And if you can get him to show up and explain his current position, that would be of special interest to everybody, given that he just passed away in 2015!
I’ve read some of Borg’s works too (or at least one book – can’t remember the title right now). And while I am no Jesus Seminar enthusiast and find their prior commitments to be suspect at best, it seemed to me that Borg still had a lot of interesting things to say.
Oh, I’m aware. 
I was aware when it happened. I just meant that his own words, on his blog, recorded there for all generations*, describe his position better than I would.
Agreed on all counts.
*or until Patheos goes offline, whichever comes first 
Heck, all you are doing is saying that I’m not discussing the right aspect… and you refuse to say what aspect is the right aspect.
So… once again I will repeat myself… until you give me some other aspect to hang my hat on:
The premise of Christianity has always been “believe on Jesus and you will be saved”.
The premise of Egyptian afterlife has nothing to do with what you believe, except that you should believe in pursuing a life of Maat. Maat is truth, right thinking and right believing.
The universe is about truth, and it applies to Gods and Humans.
Christianity (but obviously, not in every form of Christianity) claims that if you aren’t convinced that Jesus is God… or that he was raised from the Dead in a Jerusalem tomb, will affect your whole afterlife outcome.
Between the two schools of thought, I find the latter a bit peculiar.
Okay, I’m talking about the meaning of Jesus resurrection and why it is central as a point of belief for followers of Jesus. What I’m not saying is that “belief in the resurrection of Jesus” is some kind of criterion for gaining “eternal life” (as if that is the point of “being a Christian”).
“Saved”? I’m familiar with the phrase, but what is meant by “saved”? Just “going to heaven when we die”? I think that is what is been stated explicitly and implicitly for a long time (decades? centuries?), but that is not the central point and goal of Christianity.
I’m not sure what is the relevance of an Egyptian worldview or religious viewpoint.
I disagree that this is a central point of Christianity…at least, Christianity as articulated in the Bible. That is why my very first post on this thread questioned the very meaning of the word “Christian.” Unless we can all agree on what we mean by that, we’ll be arguing apples and oranges.
I think, though, that we agree completely in principle that Christianity is not primarily “about” believing the right (or the right set of) propositions…?
It is.
You must have lots of spare time. Again, you reject something I write, and yet you offer no substitute.
So, once again, I will re-state that the problem I am focusing on is that the whole machinery of redemption runs or doesn’t run on just one thing: what the sinner thinks is true at the time of death.
The point of the Egyptian example is to show that the Egyptian metaphysics didn’t change based on such fine points of belief !
So… fmiddel… are you going to actually offer any specifics that might convince me you are on the right track? Or are am I just going to keep responding to your nuanced objections without alternatives all week long?
I think you’re misreading my posts.
Because I agree that your eternal destiny is not dependent on your specific opinions on certain things.
The only think I’m challenging is the presentation of assertions without clarification. Somebody says “believe in Jesus and you will be saved.” Is that true? Well…yes, but when I say yes, I may not completely agree with that “somebody” who is saying it. Consider these clarifications:
Somebody: “Believe in Jesus and you will be saved” might mean, “intellectually (or at least verbally) assent to the historical existence (and contingent crucifixion and resurrection) of Jesus and if you assent (enough? properly?), then you get to avoid hell and go to heaven.”
Me: “Believe in Jesus and you will be saved” means “put your life-reorienting trust in Jesus, the crucified Messiah who has been revealed to be God’s chosen one and the Lord of the world, and the result will be the truly blessed human life, not the default worldly kind of life that leads to self-destruction (and the destruction of everything and everyone around you), and this truly blessed life will end up being for all eternity.”
Those two things don’t mean the same thing.
They may mean different things, you cannot say that my formulation is in error. So what’s your point?
Your way minimizes the importance of the dilemma. And so, naturally, with a less dramatic scenario, disbelief has a smaller impact.
