GeorgeW

Joseph: Frankly, I am immediately distracted by the opening sentences:

"Just before noon on Sunday, January 12, A.D. 27, Jesus called the apostles together for their ordination as public preachers of the gospel of the kingdom."

Is this level of detail purporting to be history? Noon on a specific date? I think, 'okay, what is the source?' Is it purporting to be divine revelation? Well, what can I say? If it is wisdom literature, where is the wisdom?

Brent: Sorry for being such a skeptic. But, I have yet to see anything that entices me to proceed with such a huge body of material.

George

Since Mathew 5-7 was brought up, some might have the interest (and time) to read and comment on UP 140: The Ordination of the Twelve (The Sermon on the Mount). This jump into Part IV is ahead of the semi-scheduled sequence that I’ve sort of planned, but I don’t mind.

Brent,

Can you summarize what is particularly relevant or insightful about this passage that would be different from, or supplemental to, Mat. 5-7 in the New Testament?

George

George,

 

I will attempt some further clarification related to a question which seems dear to you and is naturally raised in any introduction of the UPapers [. . . ]

 

Therefore, I think that any effort to persuade regarding the subject of revelatory authority would be both pointless and counterproductive [. . .]

 

Deeper discussion of this issue would perhaps afford the opportunity to present additional context provided by the authors themselves.

Brent,

I would not say this is an issue "dear" to me, but rather one of interest. And, yes, I think that trying to persuade some of us of its "revelatory authority" would be a waste of cyberspace, and perhaps counterproductive. That is why I suggested earlier that you demonstrate its value and relevance by including appropriate references in the general discussions.

I agree with Joseph that healthy scepticism is a good thing, not bad.

George

 

My physical health is not what it should be. My autonomic nervous system often gets of out sync and I end up with exteme phobias. Some days I cannot handle the exchanges on this board, then the next day it is "yes, I get it, now move ahead."

 

Myron

Myron,

I am pleased that you pointed this out. This will help others understand what might motivate some of your comments or an absence. I wish you the very best.

George

Progressive Christianity, to me, means letting go of ideas of exclusivity, accepting that my faith is not the one and only truth. And, by learning of other faiths, enriching my own faith.

Yes, I think this is an important, maybe the most important, feature of Progressive Christianity.

George

Joseph,

I think your question goes to the heart of the issue of inspiration and authority of scripture. If one does not accept a particular writing as divinely inspired, then the question immediately arises – so, where is the beef? However, if one does accept the writing as divine revelation, every word can convey meaning.

In order to accept a scripture as authoritative, I think, generally requires a great deal of priming by family and/or friends. I don’t think the inspiration of any of the scriptures is self-evident in the writing itself although it seems so to the properly primed and conditioned reader.

I am not suggesting that there is no beef in any of the Holy Scriptures or the UPapers, but just that there is a quite different perception of them from the point of view of the believer and the non-believer.

So, I suggest that there are two different approaches to introducing a new scripture (to adults). One is to persuade the reader that it is divine revelation. The second is to demonstrate the value and relevance to the reader. I think that you, I and others are asking for the second.

George

I think that all religions including monotheistic have multiple divine beings (see satan, angels, seraphim, etc). Even Islam which firmly states in its creedal statement that there is one god has angels, satan, jinn. What seems different in the UP, in this respect, is the formal delegation of power to "divine sons."

George

My one reservation about not only "The Help" but the image of this sort about the white/black social issues of the South is what I feel is a distortion that misses an important component...underyling the black/white is the power/subjegation pertaining to wealth and social class, in addition to, and apart from, racism.

 

The routine casual acceptance of the more wealthy, powerful, socially elite, commonly using and abusing those poor and less powerful, is not just a "Southern" issue . . .

Jenell,

Yes indeed, class discrimination with its power and abuse is not just a "Southern" issue. In fact, it has been in the headlines recently with the incident involving the man who most likely would have been the president of France, Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

A not so dissimilar incident is reported in the Bible with the celebrated King David and Bathsheba. We also have the story of Hagar who ended up in the desert with only a little bread and water for her 'service.'

