Burl

Sporadic and nonrepeatable experiences do occur rather frequently, and we can either feign ignorance and dismiss the account or take a more humble approach and simply appreciate that we do not presently have a logical framework to fit these experiences into.

 

I have met many people who had God speak to them. It is no longer surprising to me, but most say they kept it a secret for years because of fear of ridicule.

 

But back to Medjugorje. Thousands of people having the same supernatural experiences over a period of months is not in the same class as Our Lady of Guadaloupé appearing in a tortilla. Surely this passes any test of credibility.

I like the Benedictines. And the Drambuies, too.

 

Ehrman is a great teacher, but I feel sorry for him. It must depressing to accomplish so much in a career and then beome apostate and adopt a cynical view of your accomplishments.

There are plenty of people who have written in depth about angelic and demonic experiences. Medjugorje was one significant event where there were extensive group experiences. Experiences during the night at hospitals are commonplace: ask any experienced nurse or night chaplain.

 

There is no lack of evidence. Only closed-minded people who turn ostrich and discount the existing evidence rather than dealing with it.

Agreed. We should not accept Scripture literally, nor should we discard it for the same reason. Both approaches are dismissive and disrespectful.

 

Even before Christ, Judaism considered the tales of the Amelekite genocide (and the Jewish refusal to fully carry out holy war) as a metaphor for the struggle against evil. This was in midrash before Jesus' arrival.

 

The bible is a foundational document for western civilization. We should work to understand it and not discard it.

I respect your opinion Burl but you lost me at angels - although I am always open to possibilities. I allow for other life, other worlds but always envision it as akin to the bodily, like us. And, I do believe in the continuation of life after death and that the prophets, saints, patriarchs, and the many ordinary (and eventually all) people live in God. What that actually means or looks like, no idea.

 

I don't believe, for lack of a better way of saying it, in such non-incarnates interacting with us rather I believe that God is present, calling (Word) and encouraging (Spirit) us to Fulfillment (Father) and that is more than enough.

 

However I will check the website you mentioned, thanks.

We are dealing with understanding ancient literature. We are only trying to accurately understand the cosmos as the they did. Personal opinions are not relevant.

Putting the subject of Yahweh's morality aside, we might want to consider how sensible the world of the Bible is, the things that it claims to be real or true.

 

We could start with the Genesis claim that Yahweh created everything in 6 days.

 

We could then quickly move to the notion of a talking snake. I don't generally go looking for snakes, but I've never met one that talked. Of course, what is my experience compared to the authority of God's Word, right?

 

We could consider that the Bible says that donkeys can also talk.

 

Or that the earth is immovable (does not rotate or orbit).

 

Or that the sun rises and sets (a term that still persists because the Bible has such a stronghold on our culture and language).

 

Or that sin is transmitted through the blood.

 

Or that virgins can give birth.

 

Or that people can walk on water or change water into wine.

 

Or that God can somehow keep people alive forevermore in order to torture them.

 

Or that praying will heal the sick or raise the dead.

 

Or that those that believe in Jesus will never die.

 

Or...well...that's enough for now. None of this makes much sense to me. These things make me wonder why God whose logos (reason) created all things would want me to believe in things which make no sense?

Ok, Six days. On which day were days created? . The lessons here are:

 

1. God created sequentially.

2. God stopped to evaluate each step before proceeding.

3. God eventually decided to stop creating, and became curious about what would happen next.

>>Burl - ancient aliens?<<

 

Heck yeah! They have a narrative where God was demanding the genocide of the giant hybrid offspring of the nephilim and humans. They have considerable anthropological evidence of giant skeletons too. It is silly, but cohesive.

Burl, what are the non-incarnate entities you mentioned? I think we are unique because we are most like god and intended to be the Sons and Daughters of Abba but I do recognize that we are and must be the beings we are, i.e. physical.

 

Not sure what you mean that according to Christianity the body and physical world is our reason for being. It is our means but the reason?

 

Paul, I think I understand your point but for Christians and most religious people, our reason for being is Oneness with God or Abundant Life. This is not scientific certainty but 'certainty' found in faith, which is still faith.

 

There are a multiplicity of angels, demons, odd characters like Elijah and Elisha who are gone but did not die, saints, the patriarchs in their heavenly feast, Christ.

