[October's Autumn]

Being a Christian (Follower of the anointed one) has nothing to do with what one believes, it has to do with what one DOES.

[davidk]

October, on Feb 25 2008, 08:35 PM, said:

Being a Christian (Follower of the anointed one) has nothing to do with what one believes, it has to do with what one DOES.

Autumn,

I'm not certain you thought this one completely through. Because, based on this confession, you act before thinking. And really, we both know this is an impossiblity. The brain works first, the action is determined and then behavior follows. Our mindset, world view, philosophy, determines the way we interpret the world and ultimately how we behave in it.

What 'eyeglass' do you use to see the world through. We could try and explain all the fine details of how we see the world, but what is our 'bottom line'? What single bit, one universal truth, shapes the whole foundation of our thought, philosophy, world view?

We can start with an answer to this question. Did Christ come as a man (in the flesh)? 'Yes' or 'No'. It is not a trick question, but does require a bit of thought. Shouldn't take long. Just an honest answer is all. It's a personal choice and it determines how you
wish to behave, because you'll know why.

Do you have any question whose answer would, perhaps, better determine the foundation of a Christian philosophy?

[October's Autumn]

Thinking and believing are hardly the same thing.

t is a matter of orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy. Again, it is not what you believe, it is what you do.

[davidk]

October, on Feb 26 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

Thinking and believing are hardly the same thing.

t is a matter of orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy. Again, it is not what you believe, it is what you do.

Illogical. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy both require thinking first. Orthopraxy is practicing orthodoxy. You cannot practice what you have first not believed (recognized, accepted) you should do. Belief requires thinking. You have a philosophy, it is thinking about what you reasonably believe to be true. I can only assume you think about it, you are not a machine.

Can you feed the hungry without believing you should and deciding to first?

You're avoiding the real question. Did Christ come as a man (in the flesh)?

Mystictrek? Russ? Jerryb?

[October's Autumn]

Main Entry:
1thinking
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

1: the action of using one's mind to produce thoughts


Main Entry:
be·lieve
Pronunciation:
\bə-ˈlēv\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
be·lieved; be·liev·ing

intransitive verb1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>3: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>transitive verb1 a: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b: to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>2: to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon>

As I said: believing is not the same thing as thinking.


orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy!

I don't care what you believe in or don't believe in. I care what you DO!

[David]

You're avoiding the real question. Did Christ come as a man (in the flesh)?

DavidK,

You have a tendency to ask questions that imply the answer you are looking for. In this case you seem to want an answer in the form that will fit well into the myth of the virgin birth which produced a god-like being that you are calling the Christ. A liberal/progressive approach would be to look around history to see if there are any clues of explanation, and if so, what does that tell us. What was the cosmology of the time? Why was it important to be "the son of god"? Is it possible that the followers of Jesus created the god/man myth and not Jesus himself? How would you know this?

(The following is taken from “Born Divine, The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God", by Robert J. Miller)

Alexander the Great died in 323 BCE. The story of his birth goes like this: “Now prior to the night they were to be united as husband and wife in the bridal suite, the bride had a dream. There was a peal of thunder and a bolt of lightning struck her womb….when she sent Alexander off to war, she revealed to him the secret of his conception and instructed him to aim only for things worthy of his birth.” Scholars tell us that the bolt of lightening was a symbol of Zeus, the supreme god in the Greek pantheon. Her dream means that Zeus impregnated her and that her child will have Zeus-like qualities.

Augustus Ceasar was born in 63 BCE. The story of his birth goes like this: “Attia (the mother of Augustus) emphatically asserted that her child had been fathered by Apollo. She said that once, while she was sleeping in his temple, she thought she had intercourse with a snake, and that because of this she had given birth at the end of her term. Before her child came to the light of day, she dreamed that her womb was lifted to the heavens and spread out over all the earth. That same night her husband Octavius thought that the sun rose from between her thighs.”

Plato. Both sides of his family claimed descent from the great god Poseidon.

The stories go on, but you get the idea. So yes, the divine during this time in history did come in the flesh. However, obviously cosmology was much different then. I have no doubt that Jesus and the people he lived with thought the earth was flat and that people thought that gods impregnated women making many "sons of god". I don't think that Jesus thought that these things were important enough to talk about. I think that the followers of Jesus started to think that it was important to talk about a "son of god" even as they continued to think the world was flat. I guess I keep coming back to “how do you know what you think you know”. If I understand you correctly you want to get your theology correct before you ask important epistemological questions. Just understand that you are talking to many people who do not think this way. When we start from such different places I am not sure we can talk much at all. I keep saying I will never argue with a fundamentalist. What am I doing here?

