davidk

Dear Autumn, God does not send people into eternal punishment. Don't be foolish enough to think He does or that I believe He does. It is just as foolish to think I have not been where you and the others have been before I had this 'comfortable' life. To assume answers not given is likewise, just as foolish. Coming into what has proven to be 'hostile territory' when I hoped it would be as claimed, an environment of 'open minds', inclusive, and pluralistic, and only to have found the contrary could also be considered foolish. It is certainly not comfortable, but challenging. How can you not like a god you don't believe in? He's not there but I don't like him anyway.

Autumn- Hear this, oh foolish and sensless people, You have eyes, but do not see. You have ears, but do not hear. -Jer 5/21 Soma- You really write exceptionaly well. You speak well of man's personality, needs, and aspirations. You identify man's nobility and the distinction of man's existence, his longing for God. I firmly believe this is good, but only part of what we need to know. We need to break through the romanticism of man's nobility to recognize there is a contrasting element in man, his cruelty. That is man and his dilemma. May I explain? Wayseer- Yes, it is our choice to make, every moment.

There is an inherent difficulty with Ecumenalism, when it is so inclusive that it was defined as "...the promotion of unity and cooperation between distinct religious groups and denominations in Christianity and in the larger sense the unity among all religions worldwide." This site demonstrates loudly that such a movement is virtualy impossible, despite all the best of intentions. The Ecumenical movement sought to promote through a functional Christian cooperation on the common tasks of missions, a mutual understanding on fundamental issues in belief, and a united witness to the world and its problems. There are undoubtedy massive needs the world over and we really want to help relieve people in distress. In this, we can agree and we can cooperate to a certain point. If this is plurality, OK, but understanding it has only a limited and faint glimmer of hope because politics often corrupt such philanthropic efforts on large scales. It cannot be called an Ecumenical movement because there is no common thread of religious belief or unity. Even this website can't find a unifying basis for belief in the single faith of Christianity. Some believe Jesus is the risen incarnate Christ, others do not. The incusivists begin excluding and become the very thing they railed against, being exclusive. Giving evidence that an 'all inclusiveness' cannot be maintained by even the most ardent of supporters. Try as they might the U.N., and countless other nations, have worked to bring Jew and Muslim together in the spirit of inclusiveness, but to no avail. After time spent in the middle east, I can attest to the vitriol the Muslims have toward the Jews. Ecumenalism is a lofty and seemingly noble goal, but religions would cease to be religions and politics would battle for the spoils. God has offered His solution, but the majority of the world won't accept it. It is a lost and dying world, and the only thing that will save it is, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You have been more than forthcoming. Just be encouraged in the confidence God provides and know more than being certain of, uncertainty. It is what I personally found, and God had it waiting for me all along. Once that happened the truth began spilling out all over the place. The obvious was not only obvious, but could all be explained. We know others will be critical, because they're just as afraid as we were. They'll launch a barrage of questions, criticisms and denials. Because they are the questions they can't answer themselves, they don't believe we could possibly have any source for answers! They can be vicious if we say the word "God"; even more so if you say 'Jesus'. That name is especially hated. Despite the stubborness of aetheists and classes of budding philosphers, ask them questions. Demand answers that don't require a "leap of faith" and then, ..."Feel the power of the Dark Side."-Darth Vader Confidence is that you know you aren't in this alone. Who can stand against the infinite-personal God's 'Holy fire'?

