Jump to content

Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?


fatherman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... 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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fatherman:

:lol: 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. :unsure: I was using your post to address O's Autumn post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans do things they don't believe in all the time.

We are imperfect.

 

Orthopraxy is practicing orthodoxy.

 

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.

That is the most relevent question you will ever have to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

DavidK,

 

Good luck with this. I wish you well on your spiritual journey. Perhaps we can find ways to do some positive things together perhaps for different reasons. I hope that you have found a community in which you can share that is more supportive than the community that you have found here. You have not shown that you have taken "personally" what has been said even though some of the comments could be read in that way. I apologize if anything that I have said was felt as an "attack" on you personally. But somehow I think you have taken those comments as an attempt to communicate. Whereas before I grew "tired" of the attempt to communicate with you, I am now pursuaded that we have little epistemological common ground and any attempt at communication would be pointless. Thanks for the effort anyway.

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are imperfect.

 

 

Indeed we are.

 

Orthopraxy is practicing orthodoxy.

 

 

 

Nope. Orthodoxy is about believing the right things (virgin birth, Jesus being flesh -- whatever got you on that kick, trinity, etc.)

 

Orthopraxy is about doing the right things: Feeding the hungry, giving shelter to the homeless, etc.

 

 

They are completely unconnected. I've met more than one atheist who was "Christian" by practice but not traditional belief. I care about what you do, not what you believe in or don't believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree some non-christians behave admirably, and some Christians fall well short of what we may expect from them. If anyone claims to be perfect we know they're lying. Christians know this as well as anyone. The difference is the Christian has a reason and a purpose for feeding the hungry. The non-christian knows he should but is not certain why. The Christian has to answer for why he did not. The non-christian has no answer for why he did.

 

If we examine the actual definitions of these two, we may readily see that orthopraxy requires an accepted or recognized correctness, as in orthodoxy. Similarly, orthodoxy requires practice to authenticate it. I hope this helps us come to some mutually agreeable position. I've not seen anyone use orthpraxy in a long while. Good word.

 

Orthopraxy; n -es {orth- + Gk praxis} doing, practice +E -y (as in orthodoxy): correctness of practice or a body of practices accepted or recognized as correct <religious orthopraxy>.

 

Orthodoxy ; n -es Gk, right opinion, fr. Gk, right opinion, fr. orthodoxien to have the right opinion 1 : the quality or state of being orthodox : conformity to an official formulation of truth, especially in religious belief or practice - contrasted with heresy and heterodoxy 2 : an orthodox belief or practice 3 : the system of faith, practice and discipline...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Davidk,

I hope you are not using your exegetical skills -- the skills you take evident pride in -- to teach anyone mathemetics. A circle is not a sphere. Planet Earth is not a circle. Planet Earth is a sphere -- a three dimensional "geometric solid" with a cross-section that is circular. A circle is a plane figure -- that is, it is two dimensional. A circle is flat. When we look at the Sun with the unaided eye, it looks like a circle. It is flat, and it seems to hang in the sky. When we look at the full moon, it is a circle. It, too, seems flat. But I need hardly point out the Sun is, in fact, spherical, as is the Moon. Any idiot writing prophetic poetry can look up at the night sky, and choose to be inspiried by the imagery of the very "flat" but very beautiful Moon. I know because I have done this. Drawing circles on the face of the deep is about poetry, not geophysics.

 

For you to use the above quotes from Isaiah and Proverbs to "prove" the Bible says the earth is not flat is insupportable. I will not accept any excuse from you along the lines of "oh, well, gosh, I just didn't know the difference between a circle and a sphere. Sorry." You seem quite capable of researching facts when it suits you. I challenge you to explain why you made no effort to be ethical in terms of your "not-flat-Earth" exegesis. Ethical exegesis (as opposed to eisegesis, which is what you're doing -- starting with a clear agenda and then looking for "proof" in the Bible) involves researching the original meanings of the words in their original context. That context includes the cultural and scientific belief systems operating at the time of the original writing.

 

Note: for the sake of scientific integrity, I acknowledge that Planet Earth is not a perfect sphere with a perfectly circular cross-section. I also do not mean to suggest from the use of the phrase "geometric solid" that I believe the world is solid.