 

I'm currently reading Dr. Michael Heiser's book "The Unseen Realm" which is a study of the supernatural world of the bible. He has a less academic version titled "The Supernatural", and Patheos has a series of interviews with BW3 if you want a quick overview. Heiseralso has a website and podcast.

>>Thomas, I, likewise, am not a pantheist in that my wife assures me that I am not God. <<

 

Well, I guess we know who wears the panentheist in that family

There are several important themes you miss entirely. Do more bible study and less bible assumption. You will find a lot of PC themes are truly biblical, and the American Darbyist themes quite often are not.

 

Honestly, even the Ancient Aliens guys do a better job with this than you do.

 

And on the off chance that you are really interested in learning something about this the Progressive Christianity site sells John Crossen's book on precisely this subject.

Something I find of interest, Burl, is that my UMC pastor believes that creation in Genesis is a historical fact. This makes me wonder how well-trained my pastors has been by her theological college.

There is one blinky bulb in every string of lights.

 

Look at the bright side. You are in Ft. Worth, so you know heaven and if you want to experience hell it is just a short drive over to Dallas.

Next topic: Genocide

 

There are a number of instances in the Hebrew scriptures where Yahweh commands that the Israelites, when taking a city in battle, are to leave nothing alive. Yahweh commands the Israelites to kill everything that lives including women, children, and animals. These commands would in no way line up with our modern notions of "just war theory." Yet Yahweh commands genocide.

 

Furthermore, in the story of the Exodus, God himself is said to have killed ALL Eqyptian first born sons under the age of two because of Pharoah's hard-heartedness in not letting the Israelites go. God kills babies? Yep, according to the book of Exodus.

 

And then there is the killing of almost all of humanity in the account of the flood.

 

And then there is wiping out the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah due to their sins of inhospitality except for "righteous Lot" (according to the book of Hebrews) who offered his daughters as sex-toys.

 

Now, I in no way believe that these accounts of "God" are really true accounts of God. I think they are the wishes of the Israelites writ large upon their notions of deity in order to justify whatever actions they wanted to take. Nevertheless, many people who have not been raised with the "might makes right" indoctrination of the church read the Bible and say, "If this is what God is like, I want nothing to do with God."

 

God, IMO, doesn't need me to defend him. But I refuse to call any book "holy" that portrays its deity with such violent and sadistic concepts.

So you insist one must take the Bible literally so that you can ignore it and substitute your own notions? Google 'Amalek' and at least get a rough idea of what you so readily discard out of ignorance and laziness. There are entire books written on this subject.

The idea behind the lectionary is it limits the pastor in geting hung up on pet interests, or in non-scriptural feel-good trivia. It cuts down on pastoral prejudices. Five selections to choose from every week and a three year cycle means a good lectionary pastor deliver fifteen years of well balanced scriptural instruction.

 

It's like a basic syllabus. People move or change churches frequently today, and it's a great way of keeping consistency. It's one of the best ideas the Anglican Church has come up with.

 

Most pastors have at least a Master's degree from an accredited college (the M.Div was the original Master's degree). Yeah, untrained or poorly trained pastors exist but you won't find one in a mainstream church. Denominations are generally very good about insuring pastors are qualified. Their reputation depends upon it.

 

Scripture in the NT means tanach because the NT had not really developed beyond a loose assortment of books and letters passed from church to church. Today the NT is considered Scripture because it has been codified and is used for public worship.

Tribal rituals are common. Circumcision occurs in several societies, Ubangi women stretch out their lips with wooden plates, SP Islanders tattoo, scarification is common.

 

In Abraham we have God beginning to build a tribe for His purpose, and he chooses a particularly weak bunch so it is clear their success is due to divine guidance.

 

I see nothing peculiar except your insistence on holding an ancient people up to 21C standards.

Genesis 17:9-10. God made a covenant with Abraham, and circumcision was the sign of that covenant. This way lineage could be established for generations. Certainly it was painful enough to discourage counterfeit Abrahamites, and the symbolism is straightforward (even curving slightly upward ). Abraham was an Arab who would become the patriarch of a large tribe.

 

Makes sense to me.

