McKenna

I realize that this is an ancient thread, but Westminster Knox Press has recently come out with the Discipleship Study Bible in the NRSV translation with Apocrypha. I bought this Bible a month ago and, overall, I'm quite pleased with it.

 

Some study Bibles, like the NOAB or HarperCollins focus extensively on helping us to understand the Bible's text from a historical/critical viewpoint with little in the way of application. Other study Bibles, similar to The Life Application Bible (and a plethora of other "niche oriented" Bibles), have a wealth of information on personal application of the scriptures but very little about the historical/cultural setting of the scriptures.

 

The Discipleship Study Bible seeks to incorporate BOTH goals, illuminating historical/cultural information while also offering moderate application. One thing about it that impresses me is that, with some passages, it illuminates the historical info while offering a few different interpretations as to how the text has variously been applied down through the centuries.

 

The DSB will not replace the NOAB, the HCSB, or the NISB (New Interpreter's Study Bible). But is is probably the closest equivalent to the immensely popular NIV Study Bible that mainline/liberal/progressive Christianity has at this point. I wish it had the illustrations of the NIVSB but, alas, it is text commentary. Nevertheless, it is a good "church Bible" to take to church that can help Christians understand some of the historical context of our scriptures while offering non-intrusive suggestions as to how we, as moderns (or postmoderns) might apply the scriptures to our lives.

 

It has a decent concordance and okay maps. But it's main strengths are the translation (NRSV) coupled with both modern textual criticism and application notes.

 

bill

Hey Bill,

Following your suggestion here I went onto amazon.com and bought a copy of this Bible. It arrived today and I started reading it; I have to say I like it quite a bit! Thanks for the suggestion! Of course I love the NRSV, and the notes are very nice. Sometimes I wish they were a little more in-depth, but as it's my first study bible, I think it's a good start.

Thanks again!

Warmly,

McKenna

I realize that this is an ancient thread, but Westminster Knox Press has recently come out with the Discipleship Study Bible in the NRSV translation with Apocrypha. I bought this Bible a month ago and, overall, I'm quite pleased with it.

 

Some study Bibles, like the NOAB or HarperCollins focus extensively on helping us to understand the Bible's text from a historical/critical viewpoint with little in the way of application. Other study Bibles, similar to The Life Application Bible (and a plethora of other "niche oriented" Bibles), have a wealth of information on personal application of the scriptures but very little about the historical/cultural setting of the scriptures.

 

The Discipleship Study Bible seeks to incorporate BOTH goals, illuminating historical/cultural information while also offering moderate application. One thing about it that impresses me is that, with some passages, it illuminates the historical info while offering a few different interpretations as to how the text has variously been applied down through the centuries.

 

The DSB will not replace the NOAB, the HCSB, or the NISB (New Interpreter's Study Bible). But is is probably the closest equivalent to the immensely popular NIV Study Bible that mainline/liberal/progressive Christianity has at this point. I wish it had the illustrations of the NIVSB but, alas, it is text commentary. Nevertheless, it is a good "church Bible" to take to church that can help Christians understand some of the historical context of our scriptures while offering non-intrusive suggestions as to how we, as moderns (or postmoderns) might apply the scriptures to our lives.

 

It has a decent concordance and okay maps. But it's main strengths are the translation (NRSV) coupled with both modern textual criticism and application notes.

 

bill

Looks great! Thanks for the info!

I sometimes write songs for our "contemporary" worship service at my Methodist Church. Much of the Christian Music published does not reflect a progressive viewpoint. Is there anyone else out there writing music that would be willing to share? Listen to the attached mp3. The quality is not great because it's a live recording at a worship service. But if anyone needs chords and lyrics I could share.

I like it, it's catchy

I'd like to see the lyrics!

Even though I'm responding here I think you still might be better off re-posting this somewhere above...some people may not be seeing that this thread is active again

Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength

 

Love your neighbor as yourself

 

Do unto others as you would have them do to you

 

Followers need to have right attitudes in their hearts; not just on the outside – specific

examples include alms giving, prayer, and fasting

 

Become like little children(humble) – the last will be the first -> I agree with OA's interpretation more, but in any case I like this passage

 

Reconcile quickly with those who anger you

 

Do not retaliate; non-violence modeled by Jesus even in death

 

Love your enemies and forgive,forgive,forgive!

 

Give to everyone who asks

 

Do not store up treasures for yourself on earth – you can’t serve God and wealth

 

Seek to please God; self-denial; how you live this life DOES make a difference.

