I think "There is a God" is very much NOT the central truth claim of Christianity. It is, perhaps, an axiom on which the central truth claim of Christianity rests. Christianity didn't arise to convince people there is a God, because at that point pretty much everyone in Judea believed in a god already. It had a lot to say about what God is like and what God wants of us, but I don't think the disciples would have found the statement "There is a God" to be particularly interesting at all. It's like saying that the central truth claim of Marxism is "There are means of production." Sure, Marxists definitely think that there are means of production, but that's hardly the interesting part of the philosophy!
Of course, "there is a God" is no longer an axiom, so you're right that that's where atheists would like to start. :-) But that's not the same as saying that "there is a God" is the central claim.
And I don't believe in God as commanding figure either, you know! I'm more a panentheist than anything else. Most of the language I like to use for God -- the Numinous, Ultimate Reality, Ground of Being, can I get any more Tillichian here? -- is perhaps not language you would disagree with. And, getting back to my essay, even if we do disagree with each other on how to describe the nature of that-which-invites-wonder, the language is really not what's important. Or, better, the language is only important insofar as it helps or hinders our sense of awe, and our sense of relationship to the rest of creation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-06-04 08:03 am (UTC)Of course, "there is a God" is no longer an axiom, so you're right that that's where atheists would like to start. :-) But that's not the same as saying that "there is a God" is the central claim.
And I don't believe in God as commanding figure either, you know! I'm more a panentheist than anything else. Most of the language I like to use for God -- the Numinous, Ultimate Reality, Ground of Being, can I get any more Tillichian here? -- is perhaps not language you would disagree with. And, getting back to my essay, even if we do disagree with each other on how to describe the nature of that-which-invites-wonder, the language is really not what's important. Or, better, the language is only important insofar as it helps or hinders our sense of awe, and our sense of relationship to the rest of creation.