Burl

Limey is a Brit.  I heard it started when The British navy started quartermastering limes to prevent scurvy.

Africa; arr. Paul Hillier.  Haunting melody and striking 18c lyrics.  

Now shall my inward joys arise,
And burst into a Song;
Almighty Love inspires my Heart,
And Pleasure tunes my Tongue.

God on his thirsty Sion-Hill
Some Mercy-Drops has thrown,
And solemn Oaths have bound his Love
To show'r Salvation down.

Why do we then indulge our Fears,
Suspicions and Complaints?
Is he a God, and shall his Grace
Grow weary of his saints?

Can a kind Woman e'er forget
The Infant of her Womb,
And 'mongst a thousand tender Thoughts
Her Suckling have no Room?

Yet, saith the Lord, should Nature change,
And Mothers Monsters prove,
Sion still dwells upon the Heart
Of everlasting Love.

Deep on the Palms of both my Hands
I have engrav'd her Name;
My Hands shal raise her ruin'd Walls,
And build her broken Frame.

Will the Circle be Unbroken.  Nitty Gritty Dirt band and friends.

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

But you chose to study in Christianity rather than say a Masters of Divinity in Islam because why?  I suspect it’s because one tradition spoke to you more strongly than the other and further suspect that the tradition that spoke most strongly to you was the tradition of the culture in which you happened to be raised.  Statistically, that is by far what happens the majority of the time when it comes to religious belief.

I was thinking of original or non-conformist morés.  One cannot judge these without an external reference.

If one reads the bible authentically they will come up with non-conformist ideas so they need a method to evaluate their new idea.

2 minutes ago, PaulS said:

No, you misread what I say.  Tradition 'feeds into' this self-deception because you have already started with a bias - the bias being the cultural tradition itself that you've been raised in.  It's not rocket science to understand why Muslim countries largely produce more Muslims and Christian countries largely produce more Christians.  Their respective traditions are already telling those people that their tradition is right.

Why haven't you put as much time and effort into studying Islam's traditions and scriptures as you have the Christian ones?

I have put years into studying Islam and work almost weekly with imams on biblical issues that come up in their dawa.  

Jesus is critical in Islam.  We should discuss this more.

57 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I agree Bart can't 100% 'know' what Jesus was really teaching, and quite possibly he is working with material that has indeed been corrupted since Jesus actually said and did whatever he did, if in fact he even existed as we think of him today.

I do think that much of Bart's work has demonstrated the corruption of any original writings and the significance that there is a lot we can't actually know, though Christianity in general pretends it does.

But I do like the idea of taking the very same documents that have been used to paint a certain picture and shed a bit more historical accuracy on them to demonstrate they don't actually mean what many have been told they do.  Whether that happens to be historical reality of what Jesus actually said at the time, may forever remain uncertain.

Yes.  Which is why I always use the bible as a reference and insist on proper hermeneutics.  Reading the bible is not a simple task.

There is not much original thought in Ehrman’s work.  Everything he writes has been taught in seminaries and universities for decades.  He is an excellent teacher and author who has brought this scholarship into the popular press.

42 minutes ago, PaulS said:

External references, particularly when they are already embedded in one's culture, play also to this self-deception.  It's not that remarkable that Christians tend to grow up in a Christian culture, Muslims tend to grow up in an Islamic culture, Buddhists tend to grow up in a Buddhist culture, etc etc.

Tradition is certainly one external reference that helps to avoids self-deception.  Scripture is another, as is experience.

8 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I'm not sure who you think misread you Burl, because when I said "So when I experience one such as you that claims they are speaking out for Jesus, my concern is that nobody has all the answers and to pretend they do, is fraud." - I thought that would be pretty clear I had read you properly.  Maybe you think another has misread you?

My later post simply expresses the same concern about people who say are speaking 'for' Jesus, which for the reasons I explained mean very little difference to me than someone who claims to be speaking 'out' for Jesus  - i.e. that they think they already 'know' what there is to know about Jesus, which to me seems contrary to everything PC encourages and embraces.  Nobody can speak 'for' Jesus but Jesus himself - the rest is just speculation - well intentioned or not".  Perhaps you have never seen the harm such certainty in Jesus has caused others - I have, which is why I am somewhat challenging to people's claims about certainty of beliefs around Jesus and God.

Numerous previous posts have demonstrated your certainty about much about God, the bible and Jesus.  You are entitled to your views - I was just questioning your motive and understanding when you say you are speaking out for Jesus here, as though it is required.  At times you have made your distaste for PC and this forum plain (wasn't it you who said this forum had nothing to offer the thinking Christian?), and yet at others times you seem to indicate you agree with Progressive Christianity thought.  

If I need to clarify for either you or Thormas, to speak 'out' for Jesus holds for me the same concern as speaking for Jesus - that is that the 'speaker' has drawn their conclusions about Jesus.