 

Don’t judge others – focus on making yourself righteous – don’t cast stones unless your

are sinless.

 

Jesus came to seek the “lost”, not throw out the law – he ate with “sinners” and outcasts

 

There is a special place in God’s heart for the underdog in life

 

Need to be hearers AND doers of Jesus’ teachings – followers will be known by their

actions. Let your light shine before others and keep your zest for life.

 

Don’t squander your gifts/talents

 

Don’t be too busy when God calls you

 

Serving God is not always the easy path, and not everyone chooses that path, but it leads

to life!

 

Don’t worry, and always pray for what you need -> I could potentially have problems with this passage due to my understanding of prayer...but that understanding is evolving anyway

 

Don’t be a stumbling block for others’ faith

 

Jesus had the power to forgive people for their sins, and faith in Him relieved their

sufferings -> Not so sure about the power to forgive people; I'd be more likely to say he became a conduit through which people felt God's forgiveness.

 

God loves all of us, and giving us Jesus is a great expression of that love!

 

Don't let your religion get in the way of your relationship with God and with other

people.

If there's no note it means I agree

Where is Des?

I've been wondering that as well!

He was the one who recommended TCPC to me...we met over at Religious Forums.

Come back Des!

Your questions and their underlying message are on the mark. How could one reasonably answer them without God? So, God's existence is undoubtedly certain. They are the right questions. Is McKenna reading this?

Haha of course I am! But I think you're simplifying the matter too much when you conclude that God's existence is undoubtedly certain based on the fact that in your judgment (as a theist) soma is asking the right questions. Now, I liked soma's questions too, so I don't want to argue about that, and I also don't want to argue about God's existence since we both believe in God anyway so...what's the point. I just am not comfortable saying things like "God's existence is undoubtedly certain" even if in my heart I believe that God does indeed exist, because that is my personal experience and isn't really relevant to anyone else.

Just try going on an atheist forum and saying "God's existence is undoubtedly certain." Or a multireligion forum like ReligiousForums.com. See what kind of responses you'll get. And if I'd said that in my philosophy class...I think I would have had the vast majority of the class on me in two seconds, asking for proof I couldn't possibly offer. But oh well. I don't really want to argue about this. Like I said above, believe it if it makes you happy. *shrug*

On the Creation issue: I understood what you meant, I only asked you repeat it to be certain I not misunderstand. It is germaine because you brought it up, in your position on 'facts'. Genesis was wrong, in its telling of Creation, concludes that when science and the Bible conflict, one should side with "science". Therefore, because one cannot assert the Biblical account with any veracity, it's myth. Usually this position is taken with no full examination of Genesis.

 

I assert, by all facts (scientific, philosophic, and religious), God did create the heavens and the earth and in the way the Bible proposes.

Believe that if it makes you happy.

Is this the old line; "don't confuse me with the facts"?

What on earth are you talking about?

Descartes wrote philosophically about his skepticism of the existence of the external world but at the same time wrote brilliant mathematical work about how to understand its reality. He was unable to be consistent with his philosophy. His mathmatical work continuously proved it wrong. He could not prove what actually exists, didn't.

 

Since the universe and man are there, the argument is: "no one has yet to prove God doesn't exist". The really impossible work is to explain the universe and man without God. Remember the basic philosphical problem? Something is there rather than that nothing is there.

I didn't say Descartes was a good philosopher. In fact my point was that he wasn't all that great, hence my reference to his pineal gland argument. What I was trying to say is that the only thing we can really be certain of is our own existence, and that doesn't get us very far, as Descartes showed when he tried to take his Cogito proof farther and wound up with some ridiculous philosophical ideas such as that of the pineal gland. But I already said all that in post #102.

It's also true that no one has yet to prove that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean they've proved God's existence! I know you didn't necessarily say that word for word, but since that was my point and you chose to disagree with me, it sounds like you're trying to say that we've proven God. Which we haven't. It hasn't been proven either way. I don't even remember why I'm arguing about this...

So, you are saying that 'factually' God did not create the "heavens and the earth"? On my post (#78), are you choosing 2a, or 2b, or 2c?

Well, scientifically speaking, we can't assert that God did create them, but in any case, no, I'm not saying that. Dear God. Do you really find it necessary to keep an argument going for absolutely no reason? I think you know what I'm referring to as being factually incorrect in Genesis. Why did you choose to nitpick a piece of my post that really was unrelated to my point?