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? I was going to address "seeing God", but you answered that question thoroughly. "Blessed are the pure in heart,for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8). -------------------- I can see your reasoning. Here's mine. The usual questions for a thesis need to be answered. They are to provide evidence from all angles, so they become interdependant, but they are not the same things; Who, what, when, where, why, and how. I had precisely decided to only ask the 'why". Some 'where's' could have inadvertently slipped in. It is revealing when answers are best reasoned through Scripture. Now if you had used the term 'Rationalism', I would whole heartedly agree. Because, 'Rationality'( the quality or state of being rational. SYN: reasonableness) and 'Rational' ( of, relating to, or based upon reason; agreeable to reason: intelligent,sensible. SYN. reasonable) being reasonable, are by direct reference acceptable to God. (Is 1:18; "Come now let us reason together," says the Lord, "though your sins are as scarllet, they will be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool.") While "Rationalism ( n : man's reason in itself is the source of superior knowledge; arrived at from a priori concepts.) certainly deserves the Biblical criticism you referenced in 1 Cor 3:18-21. The 1 Corinthians 3:18-21 is reasonable, and it warns against 'Rationalism'! The Bibllical view of Rationalism: 1 Corinthians 3:18-21: "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, 'He is the One who catches the wise in their own craftiness.' and again, 'The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.' So then, let no one boast in men. ..." (Psalm 51) One of the greates passages concerning a man with a personal relationship with God concerning confession, forgiveness, and repentance; "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me". Psalm 51:10

McKenna: That was a line from an old joke. I guess I should have typed "lol" after it. My comments on Descartes was a follow up in complete support of that position. Reasonably there is no need to extra-prove something exists when all else depends on its existence. The difficulty is in proving the non-existence of something everything in existence depends upon. 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. ---------- Soma: I have made a cursory search of all of the posts here, and truthfully I could not find a single instance of my asking, nor implying, the question of, 'Where is God?', much less be so repetitively. The simple question is to explain why one believes in God the way one does do. You either won't or don't because you 'can't', He's too infinite.( It appears, like claims of my repeating "where is God", one would rather depend on ones own vain imaginings than the truth.) Claiming this kind of faith must be true because it cannot be verified. You asked me a couple of direct questions (#80), which I answered (#84), you misrepresented my answers (#86), adding some absurd statements of my limiting God along with some nonsensical Eastern religious quote. You claimed I answered 'No' to a question I clearly answered 'YES' to. I suggest this more closely defines belligerence. Then you completely ignore my questions to you. However, in that same post, a light must have turned on for you, because you alluded to Jesus and God being the same person with the Abraham story. ------------- God doesn't want you to be afraid of His certainty. We need to know God in a rational, explainable way with clarity and certainty. I tried to demonstrate a most elemental process to follow in order for one to explain how to support their philosophic viewpoints. My belief is in a God that can be understood and communicated about, with certainty; and it is only the Judeo-Christian God that can be. I hope I never said anyone here did not believe in God. My only hope was that when asked 'WHY' one believes the way they do, someone would have answered. What truths can one affirm of Christianity without the Bible factually being true? Where do you find these truths if the Bible is an incomplete source? How were they communicated? Who spoke them? Are they infinitly dependable sources?

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

Sartre, Plato and countless others have recognized the problem. We need universals, not just particulars, and an infinite reference point for anything to have meaning. We need a personal beginning to explain man the way he is; a reasoning, personal, communicative, creative man, and who has meaning. We do not need a subjective "perception, introspection and the possiblity of a priori intuition" from every individual. Along with those viewpoints, everything would be meaningless. Who is the infinite reference point man needs as an objective source to personally communicate these universal, absolute truths. What personal, objective, universal, infinite knowledge source gives validity and meaning to man and to all we observe? When you answer this, then you may develop a true theology.

David: Let's be accurate. The basic groundwork for knowledge is that something really exists. And it is, first of all, observable. Epistemology; the study of the method and grounds of knowledge esp. with reference to its limits and validity. Jean Paul Sartre said the basic philosphic question is that something is there rather than that nothing is there. I listed all the logical positions from there(with some editorial comment) in the discussion of existence (post #78) of which 2c is one of the three logical positions. The second basic philosophical question is mans dilemma, morality. Again, as Sartre put it, if a finite point does not have an infinite reference point, it is meaningless and absurd. The third is Epistemology. Let's go further back in time to Plato, who said the basic problem of knowledge, as in morals, is there must be more than particulars (any individual thing) if there is to be meaning. That is universals, absolutes. (see Sarte's position on mans dilemma). In order to discuss epistemology one needs to answer the first two in order to develop the proper groundwork and methods to even approach the third. We need to establish those in order to give epistemology validity. I did not mean to imply you thought life had no meaning. But the philosphical position, whether it's yours or not, could not rationally justify any meaning to life. This is not a personal attack, it's a discussion of philosophical and logical positions. If you disagree, Where's your why? What is the groundwork or method from which your epistemology arises? 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. I'm befuddled. You followed up with, "...events don't have to be factual..." I'm trying to understand. Soma: I owe you an apology. I fired a comment at you about your not living by your own rules. When I realized by saying what I did and how I did. I was not living by mine. Will you forgive me?