Maybe you could differentiate for me how you understand speaking 'out' for Jesus here if in contrast to speaking 'for Jesus?  Perhaps you could explain it in the context of your actual post referring to this forum where you said "Because it advertises itself as Christianity, so there is a need to stand up and speak out for Jesus just in case someone stumbles across the threshold."  

Paul, split that hair however you please.

3 minutes ago, thormas said:

Burl,

I took this to mean as you said 'speaking out for Jesus' not 'speaking for Jesus' as was interpreted. Correct?

Yes, I meant it exactly as I wrote it.  Thank you for pointing that out.  

Everyone misreads at times. 

11 minutes ago, thormas said:

It always seemed to me that the 8 Points present an ethic and a belief (of sorts). 

However, I understand why you, why many of us, don't like "to be told what to do or how to think." However I never thought we were only using our own thinking and discernment: when we hear (or read) another we are at least being open to their thinking and 'trying it on' to see if it 'fits' -  if it might also work for us. 

The big issue here is avoiding self-deception.  

One needs an external reference to use as a criterion or they end up chasing their own thought butterflies.

3 hours ago, romansh said:

 

I suppose the question I am asking why do we here show so little interest in things outside of Progressive Christianity and religion in general?

 

Good question.  Probably because we don’t have much else in common.

 

17 hours ago, JosephM said:

Paul, 

While i do not believe in an eternal physical place called heaven and hell myself, I don't think Bart knows what Jesus believed or really taught . IF we believe the literal translated recorded words in Mathew, Mark and Luke that Jesus spoke then he did teach of hell as a place of eternal torment both in words and parables. Matt 25:46,  Mark 9:45, Matt 23:33, Luke 16:20-26 and more. I can present a good argument on how heaven and hell can't be physical places since nothing that is physical is eternal but if i accept the words of the Bible as written as innerant  then i would have to admit Jesus taught about heaven and hell.

Sheol which appears in the KJV OT 62 times is translated hell 31 times and the grave 31 times. Of course one could argue that the translation is in error as the Hebrew word Sheol refers to the grave or the abode of the dead ( Psalms 88:3 Psalms 88:5 ) There are 23 occurrences of the word hell in the KJV NT but of course translations can be challenged as the Greeks had 3 words that were translated as hell, hades, tartarosas, and Gehenna. However Gehenna which has 12 occurrences translated to hell .....

"Gehenna is a transliteration of an Old Testament Hebrew expression, “the valley of Hinnom,” which denoted a ravine on the southern side of Jerusalem. This valley was used by certain apostate Hebrews as a place where their children were offered into the fiery arms of the pagan god Molech (2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6). It was thus an area of suffering and weeping. When Josiah launched his reformation, this valley was regarded as a site of heinous abomination (2 Kgs. 23:10-14). It finally became the garbage depository of Jerusalem where there was a continual burning of refuse. Gehenna, being associated with these ideas, appropriately served as a symbolic designation for the place of suffering to which evil persons will be consigned following the Lord’s return. "

Employing several examples of hyperbole (for the sake of emphasis), Christ stressed that it would be better to proceed through life with great loss (e.g. deprived of an eye or a limb), rather than having Gehenna as a final destiny (Mt. 5:29-30; cf. 18:9; Mk. 9:43-47)

So called Biblical scholars can say what they want to believe or want people to believe but to me if you are using and believe the KJV Bible as it exists as your source,  reading all occurrences in context it leaves little doubt that Jesus taught about hell as a place of punishment/ torment.

KJV bible?  That’s a beautiful work of English literature, but it is antiquated.  We now have better translators, have found more texts and our understanding of Koine Greek has advanced tremendously.

It is absolutely sufficient for salvation, but not for academic work.

It will be interesting to hear what Ehrman has to say.

The cultural ideas I hear often don’t come from the bible but are derived from Milton and Dante.

I find the idea of an eternal fire in the bible but not eternal torment.  It’s more like being thrown into an incinerator than living in one, and the idea of any eternal life beyond the grave is only for the saved.

Biblical heaven is more like a waiting room for the resurrection of the dead.

Looking forward to the book reports.

18 hours ago, TheTechnician said:

PC is to me a path to faith where I get to hold on to the all inclusive values taught by my hippie parents while exploring God's love through humanity. Ours is not to judge or condemn. Ours is to explore and love. Many "legacy" systems of Christianity appose the message much of the Bible is trying to convey. PC is a way to merge faith with modern science, sociology and life experience. I think it is not what you believe, who to or where you pray, just that you have faith and a moral compass. I want to do good things and be a better person, so I take those lessons and apply them to my life in a modern interpretation. I'd say maybe I've got it all wrong, but that defies the whole PC thing, doesn't it?