Honestly, davidk, I've tried to be respectful, but I feel like you rarely read my posts well enough to understand what I'm trying to say - maybe I really am unclear, but sometimes you return my posts with questions that seem to pick at the most random comment I made and take it out of context. I rarely feel that you are responding to my ideas, rather my word choices. Maybe this is an unfair assessment, but from my perspective, much of our conversation has been this way. I'm not really inclined to continue a conversation that really seems to be going nowhere. Good luck and God bless.

McKenna:

A finite, human perspective cannot be expected to know everything. But in what limited knowledge we have, we can be certain if it is true.

Er...maybe. Philosophically speaking, I'm not sure what we can actually be certain is true. We can only, perhaps, be certain of our own existence, but that doesn't get us very far as Descartes demonstrated when he tried to take his Cogito proof farther and ended up arguing that the pineal gland was the meeting point between the material and immaterial realms...but I digress.

Anyway, I'm not sure how God fits into that equation, because as far as I know nobody has yet been able to "prove" God's existence, and so I don't know how we could possibly be certain of that. So I really am not sure what your point is.

I'm befuddled. You followed up with, "...events don't have to be factual..." I'm trying to understand.

Sorry, I'm not really sure what's so confusing. I said they don't have to be factual if they can be read in a metaphorical light. That's the whole point of myth, or fiction. Did a guy named Gatsby ever live? Well, probably, but not the same guy who was described in the novel, but that's not the point, and that doesn't mean the story is meaningless. Obviously.

Certain stories in the Bible I view as "religious fiction" a.k.a. myth. Like the story of Creation presented in Genesis. Factually, it's simply wrong, so far as we can tell logically from the evidence given to us by Creation itself, but metaphorically it is a great story that can be interpreted many ways. Which is why I love it.

Jan 16 2008

QUOTE(McKenna)

...it really doesn't matter if certain events are factual.

(It was post #23 if anyone wants to look.)

You took that out of context. I meant that from my perspective, the Mormon faith (or at least the historical aspects of it) is not "true" because I don't believe it matches up with factual history - which is why I'm not a Mormon and could never be one. But from my perspective looking at my friend's faith, it doesn't matter, because she believes they're true and that belief isn't harming anyone.

Please don't try to twist my words by taking them out of context. In fact earlier in that post I had said:

Yes, certain religious beliefs can be factually "right" or "wrong" if they depend on historical events (which is really only the western religions, as far as I can tell). And I will argue against someone's beliefs if I believe they are harmful.

---

In other cases, events don't have to be factual because they can be read in a metaphorical light anyway. That's why I still absolutely adore the first few chapters of Genesis even though I can't rationally believe it to be a factual account of the Creation.

McKenna - sounds interesting! I just found the emergent podcast website - awesome!!! Thanks for the info!

Re: the Borg comment by DavidK, I think he meant the one mind race of the Borg in Star Trek, rather than Marcus.

Hahaha oops! Guess that's what I get for never watching Star Trek...

Re: Jesus and Buddha, Marcus Borg wrote a great book of quotes from Jesus and Buddha - on opposing pages - very interesting how similar it all is.

I love that book! I should reread it sometime...

Mckenna:

I am more than a little concerned. We really need to have a firm place to stand. Uncertainty about what is real and true when it counts only leads us to confusion. God does not want you confused, He wants you to know for sure! That is why facts do matter.

I never said facts don't matter. I'm a fairly rationally-minded person, which is why I do think facts matter (and why, for example, in the evolution debate, I come down decidedly on the side of evolution). And the only religious fact I've been able to come up with in my time of studying religion, using my rationality (as you've urged me to do), is that there really is no religious fact. Or, well, there is, but it's unprovable from a finite, human perspective.

Of course uncertainty leads to confusion; believe me, I know. I'm just not so sure that's such a terrible thing and from my POV it's the most honest perspective.

In terms of rationality, I've heard persuasive arguments from people of practically every religion, in addition to atheists and agnostics. Furthermore I've heard (in person or via forums) of conversions of people from practically every religion to practically every religion, and these are smart people who often had searched for a long time, so it's not like one religion holds the key to rationality. So really rationality can only get us so far and that's why I think everyone just needs to follow their own heart, be honest with themselves, and be respectful, and I try to trust people that they believe what they do for good reason (although I may still argue with them, I hope I do so respectfully).

Completely off topic for where this thread is right now, but going back to the topic of ecumenism, I thought this was interesting.