I understand the corpus is ALL of the writings attributed to Paul, but if you are quoting Paul verses aren't we analysing those? We can quote any verse or group of verses we want any time of course, but how is it meaningful if we don't try to understand them - who wrote them, where did they come from, what was the context, etc. Otherwise we would seem to be attributing simply our own preferences for interpretingwhat they mean.

Analyzing the Pauls corpus would involve taking a single theme and comparing all of Paul's work to bring together a comprehensive analysis of Paul's thought. One of the reasons 2 Tim is not usually considered to be written by Paul is an analysis of the vocabulary used is different from the undisputed works of Paul.

 

You are not wrong, but like any academic field things get detailed and terms become specific. We use the term exegesis when we try to explicate the full meaning of a section of text.

I don't understand Burl - Aren't we analysing Paul's corpus here in this lectionary?

Paul's corpus is everything he ever wrote. The Lectionary is a set collection of individual passages from all over the Bible.

Pick a verse and we can discuss it. Let me know which commentaries you are using.

 

Sweeping generalizations lead to sloppy thinking.

Should 2 Timothy be a pseudo-graphical text as is widely considered, would this alter your view of the text, Burl? If the author was lying about his identity (even if in good faith) would you consider the content diminished or just as valid?

I think 2 Timothy was written after Paul's death, most likely by students of Paul. It was considered proper form to publish student or group works under the name of the leader. This is a well known tradition in ancient literature, and it is not lying. It only matters when one is analyzing Paul's corpus.

 

It's a valuable passage because it is the only place the purpose of Scripture is mentioned. We have myth, history, folktales, songs, poetry, fables - a wide variety of literary genres in the bible. This 18th century Darbyist literalism where everything in Scripture is 'true' has no support.

 

2 Timothy says everything in Scripture is useful for instruction in righteousness. Useful does not mean exemplary, and there are many examples of unrighteous behavior which provide useful negative examples.

All are welcome, but once one chooses to follow Jesus the path is set.

 

In Luke 9:49, Jesus says "Anyone who is not against you is for you" when speaking of outsiders, but in 9:62 He says "None who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit forvthe kingdom of God".

 

Progressive Christianity does not mean one can change Jesus' teachings according to whim, intellect, imagination or political correctness.

 

Much of what Jesus taught is difficult and uncomfortable, but Progressive Christianity is still Christianity. Dogma and doctrine can be revised as Scripture is better understood, but we cannot simply discard Scripture out of ego, cowardice or people-pleasing.

 

If one looks at the history of Christianity, most of the problems were caused by substituting the political correctness of the time for Scripture.

 

Few realize that when they recite the "Lord's" prayer they are praying for the kingdom to arrive, essentially calling Jesus a liar.

I do not see this. Would you please explicate your thoughts in more detail?

2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18

 

 

4:6 As for me, I am already being poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure has come.

 

4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

 

4:8 From now on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have longed for his appearing.

 

4:16 At my first defense no one came to my support, but all deserted me. May it not be counted against them!

 

4:17 But the Lord stood by me and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion's mouth.

 

4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and save me for his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

The question is not whether a physical self exists or not. The question is it what it seems to be?

 

Physically you do not hang on to the various parts that make up you. Your pattern of behaviour changes with time. There is nothing that is essentially Burl. Burl is simply a reflection of the environment that Burl finds himself in. This I think is what the metaphor of Indra's net points to.

The nature/nurture controversy was decided in the favor of nature back in the 80's.

I don't think that current science can get us much past the point of "ashes to ashes, dust to dust." And maybe this fits with Jesus' teaching that we are to deny ourselves and pick up our cross. He was facing his own death, probably gazing into the unknown. So perhaps this is what it means to deny the self, to be aware that the self that we know, the self in our bodies, is doomed to perish.

Absolutely not. Jesus taught that the self can be eternal if one subordinates self-will to the will of God. The resurrection was a positive demonstration.

 

Those who live by self-will do perish.

I think the world would be a more harmonious place if so many people were less certain of our 'reason for being' and accepted that none of us really know for sure what we may be here for, if for any reason at all. To me it seems undeniably obvious that 'certainty' around our reason for being has only resulted in war and separation from others. I prefer uncertainty myself and am very content with it nowadays.

There are rumors of a Progressive Nihilist website somewhere, but no one can find the URL.

 

Personally, I am confident that I am my physical self. Cogito ergo zoom.