Welcome aboard! 

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

Paul,

On suffering, I agree in a sense that we are indeed our own rewarder and punisher yet see God as that potential that causes it to be so. I believe Jesus's teachings confirm that along with my own experience.

Burl,

Saw the series/movie Lonesome Dove, enjoyed it immensely and my wife did also. People say the book is always better but i am easy to please without the book.

I’m not talking about entertainment.  A well written book is a transformative spiritual experience.  Sometimes you get a glimmer of that on screen, but visuals force you into an abbreviated experience.

In books you can meld the author’s imagination with your own.  It’s a different thing entirely.

Watch an episode of Lonesome Dove then read just the first chapter.  It’s at used bookstores for 50¢.

13 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Actually,  I haven't even averaged 1 book a year. for at least the last 30 years.  I am not very well read , fiction or otherwise but i do google the internet for news and curiosity items daily. I prefer to learn from my mistakes and real life experiences. Fiction books especially doesn't interest me,  though i have been known to binge watch a few fiction TV series on Netflix and Prime. The series  Nikita being the latest one.

Yes art link later is from my era. 🙂 

Quality literature is the highest octane spiritual fuel I know of.  If you like westerns, try Pulitzer winner Lonesome Dove.

The shimmering screen is ok, but only literature will really put you inside a different personality.

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

I don't think they would remain vividly in most as we begin again with a new evolving physical brain. It is what is beyond the physical where past memories are held along with tendencies that steer toward a particular genetic makeup for a new life in this or other realms. Of course, i cannot offer proof except to say i have some of these memories and other experiences of a concurrent  existence in other dimensions or realms  All that of course can be explained away if you are so inclined. Perhaps this may spark an interest.

https://www.npr.org/2014/01/05/259886077/searching-for-science-behind-reincarnation

 

I’ll have to read the link later.   Hope it is not about art, because then it would be an art link later 🙃

Appreciating, sharing and examining these spiritual experiences is a rare treasure.  It always reminds me of Scrooge trying to explain away Marley’s ghost as a bit of bad beef.

As an aside, what fiction are you reading these days?

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

I agree, but would go further as to say that I think trying to understand why good people suffer is a kindred question for all religions.  All religions, past and present have tried to justify why there is suffering and they all have their particular answers.  The ancient Israelites used to think it was because they weren't obeying their God properly, Christians generally believe it is because Satan has interfered with God's best intentions and upset the apple cart (although he'll get his comeuppance!), Hindus/Buddhists/Janists all have their own understanding of Karma - the list could go on and on.

Bart's understanding, which is by no means original, makes the matter entirely simple - it's just what happens.  Bad stuff happens to good people.  That's life.

Interestingly, from what I can tell, one of the worlds oldest, most isolated civilizations - the Australian Aborigines, who were on their own on the Australian Continent for +50,000 recent years, laid no external blame for suffering, and just accepted that it was a fact of life also.

Life just happens.  Bad things happen too.  Life has no ultimate meaning or destiny which is why we develop our own meaning.  We can try and enjoy life as best we can, and we may or may not have what we consider an enjoyable life.  If we do, okay, if we don't, well that happens too.  There is no judge, jury or executioner waiting in the wings to avenge or reward.  We are our own rewarder and our own punisher.

It’s good to hear you confess you are not a Christian.   At least you are being honest.

I think if we had past lives or were recycled in order to learn lessons or some such thing we would vividly retain those memories.  Forgetting everything between lives makes no sense to me.  It defeats the purpose.

I think people are attracted to the idea of karma because it explains why good people suffer.
 

You call me an ignorant pretender who is lacking in integrity? 

I merely stated my own beliefs and opinions, and only at your multiple and insistent requests. You push and push for my thoughts on matters I clearly stated I consider trivial, and then you insult me for answering?

Take a hike.

25 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I understand how evolution may not be a particular interest of yours and that many others are much more knowledgeable than you in that area, but by ignoring it, or even worse - denying it, in the face of extensive evidence (which still is not of particular interest to you) are you not choosing ignorance for something that makes you feel better i.e. you are happy supposing other reasons for your existence rather than basing them on the scientific reality of evolution?  It seems to me you are saying you are prepared to close the door on something because it simply does not interest you, even though it may reveal actual answers if you better understood it.

Worse, when you pretend to speak authoritatively about it and tell others it is a false science, what harm are you causing to people when you are actually not declaring that you don't actually understand it entirely, simply because it is not of interest to you.  This is what I was referring to about integrity.  Is not your integrity about wanting to know the truth compromised because you don't have a particular interest in a demonstrably proven area of science and reality.  Are you not being a little like an ostrich with its head in the sand because of your 'lack of interest'.  Surely, if you genuinely value truth, such a journey of discovery should compel you to investigate every element of that truth, even if it is challenging to your current beliefs.  Should it not?