The Borg were the ultimate in human unification. The individual was meaningless. Sort of like what Soma said today, Jan 16 2008 Now this, I agree with: Let me add; that does not make them any less true. To repeat your quote from before; "to say anything at all of the Infinite, is to actually say nothing about the true Infinite." To be honest in your position why do you continue to talk about the infinite? By your own words you are not saying anything. First, by observation we know that the universe is there as opposed to its not being there. That is as simple as I can state it. A thorough epistemological discussion really requires more room than available here. But, if you review my post (#78), and you cannot consider 2c as an option (the only option that does not dehumanize man or ignore the facts about what man knows about man), then you have come to a dead end, where man is meaningless, along with all else, and no amount of epistemological reasoning would make any sense to you.

David: I'll try to simplify a little more; A child may believe in Santa Claus, but that belief does not make Santa real. So, regardless of belief, 'IF Santa were real, expect presents!' The statement, while logically 'true', still does not make Santa real. This is pretty elementary. ----------- I suppose we must come to what and who is God. I'll go first. Number one: God is the creator. I sense this may be where we depart. But, far be it for me to assume our differences. Do you believe; God is the creator. This would undoubtedly summise all else would be the created. This is based on knowing a universe is there as opposed to its not being there.

You sound pretty definite about the infinite God! And only "one"? That's a small box, soma. And the rest of your comments never got Him out. "God cannot be defined or represented in rational terms..." Therefore, one can define and represent God in irrational terms. That certainly explains the rest of your message. My dear Soma, you are not able to live within your own arguments. Your position makes ecumenalism futile since no one could discuss God, rationally, anyway. ( Wouldn't that be sight to see?) Oh, never mind! "to say anything at all of the Infinite, is to actually say nothing about the true Infinite." - SOMA So, whatever you say now about "...God is Infinite..." is really nothing and irrational. ------------------ About the favor. Thanks for saying it was rational. However you may have anticipated a 'no', I actually said "YES". On that topic, did God ask a favor, or give a command? The same with Peter? It was insightful of you to reason Jesus is God during the Abraham comment. And you have some questions unanswered.

David: How does one say there is no uncreated being and believe God is the creator without Him being the uncreated (beginning)? You also proposed, "Certainly if one agrees with your definition of God then you appear to have the ability to make reasonable deductive conclusions. However that is like saying if one believes in Santa Claus then one can reasonably expect to see presents at Christmas." I believe you have completely misdiagnosed because you didn't understand what presupposition means. I was never asking for agreement on the definition of God. I was offering a basic logical presupposition. That is: IF the subject were true then the predicate would also be true. Your Santa Claus statement is illogical. It should be constructed properly, as follows. If Santa Claus is real then one could certainly expect to see presents at Christmas. That makes it logically consistant. That is more to the point. Besides, I am not certain what your position on God is, so how could I disagree or say you have none ? 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. Russ: SOMA said "No religion talks ill of another religion." Then later called some he disagrees with as arrogant and authoritarian. Your comment on the "old religion" could be considered bickering even after you condemned it. I am far from perfect, and we should not set boundaries if we can't live within them. I am not in any way, at this time, saying whether I think you are incorrect or not. I ask only you defend your faith in a way that can be understandably communicated, and not rely on the unverifiable. Would you consider our faith as coming from God?