This post has been edited by David: 26 February 2008 - 04:16 PM

[Cynthia]

. I keep saying I will never argue with a fundamentalist. What am I doing here?
[/quote]


David - LOL

[McKenna]

davidk, on Feb 26 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

Illogical. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy both require thinking first. Orthopraxy is practicing orthodoxy. You cannot practice what you have first not believed (recognized, accepted) you should do. Belief requires thinking. You have a philosophy, it is thinking about what you reasonably believe to be true. I can only assume you think about it, you are not a machine.

Can you feed the hungry without believing you should and deciding to first?

I think you're completely misunderstanding OA. She never said not to think - you were the one who substituted "thinking" for "believing" into her argument. I also expect she didn't mean beliefs as in "believing you should feed the hungry," but more like believing Jesus was born of a virgin, or something else theological. What I think OA meant (correct me if I'm wrong OA) is that being a Christian shouldn't be about believing the correct things, as if there's a checklist of things you need to believe to be considered a Christian; it's about what you do with those beliefs. In other words, it can't be all talk, no action.

If that is indeed what she meant - then I don't see how what you're saying at all relates to her point.

[October's Autumn]

Exactly, McKenna! You said it better than I could of! Thanks

[fatherman]

I would like to add a thought to this thread.

Concerning Doing vs. Belief:

My Beliefs may very well make me a Christian.

My Actions will determine if I am Christly.

As I'm sure we would agree, there are many Christly non-Christians and many non-Christly Christians.

This makes me think of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. The ones considered by Jesus to be righteous are the ones who fed the hungry, etc. The goats may very well have kept all the right beliefs and laws, but the sheep (unknowingly) embodied the right spirit (compassion, love, service). They were not even trying to serve Christ, and yet they received eternal life.

[October's Autumn]

I liked this statement: They were not even trying to serve Christ, and yet they received eternal life.

It is in line with a phrase I've repeated often: I've met atheists who are more Christ-like than many people who call themselves Christians.

[davidk]

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,..." Isaiah 4;22. Check out Job 22:14 and Prov 8:27.
John 1:3,14, provide propositional statements that Jesus was certainly in a position to know the shape of the earth. The others just weren't paying attention.

"You... ask questions that imply the answer you are looking for."- david
O.K.... you got me. I'm looking for a, 'yes', or a, 'no'! I don't know why you added all that other stuff.
It is a simple question. It does not need such an equivocal answer. Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No". Are you afraid of criticism or praise?

"The goats may very well have kept all the right beliefs and laws,..."- fatherman
The 'goats', by there very behavior, demonstrate they are not keeping the right beliefs and laws. Your "christly non-christian" argument is invalid.

"Main Entry:be·lieve: Pronunciation:\bə-ˈlēv\ Function:verb Inflected Form(s):be·lieved; be·liev·ing
intransitive verb1 a: to have a ...faith b: to accept as true, ...2: to have a firm conviction ...3: to hold an opinion : think ... ." - October's Autumn.
"...it is not what you believe, it is what you do."- October's Autumn

"... it's about what you do with those beliefs"- McKenna
Very good McKenna!
Now, based on McKenna's brilliant position;---------With those beliefs, what do you do? Therefore; belief matters.

"If I understand you correctly you want to get your theology correct before you ask important epistemological questions."- david
You don't. I attempt to reasonably understand the universe is real, in its order and complexity; man is real, with all of his attributes. When I have a source that adequately explains the way these things really are. I then have my knowledge base, from which I form my ology.
In other words; I 'shape' my Christianity around Christ, not Christ around my "christianity".

You?

[fatherman]

davidk, on Feb 27 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

"The goats may very well have kept all the right beliefs and laws,..."- fatherman
The 'goats', by there very behavior, demonstrate they are not keeping the right beliefs and laws. Your "christly non-christian" argument is invalid.

Hey! Are you just trying to get my goat? Tee hee hee!

Interesting that you used the word 'argument' to describe my observation. The fun thing about parables is that they have many layers and many possible interpretations. Claiming that one interpretation of a parable is valid and another is invalid is like saying that my answer to the question "What are you hungry for?" is wrong because it's not what you're hungry for. Parables invite you into a process, a different viewpoint, a discussion, or a quandary.