 

To change the topic, Davidk, you said this morning:

The difference is the Christian has a reason and a purpose for feeding the hungry. The non-christian knows he should but is not certain why. The Christian has to answer for why he did not. The non-christian has no answer for why he did.

 

Your arrogance is beyond breathtaking. Your presumptions are manifold. In one sentence you dare to try to take away -- to render utterly invisible -- the integrity and commitment to service of all people on Planet Earth who have not been baptized. You do not have this right. You do not have the right to make other people feel like complete crap in their relationship with God. You do not have the right to indirectly imply (by logical extension from your own argument) that young children are not up-to-snuff, because, following your argument, they don't have the answers for what they do because they can't yet understand the answers -- even though young children often show far more genuine love, trust, and compassion towards others than adults show (including adult Christians). I find your position to be spiritually and emotionally abusive.

 

Davidk, I will not accept any backtracking on your part to the effect that "well, of course, I didn't mean young children when I said what I said." You are responsible not only for your belief systems, but for the reasonable, probable, and logical consequences of your belief systems. You are responsible for extrapolating from your belief systems to the consequences of your stated beliefs. If you want to tar all non-Christians with the same brush, you will have to include children -- even the children of Christians -- and you will have to include those who for reasons of dementia or other disabling mental illnesses are no longer able to understand such reasons.

 

Davidk, what you are espousing is not radical love (the radical love that Jesus taught us) but favouritism -- the belief that God favours Christians over all others on Earth. You are entitled to your beliefs, but please be fully honest with us about what your beliefs actually are. Please don't tell us you're preaching a message of love as Jesus taught us, a message that would never dream of excluding anyone, because your own words tell us repeatedly (not only on the threads I've quoted above, but in many other places) that you have an exclusionist view of God, Jesus, and humanity.

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(DavidK: please excuse me for using you in an attempt to make a point):

 

So imagine DavidK is in our Sunday School class. We are attempting to learn how to read the Old Testament. We have one hour to spend once per week. DavidK is not going anywhere. DavidK has a mission and is well prepared for that mission, certainly more prepared than your grandmother who instinctively knows what she believes but has a hard time expressing it. At the end of three weeks how many grandmothers would still look forward to coming? How many progressives would just decide it is easier to “do religion” on the internet because Church is frustrating. What would you do if you were the leader of that Sunday School class?

 

My point is that we waste so much time and energy on attempts to "be in communion" with the other end of the spectrum of Christianity that we fail to create a safe place for grace to happen in a progressive environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(DavidK: please excuse me for using you in an attempt to make a point):

 

So imagine DavidK is in our Sunday School class. We are attempting to learn how to read the Old Testament. We have one hour to spend once per week. DavidK is not going anywhere. DavidK has a mission and is well prepared for that mission, certainly more prepared than your grandmother who instinctively knows what she believes but has a hard time expressing it. At the end of three weeks how many grandmothers would still look forward to coming? How many progressives would just decide it is easier to “do religion” on the internet because Church is frustrating. What would you do if you were the leader of that Sunday School class?

 

My point is that we waste so much time and energy on attempts to "be in communion" with the other end of the spectrum of Christianity that we fail to create a safe place for grace to happen in a progressive environment.

 

You ask difficult and honest questions, David. I once belonged to a writer's group that disbanded because one woman was controlling, narcissistic, and convinced she was the next Margaret Atwood (a prominent modern Canadian author). We tried to be supportive about this woman's desire to be published. Then we tried to be honest about her writing skills (which were very poor). She continued each meeting to steamroll the rest of us, as if determined to wrest vindication from us by bullying us. Finally, the group executive copped out by simply folding the group. No more meetings, no more bullying, was the way we thought we could deal with it.

 

Here is how I would deal with the issue today. At the beginning of the program, I would hand out a written mission statement. I would state bluntly that limits are going to be placed on each participant's speaking time, and that those limits will be strictly observed. (In Canada, this would help right off the bat, as there are cultural inhibitions against speaking out of turn). I would appoint a leader who would be willing, at least in the beginning, to create a non-bullying environment by being very strict about the need for everyone to respect the mission statement. The leader would have to say things out loud such as, "If you do not feel you will able to honour this mission statement, and respect the needs of others to feel safe as they explore their spirituality, you may wish to seek spiritual fellowship elsewhere." At the beginning of each session, I would say a prayer based on the mission statement to remind all participants of the group's ethos. During the session, I would take every opportunity to highlight and applaud the respectful contributions of the "grandmothers" so they will begin to feel safe.