I believe in the one triune God. I don't think Jesus has ever asked anyone to do Him a favor. Nor do I think He would ever need to. So, theoretically if He did, I would say, "yes". ------------- Now you. I have a lot of questions for you, here's 3, and #3 is just a clarification of a term you used. 1. If Jesus "...was not interested in converting people to his way of thinking.", why would he say,"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My Word, and believes Him who sent me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death unto life." ( this is conversion) and , "...he who does not believe has been judged already,..."? (this is the result of not converting) 2. If everything is God, why would Jesus have to die? If everthing were God, where is sin? Is God sin? ( those last two were rhetorical unless you want to use them!) 3. When you say "intuition", do you mean: coming to direct knowledge or certainty without reasoning. Or do you mean; immediate cognizance and conviction without rational thought; or, the power or faculty to attaining direct knowledge or cognition without rational thought and inference? -------------------------------------------- An ecumenical question: I'm confused. Pluralism is used quite a bit here and the application seems fairly broad. Could someone explain what is you mean by pluralism. Is it intended to mean that: there is more than one kind of ultimate reality; or, more than one independent spiritual entity (dualism as opposed to monism)? Or, the concept of diverse autonomous ethnic or religious groups participating to develop their own cultures within the confines of a common civilization? Could anyone please explain where or when Jesus advocated pluralism?

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.

Well? This seems to be what I can't live with. I seek the answers, reasonable answers, logical and rational, to explain the universe, man, and knowledge of the truth as it really is, not... ignoring it! I run toward the answers, not away. For how can I live without answers? Blind faith? A leap into the inexplicable apart from the real world of real answers offers no comfort or peace. My soul cannot rest without truth and the knowledge of it. Pick a question. How do you explain the problem of existence, of being; including the existence of man?

It's a fascinating exercise to ask questions regarding ones faith and I certainly enjoy the contrarian side in a debate. Many struggle with the positions I may take as they work out their defenses, finding out why they believe as they do and becoming strong enough to change when the truth cannot be avoided. I try to encourage people to reason out their faith to find answers they can actually live with by helping them understand the world they actually occupy. Borg is prolific, but he's an easy mark and fredP will neither fail to be an interesting encounter. If you've the strength, I may challenge you on an epistemological thread! (This is one corraled cat, does that make me liberal or fundamental?) ------------------ To conclude, ponder this: Ecumenism will be a tough sell. Many faithful to their faith will never stand still for a universal ecumenical movement which they feel compromises their beliefs. It seems too many in the world's ecumenical movement have articulated a compromise (can't we all just get along?) that would establish a pseudo 'one world religion'. Should Christians reasonably avoid this movement... or not? John 7:24; "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

I certainly know the challenges. But, how do challenges to a theology necessarily invalidate it? Are you challenging the idea of an infinite-Personal God? (that does not mean one just for me that excludes everyone else, but a God who created everything and is personal and has character and is big enough). If that's the challenge, with what do you counter? IF God is a Personal God, the presuppositions I expounded upon must be considered reasonable? If he is not a personal God, then of course, they would not. Where do you position yourself? I would very much like to hear from you in more specific terms of who/what you think God is and what presuppositions you hold that would explain man and his aspirations, morality, and meaning. How do you explain man's nobility and yet his cruelty? How does existence exist? Can man fight injustice without fighting God? Why? How do we determine right from wrong? In epistemology the greatest problem is in what area? What gives meaning to all the individual things we see in the world (all the particular bits)? Are we machines, or just one bit in the whole with no meaning or freedom? Why not? Do you agree or disagree that whatever is is right? Why? Do you believe Christ came in the flesh? Why or why not? Do you consider these questions 'fundamentalist'? I can neither agree nor disagree with your definition of God. I have no idea what is. I know we agree about herding cats! No one will answer my earlier questons about intuition or pluralism. (posts #50 & 57) I hear criticisms but 'where's the beef?' k