George

I’ve enjoyed and appreciated all of the very respectful and kind responses from the list. My intention is to continue sharing some of the major themes found within the UP from time to time. Perhaps someone will find these worthy of discussion.

Brent,

Maybe a way of presenting the UP is in the context of other discussions in addition to making them the topic of discussion. That might demonstrate the quality of the writings and the relevance to our lives and ideas.

George

I don't worry too much about the authoritative issue. That is resolved by 1) the inspiration one experiences and/or 2) the degree to which there is consensus about the nature of the work. I find The Shack by Wm. Paul Young inspiring and, were I a preacher, would reference it often.

Dutch,

There are a number of books and authors that many of us could point to as profound, enlightening, insightful, inspiring, etc. But, we don't view them as 'authoritative' in the sense of uniquely divinely inspired.

MLK's speeches are particularly inspiring to many of us, but not many people (anybody?) assert them as 'authoritative' like the Bible, the Qur'an, The Book of Mormon, maybe the UPapers, etc.

George

“The Help” qualifies as a PC film -- the kind that makes you ache for more social justice in the world. I had read the book and thought the movie was a sensitive adaptation with outstanding performances. On the one hand it was appalling to realize such intimately cruel domestic discrimination was going on in the deep south, that I had no clue about. Yet it was inspiring to see how the characters found the courage to tell their stories despite terrible risk, and reclaim their dignity.

Rivianna,

We saw the film last night and I concur with your recommendation. I grew up in the South in a similar social milieu (but a step down the social ladder - more middle class) and I can attest to the authenticity of the attitudes expressed in the film.

I have trouble today reconciling these attitudes with some of the otherwise decent, educated, intelligent people who held them. My family was racist (in today's terms), but had a more paternalistic attitude toward African Americans. They did not hate Blacks, but thought they were just not quite our equal.

I think these attitudes are testimony to the power of racism that is in us. Also, the profound progress that I have witnessed in my lifetime is testimony to human potential. I could never, as a child, have ever imagined the progress that has been made.

George

P.S. While I was never a crusader for justice that the main character in the movie was, I knew from very early on that something was wrong. In fact, I got in a little hot water from time to time for not practicing discriminatory behavior. So, I suspect we all have a seed in us that tells us what is right and wrong.

Brent,

FWIW, although I don't consider the Qur'an to be authoritative, I do think that the power of the language is part of the explanation for the spread of Islam. And, in part, the authority is maintained through teaching that it is authoritative and in part by the language of the writing itself. (However, this gets lost to a large degree in translation).

I would surmise from what you have said that the content of the UPapers is the 'qualitative' feature that convinces you as opposed to (in addition to?) the skilled use of language.

George

Yes George, imo, the UPapers are special and I consider them authoritative. As the basis for this authority I would submit the qualitative evidence their own declarations and statements.

Brent,

Do you consider any other religious writing to be authoritative as well. If not, why not?

George

Dutch, Good job!

George

Here in my country the majority of fundamentalists wouldn´t call themselves that, rather traditionalists, which in general means the same, the innerrant bible

tells them that no women can be priests and gays cannot marry or practice sex and so on.

 

Akhenaten,

Welcome. You mention your country (presumably not the U.S). I would be interested to know what country that would be. That would give a little more perspective to your comments. Your nom de PC sounds like it could be Semitic (Hebrew - brother of Naten?).

George

It seems like in my lifetime the use of fundamentalist has developed a negative connotation; it is used to describe the fringe. I like your use of the term evangelical orthodoxy.

Scott,

FWIW, Corbett (Religion in America) defines evangelicalism as having these minimal criteria:

(1) Salvation only through faith in Jesus Christ,

(2) An experience of having a personal conversion, commonly called 'born again,'

(3) The importance of missions and evangelism (sharing the message),

(4) The truth of inerrancy of Scripture.

Under Fundamentalism, she says, "The keystone was and is the inerrancy of Scripture. She doesn't mention the importance of evangelism. But, there seems to be some overlap, particularly with respect to inerrancy of Scripture.

Apart from any formal distinction, I agree with you that the term 'fundamentalist' has acquired a negative connotation that 'evangelical' has not.