So, in your opinion, were Pharisees poor keepers of the Jewish beliefs and laws? Did they not follow every law in the book to the t? Jesus certainly acknowledged their faithfulness to the letter of the law.


As to your question "You're avoiding the real question. Did Christ come as a man (in the flesh)? "

I'm not sure I understand the significance of this question. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. Are you asking if I believe that Jesus was a real man? Or are you asking if God became flesh in the form of Jesus? Or something else? It's not clear to me.

[McKenna]

davidk, on Feb 27 2008, 03:06 PM, said:

"... it's about what you do with those beliefs"- McKenna
Very good McKenna!
Now, based on McKenna's brilliant position;---------With those beliefs, what do you do? Therefore; belief matters.

Sigh.

Could you please stop patronizing?

Anyway, I never said beliefs don't matter. Of course I think beliefs matter (otherwise why the heck would I be here?), but I think they matter on an individual basis. As I've already said on other threads, it doesn't matter to me what people believe as long as it makes them happy and makes them a better person. (I know you're going to disagree but whatever. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point as we've already tried debating it.) Therefore beliefs do matter to individuals but to me, other people's beliefs don't impact me (or anyone) on their own; it's their actions that matter and that impact the world. So, I care a lot more about their actions than their beliefs. (Don't jump on me saying that actions stem from beliefs, because I've already acknowledged that by saying that I want people believing things that make them a better person. I agree that there are beliefs out there that can lead to negative actions; that's obvious. And I would agree that those are beliefs that probably shouldn't be held.)

[October's Autumn]

When someone is quizzing others on their "beliefs" they aren't talking about their beliefs about seeing everyone as your neighbor they want to know if you believe in silly things --like did Jesus come in the flesh -- what one believes about that is completely irrelevant.

Hence, orthopraxy not orthodoxy.

And all the believing in the world doesn't get your neighbor fed. In fact, you can believe your neighbor doesn't deserve to get fed and shouldn't get fed. All that really matters is that you feed him/her! Humans do things they don't believe in all the time.

[davidk]

Fatherman:
My old college roommate keeps reminding me that the pun is the lowest form of humor. But, I tell him it's the funniest!

Well argument is not to be construed as necessarily antagonistic.

Your post said the 'right beliefs and laws". I believed 'right' to mean the Law as God's embodiment of knowledge and truth, and not to include all law the Pharisees added. They were believing in the glory of themselves. Matthew 7:21-23. Based on that, my answer remains.

Jesus followed up with a severe indictment of their hypocrisy. Matthew 16:11, 12; Matthew 23:1-36 (v. 33, "... you brood of vipers").

The 'goats' had no righteousness in their hearts. The 'Sheep' did, and the law is not even mentioned. Matthew 25:31-46.

In the same vein as the "goat" parable, look at Paul's writing. Rom 2:12-16

Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (a man)? I don't want to prejudice your answer.

McKenna:
I'm not patronizing. Sorry if my editing led you to believe otherwise. I was using your post to address O's Autumn post.

[David]

[quote name='davidk' date='Feb 27 2008, 12:06 PM' post='13705']
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,..." Isaiah 4;22. Check out Job 22:14 and Prov 8:27.
John 1:3,14, provide propositional statements that Jesus was certainly in a position to know the shape of the earth. The others just weren't paying attention.

DavidK,

Isaiah 4 does not have a verse 22. Job 22: 13-14: Therefore you say, What does God know? Can he judge through the deep darkness? Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault of heaven.

Proverbs 8:27 reads: When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep.

I can only assume that you are stating that the Old Testament has proof that some people knew that the world was not flat. I still don't see that proof but regardless of what verse you try to pull out I suspect that it would be subject to context and subject to the proper translation. I hope that not too much of your faith rests on the assertion that the Bible shows that the world is not flat. But really most important to me is that you are trying to tell me your epistemology is not controlled by your theology.

You also state that Jesus must have known that the world was not flat because "He was in the beginning with God" and "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father".

You must be stating that Jesus "existed" as your god "existed" prior to what you call "the creation" and therefore must have known all about the "design of the creation". Wow. Amazing. And you want to tell me that your epistemology is not controlled by your theology?

You obviously have been "blinded by belief" as JosephM stated so well (see prior postings). You have a theology from which you try to support rational sounding conclusions. You are living with an ancient cosmology which is the "source that adequately explains the way things are". Starting from this "knowledge base" you "reasonably understand what is real".

I'm sorry you didn't understand why I "added all of that stuff" about the multiple "sons of god". I wonder if that has anything to do with your theology.