I download the Emergent Podcast on my iTunes account, and last fall there was a great series put out by them in five parts - the "2007 Theological-Philosophical Conversation." (If you get a chance to download and listen to it, it was really quite interesting.) In the last section, which I listened to today, the topic kept coming up of the uniqueness of Christianity, and how that was important to affirm at the same time that it was also important to affirm the unique traits of other religions. The main players in the discussion - Jack Caputo and Richard Kearney - seemed to agree that as Christians it is very important for us to affirm the truths of Christianity, its uniqueness, etc. but at the same time to really listen with an open heart and mind to other religions. Caputo at least (maybe Kearney too, I can't remember) seemed to express the same sentiment that many here have expressed, that all religions ultimately point to the same ultimate God (although there are of course some false religions put out there by people who are looking for personal gain or for other reasons). Thus they were essentially saying that it is essential for Christians to affirm what is unique about Christianity, to live our Christian faith, to let it consume us entirely, but at the same time to remember the inclusive call of Jesus, and to remember that God and Truth lie at the heart of every great religion.

One point made by...I think it was Kearney...was that he truly believed that if Jesus and Buddha were to meet today, they wouldn't try to convert each other or say "you're wrong" - they'd listen to each other. He said he thought Jesus might say "come follow me," but that Buddha would say the same thing, and there would be a sort of mutual respect, because they wouldn't need to convert each other - they'd understand each other.

Anyway, the conversation as a whole was really interesting, check it out if you can

Everyone has their own world view, philosophy if you will. Something they know and believe in by which they live and operate. We are all philosophers. Philosophy from the very beginning have sought to answer questions of the universe and man as they exist in reality. We all make explanations for each particular part we see. But Philosophy, rather than focus on all of the limitless particulars, makes great effort to find the simple universal truths that will encompass all of the particulars. We should understand that the three basic areas of philosphy are as they always have been.

 

In answering the question of existence (the first basic area), we must first of all know that we really do exist. Knowing that, there are only 2 choices:

 

1. There is no logical, rational answer. This is theoretical and cannot be held in practice, but it is the first choice.

 

2. There is a logical and rational answer, and it can be communicated and discussed, not only with oneself but with others as well.

 

Since early on this message board chose #2. I'll go on with it. Curiously enough, there are only 3 basic possibilities;

 

2a. Everything that exists came out of absolutely nothing; no mass, no space, no time, and certainly no personality. This notion has never been sustained, for it is unthinkable that all now is came from utter nothing.

 

2b. All that now is had an impersonal beginning. That is only mass, time and space, all equally impersonal. The problem is it finds no significance for any individual factor or thing, any of the seperate parts of the whole, including man. There is no meaning for diversity, morality, or freedom since everthing is reduced to equality. So, beginning with the impersonal+time+chance, no one has ever been able to demonstrate how the diversity of the universe, let alone the personality of man, was ever produced. This leaves us with some sort of reductionism and its definition of personality as a form of complexity. In reductionism, the naturalistic, scientific, social, and psychological world, man is reduced to the impersonal+complexity, but there is no real difference. "We are Borg".

 

2c. That which is personal began everything. In this case, man, being personal, does have meaning. It is not abstract. We can then understand that man's aspiration for personality has a possible answer.

 

Now, considering the personal beginning, we have another choice to make; is it God or gods? Plato realized this fact, when his limited gods were not a sufficient refence point for absolutes or ideals to meet the need. The only meaningful reference for a finite being must be an infinite point.

 

Let's digest that for a bit, before we go on to completion.

Who are you addressing this to (and why on this thread)?

2b as a philosophy is probably most clearly seen in Sartre's works (or at least he contradicted everything said in 2c, as I'm sure you know). Borg is nothing like Sartre. I have no clue why you put him there?

DavidK - I think that Russ' thoughts give good answer to your quest. Sometimes in the quest for knowledge and understanding (been there!! ) we lose track of what we really want. God is ineffable, you'll never fully understand the nature of the universe - sorry!!! I think that stepping back from the need to know and taking a season for experience may be helpful.

This has been my experience as well, and I think this idea is the essence of the Rilke quote above, at least as I read it - not that we should literally cease to try to think rationally about these things, but that we should remember to experience and trust that answers will come to us as we live. If that makes any sense

Personally speaking - for the last few years, I have been very interested in religion, but for the majority of that time I have spent a lot of time intellectually seeking the truth. It kind of wore me out. I think in the past few months I have managed to find a good balance between seeking the truth while at the same time knowing that I'm still young and have much to experience, and therefore trusting God to lead me to my answers if I follow my heart as well as my brain. I've found I've learned a lot about God by just living with Him day to day.