David: Time did ask the question in 1966 (yes, I read it. I saw it when it hit the stands). I don't recall that it ever used the term "super-being". That is probably an individual 'interpretation'. I don't believe there has ever been any 'ecumenical' agreement that God is dead, since it comes from such an reasonable position. Although it may seem reasonable when the church (not Church) had such a hand in misrepresenting Christianity by not discussing legitimate questions. The contemporary churches still do not adequately answer questions the way current generations can understand. They're still discussing issues from 50 years ago the current generations have no memory of. I was presenting a presupposition under the assumption you believed in God. From there the Christian presuppositions would be reasonable. Now I know a personal-infinite God or a propositional revelation or the Christian's view of infallability, or sin and guilt, in any real moral sense is meaningless to you. How do your presuppositions differ? Could we find an ecumenical 'common ground' in those? Not believing in God would generally bash any hope of ecumenism in the Christian community, even though you posted that you assumed a religious content was essential for the ecumental effort. Soma believes everything is God. Mckenna seems to know God exists as well as Cynthia. Russ thinks God exists even though he believes trying to understand your faith may actually cause you to lose it. DAVID, Jan 26. Based, on these quotes are there any reasons reaching for a unified theological position cannot be discussed here? If there is no unified Christian position shall we have to abandon ecumenalism? If we can unify, should we consider evangelism instead? 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. 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 only want to communicate that there is reasonble explanation for how you can know your concepts of God are based on truth, an abolute truth. You know there is a God, and He wants you to know why you know. Let's reason it out together.

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. Hinduism is pantheism and cannot stand up to rational scrutiny. 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? Semantics is the study of meanings. In your search for true revelation, consider the following: In modern theology and to modern man, the very concept of a propositional revelation or the Christian's view of infallability, or sin and guilt, in any real moral sense is meaningless. But there's 2 ways to consider propositional (objective declaration or statement) revelation and infallability. The first to consider is our presupposition and whether or not it is proper and adequate. The Christian presupposition is that there was a personal beginning for all things; someone has been there, made all the rest, and he was big enough (infinite). Now if that's the case, everything else would be limited in contrast. But suppose this limited thing he made was on his own wave length, say-in his own image- then there would be an infinite, non-created Personal and a limited-created personal. Based on this, the personality of the limited, created personal would be explained. Based on the same presupposition, why couldn't the non-created Personal communicate to the created personal if he wished? And of course the non-created, infinite, Personal could not exhaust himself in his communication to the finite, created personal. Two things: 1. Because the communication is not exhaustive does not mean it is not true, unless the non-created Personal is a liar. The communication between created personals would not have to be qualitatively any different. 2. If the non-created Personal cared for the created personal, it would not be unexpected for him to tell the created personal things of a propositional nature; otherwise, being finite, the created personal would have many things he would not know if he had to begin with himself. In this case, there is no reason why the non-created Personal could communicate vaguely true things, but could not communicate propositional truth concerning the world around the created personal. We'll call that science. Or why he could not communicate propositional truth about the sequence that followed his making everything. Call it history. The communication would not be exhaustive, but there is no reason it would not be true. 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! Next: The verbalized communication.

To be specific on the word 'pluralism'. Do you intend it to mean that: there is more than one kind of ultimate reality; or, more than one independent spiritual entity (dualism as opposed to monism)? Or, the concept of diverse autonomous ethnic or religious groups participating to develop their own culture within the confines of a common civilization? 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. It is because of this we may seek, and find, answers from the Bible. If the viewpoints went in all directions, no answers could be possible. We presumably agree the Bible provides answers. In other words, the truth. If it holds the truth we may have confidence in its reliability. If it's reliable, we can depend on its propositional statements. If its propositions are dependable we can trust it. If it is trustworthy, we can believe it. Therefore, we can have that final experience that can be communicated, rationally discussed, and based on God's written propositional communication to us, and on the finished work of Jesus Christ in actual history. Some believe, beginning with our own viewpoint, each of us drawing a circle to encompass all thoughts of life and life itself, not departing from the hard logic of antithesis, believing on our own, rationalistically, that a finite people could find a unity within the total of complexity (diversity), an adequate explanation for the whole of reality. Each person drawing a circle. Each circle destroyed by the next. It was before the 1800's, philosophers concluded, they were not going to find a unified, rationalistic, circle in which they could live. So, they shifted the meaning of truth to pragmatic relativism. Discarding absolute truths and hard logic, everything was now a 'synthesis' (Hegel). That was a forerunner to dialectical thinking, crucial to Marxism. Well, since this synthesis could not be arrived at by reason. Another shift was required. Kierkegaard (1813-1855) led to the concept of the total separation of the rational and faith ( the leap of faith). Modern existential thinking, theological and secular, was born. --------------------------- I am convinced many have had a true experience. For sure something certainly happened. Since God created a real external world that exists, and us to experience it, we will. An experience with the reality of the real external world and the uniqueness of man. Because God created man that way, in His own image, to be able to experience the real world and our uniqueness. The experience is of something which exists, it is not nothing, nor is it God. But the world God made. They may have, for a fleeting moment, touched the existence of the true personality in their love, but it is not God. It is the objective reality of the God created world, the way He wanted you to experience it and know who He is.

