Religious Pluralism: Seeing Religions Again with Marcus Borg

[Atheistbloggerville]

I knew this whole thing was made up . . . HA!

[Idahoprospector]

Marcus Borg is to Theism what Deepak Chopra is to Eastern Mysticism, Howard Stern is to humanism, Tom Cruise is to Scientology & John Waters is to film.

[jhgosnell]

We have to honor this due to our cultural situation; Otherwise, we will have people fighting over which religion is BEST or TRUE. Even my more liberal Buddhist friends get involved in these more ethnic arguements.

[chazpres514]

I like Prof. Borg and he has many insights here. I just wish he had addressed the rather obvious issue of proselytism. Many religions do it and you don't have to be a "fundamentalist" to recognize that it is an underlying theme throughout the Christian New Testament.

[nicodemous52]

Let us not change the Bible according to the age. No, GOD willing let us change the age according to the bible.—(paraphrased) Charles Spurgeon

[jhgosnell]

I have ttwo more reasons that it's not just Christianity that has God...1. I had experiences of God prior to any involvement in a tradition of any kind, 2. the Zen Buddhists I know seem more spiritually evolved than the Christians I know.

[ChuckMacDerwood]

@jhgosnell Christianity isn't about spirituality. Buddha is often referred to as "The Serpent" by his own proponents. Religious Pluralism is a great way of seeing just which religions a definitely not right in my opinion, as they all say "Basically we are all talking to the same God. We just have different routes to get to him". Satan reportedly "Goes by many names".

[jhgosnell]

@ChuckMacDerwood "Cultural" Christianity may not be about spirituality. But, Christianity offers at least some form of spirituality I think. As does Buddhism and Islam. The mystical levels in those traditions, the level of actually experiencing God or Emptiness or Love and Compassion, definitely offer a spirituality...the more basic cultural levels may not. Hard to tell...

[jhgosnell]

He is already well-grounded in Christian tradition first of all...after that, a pluralistic perspective is workable. Without that, being grounded in some tradition, pluralism just makes everything sort of random.

[MandolinforJesus]

"That's a co-op? With all of those VWs in the parking lot, I thought it was a Unitarian church." -Hank Hill

[MRSSHEELEY2011]

I got the pleasure of going to 4 of his lectures this past weekend. He is awesome!

[livingnotexisting]

Thank you. That was wonderful lecture!

[gotrootdude]

There are philosophical Christians who attempt to take their philosophy only from the humanistic teachings while leaving the rest behind as myths and it is those that I respect the most. I do not have issue with philosophy. Although, those people only identify as Christian due to heritage as similar philosophy can be attained elsewhere.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

[rubilmk]

For me religion is something which is driving the cultural values and not the product of a culture.For me as a Christian God is beyond the collective cultural consciousness and it is this relation with the divine that is the source of religion. Religion according to human sciences is different from Christian understanding of religion.

[rubilmk]

Christianity cannot be defined within the understanding of religion as "religion as coming from linguistic and cultural tradition."

Religion, from a Christian understanding is just something that binds us to God. We need something beyond religion to call ourselves Christians.

Many of the views on religious pluralism are coming out of a sociological understanding of the phenomenon of religions.

[MrHaufniensis]

rubilmk -- what exactly are you aiming at with your comment?  Are you suggesting that religious pluralism confuses sociological categories with religious ones? If so, I think that is blatantly false. It is the conviction that there is something deep and real that cuts accross cultural boundaries that leads to religious pluralism in the first place.

[rubilmk]

What i aim is to save Christianity from the sociological categorisation of a phenomenon found in society. I don't consider that all religiouns are equal or the same. From a sociological point of view considering it may be advantageous for the harmony in the society. But here the problem lies in reducing Christianity into a sociological category known as religion which is a subset of culture.

[cryptapocalypse]

Borg and Jesus Seminar colleagues are trying to redefine Christianity for the masses by claiming that the main points of its theology are open to interpretation. He views the Bible as a series of parables. Jesus' miracles didn't really happen- there are parables; Christ really didn't rise from the grave- it's a parable. God doesn't intervene in this world- rather, God is everywhere, in everybody. It's Unitarian Universalism, which if it appeals to you fine. But not Christianity.

[pvarabenz]

Marcus Borg,

You forgot to mention something else regarding Christianity....

10 of 12 apostles (Witnesses to Jesus Christ majesty and works for 3+ years) have been martyred!!!

NO ONE WILLINGLY DIES PROTECTING A KNOWN LIE!! NOT ONE!!

One other thing I wonder: when you're taking your last breaths on earth; will you still hold on to your argument this fervently, or perhaps you'll have other thoughts...

[ShalomYal]

First history is full of people dying for very "thin" reasons - it need not necessary for the cause to be very important. (note people dying in rowdy crowds at soccer games. Secondly - do we really know what those martyers died for? I know the texts that we have - but they were written to support one point of view - not necessarily history

[gotrootdude]

"NO ONE WILLINGLY DIES PROTECTING A KNOWN LIE!! NOT ONE!!" You're basing this off what? Suicide bombers whom think they will get 72 virgins in heaven? Besides, there is absolutely no proof any of the apostles ever existed outside of romanticized historical myths.

[neoclassicism1]

You might need to read N.T. Wright's 'The New Testament and the People of God,' which indicates the opposite. To say that the Apostles were in themselves some kind of myth is just bad historicism. You're right, there's no proof in the scientific sense that the Apostles existed, but in terms of 21st Century historical logical enquiry you might need to think again. You might as well say most historical figures are romanticised myths (which is scienticially possible, but logically unsound)

[gotrootdude]

I've no doubt that some historical figures are romanticized myths. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't learn from such historical figures, only that we shouldn't take everything we learn from them as gospel truth. Neither should we respect our ancestors in any way that glorifies their barbarianism and ignorance. There is no reason to glorify ancient con artists whether or not mythological.

[charyus]

this is the reason you americans are collapsing and have become world biggest debt trapped now a days and you are leading the world into deception

[Ilyakub]

Great talk. Even though there isn't anything here that wasn't written by William James many years ago, it's very clearly and persuasively presented.

[paradiddle1]

Bigtombowski-that remains the problem with critics of Borg, Crossan and the like. Rarely is a cogent argument put forth to counter their ideas.

[Bigtombowski]

can you add something to that? I mean, confused how? It seems to me his thoughts are ordered very well. Not a true Christian? What is a true Christian?

[nicodemous52]

@Bigtombowski Read the bible for yourself rather than accepting what others say about it, then you will have your answer...

[ub2bn]

lol, yeah, but he sure is a master at stickin' to the program.

[giggleman]

I don't like his "what im going to do" introductions and frequent headings. But he's a kick ass writer!

[langleyr2]

He is an excellent writer!!!