George

Mike,

I don't know if a non-material "ultimate reality" exists or not. It could exist, but without the necessary wiring in our brains we would not be able to perceive it (or, some would say, conceive it). Science cannot determine if there is a non-material reality or not. But, it can, I think, eventually explain how our brains are able to perceive/conceive such a thing.

George

The fool who knows he is a fool

Is that much wiser.

The fool who thinks he is wise

Is a fool indeed.

There is a similar saying in Arabic. It says roughly (but rhyming in Arabic), 'He who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know is a fool. He who doesn't know and knows that he doesn't know is wise.'

George

A little 'oneness' humor that doesn't work out:

Sorry for the digression.

George

Exactly. 'Besulah' is the one word used in the Hebrew Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud to indicate virginity.

 

And, for those of you who might wonder, 'besulah' and 'betulah' are both correct transliterations of the same Hebrew word. The first transliteration reflects Ashkenaz pronunciation while the second reflects Modern Hebrew pronunciation. Same word.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

Rabbi,

Thanks again. I didn't realize that besulah was a variation of betulah. I had assumed a typo. I think the biblical Hebrew is the latter since it is written with tav.

To anyone who knows: What are the Greek words used in Isaiah (in the Septuagint) and in the Gospel stories? Are different Greek words used? If so, are the meanings different? I think it has been established that the Gospel writers referenced the Septuagint.

George

Neon,

I am inclined to agree with you. There are some whose mindset cannot be changed. But, there may be others who might be influenced by dialog and reason. I think, like most moral issues, we know down deep what is right and wrong, but sometimes need encouragement to do what is right and overcome our worst impulses.

In this particular forum, it is true that we would be largely preaching to the choir with a few exceptions who come here to challenge progressive Christianity and are unlikey to be persuaded by reason. But, I see no harm in pointing out the poverty of their position. And, I hate to see bigotry left unchallenged.

George

The Hebrew word generally translated by Christian interpreters as 'virgin' does not mean 'virgin' but rather merely 'young woman'.

 

Virginity, to this day, is an important concept within Judaism as it has legal consequences, and so we are very careful not to bandy about terms. When a woman is a virgin, we use the word 'besulah' - virgin - and that's exactly what we mean.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

Yes, the word for virgin betulah is clear at Gen. 24:16, "The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin (betulah), whom no man had known . . ."

The word in Isaiah 7:14 is 'almah. Isaiah was talking about a young woman and expressing no opinion on whether she had "known a man." If it was important, he would have said so using betulah.

George

Doug,

 

I tend to agree with you about God being eternal & unchanging, though that is not a universally agreed upon point.homophobic.

You guys are suggesting that there is an objective reality about the existence and character of God. But, we have no way of accessing this reality, except as mediated through social, intellectual and psychological means all of which differ from one society and time to another and from person to person. Therefore, our understanding is necessarily relative to our particular social context and personal limitations and experience. And, any claims made about this objective reality are necessarily subjective.

George

George, what does PCUSA stand for?

 

Thanks.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

Presbyterian Church (USA).

Shalom,

George

Given no prohibition against female homosexuality, we must ask why the prohibition against male homosexuality? The prohibition must not have anything to do with homosexuality itself but rather something else. The obvious 'something else' is the spilling of seed: men spill (waste) their reproductive seed while engaging in homosexual relationships but women do not spill (waste) their seed during homosexual relationships.

 

At the time, it was believed that men had limited reproductive capacities, and that wasting semen was therefore quite wrong; a man who purposefully engaged in sexual behavior that could not possibly impregnate a woman was seen as purposefully ignoring G-d's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply'". On the other hand, women were believed to have unlimited reproductive powers, up until a certain age, and so it was thought that women could engage in sexual behaviors that did not lead to impregnation without defying the commandments.

Rabbi Benjamin

My pastor (PCUSA who I don't think is Litvish) has proposed the same thing. He thinks that the prohibition was related to wasted seed. This is why masturbation was also forbidden, i.e. wasting valuable seed.

It is not coincidence that the Hebrew word for seed and semen are the same.

George