how much can any such thing be trusted?

Communism itself took fairness and opportunities for the poor from Xian ethics.

Well, not consciously. Marx said that the critique of religion was "the first of all critiques" for him. And by "religion," he knew primarily Judaism and Christianity. He actually thought he had to banish both, in order to get his socialist revolution off the ground. But you're right: the irony is that the precept, "Love the poor" is not rationally available from his Materialist suppositions, and is not, in fact, really available from anything but a Judeo-Christian foundation. So if he had any sincere love of the poor (he didn't actually know more than one, his own housekeeper, and he sexually abused her), he didn't get it from anything but the dominant moral suppositions of his social ethos, which were Protestant.

He'd hate that thought.

[Belinda]

History of Jesus lacks primary sources but there is circumstancial evidence for the historicity of Jesus as an individual. The Christ of faith is an important myth that lacks circumstantial evidence for its key feature , The Resurrection...

Actually, there is far better evidence there is for this event then there is for most of the ancient historical events we take for granted as having really happened. You should look at a book like "Evidence That Demands A Verdict," (Josh McDowell) for a very easy read on that.

The aspect of Xianity that straddles both the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith is I suggest (I'm not very sure on this) is the Xian code of ethics.This Xian code of ethics has been and remains so important for the well being of sapiens and indeed our natural environment that Xianity should be revived for the present day with a viable mythology if needed.

The problem with this idea is that the ethics are not durable where the events that make sense of the ethics are thought never to have happened.

It's all very nice to say to people, "You're not Christians, but you should all practice Judeo-Christian ethics anyway," but that rationale dies on the first person who asks, "Why?" And they can quite rightly go on to say that because you say Christianity is a myth, so are all the ethics represented in it. And then we're back to Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, with no morality possible to rationalize.

We see what's left of Judeo-Christian morality dying out in our world today. People who used to have a cultural fondness for values that made sense when more people professed to be Christian now make no sense to people at all. A building without a foundation falls; a Christian ethics premised on nothing more than the claim "Belinda or IC likes/prefers/wants us all to practice Christian ethics" cannot survive an encounter with the very first cynic it meets.

For miracles are not viable in the days of science.

Have you ever considered what a non-sequitur this is? Science itself owes its methodological origin to theologian Francis Bacon, who trusted there were scientific laws because he believed in a divine Law Giver. But even more importantly, there is not one thing about the idea of scientific laws that informs us that they have, and never could be, suspended. All they tell us is what USUALLY happens, and nothing about what can UNUSUALLY happen.

There is nothing about the regularities in the natural world that give us reason to believe that the Person who established these natural laws must not be capable of suspending them. It may not be ordinary today for people to walk on water, but if it were, then a man walking on water wouldn't even be a miracle! And that's the point: when a "miracle" is claimed, it's already a claim that the regularities of nature have been suspended. And the only way to address such a claim is historically -- did it, or did it not happen? But the existence of scientific laws, far from being any problem for a miracle claim, are actually its basis.

I guess some self styled atheists would object to my praise for Xianity and I'd say to them; for all its demerits Xianity carried a large portion of civilisation and its accompanying ethics.

Well, and all credit to you for looking fairly at history. But I'm sure many of them would also say that IF Christianity were, indeed, (as it was) the source of things like our ethics and our science, that can now be banished to an interesting historical fact, so that both ethics and science can proceed henceforth without reference to Christian origins.

They're wrong, of course, because of the foundations problem. If one rejects the foundational beliefs upon which science or ethics arose, there is no longer any foundational rationale for why we should believe or trust either one. We are saying, after all, they are merely the deliverances of ancient superstition; and how much can any such thing be trusted?

Communism itself took fairness and opportunities for the poor from Xian ethics.

Well, not consciously. Marx said that the critique of religion was "the first of all critiques" for him. And by "religion," he knew primarily Judaism and Christianity. He actually thought he had to banish both, in order to get his socialist revolution off the ground. But you're right: the irony is that the precept, "Love the poor" is not rationally available from his Materialist suppositions, and is not, in fact, really available from anything but a Judeo-Christian foundation. So if he had any sincere love of the poor (he didn't actually know more than one, his own housekeeper, and he sexually abused her), he didn't get it from anything but the dominant moral suppositions of his social ethos, which were Protestant.

He'd hate that thought.

Regarding historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, I did not say evidence I said primary sources and circumstancial evidence.

Regarding Xian ethics I am saying Xianity was historically hugely influential and as a religious faith still is to a more limited extent. Historically people needed myth , an important story, to carry the ethical portent. I think we do still need guiding myths. My paragraph on Xian ethics is apropos the historical significance of Xianity. I am concerned to keep Xian ethics alive by means of a new and reasonable myth . Supernatural entities are not credible whereas there is splendid primary source material ti add credence to Christlike figures in real life such as Mandela, Martin Luther King, and the poor helpless souls slaughtered in wars chosen and conducted by proud powerful men.
The uniqueness of Jesus as Saviour of humanity is superstition and often deteriorates into magical practices visavis the deity.

Anybody who says, intending to discredit Xianity or anything else , God, JC, King Arthur, or Santa Claus "It's a myth", is misusing 'myth'.

The divine law giver is not a personal deity but is a way of saying "cosmic orderliness". Cosmic orderliness would be very nice if we could know it, but we can't. True, science and technology seem to accumulate truths over time, however there could never be enough evidence of Heavenly order to justify more than guarded hope.

If , on the other hand , the divine law giver is a person then he could intervene in history whenever he wanted. But if one is one is honest there is no more reason to believe that he is a person than that he is a hippopotamus.

You say"foundational beliefs" and I call those 'myths'. I agree we need those but not the same ones. We need reasonable myths. The old ones make only symbolic sense.

Your remarks about Marx are ad homimen.