 

There is only so much you can do. Your responsibility is to consciously and compassionately understand that many human beings do not choose to be their best selves. This is a reality. Next, you must forgive those who are being controlling, narcissistic, and convinced of their "God-given" superiority. Then you must ask for God's help. God knows which individuals are choosing to not be their best selves, and God forgives them. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that just because God forgives them, God condones the narcissistic behaviour. God does not. Therefore, neither are you obliged to.

 

These are suggestions that may or may not help you. They're based on my own experiences, so they may not be applicable to the situation in which you find yourself. Perhaps others have ideas for the "grandmother dilemma" you've outlined.

 

Anyway, hope you get something figured out.

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent suggestions.

Thank you Jen.

 

P.S. As a part time resident in Canada let me lift up my appreciation of the Canadian culture. To me there is a lot more "civility" north of the border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad question: "Is following Christ compatable with Christianity?" Good question: "Is Christianity compatable with following Christ?"

John 14:6

 

Jen:

Your quote: "Ethical exegesis... involves researching the original meanings of the words in their original context."

Well, there is no ancient Hebrew word with the explicit meaning of 'sphere', but it has one for circle (chuwg).

A sphere is a figure formed by a circle rotating about its diameter.

Job 26:7; "He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing." I don't recall mentioning the sun or the moon hanging in space. I only referenced the Earth from the scripture, I didn't add anything.

 

Jen and Autumn:

I am not talking about the fact that men haven't always felt that things are right and things are wrong. All men have this sense of moral motions. You can't find men without them regardless of the era.

The problem arises because non-Christians have no philosophical or religious explanation for why something is right or wrong, only that it is or not, and that can be highly subjective. History is replete with examples of man being noble, yet cruel (DeSade, Hitler, etc) . But non-christians have no sufficient basis to explain the nobleness of man as well as his cruelty. They have only that undefinable, inexplicable, cosmic feeling of right and wrong.

The Christian knows we have a sufficient epistemology in the Bible for the existence of absolute morals (right and wrong).

 

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

"The difference is the Christian has a reason and a purpose for feeding the hungry. The non-christian knows he should but is not certain why. The Christian has to answer for why he did not. The non-christian has no answer for why he did."

 

David:

You're excused. It's curious, your and Jen's analogies of me are old women? This is not age or gender bias is it?

 

Now I know most of you are highly critical of using the Bible as a reliable method for discerning truth, even though many of you quote from it. But no one has presented any alternative methods or sources that can explain the basic essentials to philosophic (religious) thought, other than the Bible. Being bereft of any epistemological method or source strains even the most hardened liberal to back up his "religion" with more than just "listening to one's feelings".

Maybe David could share the epistemological scientific method and how it explains existence, love, man, and his personality, and morality.

 

No one can describe following Jesus without using the Bible to begin to know who He is. Yet none here have any confidence that Jesus was who He said he was in Scripture. Then at the same time say you follow Him. How is that possible? No wonder there are cults. Is your Christianity compatable with Christ? Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David:

You're excused. It's curious, your and Jen's analogies of me are old women? This is not age or gender bias is it?

 

The concept is “symbol” not analogy.

 

Based upon my two primary interests (epistemology and ecclesiology) I am persuaded that it is pointless to attempt to communicate anymore with DavidK. It is not because DavidK has not been "respectful" (maybe some of my comments could use more respect?). This is not a "process" problem. Based upon epistemology and ecclesiology it makes no sense to me to continue a conversation with DavidK.

 

Epistemology: “How you know” is based upon “the source”, the Bible, that shows us among other things why the world is not flat. There really is no place to go from here.

 

Ecclesiology: The ecumenical movement is a “hard sell” and needs to be based upon the “exclusivist” position. There really is no place to go from here.

 

So with DavidK’s permission I have “used” him as a “real live” symbol of the large group that he represents (anytime that permission is withdrawn I will stop this process).

 

I think that epistemology is very important to ecclesiology. I can and do accept major differences in theology. I can not work with such fundamental differences in epistemology. (At the same time I want to lift up the inherent worth and dignity of all people). If one starts with the assumption that all we can know is from a "source" like the Bible we are starting from such different places that there is no reason to frustrate each other with discussion.