So, anyway, I agree with what Cynthia said (much more concisely ) about "taking a season for experience" being helpful, at least for me

Mckenna: You and I seem have a lot in common in the journey toward God. It's tough trying to put into one liners my love toward anyone opening their heart the way you do. I understand your desire to communicate your love and demonstrate compassion toward others in their individual need. Sometimes (a lot of times) I can be too literal and that can frustrate even the most angelic of personalities. You've been kind in being persistent with me. I thank you as you teach me to really make an effort to be more compassionate.

Aw, now I feel bad, because I was beginning to get frustrated as well. Thank you for the kind words. I apologize for getting exasperated (it's something I need to work on) and I wish you the best. God bless!

This: "...it would be pretty hard to make an absolute and say he could not, or would not!" was making a declarative point and was not about anything you may have said.

I apologize for leaping to conclusions and reading you incorrectly!

Apparently I’m not going to get you to move this to a separate subject. It’s like trying to move liberals which is like herding cats.

This made me laugh! Having spent a lot of time with liberals (and cats!) and being one myself (a liberal, not a cat ) I definitely know what you mean

I think this made my day

I also am planning to eventually move in part based upon the ability to go to church. In the meantime I am stuck in the California valley "bible belt". I hope we are a part of the "demand" that will increase the "supply" of progressive churches. I forgot you were UU but then I saw again your John Murray quote. I graduated from Starr King but really took most of my course work elsewhere on holy hill. I will always be UU "in part" and hope that my criticisms are accepted as coming from someone who has been blessed by much within the UU world.

Oh I hope you don't think you offended me! Absolutely not, I definitely understand where you're coming from, and I'm in the same boat (although I've been a UU for a much shorter time than you have, if you went to a UU seminary!! I've only attended a UU church for a little over 2 years ) - I love UU, and it will always have a place in my heart, but I may at this point be ready to move on (it'll depend what the churches are like where I move to), because I really need someplace that will feed my soul a bit more.

Anyway, this was a bit of a tangent, but I agree with you about the problems with UU's version of ecumenism.

In the effort to bring Christians into ecumenical unity:

I hope I didn't step on any toes with the 'box'. I tried phrasing it to describe my not understanding what was meant. And understanding even less after, "I try to avoid turning my beliefs into reality." I am straining to understand your language. Help me here; it sounds as if God is only a construct of our collective imagination.

No, I don't believe He is, which is exactly my point. I guess I'm not describing it very well. What I'm trying to say is that I have concepts about God, and these concepts help me to understand and relate to God, but there's no reason for me to absolutize my concepts and pretend that they are actually descriptive of the whole reality of God. That is what I mean when I say that God is bigger than my experiences and bigger than my words.

How do those books not point toward a personal-infinite God and our relationship with Him. Do those traditions not point to an infinite-personal God?

Well, I never said they disagreed about that. ??? I have no clue what your point is.

Semantics is the study of meanings.

Okay...

If the non-created Personal wished to pass these communications through individual created personalities so they could write the exact things the non-created Personal wanted whether in religious truth or the cosmos or history, it would be pretty hard to make an absolute and say he could not, or would not!

Have you heard me say absolutely that He could not or would not?? I merely have no reason to believe one claim of Revelation over any other, other than what is confirmed by my own experiences, and even then I have no reason to absolutize my experiences, as I stated above. Thus, while I do not believe, for example, that the Book of Mormon is a true Revelation of God, because my experiences have taught me otherwise, I have no way to prove that it is not and thus I must respect the Mormon faith. Which I think I stated a long time ago.

I really feel like I'm just saying the same thing over and over again...

In any case, I'd like to address "diverse viewpoints". While there certainly was a diversity of individuals, their viewpoints all pointed in very a non-diverse way.

I disagree. What about the wisdom traditions? Job + Ecclesiastes vs. Proverbs? Or the priestly tradition (with its emphasis on cleanliness and purity) vs. the prophetic tradition (with its emphasis on caring for the poor)?

I see diverse viewpoints in the Bible. And I see that as one of its strengths!

I’m wondering about that fragile ecumenical bridge. One of my reactions is that this seems to be a bridge based upon principles that could be the mission of any good civic or political organization. Another reaction is that some Progressives may limit expectations within religious groups to these goals designed for ecumenism.