The "leap of faith " requires no reasonable argument or evidence, only some undefinable upper consciousness, trance or something. Since we agree we are to seek reasonable answers, how could anyone abandon us to believe in a leap of faith? Some theologians have been using that term against "fundamentalists", even using 'superstitious', for years, all the while leaping around themselves. It didn't help any when 'fundamentalists' failed to answer real questions with "I don't know, I just believe" and the liberals said "I don't know, just expand your consciousness'. It's the same answer! Answering questions that way caused an exodus of people searching for the truth. The 'church' failed 'us'. Jesus was still there but 'we' left Him for our independence and affluence mixed with the useless comfort of meaningless 'God' words liberally sprinkled in foriegn religions and pathetic denominations. Some churches are coming to grips with this are are now being proactive on how do we reason with this and the coming generation about the truth of our being, morality, and knowledge. When any philosopher (Sartre, De Sade, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Kopper, Polanyi, et al) speaks a truth he neccessarily needs to be mentioned. In reference to Sartre, he said that the basic philosophic question is that something is there, rather than nothing is there. I agree with SOMA on the premise that there is unity. The point of disagreement is how. We are unified not by our own concepts, (Humanistic and man-centered), but by our being created by an infinite-personal God (Christian and God-centered). To answer Man's need further, we should realize not just the unity, but the great diversity of creation. For unity without diversity leaves no meaning for freedom, or significance, or morals, or variance since everything is finally boiled down to equality. Unity without diversity ignores love, personal relationships, and a personal-infinite-creator God. Again, only Christianity has the answer. 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? 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. 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. Christ's claims are the epitomy of undeniable exclusivity. Anything else denies Him for whom He said He was.

Soma: You've got authoritarian and authoritative confused. Please, be careful. It reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live skit with Gilda Radner (Roseanne Roseannadanna). She'd take off on a tangent completely disconnected from the subject at hand. Hilarious! When you say "intuition", do you mean: coming to direct knowledge or certainty without reasoning. Or do you mean; immediate cognizance and conviction without rational thought; or, the power or faculty to attaining direct knowledge or cognition without rational thought and inference; or a leap of faith? 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. Your personal search for God is seen by God. He will not turn away from those who seek Him. 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 .... 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. Mystictrek: Both American political parties are abandoning the Christian basis for our laws and existence. The Left abandoned it nearly 80 years ago while the Right took a decade or two longer. Now the only thing Christian in either one is just a vague memory. The 1970's Silent Majority's majority are now no longer believing Christians. So, the problem becomes: If our citizens are not given the material affluence they consider to be their "right", there will be much pressure to form some elite or totalitarian gov't, which the Left is poised to present. And you're fooling no one when you intimate the plutocrats only inhabit the Repub's. The list on both sides is long. Our job as Christians is to insure Christianity not be identified as either Democrat nor Republican, Liberal nor Conservative.(remember: allies/ cobelligerents) We should not allow Christianity to be caught in that trap. Now "...arrogant, fundamental christianity,..." ? Fundamentally, fundamental Christianity cannot be arrogant. You may find individuals arrogant, and you may even find some groups arrogant; but fundamental Christianity is not. No organization can run from them, but to broadstroke orthodox Christians based on edited media accounts and bad experiences, the shame is on you. Release your fear and hatred of your fellow man. Where's the love? Put the "fun" back in fundamental!