Well, what I’ve got from the link and some youtube videos of him talking is basically that he believes that Jesus was “present” in the sense of being influential in the lives of the ones left behind after his death, right? Is there anywhere else I can find a more detailed view of his opinion without having to buy the book? The way he talks about his matters really make him sound like he is saying that Jesus was just some kind of “teacher” which was no more divine than any other human, but he clearly claims that to be a misunderstanding of his positions on the blog, so it really becomes confusing without seeing a more detailed description of his reasoning.
There is such a thing as “not even wrong” because I don’t know what it means. Or…I don’t know if it is in error because I’m not sure what you’re saying. Arguably, “assenting to the right propositions as a means to heaven” is error, yes. Because it’s not about what opinions you hold. And “aiming for heaven” (if by that you only mean “living forever”) is the wrong aim.
More ambiguity. “Unbelief”? In what? Jesus? Resurrection?
I would argue that my formulation is more direct and focused–the life focused on Jesus. That can “look” a whole bunch of different ways, because a life focused on following Jesus has to be contextualized, wrestled with, considered carefully. So it’s more focused but also more difficult to “pin down” than the list of propositions to which you “must assent.”
Belief ultimately is articulated in action (and vice versa–to an extent action becomes belief). So “life-orienting trust in Jesus” is far more encompassing than “assenting to a set of propositions.”
By the way, it should be pretty clear by now that I do not at all believe that:
I tell you what … why don’t you say what the Right Aim is okay? Because this would be about the 3rd or 4th time you reject my comment - - -without offering a substitute thought.
Jesus ate food in the Gospel of Luke that indicates the possession of a physical body. As Jesus said in Luke, a spirit does not have a body of flesh and bones as you see me have. It is illogical for George not to believe in the bodily resurrection of our Lord. Boltzmann, Sie haben absolut Recht. (Boltzmann, you are absolutely right).
I wonder if George walks like an Egyptian. Remember the song from the 1990’s.
George:
Do you "Walk Like An Egyptian?" Remember that song from the 1990’s?
It is interesting to me that believing in the literal resurrection of Jesus puts Christians at odds with most people in the world, yet we hold on to it as a central tenet of our faith.
It is also interesting to me that believing that God created the universe ex nihilo in a relatively short period of time and that Adam and Eve were literal people like you and I similarly puts many Christians at odds with most people in the world, and increasingly many in the professing Christian community.
I’d be interested to see if Biologos puts forth a theory of a progressive resurrection to avoid such ridicule.
No one is trying to harm George. It is just a joke. By the way, Jesus had to be raised by God the Father for us to have eternal life. Perhaps you should consider it. However, you have a right to believe what you wish. God bless.
That was a good answer, Christy.
And once again, ambiguity. I have “rejected your comment”? Geez, I’ve expressed agreement with you multiple times!
Which exact comment have I “rejected”? I think I’ve been pretty clear.
What is the “Right Aim” for a follower of Jesus? Explicitly “life-reorienting trust in Jesus.”
I think that would be uh…the third? yeah, the third time I’ve used those exact words.
This is a quiz. Can a Unitarian Universalist believe in reincarnation?
Can a Unitarian Universalist believe Jesus existed as a man?
Has @Edward ever heard of the book The Passover Plot?
Does @Edward understand that one kind of resurrection could be true, while another kind of resurrection may not be true?
Okay… you have finally stated what is of the utmost importance to you.
I don’t think I would have ever understood that particular point. So, why would this be more important than saving one’s soul from damnation? Why do you think it is of low importance to save one’s soul compared to the trust thing?
Are you saying you can only save your soul if you engage this trust thing fully? Aren’t you quibbling?
That was a pretty good joke, I gotta admit! I got a chuckle out of it.
I guess we’ll have to see if…
[1] An honest look at the Biblical evidence in its historical context allows for progressive resurrection like it does for evolutionary creation, and
[2] 150 years of evidence from multiple fields of scientific inquiry using multiple types of measurements all manage to measure the progressive nature of Jesus’s resurrection, just as it has the progressive nature of creation.
I somehow don’t think either one of those will happen!
(…which is probably why BioLogos has been publishing blog posts defending the resurrection and miracles more generally… 
)
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.