 

This reminds me of my history with the Unitarian Universalists who “on paper” attempt to be perhaps the most “inclusive” religious group in town while almost always being the smallest group in town. I think the UU Principles could be used by ecumenical groups as a “mission statement” for ecumenical dialogue. There is no demand for theological unity. However, the “real” UU world shows a lack of theology within the stated goal of searching for truth. So the goal is a great ecumenical goal but a lousy goal for a religious denomination. Accepting different paths to the top of the mountain is a great ecumenical goal but not offering any path to follow is a lousy goal for a religious denomination.

 

I think there is a tendency in the UU world to be that “generic pluralist” that Diana Eck says is not possible (there can be Christian pluralists, Hindu pluralists,etc but not “generic pluralists”). A “generic pluralist” has nothing to bring to the ecumenical table if those around the religious table already accept pluralism. This can not be the center of a faith journey. The UU world is focused on process. The focus on process can tend towards the “lowest common denominator” of being a good neighbor or the “highest common denominator” of pluralism based upon an understanding of the Divine as One. The UU world has however rejected any theological foundation as being too divisive and is all about process which probably is more political than religious. That is not unimportant. It is important that we learn to be good neighbors, but that is not the foundation of a faith journey. Theological unity should not be the goal for ecumenism but theology is certainly the foundation of any religious community. Ecumenism is probably more political than religious. But a community without theology is not religious and would have no reason to be at the ecumenical table.

As someone who attends a UU church, I know what you mean. There is almost too much pluralism - to the point that at many churches (such as mine) the minister is hesitant to talk about God, even in an inclusive sense. I like the idea of UU but I think when you throw even the God-concept out the window as "too divisive" (as you put it) you really do lose the basis for theology and sort of wind up not really satisfying anyone's spiritual needs.

Having said this, there are a great many UU people with solid religious foundations that may end up in the UU world because there is no other place to go. Depending on the UU group however they may be frustrated by the predominance of the political/process discussion and the lack of religious experience. Certainly, they are handicapped in any ecumenical discussion because they can only really speak for themselves after the process or “bridge” is established.

That describes me exactly I am a bit frustrated with what I see as little real spirituality. I'm moving next fall and when I get to my new location I'm going to look around for a liberal/progressive Christian church, where at least I know God will be mentioned!!

Many persons who call themselves Progressive Christians may hope for no more than good process so they can speak for themselves. I think those people should take a good look at the world of UU and then start to think of different ways of “being together” so we can contribute religious content as well as political process to the ecumenical dialogue. I would hope that Progressive Christians would internally develop a progressive theological foundation and then ecumenically work for that "highest common denominator" of pluralism based upon an understanding of the Divine as One.

That makes sense to me.

Christianity exposes to the world who God is, no other faith adequately can. Unless another religion claims Christ as having come in the flesh, then yes, incontrovertably, Christianity stands alone as the truth. It doesn't 'hide' Him in a box. I'm not even certain what that means? How does one have the audacity to say "I refuse to put God in a box"? Surely one cannot be of the opinion that one could?

I think you know what I meant. I didn't mean I could literally put God into a box. I meant that I try to avoid turning my beliefs into reality. In other words I can stick labels onto my experiences of God and such but I try never to confine God to those labels. I have to always remember that God is bigger than my experiences and bigger than my words. That's one reason why I don't want to limit God to any certain religion.

Jesus came along at a certain place in time and space history. Those who came before had a different qualification for salvation than we, the Law. Others who never heard of Jesus still have observed what Romans 1:20 says. God is trustworthy. God does reveal himself in many ways, but only as Himself, not as another. He has no reason to deceive.

I never said God deceived. I just don't think you or anybody else has a monopoly on what revelations of God are true (and yes, I know you never claimed this, at least not directly). I don't know why the Hebrew and Christian scriptures should be trusted as true Revelations of God but not, for example, the Hindu scriptures. For myself, I really don't know what can be considered a "true" Revelation and so I choose to simply try to respect others' beliefs and search for the Revelations that speak to me.

Allow me: If I and a Muslim see a family needing food, we can both feed the family. We are cobelligerents, or to further illustrate, we are 'allied' (rather than 'an ally', which conotes a very broad basis for agreement) at only that one point in space and time. With my being a Christian and his being Muslim, we are not allies, even though we may be 'allied' at that one point in time and space. Neither faith would accept it, the differences are too great. We can be cobelligerents (allied) with even our worst enemies without being allies. There is no dishonor on either party in being cobelligerents. It means we can stand uncompromisingly in our belief. That's one way we share our faith.

Okay, whatever. It's just semantics I suppose.