16 minutes ago, Pipiripi said:

My brother, do you think that God cannot tell you to write down, what He is going to tell you what will happen in the future?

What about Daniel? John the revelator (Revelation)? And many more, and also in different period of times. 

One more question: Are you sure that your birthday is real?

I have born on 11-11-1961. I'm sure of my birthday. 

God can, but it is not likely that he did.  God did communicate to Moses through speech, but God did the writing Himself.  You need to be careful and not add your own ideas.  

Remember when Jesus taught he always spoke in parables so that the people would not understand.  Daniel was a Hebrew fable (not a real person), and John of Patmos was not spoken to but rather had dreams.

May I ask about your church and your Christian education?  Who is your teacher? (Acts 8:26-39)

35 minutes ago, PaulS said:

It's okay Burl - you don't need to answer.  I was looking for another quote of mine when I came across your position in July 2018.  So unless it has developed,  you believe:

...the human species simply appeared or was created in its current form and that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that any species developed into another species.  

The idea that humans developed from Neanderthals, apes or amoebas is an evidence free, faith-based extrapolation.  It has never been scientifically observed and has no proposed MoA.

There is proof that evolution caused the extinction of once plentiful species.  There is proof many species have survived for aeons without any significant change.  But there is no proof of one species ever evolving into another.  All of the demonstrated change in life over time occurs at the sub-species level.

The idea that humans developed from Neanderthals, apes or amoebas is an evidence free, faith-based extrapolation.  It has never been scientifically observed and has no proposed MoA.

There is proof that evolution caused the extinction of once plentiful species.  There is proof many species have survived for aeons without any significant change.  But there is no proof of one species ever evolving into another.  All of the demonstrated change in life over time occurs at the sub-species level.

It is hard to have a frutiful discussion about the sceince of evolution with somebody who just wants to deny its reality instead for a faith-based view.

Your free to hold your view of course - I just find no merit or integrity in denying evolution.  It’s science.  It’s fact.  Just because it doesn’t help you understand your puzzle as to just why Homo sapiens are so fantastic, doesn’t mean the science of evolution should be denied.  God help us if our education system takes such a POV.

In fact, I think a better understanding of evolution might even offer a better understanding of what you are looking for, or at least help you ponder the question, whilst exercising your intellectual integrity.  Denying the science only cheats you of true understanding.

As I said, evolution is not a particular interest of mine.  

I suggest getting in touch with that group of Christians who are professional scientists.  There are certainly people there more knowledgeable than I.

5 hours ago, Pipiripi said:

Hi, they are not 2 different stories. Genesis 1 tell us how it everything was created. And Genesis 2 tell us how the story continues. So Moses now is telling us what more things that God have done when He have finished His creation. You see that God have given them a commandment. It is just like movie, it takes months for make it, but it isn't longer then 2 hours. 

Just think here a moment. 

Creation.

Adam and Eve. Kain and Abel. Noah and the Flood. The Tower of Babel.

2000 BC

Abraham go to Palestine, ca. 1900. Born of Isaac. Born of Esau and Jacob. 

1800 BC

The 12 tribe and all their families in Egypt. They became slaves in Egypt. 

1600 BC

Moses take the Israelites out of Egypt. 

If you see here my friend, this is the how we have the story of the beginning of this world till Moses.  Moses has wrote this first 5 books. Only God knows the past and the future completely. 

It is the same that you are going to write the story of your life. The first 5 years you don't know nothing of your live. Your parents has told you. I hope that you have understand me.

No, Piriripi.  Moses did not write those books, but you are now correct in that God did not write them either.  They are of human origin.  Moses dies before the end of Exodus, and he certainly wrote nothing after he died. 

Genesis has at least four redactors of the Hebrew mythic history.  The two incompatible creation myths in Genesis show that the authors were fairly including all versions and not attempting to create a single, cohesive narrative.  This increases their credibility.

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

So what I am trying to get at, but it feels like pulling teeth, is do you accept that mankind evolved from other species?  Yes or no? 

If you accept the science of evolution that mankind did evolve, then I am asking you how that affects what you think mankind needs to be saved from and at what point on the spectrum do you think man needed this saving, as opposed to the other animals that started this journey billions of years ago and seem to not need such saving.

I think interaction with the environment certainly  had an influence on the development of Homo sapiens.  We are now a little taller and less hairy.

When I compare the evolution of other species evolution is only a minor influence.  It can explain only physical traits.  Mankind has developed capabilities that are orders of magnitude beyond anything demonstrated by evolution.  Written language alone is so far beyond anything explicable by evolution that additional forces must be at work.

Detail from Berdadini marble.  The expression and apparent suppleness of this rock demands a better explanation than natural selection alone.