Some have suggested other threads, and perhaps they are correct for a full theological discussion. The reason I picked this thread was not necessarily to dig too deeply into Christian Philosophy, but to discuss the difficulty ECUMENISM will be. Based on some of the earlier posts, where one seems to claim all faiths may actaully be worshipping the same god but only by different means, while other posts disagree. SOMA, Jan 16 David, Jan 22. I agree with David. (It does sound like I'm talking to myself) But to move that forward, we must realize there is NO theological unity among the world's religions. This is the crux of the problem. Some Christians have a difficult enough time reaching theological unity (see TCPC posts: "ecumentalism") without trying to reach unity with other religions! 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. If this be "pluralism", I can live with it. Diana Eck misses this point altogether. Or, to use someone elses analogy, If the ocean were True Christian philosophy, (Diana Eck) would barely have the bottom of her feet wet. Your "...equality between women and men may be an issue for some fundamentalists." begs an explanation. More than the progressives elite image of a fundamental snake handler spittin' tobacco while beatin' his wife and havin' sex with his own children conjours up. Another thread is in the works involving all three basic philosophical questions, including the third of epistemology. Soma: Love IS the superior attitude, and God has it. He does not find it hard to love because of His attitude. Since we have been created in the image of God we may have the superior attitude of love, too. How does one follow a guidebook without believing its do's and don'ts? (read: its law) Don't throw it at anyone, but likewise don't throw it out. Considering all the "guidebooks" may be correct and the Bible is only one among many is precisely what Proverbs 14:15 warns us about. 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. Cynthia: Christianity will be abused by fallen Man. But, Christianity is different. It is built on the truth, God's son: Jesus. Christianity is the worship of Him, the truth, the life, the way. We can never improve it, because it is already perfect, and we are not (ergo; the abuse) Believe and accept the relationship with God that He is providing for you, through His gift to you, faith in Jesus Christ.

I really don't understand the contradictions. God is a situation we can't understand or explain? Is God inside or outside? Grasping the ungraspable? You lost me. This is a most sage comment. Brilliant. Thank you. (Can't find your Lewis quote, though. Help.) Mckenna: If you are not a pluralist, I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but when you quoted Diana Eck, it was implied when she said,"...in a pluralist view, ... we honor the same God..." We abandon morality if we do not decide right from wrong. Our Faith is not from some inexplicable religious experience. We would only be fooling ourselves. It comes from knowing of and understanding an infinite God who is personal with you. That personal God said, Here is my only begotten Son. Because of His sacrifice, neither you nor any fallen "man" need live in guilt. Salvation is yours, believe it because "I" did it for you. If you deny My Son, you will not be Saved. If you follow Jesus, believe it when He said. "No one comes to the Father except by Me." We could go on ad infinitum discussing all these particular issues. Unless we can come to grips with fundamental (don't be frightened by that word!), universal truths then discussing the particulars will be endless. Indeed we all have a world view (philosophy) and we must decide what it is and where it came from. If given a choice between unreasonble and reasonable answers for these truths, and since everyone here appears reasonable, our choice is obvious, we want reasonable, rationally and logically considered, able to be communicated truths neccesary to answer Mans needs sufficiently and to "...speak with all men, religions, philosophies and sciences about those things... ." SOMA. To understand we should know that the three areas of philosophic thought are what they always have been. The area of "Being", the metaphyical neccesity; then of "Man and his dilemma", that is: the moral neccessity. The third area is "epistemology" or, how do we know that we know, our epistemological neccesity. Biblical Christianity provides the answers to those areas of question...sufficiently. I run a great risk saying this, but here goes; because Biblical Christianity is the only religion which can answer those questions satisfactorily then that does, in fact, make it the superior religion. Before you blast away, find out why I can so brashly say that. Can you say any other religion can reasonably provide answers to the three areas? And how? Illogical, unreasonable leaps of faith will not be accepted. Points will not be counted off for spelling.