Christ's claims are the epitomy of undeniable exclusivity. Anything else denies Him for whom He said He was.

I guess that depends on one's readings of Scripture. You, I assume, read the Gospels as recording exactly what Jesus said and did. I read them as recording things that Jesus said and did as well as things that were indicative of the early community's experiences of him and thus not necessarily factual, though still true in a metaphorical sense. I think the Gospel of John in particular is not meant to be a historical record but rather a record of how the early Church experienced Jesus.

Anyway, I don't really want to get into an argument about interpretation of Scripture (at least not on this thread), but I just wanted to explain my POV.

McKenna: I hoped you would understand what I meant when I said "cobelligerents" as opposed to "allies". I realize there may be some confusion. "Cobelligerent" is not a negative term. It is to mean we can cooperate on a specific cause. But, since we (differing faiths) have different foundational bases for our position, even if we agree on the position, we cannot be considered an ally. I hope you might take this opportunity to do a search on each word. It should relieve your concerns.

Actually, I did understand what you meant, thanks. I know that you meant nothing negative from the term "cobelligerent." What I reject is your refusal to consider non-Christians "allies." I see absolutely no reason not to ally with non-Christians as I know and love many (not to mention that I am a non-Christian in the view of many Christians; and in that case I would like to be considered an ally of the people I know and love who are considered Christians). I try not to draw distinctions between people on the basis of religion - "You're Christian so you're my ally, but you're Jewish so you're just a cobelligerent." I honestly don't know why you feel the need to make this distinction - I really don't think it's at all constructive or helpful in the causes we are teaming up to fight - and that is why I took issue with your statement.

Your personal search for God is seen by God. He will not turn away from those who seek Him.

Thank you for acknowledging that.

The experiences, to which I refer, is used by some to mean a "final" experience; that is, an experience so big that it gives you a "certainty and hope of meaning" but one that requires a leap of faith, separated from the rational, with no way to communicate its content to yourself or others; an irrational optimism with a rational pessimism. I know that is confusing. I'm trying to summerize what can be a long philosophical study from Aquinas to Sartre to Rousseau to Kant to ....

Well, I just finished a course in philosophy, so I know what you're talking about (although I'm not sure why you mentioned Sartre, an atheist?). However, I see nothing in that philosophy - that "leap of faith," that "final" experience - that would keep non-Christians from experiencing it. This is a point on which we simply disagree and I don't really see the point of continuing to debate about it, since we're just sort of repeating the same thing over and over again in different ways.

We know there is something wonderful about Man; we are made in the image of God. Man has value because of who we were originally. There is hope.

 

Ask yourself this intellectual question; whether Christ has come in the flesh. This is a question of reason not emotion. It is really two questions: whether Christ had an existence before incarnation and whether the incarnation took place.

 

The New Testament itself advises we strain through the grid of reasoning everything that comes through our minds. It is time for the church of Jesus Christ, as a true revolutionary force, to insist that there is truth, and it is possible that we can know it.

I do believe Christ has come in the flesh. But to me that's not an exclusive claim. I personally see Christ as the greatest revelation of God but that's because he speaks to me. To me it doesn't make sense to insist on Christianity as the sole bearer of truth, and a major reason for this is - what about the people that lived before Christ? Or that lived after him and never heard of him? Or that live in cultures where their own religion is embedded in their traditions? I believe God has revealed Himself in many ways and I refuse to put Him in any box, including that of Christianity.

Again, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Here's a good website to look thought:

 

http://www.quakerinfo.com/index.shtml

 

And my favorite Quaker bookstore:

 

http://www.quakerbooks.org/

Great, thank you so much!!

There are a few different streams amongst Quakers that have histories based upon disagreements that resulted in splits. The two main groups are the Friends United Meeting and the Friends Geneneral Conference. The FUM have mostly 'programmed' meetings consisting of hymns, music, sermons, etc. and resemble Protestant services. The FGC consists of mostly 'unprogrammed' meetings of silent worship. Of course, affiliation with one or the other doesn't neccessarily indicate the type of worship...My Meeting is affiliated with both organizations and follows the silent worship tradition. So, go figure.