This post has been edited by David: 27 February 2008 - 11:14 PM

[davidk]

OOps, typo. Isiah 40:"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,..."

Had you not addressed the flat earth, I would not have addressed it. There is Biblical evidence that the earth is described as round(circle of the earth), whether you like it or not.

I hope that not too much of your faith rests on the assertion that the Bible shows that the world is flat.

When I have a source that adequately explains the way things really are. I then have my knowledge base, from which I form my ology. The Bible provides it.

You have been blinded by your own disbelief. If your sources are different, try and explain it outside of your attack mode. Tell me your epistemological source from where you get your theology. Don't just sit there criticizing, produce a knowledgeable source that explains the universe in its uniformity and complexity, man, and morality. Why do you think it is reliable?

[David]

DavidK,

I attempted to provide an outline of how a liberal/progressive would approach the question “why is Jesus called the son of God” in response to your question that seemed to imply that Jesus was a man/god using the ancient language of the Greeks. This way of knowing precedes the attempt to apply a theological interpretation. The historical/critical method of Biblical scholarship is a “way of knowing” based upon several epistemological methods. The theological interpretation is the last step in the process (some scholars choose to go that extra step, some do not). If you are interested in this there are several sources to learn about the epistemological methods.

The issue of the flat earth provides another example of how epistemology precedes theology or philosophy. I can not believe that I would have to show you that the cosmology known in Biblical times was based upon a flat earth with heaven above. There is no way that Jesus would have any other viewpoint. By various epistemological methods we have learned much about cosmology that was never known in Biblical times. Much has been done by the scientific method. Once again, the epistemological scientific method precedes any theological or philosophical interpretation. Some scientists go that extra step, some do not.

The liberal “way of knowing” will always be open to new things that we are learning about the universe in which we live. It is never “closed” by theological conclusions. Many religious liberals will testify that this kind of knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. However “sufficient” knowledge does not contradict what we have learned from science. If we could agree on this basic “way of knowing” we can talk about much. The interesting discussions are related to what is “sufficient” knowledge. However, if you insist that “your source” (which I assume you mean the “Law of God”) must come first, then we can not talk about much of anything. Your insistence that the Bible proves that the earth is not flat pretty much eliminates any further discussion.

[davidk]

Man cannot live with a cosmology that can neither explain 'existence', nor man, nor knowledge, nor morality. In addition the Bible speaks not just of cosmology, but of history and of the spiritual to support its explanation.

"...scientific method precedes any theological or philosophical interpretation."
Scientists, of any persuasion, have theological and philosophical biases through which the evidence is interpreted. That's why you interpret things differently from me, your bias vs mine.

Neither can I believe we're having a discussion about a flat earth. Hopefully this may close the discussion:
That people in 'biblical times' thought the earth was flat does not mean the Bible says it was. Critics of the Bible, for centuries, have said the Bible favors a 'flat earth' cosmology. But, while it is true that the Greek and Roman philosophies heavily influenced the medieval church, the Bible says no such thing.
The Bible describes a round earth in space.

Isiah 40:22; "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,..."
Proverbs 8:27;"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."
Job 26:7; "He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing."

Jesus' respect for the old Testament was obvious by His references in the New. So argue whether He was at the beginning or not, but at least respect His faith in the Old Testament. He was not influenced by the Greek or Roman philosophies of a flat earth. He knew.

"... “sufficient” knowledge does not contradict what we have learned from science." I agree!

The Christian perspective of knowing stems from belief of a uniformity of natural causes in an open system.
While the liberal belief is a uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. That is, denying any spritual (supernatural) influence by God. By which man becomes only a machine. Everything then becomes subjective and meaningless. Morality becomes merely sociological by a 51% vote. There are no meaningful guidelines. Liberalism merely conforms to whim since nothing is sufficient.
You infer the liberal belief makes no theological conclusions, while opposing other's, which is making a theological conclusion. You claim religious liberals. Are they religious without any theological conclusions? You press me for epistemological evidence for my belief, while saying the liberal way doesn't need any.

"The liberal “way of knowing” will always be open to new things...but not sufficient."

Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (a man)? Yes or no ?
--------------

"The Christian life is not the life of a pure spiritual soul which happens, for some reason, to be attached to a body. It is not the life of a mind, a rational-moral principle, which happens to be imprisoned in a chunk of flesh. Rather it is the life of a creature who is soul and body, inner man and outer man, a conscious personal being and a biological being." - Anon