 

The practical impact of this has to do with ecclesiology. That is “how we do Church”. The practical impacts go all the way from that weekly Sunday School class to how the denominations attempt to work and how the ecumenical movement does not seem to work. The basic ecclesiological problem is “how do you stay in communion with persons that you can not communicate with”?

 

All of the related problems such as the gay/lesbian justice issue are related to the basic problem. The “inclusivist” attempt by liberals/progressives actually hinders pluralism and continues to frustrate all of the related problems such as the gay/lesbian justice issue. We need to stop trying to “include” DavidK and let his community go their own way. We need to embrace pluralism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone:

 

I was wondering if anyone noted a strange similarity between Fundamentalism and Logical Positivism. The latter believes that knowledge is limited to that which was observable or at least provable by science or mathematics. Anything which could not be proven by these was regarded as philosophically"meaningless".I think Positivism has modified this hard position over the years.

 

The Fundamentalist says" I have to believe there were T'rexes and velociraptors on the Ark ." That mankind really did try to build a Tower of Bable. That there really was a talking donkey in the Book of Numbers etc. because if I don't, it's all "meaningless" I think they are more influenced by Positivism then they realize.

 

Karl Jung fought aganst the Positivists of his day, believing that the world of myth , and imagination was just as real as the physical world.

 

 

MOW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic ecclesiological problem is “how do you stay in communion with persons that you can not communicate with”?

 

All of the related problems such as the gay/lesbian justice issue are related to the basic problem. The “inclusivist” attempt by liberals/progressives actually hinders pluralism and continues to frustrate all of the related problems such as the gay/lesbian justice issue. We need to stop trying to “include” DavidK and let his community go their own way. We need to embrace pluralism.

In looking back at various comments TCPC readers have made with regard to DavidK's posts, I see a trend. The liberal/progressives have been challenging and confronting DavidK's fundamentalist sermons. But we have been challenging him politely, without cussing and swearing at him, and without saying anything that would be completely unjustified (for example -- and remember, this is an example of what we're not doing -- "DavidK, based on what you say, God could not possibly love you, and your soul is unworthy of God.") I think one could say that we believe in DavidK's inherent worth as a soul and as a human being, but we observe that he is making harmful choices. His choices are harmful, because if his beliefs are extropolated and taken to their logical conclusion, they will give permission for some groups to treat other groups as "inferior" in God's eyes (i.e. to treat them without equality-of-the-soul because they're "not chosen by God"). A quick glance at, oh, say, 5,000 years worth of history will demonstrate the horrendous tragedies that ensue when one group is convinced that they are superior in God's eyes to other groups.

 

If I may be bold enough to point this out to my fellow Christians, one can see in the discussion we're having exactly the same issues Jesus had when he was dealing with religious authorities in his own time. So how did Jesus handle this problem? Was he able to find a way to navigate this tricky path? A careful reading of Jesus' teachings shows that although he loved the souls of his fellow beings, he had no qualms about honestly confronting their hypocrisy. He brought attention to their harmful choices, yet at the same time he happily sat at the supper table with them to prove by example that he did not judge their souls as being unworthy.

 

Part of the problem that we, as liberal/progressives have, is our unwillingness to believe that another person would actually enjoy being controlling, manipulative, and "superior." Yet it is a reality of the biological brain that when we, as human beings, do not use all our faculties as God intended -- when we do not consciously seek to use our positive emotions, our logical capacity, our memory, our talents, and our physical bodies in a balanced, mature way -- our biological brains can turn around and bite us. That's when we get things like obsessive-compulsive disorder, unipolar depression, and addiction issues masquerading as religious fervour.

 

This is the reality we must work with. God already knows this. Now we, as Progressive Christians, must take the best of modern science and the best of Jesus' teachings, and stumble along together to make a Church that is not a Church for Doormats. We must find a way to be a Church for those who are willing to fully embrace the worth of the inner soul, while at the same time understanding that it's okay for us as loving Christians to practice Tough Love.

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone:

 

I was wondering if anyone noted a strange similarity between Fundamentalism and Logical Positivism. The latter believes that knowledge is limited to that which was observable or at least provable by science or mathematics. Anything which could not be proven by these was regarded as philosophically"meaningless".I think Positivism has modified this hard position over the years.

 

Good observation, MOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service