Haha, that's funny about your Meeting having affiliations with both I've heard that programmed Meetings are more common in the Midwest, while traditional unprogrammed Meetings are more typical in the East? I guess it would depend from Meeting to Meeting though

My decision to sit with the Quakers was a hard one and it took a good year or so of introspection. I was a member of the United Methodist Church, but had social differences that I felt were in conflict with my own understandings. My pastor was very supportive and knew that I was searching for a place to Spiritually anchor myself. I finally decided the Quaker Faith & Practice mirrors my own most closely, and that's important for me. The silent worship of the Meetings that I attend is the safest and sanist part of my week. I get to clear my head and be with God, meditate, or just look out of the window at the trees outlined against the sky simply being at peace with myself. There are no distractions, no noises...just a group of Believers who come together every Sunday in order to sit and Believe together for awhile. I often leave Meeting feeling very peaceful, as if I have been reassured. I need that.

Thats so great, Russ I'm so glad you've found a community that makes you feel so renewed!! :) It's great that you were able to follow your heart and find the place that really suited you the best.

The Quaker philosophy and outlook really does appeal to me...I definitely should check out a Meeting sometime. Do you know of any good websites where I could find a Meeting near me?

We Christians may be fighting exactly the same cause as non-christians (injustice, hunger, et al), but that does not make us allies. At these specific points it makes us "cobelligerants", not allies. We cannot align ourselves with any religion built on a non-christian base. We must realize the difference. We are not an ally in any such camp. We alone stand with Jesus Christ as His Church. That is the true revolution to this world, to all who have turned away from God and His propostional truth.

 

So, if I seem to be saying the same thing as a non-christian, understand I am a cobelligerent on that subject, but I am no ally. One more time, We must never forget that it is only a passing cobelligerancy and not an alliance.

We can't even be allies with non-Christians??

Wow. How can we possibly love our enemies if we can't even consider our friends to be allies?

So I guess the next time I volunteer somewhere with my non-religious brother and/or Buddhist mother I should consider them "co-belligerents" rather than allies.

Come on. Seriously. The world has enough problems without people refusing to call each other "allies" when they're working on the exact same cause.

Setting up a false premise to use the other quote from the Bible (Proverbs 12:15) is equally weak. God is a personal God. He is interested in telling you of His desire to be with you in a one to one relationship. I never meant to infer in any way my own superiority, only God's. The Bible, it does claim superiority. All you need to do is merely take God for His word, in His guidebook, the Holy one you claim. The turning point may be when you stop seeking the God YOU want and start seeking the God who IS. Anything else is idolotry. I pray what we speak together may be a dialogue from which God is revealed. I claim no superiority for myself, but God's salvation gift is.

 

Romans 1:20; " For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

 

Mckenna: I am not asking you to believe what I say on my own merit, it will truly be faulty. If one cannot articulate an experience, how can one expect to rely on it at the price of their very soul? We are to rely on God, a personal daily encounter, not an unrepeatable, indescribable "spiritual" experience. Read the Bible and see what it actually says. If then you don't believe the Bible then move on, for you disbelieve the propositional basis for anything Christian. By reading it, I am confident you'll arrive at realizations (and even more questions), you'll be thrilled, you'll cry, you'll learn, you'll know God is speaking to you and you to Him. You'll have the truth to stand on.

You are making an awful lot of assumptions here. I'm pretty sure everyone here has attempted to seek the God Who Is. Just because not everyone comes up with the same answers as you doesn't mean they haven't made an honest effort. That's just plain insulting.

I have read the Bible (though admittedly not yet in its entirety), and furthermore I have on several occasions thrown myself on my knees near tears asking God to please reveal to me if He is in fact the God described by conservative Christians, because believe it or not I'm human and I'd love to have that certainty. But the Bible has never given me easy answers, and neither has God those times when I've prayed like that. The times I have heard from God are when I simply focused on my gratitude to Him for the people in my life that I love so much, when I've sat outside admiring His Creation, and when I've focused on some of the words attributed to Jesus, including the Lord's Prayer. And that is why I believe as I do. My beliefs have been shaped by my experiences and I believe God has met me exactly where I needed Him to. Please respect that.

I don't think I have shown anything but respect for your point of view. Please let me know if I have insulted you. I ask that you show everyone here the same amount of respect by not insinuating that we have not made a humble, honest attempt to know God.

Thank you for this. Maybe a fragile ecumenical bridge between fundamentalists and progressives? (although equality between women and men may be an issue for some fundamentalists?)

Well, obviously fundamentalists and progressives are pretty far apart on the theological spectrum and often the political spectrum as well, so they would interpret the above ideals pretty differently...but I do think that a statement such as this could become the basis for such a bridge, yes. It would take a lot of time, patience, and dialogue to work from there in terms of interpretation. But I think it would be worth it